A Hasselblad, more than 40 years after first looking.

One of my less-streaky results shot on Lomography Potsdam 100 this afternoon. Just had the thought that maybe this film simply doesn't work so well with Cinestill DF96 monobath, because the streaks really look like something which isn't being cleared as it should. So until I stock up on traditional 3-bath chemistry, I'll switch to a different film type.

Colorado Boulder Hasselblad 120 mm 20221110 - 008.jpg
 
My Lennart Nilsson 1000f just came back from service and all seems okay (of course will have to run a roll of film through it to see). It was exposing the frames unevenly at higher shutter speeds, so it was taken apart and technical magic was applied to get it back into tip-top shape.

From the other 1000f with the 80;/2.8 Tessar, Ilford Pan F.


Riley in Calvert County by Vince Lupo, on Flickr



Riley at Hugg Thomas by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
Vince Lupo said:
My Lennart Nilsson 1000f just came back from service and all seems okay (of course will have to run a roll of film through it to see). It was exposing the frames unevenly at higher shutter speeds, so it was taken apart and technical magic was applied to get it back into tip-top shape.

From the other 1000f with the 80;/2.8 Tessar, Ilford Pan F.

Riley in Calvert County by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Riley at Hugg Thomas by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Click to expand...

May I ask who did the service?
Hap
 
Richard G said:
That’s a beautiful portrait.
Click to expand...

Many thanks Richard - there may be better ones in the mix, this is just one that caught my eye. I have a couple more rolls to process, plus I may end up re-scanning this neg because I noticed only afterwards that I didn’t have ‘multi-scan’ activated on my scanner. We’ll see if it makes any difference.
 
largedrink said:
Fantastic! Beautiful portrait, the grey tones, composition, lighting and focus are perfect. The photo really brings out his personality. Well done.
Click to expand...

Many thank you's indeed. I photographed Bill on Monday -- one thing I always have a challenge with is photographing people I don't know (perhaps it's a challenge for photographers in general?), so I always welcome the opportunity to do so. Maybe the more I do it the more comfortable I get doing it? Who knows. Anyhow this was just a very basic setup -- just the camera with my NC2 finder, 80mm lens and a tripod. Lighting was just the room light with a window off to the right (his left). If it were a colour photo it would have been very unattractive mixed lighting, but as a black and white shot it worked fine. Also, I wanted to de-emphasize the background as it didn't really add anything (plus he had to sit because of mobility issues), so I got within something like two feet of him. The one nice thing about the 80mm lenses for the 1600f/1000f is that it focuses much closer than the 80mm lens for the 500/V series cameras without the need for a Proxar, which is one reason why I like the 1000f cameras. So that was pretty much it.

Many thanks again!
 
hap said:
thanks Vince!! I've used David Odess previously but may try.
Click to expand...

I’ve never used David but one thing I do know is that he does not work on 1000f’s or 1600f’s.

Just got word that my SW is all done and is heading back to me. Can’t wait!
 
Vince Lupo said:
Just got word that my SW is all done and is heading back to me. Can’t wait!
Click to expand...

I'm eager to see what you do with this beast! The SW is a recalcitrant critter. About 10 years ago, I purchased one, back when they were a good deal cheaper; I always subscribed to the notion that there's no such thing as "too wide", and really thought I'd love the SW. Turns out, after about a year of struggle, I just couldn't make the camera work for me. The ultra wide angle and the square format seemed an impossible combination, and I sold the camera with no regrets (and some financial gain). Oddly, my Horseman Convertible, essentially a 6x9 SW with a 62mm lens, has become one of my most-used cameras. The slightly longer lens (25mm equivalent on 35mm) and the rectangular format made all the difference in landscape work.
Of course, as I've said, you could do genius-level work with an oatmeal box pinhole camera. You probably already have...
 
Retro-Grouch said:
I'm eager to see what you do with this beast! The SW is a recalcitrant critter. About 10 years ago, I purchased one, back when they were a good deal cheaper; I always subscribed to the notion that there's no such thing as "too wide", and really thought I'd love the SW. Turns out, after about a year of struggle, I just couldn't make the camera work for me. The ultra wide angle and the square format seemed an impossible combination, and I sold the camera with no regrets (and some financial gain). Oddly, my Horseman Convertible, essentially a 6x9 SW with a 62mm lens, has become one of my most-used cameras. The slightly longer lens (25mm equivalent on 35mm) and the rectangular format made all the difference in landscape work.
Of course, as I've said, you could do genius-level work with an oatmeal box pinhole camera. You probably already have...
Click to expand...

I had an SWC about 12 years ago and quite enjoyed using it - I really have no clue why I sold it, but perhaps it was because at the time I was less interested in shooting film. Ah how times can change.

This one that I now have is the older, pre-SWC model. The shutter cocking and film winding are separate, so there’s an extra step involved in shooting. Plus I also just picked up the 16s viewfinder mask to go along with a 16s back I have in case I want to shoot the camera in the 4x4 format. The service it just had this week involved a full CLA plus all new seals, so it should be good for another 60+ years :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom