Getting sharper images with a 501c

<p>I'm shooting Portra 160 and 400 with a Hassy 501c w/ waist-level finder and am somewhat disappointed with the results. I'm shooting medium-size portraits (head to waistline with some headspace), often at an aperture of f8 or smaller, off the tripod w/ cable release. Scanning my negs afterwards, I'm often finding that the subject's eyes are soft, even though the hair on the top of his head and his shirt-front could both be quite crisply rendered. Is is possible that a soft-spot can occur in the centre of the negative when shooting with a Hasselblad? Obviously I've tried scanning my negs with another scanner but there's been no change in the situation. I'll try out an eye-level finder at some stage and see if it gives me better results, but as I was saying, areas slightly behind and slightly in front of the eyes are appearing sharp while the eyes are registering soft. Baffling, and very annoying considering I'm working towards 24" prints. Anyway, much appreciated if any of you Hasselblad afficionados could offer any suggestions on this, or any tips in general on how to get sharper pictures with a 501.</p>

<p>Handheld, I use 1/250 or higher, F5.6/ f8/ f11 according to lighting conditions, usually ISO 400 film, with slower films I use a tripod and cable release and many times mirror locked up for static scenes! Hope this helps, my Hasselblad 500c with 80 Chrome Planar is one of my favorite medium format cameras!</p>

<p>You didn't mention what focal length lens you were using. I can usually get a sharp shot at 1/125 on an 80mm lens, but I couldn't do it w/ a longer one. For nailing the eyes you are going to need a tripod, or simply darken them a little on the print. There is a lot of territory between the front of the head and the eyes when shooting medium format, so critical focus is important, as well as a perfectly stable camera and completely still victim. I usually shoot 35mm w/ a long lens for this type of portrait, as it gives me a much better viewfinder and a closeup of the eyes. Remember, if you're shooting an 80mm Planar, it's the equivalent of a 40mm, 35mm lens. </p>

<p>Have you tried shooting a test chart to see if there's a consistent focus error? Just use something with print on it and shoot wide-open at a 45-degree angle (with something obvious at the focal point).</p>

<p>Agree with Scott. Acouple test shots with the tripod will tell you where is the problem.<br>

BTW, I know nothing about Hasselblad, but I think I have read several times about shimmed screens... don`t know the reason.</p>

Shimmed screens? A patch/bodge in lieu of a proper alignment perhaps.<br>Where did you read about that?

<p>I once had a RZ67 where the prior owner had put the focus screen in upside down underneath the clear glass cover (they had taken apart the metal frame holding the focus screen/glass). The net result was that the focus plane in my negatives was noticeably behind the point that I would focus on. Once I put it back right, the problem was solved.</p>

<p>One possibility to consider...</p>

<p>Maybe tack a couple pages of news paper on the wall and do a flat copy. Parallel and perpendicular and see if the sharpness is the same all over.</p>

<p>I had trouble also until I got a split image screen. Then was much easier to focus for me. </p>

<p>Is it the scan or the film? If you haven't already done so, try inspecting the film with a loupe. If the film is unsharp, it sounds like you have a problem with your focussing technique, or the viewfinder focus is slightly off. If it's not, it's the scanning workflow.</p>

<p>Q.G., I have just did a search about the "shimmed screens" in Hassel posts here... as you say, all are related to pactches/bodges.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the suggestions. Yes, should have pointed out that I'm with a Planar 80. I'll shoot some tests and take from there. I just thought the issue might have been at the film plane. I remember somebody once telling me that, with a Hasselblad back, the film doesn't always sit flat against the pressure plate, that it can lift slightly in the center. I'll continue to look into it; in the meantime any more suggestions gratefully taken on board.</p>

<p>UPDATE: I just returned to an image I shot a few months back of some graffiti on a wall. Parallel and perpendicular, I shot it at f11, off the tripod w/ cable release and the mirror locked up. The edges are visibly sharper than the centre of the image.</p>

<p>Do you have just a film magazine?<br /> If you have a second magazine try it and see if you get the same results, or check if the pressure plate and the inner parts (rolls and springs) keep the film flat.<br>

Are you using the WLF magnifier and is it parallel to the focusing screen? </p>

<i>"Is it the scan or the film?"</i>, M?

<p>It's not the scan because I've scanned the offending images with both my own V750 and a Hasselblad Imacon that I have access to. Obviously the Imacon yielded richer pictures, but the area in the centre of the images still appeared noticeably softer than the edges. I've got two magazines Antonio, and I've just shot a comparison test. I'm sure I'll know a little more when I look at those results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499258">Jose Angel</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 20, 2013; 05:13 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Agree with Scott. Acouple test shots with the tripod will tell you where is the problem.<br />BTW, I know nothing about Hasselblad, but I think I have read several times about shimmed screens... don`t know the reason.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When using a waist level finder, your eyes are not technically focused on the image plane; depending on your vision, your eyes may be focusing on the front, or the back of the viewing screen. This is like having the wrong diopter setting: it means that you're not focusing where the film is, and it will cause problems.</p>

<p>I can only speak for myself, but I find that I very frequently focus just a couple inches <em>behind</em> where I mean to focus. This could reasonably make the subject's hair and shoulders (and ears) sharper than the eyes, which are closer to the camera. I fix this by pulling focus forward a hair after I "focus" the image. It could also be fixed by pushing focus away, or shimming the ground glass, depending on your own eyes.</p>

<p>You can also solve the problem by using a prism, which has no such issues.</p>

<p>If you're getting problems with field flatness, it could be a dirty lens, or a magazine not holding the negative flat enough. I had a magazine go a while back - the edges were still sharp, but the middle was not. I thought it was the lens, but the other magazine was still sharp throughout. If you find when you look at your results that you only get the issue with three-dimensional objects, then you may need to adjust your shooting style, shim the ground glass, or get a prism. Maybe you've been using that camera for a while, but everybody's eyes start to get worse at some point :(</p>

 

Zack,<br><br>You are looking at an image the location of which is set by the plane of the diffusing side of the ground glass. The depth of the ground structure determines by how much your eyes can focus at a different plane and still see the image (whether sharp or not). And that depth of a 'plain old' ground glass screen isn't very great at all, so not much leeway for errors.<br>Things change when the screen is not just a diffusing device, but employs optical elements to bend the light towards one point in space instead of scattering it in all directions. So if an Acute Matte is used, your eyes could be focussing at the wrong plane. But not by enough to cause major problems in situations in which there is enough DoF to compensate. Using a prism helps, yes.<br>Shimming the ground glass would not help (and you never should. If there is a disparity between lens mount to screen distance and lens mount to film distance, the camera needs to be adjusted. And it will probably be the body length rather than the screen position that is out of spec). Shimming would just move the range through which your eyes can see a sharp image up or down.<br><br>And more importantly, the 'Acute Matte effect' will not create a focus fall-off from edge to centre.<br>Film flatness issues (in camera or scanner - we still don't know, M, what you are looking at, scans or film) could.

<p>I found focusing with the waist level finder to be somewhat problematic, especially with 150mm and 250mm lenses. I went to a microprism/split image focusing screen and an NC-2 eyelevel finder and have not had any problems since.</p>