Jump to content

ray .

Members
  • Posts

    8,358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

58 Excellent
  1. The Hasselblad finder isn't perfect, but it gets the job done, depending on what you need. I haven't used the Voigtlander finder but it seems to me the main choice between the 2 finders must be whether an angle finder is better for your use or not. As far as diopter correction, unless your eyesight is bad enough to make a difference, you're estimating focus distance with a Hasselblad SWC camera anyway.
  2. Hmm, strange. I can't imagine what equipment that would be, except maybe… my glasses when I took them off got in front of the lens. I generally hold them hanging from my mouth when looking through the finder. Makes sense shooting from waist level, whereas it's not a problem with a 35mm camera that's held higher up. First time it's happened with the Hasselblad too, but I think you've got it; that must be it. Thanks Niels.
  3. Hello everyone My number one question here is: What may have caused the clouded area in the lower right portion of the first scanned Portra negative I'm posting here? It can be seen within the negative itself (not on the surface) so it's not a scanning issue. It wasn't a physical thing at the scene if I'm not crazy. You may notice a slight overall magenta color cast from the Portra expired in 2013 and kept frozen the shot was taken with, but I've read that's quite typical. However, one question about that: Is a color cast for expired film more noticeable with a photo exposed in overcast than one shot in bright sunlight? The 2nd photo is also 2013 expired Portra that was kept frozen, but it's from a different roll. I also wonder if the 60mm Hasselblad Distagon CF lens with a little more than average dust in the glass could be having any effect, but it looks pretty clean here in the sunny photo and in another b&w sunny shot from that lens, so the lens is probably fine. But again, What is that ghost?
  4. If I'm remembering correctly I got one of the last 9000ED scanners Nikon sold new, then sold it along with my medium format cameras about 10 years ago, only to re-purchase a 501cm and 80 Planar 4 years ago. Selling the scanner was as much a mistake as the cameras, since it was near new. The 8000ED I have now I got from a guy who services them. I've never had any real problems with them or the Nikon film scanners I have for 35mm. It's a slow process, but I enjoy scanning- kind of like being in the darkroom watching a print emerge, just without the fumes… Knock on wood this scanner keeps running as I gear up to shoot and give it a little more exercise than it's had for a few years. Thanks again
  5. Tom, yes in fact the cut was close to that edge on both frames with the magenta artifact, so you’re probably right. I use a Nikon 800 ED scanner with glass holder and have never noticed that issue before. Maybe I should be using a mask but I’ve never looked into how they work. Thanks orsetto for the hood info and photos. Looks like maybe the best bet is ordering a brand new generic hood straight from China? Looks as if at least one eBay seller of those is reputable. Otherwise relatively affordable ones are used.
  6. Oh, here's one more mystery: I was also testing the SWC/M on the same roll and shot the same building with that, and also with the 60mm on the 501cm. On these 2 frames only, you see a slight magenta fringe along the bottom of the frame. It's not on the building. The top shot (SWC/M) was frame 7 on the roll, the one below (60mm) was frame 10. None of the other frames had the fringe. I haven't used that lab before, and also the Portra expired 2013 but has been in the freezer. 🤔
  7. Say everyone, sorry for the slow response here, but it apparently was the 60/80 hood causing the vignetting. I ended up shooting a roll of Portra to get it back next day, since my previous b&w test roll got lost in the mail on the way to the lab across country. First shot on the new test roll was with the hood on, taking a photo of the front of my white garage with overcast sky above, then repeating the shot with the hood off. I can post both of those if someone wants to see the comparison for some reason, but here's one of the shots in the roll that were shot with hood off, showing clean corners and no vignetting… I am a little interested in the glare off the street sign, thinking it's probably normal for this lens, but I don't recall seeing it in the ground glass, maybe because I was in a hurry to get to the local lab before they closed. I'll take Arthur's advice and look for a 38-60 hood, as I can use it for my new used SWC/M as well……. I'll check back to see if there is any further discussion or questions. Thanks for all the responses!
  8. So today I started a roll and made one shot with the hood on, then continued on shooting with no hood. Switched off the to SWC/M body I was testing also, so the two cameras shared rolls of both Tri-X and Portra…. I'll report back in about a week with the results.
  9. I will try removing the hood, but here are a couple samples from the roll showing the vignetting. In the 1st photo there was more available light; in the 2nd sunlight was dimming, so I no doubt opened the lens a little more with a slower shutter speed. This tells me maybe it's the lens, not a hood obstruction?
  10. I can post examples later, but on each shot of a roll of Tri-x I tested there is consistent or identical vignetting on all 4 corners shot with the ex condition Hasselblad 60mm f/3.5 Distagon CF I recently received. I’ve used one of these lenses before that had zero vignetting on any photo. The exposures were generally in the f/4 to f/9.5 range, none wide open, but that shouldn’t matter anyway with this lens. The lens has a small mark on both front and back elements toward the center, I wouldn’t think would affect anything, but maybe? I used the 60/80 hood, which is the kind of hood I used before with the other 60. Any ideas? Could it be caused by anything other than the lens? Thanks…
  11. I ended up sending in my OM-4 to John and I'm pretty excited about getting it back in a few weeks, hopefully ready to run. After he received it he confirmed my camera has the latest updated circuitry before Olympus went to the OM-4T and Ti. Mainly because of the diopter correction capability the viewfinder will be much better for me than with the OM-1n. I also actually like the smaller image of the finder because I find it easier to see the whole composition of the photo with it. With all the sophisticated metering system I'll probably be using it with a hand-held incident meter, which has been my preference for several years now. If all is well I'll give the spot meter averaging method a whirl too and see how it does, just for fun.
  12. What happened to this thread? Appears to have had several posts deleted. Some sort of glitch in the new format?
  13. Michael Freeman, I see one of the few listings in the US selling a Japanese version saying the downside of the lens is they all get oily aperture blades if not serviced. That could be why the original lens in question is assumed by the seller to have been serviced multiple times. I wonder if that coincides with your experience and if it also pertains to the American version. The focus ring on the American version is apparently plastic instead of rubber, and the lens focuses to 0.6 meters as opposed to 0.45. Rockwell claims the mechanics on the American version are inferior to the Japanese version.
  14. See Ken Rockwell's site re the lens. I'm not sure I take his word on everything, but he's pretty knowledgeable re Nikon.
×
×
  • Create New...