photo: No Smoking (Hasselblad SWC)

Godfrey

Godfrey

somewhat colored
Local time
7:47 AM
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
13,156
Thought it was about time I posted another photo from the SWC ... a lot of time shooting digital and Polaroid lately. :)



Hasselblad 500 SWC
Ilford Delta 3200
scanned with Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED​

Thanks for looking! Comments always appreciated.

G
 
Godfrey, nice shot with irony. The 'no smoking' sign doesn't meet federal 'no smoking' sign standards so it doesn't count as a sign that has to be obeyed.
 
Rollei SL66 SLR with 40mm Distagon FLE (or regular non-FLE version for less money) can rival the SWC (both Hasselblad and Rollei used Zeiss glass, and for good reason) for IQ while adding convenient features such as ground glass (WLV or prism viewfinder) focusing, exposure metering if E or SE variant, and tilt for shifting plane of focus, and of course interchangeable lenses and film backs. Great system, and a body and 40mm lens would cost a fraction of the SWC. Just saying. Great picture, regardless.
LJS
 
ljsegil said:
Rollei SL66 SLR with 40mm Distagon FLE (or regular non-FLE version for less money) can rival the SWC (both Hasselblad and Rollei used Zeiss glass, and for good reason) for IQ while adding convenient features such as ground glass (WLV or prism viewfinder) focusing, exposure metering if E or SE variant, and tilt for shifting plane of focus, and of course interchangeable lenses and film backs. Great system, and a body and 40mm lens would cost a fraction of the SWC. Just saying. Great picture, regardless.
LJS
Click to expand...

Thank you both for the compliment.

ljsegil:
The SL66 is a lovely camera, always wanted one. BUT:

- Best price I have found on a body only in EXC condition example is $900.
- Best price I've found on the Distagon 40mm lens is $1100.
- The combined size and weight of that package, with hood and back fitted, is about double that of the SWC. which for me makes it a tripod-only camera, with all the attendant noise and complication of an SLR.

I paid far less for the SWC. I can fit a digital back to it, although I haven't and won't. Zeiss offered that same Distagon 40 for the 500CM as well ... I've shot with it, it's a lovely performer, but it is NOT the same in rendering as the Biogon 38mm at all. The SWC is compatible with the same backs and some other accessories as the 500CM, which I also have. The SWC is compact and light enough to enable casual hand-held shooting. Finding parts and service for the SWC is many times easier than finding the same for the SL66.

Just Sayin' ... LOL!

Seriously, I'm not interested in a 'this one vs that one' debate. Both these old cameras are lovely, unique, thoroughly enjoyable, extremely competent pieces of equipment. Let's agree to focus on what we do with them, enjoy and discuss the photos we make, and dispense with the pointless debate over which one is "better" than the other, ok?

G
 
I like this picture because of its subject, the irony in it, the relaxed expression of the two ladies. And I like also the tones, I think that a "real" print in your hands must be a "real" satisfaction!
robert
 
It's photos like this that make me want to try Delta 3200.

You're not helping my desire for a Hasselblad much either. ;)

Nicely done, on all counts. :D
 
Godfrey said:
Thought it was about time I posted another photo from the SWC ... a lot of time shooting digital and Polaroid lately. :)



Hasselblad 500 SWC
Ilford Delta 3200
scanned with Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED​

Thanks for looking! Comments always appreciated.

G
Click to expand...
Great tones! I can't believe that's 3200. Great job.

Thanks
Joe
 
Rangefinderfreak said:
X-pan 24x60mm can rival both of them... To me the image looks just like a Nikon 35mm shot on TRI-X and D-76, slightly cropped...
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?
This "X camera can do better than your Y camera" stuff is ridiculous.
The Rollei comment and the XPan comment, both. The Nikon/TriX/D-76 comment is borderline abusive.

This is a good image! If you care so much about how good another camera is, then go shoot with it and have fun. No reason to even say anything like this other than to troll for debate. If you're kidding then I apologize, if not maybe troll somewhere else, please?

Phil Forrest
 
This thread let me remind that I have in my freezer a roll of Delta 3200 in 120 format, I still miss the SWC but I can try it in my Rolleiflex next week end. Any suggestion about developing? I have DDX at home, Ilford says 8' at 20°C if exposed at 3200.
robert
 
Godfrey said:
... Just Sayin' ... LOL!
...
Click to expand...

Plus the SWC is the coolest looking camera ever. The fact that it takes such rocking pictures is icing! ;)

If I ever get another medium format, I'd get an SWC (if I could afford it.) I've been drooling over them since 1979.
 
charjohncarter said:
Godfrey, nice shot with irony. The 'no smoking' sign doesn't meet federal 'no smoking' sign standards so it doesn't count as a sign that has to be obeyed.
Click to expand...

Yes, it just means they're selfish assholes who don't care about anyone else, not selfish assholes who don't care about anyone else that are breaking the law.

Nice shot, though. The SWC is one of the more interesting cameras out there and it's not often you see it used interestingly.
 
robert blu said:
This thread let me remind that I have in my freezer a roll of Delta 3200 in 120 format, I still miss the SWC but I can try it in my Rolleiflex next week end. Any suggestion about developing? I have DDX at home, Ilford says 8' at 20°C if exposed at 3200.
robert
Click to expand...

One bit of advice that's always rung true for me re: Delta 3200 is to shoot it at EI 1600 and develop for 3200.
It's meant to be pushed, and seems to have been made lower contrast to make up for the upping in contrast that occurs when one pushes B&W film.
 
Colin Corneau said:
One bit of advice that's always rung true for me re: Delta 3200 is to shoot it at EI 1600 and develop for 3200.
It's meant to be pushed, and seems to have been made lower contrast to make up for the upping in contrast that occurs when one pushes B&W film.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be a pull rather than a push? (Relative to box speed.)
 
Lots of activity on this photo the past two days. Thanks for all the interesting comments.

I choose to ignore the uninteresting ones. ;-)

Please, though: don't refer to my friends as selfish assholes. That's not yours to judge as you don't know the circumstances of the situation. For all you know, I could have staged it as a joke.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom