hasselblad Thu, 29 Jan 1998 Volume 1 : Number 84 In this issue: Re: Film advance errors (was: Re: The difference between A12 and 12 backs) Re: Bellows Re: Hasselblad Lens Guide v1.5 Re: Bellows Re: Film advance errors (was: Re: The difference between A12 and 12 backs) Re: Bellows Re: Hasselblad Lens Guide v1.5 RE: The difference between A12 and 12 backs RC versus fibre based printing papers Re: Bellows Re: Bellows 140-280mm Variogon Shooting Lenses & Cameras RE: Shooting Lenses & Cameras RE: Shooting Lenses & Cameras Re: RC versus fibre based printing papers Re: RC versus fibre based printing papers Hasselblad Lens Guide - Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:51:48 EST From: SPYDERS To: kroppe@mich.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Film advance errors (was: Re: The difference between A12 and 12 backs) Message-ID: <7c5f1f57.34cf37f5@aol.com> In a message dated 1/27/98 9:32:28 PM, you wrote: >I recently rented a 501CM with a 12 back and had this problem. I shot >six rolls of film with the kit and about 25% of my shots were >overlapping/semi-double exposed. The good shots had variable "margins" >between the adjacent negative. I know how Hasselblad crows about their gear being 90% compatible, etc., but I would feel strange about putting such an old back on a brand new body. Surely the people renting 501CM bodies would at least have an A12 back? I'll probably get a bit of flack for saying this, but I try to use gear from the same era with eachother, if I can. ie: the silver lenses are kept in a case with the 500c/m, the CFs are kept in the bag with the 503CXi, etc... it just became a personal habit, so I may be wasting my time doing it, though. --pat. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:32:43 -0600 From: "Les Alvis" To: Subject: Re: Bellows Message-ID: <199801281434.IAA20570@eightof.tsixroads.com> Hello out there . . . I posted the following several days ago but have had no response. Does no one have an opinion about this? Have I asked a stupid question? I recently acquired a 135mm S-Planar and a couple of extension tubes for use with my 500 C/M. Now I am looking at buying a bellows. The options are the old manual bellows with the dual cable releases or the later auto bellows. The price of a used manual bellows seems to be about half that of a used auto bellows. I would appreciate the comments of anyone who has used both as to whether the auto bellows is worth twice the money. I think that I would use it only occasionally. (Or will I get hooked on this lens and use it all the time?) Which way should I go? Thanks, Les Alvis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 08:50 MST From: sog@rmi.net (Stephen O Gombosi) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad Lens Guide v1.5 Message-ID: >The Superachromat version of the 250mm Sonnar, >which is designed for optimal quality with a certain range of wavelengths, >is also optimal with a single layer of coating. I believe this is a misstatement. The whole point behind the Superachromat is that it is *more* highly corrected for chromatic aberration than the other lenses. The lens is so well corrected that it not only focusses the entire visible spectrum to a single point, but the IR as well (and therefore requires no separate IR focus mark). Rather than being "designed for optimal quality with a certain range of wavelengths", it is in fact designed for optimal quality with a broader range of wavelengths than the normal 250. The description of the lens in the Hasselblad lens brochure states: This lens features a so far unsurpassed correction of chromatic aberrations. The secondary spectrum which is the dominating aberration of lenses of long focal length has been corrected for the entire spectral range between approx. 400 and 1000 nm. Visual focusing in visible light guarantees optimum sharpness even on IR film. 400 to 1000 nm includes the entire visible spectrum (which ends at about 700 nm), as well as a good chunk of the infrared. In fact, most "IR" films are only sensitive to about 900nm. Most photographic lenses (achromats) are only corrected for a portion of the visible spectrum, comprising two of the three primary colors. Apochromatic lenses are corrected for the entire visible range. The Sa is corrected not only for the entire visible range, but for the near-infrared as well. That's why it's more expensive. ;-) I'm currently looking at a copy of the VHI Hasselblad lens brochure. It states that *all* Zeiss CF and FE lenses are T* coated. Since this brochure includes the 250mm Sa, I assume that it is also T* coated. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:54:59 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Bellows Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980128115459.0077fa28@roanoke.infi.net> With a 500 series camera, I would opt for the auto bellows. With a 2000/200 series camera, it is machts nichts unless you are planning on using the shutter in your lens a lot. I have a 2000 FCM with a 5.6/135 S-Planar and manual bellows which I use regularly to document cameras and lenses for my various books. It's a wonderful rig. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:03:53 -0500 From: Kroppe To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Film advance errors (was: Re: The difference between A12 and 12 backs) Message-ID: <34CF64F9.F8CB8705@mich.com> Sorry for the mistake, I rented a 500CM with 12 back, not a 501CM. Probably doesn't make a big difference, except for keeping similar "vintages" of body and back together. B.J. Kroppe Detroit I wrote: > >I recently rented a 501CM with a 12 back and had this problem. I shot > >six rolls of film with the kit and about 25% of my shots were > >overlapping/semi-double exposed. The good shots had variable "margins" > >between the adjacent negative. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:03:54 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Armstrong To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Bellows Message-ID: I haven't had any experience with the auto bellows. My experience with the manual bellows was very good. I had to 'tune' the double cable release once, to get things properly sync'ed up, then get a feeling for the actual feel of the two shutters releasing independently (and get a solid mount for the whole contraption). But after that, it was easy as anything. I had the 135 for a while, and was quite pleased with it too. So I'd say, if you're on a budget, get the manual bellows. Just inspect them carefully before buying for light leaks and tears, splits and cracks in the accordion. just my $0.02. -Eric p.s. ..but I sold both these things b/c I got the flexbody recently, which has enough extension built in for my purposes.... On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Les Alvis wrote: > Hello out there . . . I posted the following several days ago but have had > no response. Does no one have an opinion about this? Have I asked a > stupid question? > > > I recently acquired a 135mm S-Planar and a couple of extension tubes for > use with my 500 C/M. Now I am looking at buying a bellows. The options > are the old manual bellows with the dual cable releases or the later auto > bellows. The price of a used manual bellows seems to be about half that > of a used auto bellows. > > I would appreciate the comments of anyone who has used both as to whether > the auto bellows is worth twice the money. I think that I would use it > only occasionally. (Or will I get hooked on this lens and use it all the > time?) Which way should I go? > > Thanks, > > Les Alvis > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. > > This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Armstrong e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:17:18 +0000 From: dannyg1 To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hasselblad Lens Guide v1.5 Message-ID: <34CF21CE.3AA2@idt.net> Steve, Different glasses, of differing refractive index, require different coating types for a number of reasons. Crystal based elements (most ED/LD glasses are flouride dipped but don't have the refractive power of pure grown crystal elements) like those of the UV-Sonnar and Superachromats) don't hold coatings well at all and are single coated instead. Mamiyas 210 APO for the RZ flares badly in backlit situations because of the minimal coating it requires but, on a test bench, it performs to extreme levels of contrast. Mamiya claims that this lens is multicoated but, having owned one, I can tell you that the coating on the front element looks faint and is not multicolored. Another problem with conventional coatings is that the coatings themselves pass/block specific wavelengths of light and would cause problems for photographers who would employ the lens for use in those specific wavelengths. Hasselblad would probably call the SA's T* coated because some of its elements are probably coated normally but The front set almost certainly is not. In the case of the UV-Sonnar which is 100% grown crystal in the glass; I doubt that it is coated at all. Danny Gonzalez ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:58:44 -0700 From: Andy Peters To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: The difference between A12 and 12 backs Message-ID: <01BD2BDB.B4327600@shootingstar.tuc.noao.edu> "Klosky, Peter - MS MAIL" : /* This description of the A12 vs. 12 back is clear, and well done. = Just a=20 minor note, I think when you view "1" through the peephole, you manually = set=20 the counter to "1", not zero. */ Sorry! I've been in electrical-engineer world where "reset" means "set = to zero" when in fact the counter runs from 1 to 12. /* A person could view the peephole as a feature, to verify that the = film advances. In theory, you could look=20 through the peep hole after winding to frame two, and verify that the = gears moved the film the proper amount. */ I have looked to make sure the film advances, and it does. (I usually = just look at the winding spool.) One thing I have noticed, however, is = that on frame, say, 2, the little "2" on the paper backing isn't in the = center of the peephole. But I've never had a problem with either of my = 12 backs overlapping frames, so go figure. /* Can you give any more detail about possible light leaks? Where would = they=20 be? Is there any sealing foam that could deteriorate in the 12 back? = What=20 are signs that gears might slip and cause bad framing in a twelve back? = */ One of my backs is going to Phoenix Camera Repair as soon as I get to = the mailbox because it's developed a leak. The leak causes streaks on = the negatives that start at the side of the frame the dark slide is on. = (If you wish to see this, I'll scan a frame from a proofsheet and post = it on a Web Site for reference.) I think I was a little careless = re-inserting the darkslide and ripped the seals. In fact, the repairman = mentioned that he was very surprised that my other back *didn't* leak = because it's so old. His opinion was that the seals *will* fail; it's = only a matter of time. Which is not a comforting thought! The repair = itself isn't too expensive, maybe $28 for parts plus whatever labor is = involved. Certainly less than $50. As for gears slipping, I haven't had that problem, but I'd imagine that = you'd hear a grinding noise as you advanced the film. You'd probably = have to use more force while winding than with a back that works = properly. /* Back to the original excellent response, service might be a good = idea. Not=20 only for light leaks, but also to check the gears and what have you. = There=20 is another theory that the gears can be serviced, for improved = reliability. */ Well, those old 12 backs are thirty years old and most have probably = seen a lot of use. It makes sense that they'd need some work. I'm = really impressed by the fact that I can get a thirty-year-old thing = fixed at all! If only I could get power tubes for my mid-60's Ampeg = guitar amps... -andy Andy Peters Senior Electrical Engineer National Optical Astronomy Observatories 950 N Cherry Ave Tucson, AZ 85719 internet: apeters@noao.edu voicenet: (520) 318-8191 faxnet: (520) 318-8303 pagenet: (520) 446-2557 sneakernet: Room 208 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:09:39 +0200 From: Yaakov Asher Sinclair To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RC versus fibre based printing papers Message-ID: <34CF7463.67C@actcom.co.il> I read in Ansel Adams' book on printing that RC papers are inferior in tonal quality to regular fibre paper. Is this still true or have there been significant improvements since he wrote this? If not - how much better are the traditional papers? Also, I would like to know the best way to dry large RC prints, say up to 16x20. Thanks in advance. -- Yaakov Asher Sinclair - 4 Yehoyariv Street, Jerusalem, Israel Phone: 972-2-581-2556; Fax: 972-2-532-7162 mailto:sinclair@actcom.co.il; ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:14:00 -0800 (PST) From: "Klosky, Peter - MS MAIL" To: hasselblad Subject: Re: Bellows Message-ID: <34CFA3ED@cdigate.cdi.marconi.ca> > I have a 2000 FCM with a 5.6/135 S-Planar and manual bellows which I use regularly to document cameras and lenses for my various books Marc How do you like to pose and light cameras and lenses? Peter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:03:04 -0500 From: Joe McCary To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Bellows Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980128190304.00bcf7ec@pop.erols.com> At 08:32 AM 1/28/98 -0600, you wrote: >I recently acquired a 135mm S-Planar and a couple of extension tubes for >use with my 500 C/M. Now I am looking at buying a bellows. The options >are the old manual bellows with the dual cable releases or the later auto >bellows. The price of a used manual bellows seems to be about half that >of a used auto bellows. > >I would appreciate the comments of anyone who has used both as to whether >the auto bellows is worth twice the money. I think that I would use it >only occasionally. (Or will I get hooked on this lens and use it all the >time?) Which way should I go? > I will give this a shot although I HAVE not used both bellows. I own the later Auto bellows. Because it hooks up to the camera's internal shutter release system this lens becomes just another (although a superb one) lens. The focus is done by a small knob on the bellows but in all other means this is a normal lens. It does focus all the way from infinity to 1:1 with the 135 S planar. I would opt for that and not bother with the double cable release model. Also for consideration is the variable extension tube. It varies it length with the advent of a normal focus ring. It allows the 135 to focus from infinity to about 3 feet (very similar to the 120). I have both of these items and in combination they make the use of this lens easy. Sorry but I haven't had the opportunity to use the double cable release model. Joe Joe McCary Photo Response http://www.erols.com/mccary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:54 +0000 (PST) From: dmorton@journalist.co.uk (David Morton) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: dmorton@journalist.co.uk Subject: 140-280mm Variogon Message-ID: Does anyone have any comments - pro or anti - about this lens? I think I want one - for studio use - but would be grateful for any comments. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:55:19 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Shooting Lenses & Cameras Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980128145519.0092965c@roanoke.infi.net> At 01:14 PM 1/28/98 -0800, Peter Klosky wrote: >How do you like to pose and light cameras and lenses? Open shade works the best -- outside, in the shade on a clear afternoon. When shooting colour slide film, it helps to have a little more direct light or to use a colour-correcting filter. With b&w film, I use nekkid glass. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:29:00 -0800 (PST) From: "Klosky, Peter - MS MAIL" To: hasselblad Subject: RE: Shooting Lenses & Cameras Message-ID: <34CFC3B4@cdigate.cdi.marconi.ca> Do you use any background, in particular? What about any reflector? ---------- From: hasselblad-request To: hasselblad Subject: Shooting Lenses & Cameras Date: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 2:55PM At 01:14 PM 1/28/98 -0800, Peter Klosky wrote: >How do you like to pose and light cameras and lenses? Open shade works the best -- outside, in the shade on a clear afternoon. When shooting colour slide film, it helps to have a little more direct light or to use a colour-correcting filter. With b&w film, I use nekkid glass. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:00:15 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: Shooting Lenses & Cameras Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980128160015.0093fa6c@roanoke.infi.net> At 03:29 PM 1/28/98 -0800, Peter Klosky wrote: > >Do you use any background, in particular? What about any reflector? A white sheet, normally, draped over a wooden chair. I do not use a reflector unless I happen to have an assistant at hand to hold it -- I'm sort of a retro-tech minimalist. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:38:14 -0500 From: "Eugene A. Pallat" To: , Subject: Re: RC versus fibre based printing papers Message-ID: <199801290053.TAA29035@junior.apk.net> ---------- > From: Yaakov Asher Sinclair > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: RC versus fibre based printing papers > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 1:09 PM > > I read in Ansel Adams' book on printing that RC papers are inferior in > tonal quality to regular fibre paper. Is this still true or have there > been significant improvements since he wrote this? > If not - how much better are the traditional papers? > Also, I would like to know the best way to dry large RC prints, say up > to 16x20. > Thanks in advance. > -- > Yaakov Asher Sinclair - 4 Yehoyariv Street, Jerusalem, Israel > Phone: 972-2-581-2556; Fax: 972-2-532-7162 > mailto:sinclair@actcom.co.il; FWIW, due to "concerns about water usage," RC papers are pretty much a fact of life in the U.S. However I've think that the Ilford Gallerie (sp) is far superior to Kodak, and gives >>much<< blacker blacks than Kodak. Agfa's fiber based papers are very excellent. Gene Pallat eapallat@oriondata.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:15:39 -0500 From: Tom Campbell To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: RC versus fibre based printing papers Message-ID: <34CFE64B.2705@bellsouth.net> True, but it depends on the area. Here in the SE, especially the last few days, too little water is not a big concern! In more arid and metro areas, and especially for "heavy volume" work, this is a valid concern. My water comes from a well (filtered) and despite hours of archival washing I haven't run it dry (yet!). Tom Campbell tcphoto@bellsouth.net > > FWIW, due to "concerns about water usage," RC papers are pretty much a fact > of life in the U.S. > Gene Pallat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:03:41 -0800 From: Dave Munroe To: dmunroe@hpvclo.vcd.hp.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Hasselblad Lens Guide - Update Message-ID: <199801290403.AA036516621@hpvclo.vcd.hp.com> Folks, Please consider the attached as the latest revision of the guide, superceding my earlier posting of today. [see archive page for uptodate Lens Guide DC] ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #84 ************************ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates.