A Hasselblad, more than 40 years after first looking.

Thanks Vince. It was an absorbing experience the first use of this, and there was a sense of great control of the process unlike autofocus with my little Fuji X100. (Which I think I’ve lost in the last two weeks.)
 
Richard G said:
I bought a 32mm extension tube and took some shots with the 150 Sonnar mostly. This one is the best of them. It was taken with the camera resting on the table, focusing by moving the body then mirror up and cable release. This is1/2s f11 in south facing (Southern Hemisphere) window light.



Nautilus by Richard, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That is uber excellent! Keep playing with it. I like the horizon line

Recently I bought a couple of Kelly's classic B&W portrait books. With a Hassy 80mm 150 Softar you too can become inspired. Back in the eighties this minimalist B&W portrait style was very desired. I'm learning from it again and reworking it. Very inspirational
 
Richard G said:
Thanks Vince. It was an absorbing experience the first use of this, and there was a sense of great control of the process unlike autofocus with my little Fuji X100. (Which I think I’ve lost in the last two weeks.)
Click to expand...

Is it easier to move the camera or easier to move the subject? I’m wondering if it’s easier to move the subject into focus rather than the camera?

BTW I just recently went down the 1000f rabbit hole - I thought it was bad enough with Ermanoxes! I’m pretty hopeless.
 
Vince, back in the 1970s portrait photographer John Brook was my photo mentor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brook
He had a studio on tony Newbury Street in Boston.
Shooting almost exclusively in B&W, when I knew him he had but one camera, one lens:
A 180mm f2.8 Olympic Sonnar and a Hasselblad 1000F or 1600F, I forget which.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Is it easier to move the camera or easier to move the subject? I’m wondering if it’s easier to move the subject into focus rather than the camera?

BTW I just recently went down the 1000f rabbit hole - I thought it was bad enough with Ermanoxes! I’m pretty hopeless.
Click to expand...

The distance of the cup and saucer is a little over 0.5m, 20”, and the camera and Sonnar on the little Leitz tripod is pretty precarious even with the optimum splay of the legs. I imagined tipping the camera over if I reached for the cup. And the right level for the horizon (I haven’t got that) probably limited movement of the cup. Certainly any readjustment of the small ball head led to some sag after adjustment as I also had raised that on a magazine to hand….

With the shell it was so light it was hard to move it a little and I’d struck the right angle. With no tripod the camera was an easier move. Everything is in play with this type of photography. The room itself is not straight and the floor not exactly level.

Tripping the mirror up with the camera on the table seemed to require so much more force with only one finger, trying not to move the camera at all. Very different to index and middle fingers and the camera secure on a tripod. The window is a wonderful box bay window with east and west light, but no room to set up the tripod next to the table for no great advantage anyway. The leaf shutter has done nothing to the sharpness.
 
And thanks Dan. I see in retrospect it’s almost a copy of one of yours. I want to get a 16mm tube next. Or maybe it should be 10.

It was interesting playing with this initially. You don’t know where you are. Through the waist level finder the image looks blurred no matter where you stand, moving in and out from the subject. I think that is the extreme shallowness of the depth of field. There are tables for the focus distance for the different tubes with different lenses. I found that it was only with the VF magnifier up and knowledge of the ball park distance with the tables that I got a bit handier with the Sonnar. I’ve used the 250 and the 60, but the 80 and 150 are probably what I’ll use most with this tube.
 
First scan with the Epson V850 Pro from a Hasselblad 1000f neg.


On Grey Owl Trail by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Definitely a cut above what a camera scan can do, at least I think so. I'm using Silverfast Ai Studio 9, which I've discovered isn't all that bad as far as a learning curve goes. Only thing I need to now do is make some images that are worthy of scanning!
 
Second and third scans with the V850. First shot is Hasselblad 1000f and the 80/2.8 Tessar, Delta 100, second shot is with the 135mm f/3.5 Ektar also Delta 100. Don't know why I waited so long to get a decent scanner.


Riley at Eastern Market by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Late Day Backyard by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I totally love this camera - one of the great things about it is the lenses (however limited the selection), as well as its overall smooth operation. I have an early 500c that's currently getting a CLA and once it's back I'll have to do a comparison.
 
Vince, I always like seeing your photos! but ...

Hmm. I would question that the Epson flat bed scanner produces superior results to the copy camera approach having done both for many years. It does produce scans with more pixels, but I found the dynamic range lacking compared to the Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000, and my tests scanning with the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c or Leica M10 Monochrom outperforms the Nikon film scanner on dynamic range.

Most of the advantages of a flatbed or film scanner compared to the repro-copy scanning technique come from how accurately they can hold the negative and keep it flat, and how well the scanning element can be positioned orthogonally to the negative, which are problems solved for the repro methodology with a good negative carrier solution and a good copy stand, properly set up. The other advantage to flatbed or film scanning methodology is applications that automate the conversions from negative to positive (VueScan, SilverFast, etc) rather than relying upon LR or PS type apps which have limited tools to automate this kind of work.

Note: I still have and occasionally use my Nikon Coolscan V film scanner. The best part about it for my use is the ability to set up a scanning app, in my case VueScan, to automate scanning and rendering of small format (35mm full-frame/half-frame/square format, and APS) negatives several at a time. But I am ultimately getting better results with the repro methodology and don't do the volume of film that I once did.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Vince, I always like seeing your photos! but ...

Hmm. I would question that the Epson flat bed scanner produces superior results to the copy camera approach having done both for many years. It does produce scans with more pixels, but I found the dynamic range lacking compared to the Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000, and my tests scanning with the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c or Leica M10 Monochrom outperforms the Nikon film scanner on dynamic range.

Most of the advantages of a flatbed or film scanner compared to the repro-copy scanning technique come from how accurately they can hold the negative and keep it flat, and how well the scanning element can be positioned orthogonally to the negative, which are problems solved for the repro methodology with a good negative carrier solution and a good copy stand, properly set up. The other advantage to flatbed or film scanning methodology is applications that automate the conversions from negative to positive (VueScan, SilverFast, etc) rather than relying upon LR or PS type apps which have limited tools to automate this kind of work.

Note: I still have and occasionally use my Nikon Coolscan V film scanner. The best part about it for my use is the ability to set up a scanning app, in my case VueScan, to automate scanning and rendering of small format (35mm full-frame/half-frame/square format, and APS) negatives several at a time. But I am ultimately getting better results with the repro methodology and don't do the volume of film that I once did.

G
Click to expand...

Maybe what I should do is a side-by-side comparison between the 907x, the Nikon Z7 and the V850. And maybe even throw in a drum scan for good measure. I’m sure willing to be convinced otherwise, but as I currently see it the V850 with Silverfast Ai Studio 9 is more versatile for and better-suited to my needs. I think the other thing is for me to have a 'fixed' method of scanning, rather than the camera scan setup, which I didn't particularly like.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Maybe what I should do is a side-by-side comparison between the 907x, the Nikon Z7 and the V850. And maybe even throw in a drum scan for good measure. I’m sure willing to be convinced otherwise, but as I currently see it the V850 with Silverfast Ai Studio 9 is more versatile for and better-suited to my needs. I think the other thing is for me to have a 'fixed' method of scanning, rather than the camera scan setup, which I didn't particularly like.
Click to expand...

Having an easily, consistently recreateable scanning setup is without a doubt one of the most important factors in getting great results. Without that, it's difficult to learn how to get the best out of the scanning ... you have to learn everything from a new basis each time. I've made my scanning repro setup very simple and consistent ... it takes me barely any more effort now to setup and scan than it does to pull out the Nikon film scanner.

But you make lovely photographs anyway, regardless of your setup preference. I'd say, just keep doing what you're doing ... :D

G
 
Retro-Grouch said:
A lovely image, and very nostalgic. No one hangs their clothes on the line anymore, it seems.
And it's nice to see that your new old Hasselblad can kick it with the best of them!
Click to expand...

Gotta say I really love this camera - fortunately I got it with a full CLA and it works beautifully. Something very satisfying about its operation.

I’m tending to shoot with the lenses mostly wide open so perhaps that’s one reason why there’s a ‘nostalgic’ feel to some of these images, in addition of course to subject matter.
 
GMOG said:
Do you know who serviced it? I've got a 1600F that could use some help, but folks like Odess do not work on these older models.
Click to expand...

Yes — Barn Owl Cameras, Jim Kilroy. He’s in Massachusetts. I think Ross Yerkes works on them too, assuming parts aren’t needed.
 
GMOG said:
Do you know who serviced it? I've got a 1600F that could use some help, but folks like Odess do not work on these older models.
Click to expand...
Not many people will touch a 1600F in recent years. They had their issues when new, and parts are a problem. Radu Lesaru at 3r specifically mentions them, however and he has a good reputation as a technician who is willing to work on the unusual, rare or unconventional designs few others will touch. I have never used him because I do my own repairs, but I can't say I've ever read any complaints about his workmanship, and that is unusual.
http://www.3rcamera.com/camera_collectible.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom