Hasselblad and the Moon

Interesting article on the astronauts and the story behind the fantastic moon photos. I suspect the most collectible camera in the world is still on the moon!!

 

 

The Camera That Went To The Moon And Changed How We See It

Edited July 14, 2019 by Dan Deary

All that technology and preparation, and yet still most of the shots looked like they were taken with a box Brownie.:rolleyes:

 

Not saying I could do any better with zone focussing and wearing boxing gloves with a goldfish bowl over my head, but IMO it was a darned poor advert for 'blad and Zeiss.

LOL! :D

 

I never really thought about that angle until reading the linked article, which explicitly mentions something I don't think is very well known: along with no viewfinder, and interference from gloves and helmet, the danged Hasselblad was fixed in position on the astronauts' chests! They really had zero ability to compose or aim at all accurately, making it even more of a miracle any decent pics were produced. The "breast cam" in those old grindhouse movies featuring busty international spies was more maneuverable.

 

So yeah, the Hasselblad EL could be viewed as insane overkill for the task. A fixed focus Kodak Box Brownie with the same thin-base 70mm film and a motor might have given similar results (the 60mm Biogon of the moon cameras wasn't really interchangeable anyway). I suppose one could argue the missions could be crippled by just a few grams extra weight, so Hasselblad had an immense advantage with its existing, proven, removable film backs (ditch the camera on the moon, only bring back the film). As time consuming as retrofitting the 'blad for space environment was, it would have taken even longer to design and build a from-scratch "Space Brownie" that was light enough to be one-piece, or had detachable magazines.

 

Still, it would be extremely interesting to see a comparison test of the 'blad with Biogon vs a simple box camera with lightweight embedded lens and blade shutter. Under the same shooting restrictions and conditions, the photos might be very similar. Granted, a custom-designed, cost-no-object Zeiss Biogon would have been a tough optic for Kodak to compete with. Perhaps a "Lunar Ektar" could have been developed?

Edited July 17, 2019 by orsetto

Focusing was locked down in the Apollo cameras, and there was no viewfinder. I have actually use a Brownie camera, and the photos on the moon were definitely better.

"The shutter button and other controls were made larger for ease of operation wearing the thick protective gloves of the moon suit, and astronauts were given suggested exposure settings for a variety of scenarios."

 

Exposure settings?!

 

It's the frigging moon! No clouds, no mist, no atmosphere. Just constant and uninterrupted sunlight.

 

It only needs basic school science to point a terrestrial telescope fitted with photometer at the proposed landing site and at the appropriate moon phase. Then add in some small factor for the absorption and scatter of earth's atmosphere. Having got that light reading and (of course) batch-tested the film you propose to take, you then fix the exposure of the cameras so that they can't possibly be accidentally altered, and the job's done!

 

Somebody, even back then, must have worked out the number of lux falling on the moon's surface from the sun. In fact it's probably the one place where 'Sunny 16' actually holds true.

 

Incident light metering theory dictates that there's absolutely no need to tinker with the exposure when the light source remains totally constant. Or at most you need two settings 'shade' and 'sunny'. But wait, didn't they have that on box Brownies?

Edited July 18, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

To some degree, the original reporting re the moon cameras was vague. It isn't made clear there were actually two distinct workflows, not one, but the single mention of "enlarged controls for focus and exposure settings" gives the impression both the orbiting and lunar surface cameras were constantly being adjusted. Most likely, they weren't: as you theorize, on the surface they probably needed a single exposure and focus setting dialed in and locked. Armstrong could barely find the trigger plate with that gigantic glove on, never mind futz with the relatively small fingertip tabs on the lens (and one Hassy irritant that wasn't improved much for surface use was the perpetually-clumsy position of the C lens focus ring too close to the body).

 

The bolted-on EV and focus setting tabs were perhaps more useful with the cameras assigned to the orbital and landing module interiors. In that confined space with ever-changing light, you would need more frequent adjustments going from a portrait inside the module to pointing it out the window at the earth or moon (from three feet to infinity, from sunlight to panel light).

Edited July 18, 2019 by orsetto

On the Hasselblad website today, they have announced the release of a limited edition "On the Moon Since 1969" all-black, NEW digital back and mirror-less body (incredibly thin!) that allows one to feel an Apollo connection.

Perhaps I'll celebrate the landing on Saturday by shooting a roll or two through my 500 EL/M :)

 

I actually looked at, then passed on, a 70mm back the other day. It was cheap($50) and near perfect, but of course it's essentially just a useless Hasselblad bauble to me since I don't want to fork over the money to order the correct perf type of 70mm when Ilford does ULF.

 

If Kodak really wanted to get in on the fun, they could release Ektachrome at least in 120, if not 70mm type 2 perf :) . We've been promised that 120 is coming at least...

A Brownie has a simple lens that produces images barely worthy of contact printing. I've heard it's the photographer, not the camera, but I don't really believe it in this case.

A Brownie has a simple lens that produces images barely worthy of contact printing. I've heard it's the photographer, not the camera, but I don't really believe it in this case.

 

You seem to be under the horrified impression we're suggesting an actual bakelite Brownie with single element plastic lens would make images of the lunar surface of comparable quality to the Hasselblad. Um, no: obviously we agree with you that it wouldn't.

 

The notion floated here is more along the lines that the Hasselblad lunar surface program was a bit of an odd choice considering how it was actually used. There was no particularly compelling reason for such a fussy boutique Swedish camera to go to the moon. Other than having a motor drive already in development for ordinary earthbound use, and pre-existing removable magazines, there were probably more 'blad negatives to overcome than positives contributed. Hasselblads are ridiculously overcomplicated, so the moon version was all but gutted anyway, and turned into (yes) a very high-grade "box camera" with a motor drive and fixed custom designed lens.

 

Given the (literally) astronomical Apollo budget and simplified camera features required for lunar surface use, NASA might just as easily have contracted with Kodak for something similar: a vacuum-usable box with a motor, detachable magazine, and fixed premium-quality lens (probably a Schneider). Kodak was no stranger to ultra-high quality lenses, or every conceivable film camera concept, and was already tasked with making the special thin film. Had Wally Schirra not wandered into the office with his 500c one day (or indeed owned one at all), there may never have been a "moon camera reputation" that any camera brand could have flogged to death for the next fifty years ala Hasselblad. The first camera on the moon would probably have been a custom guvmint job, not easily merchandised as a brand identity.

 

That said, I'm as much a sucker for the mystique as any other 'blad enthusiast.

In honor of the anniversary (and for ben_hutcherson ;)), here's my 553elx configured for 70mm. I could never find a black 70mm magazine, so it doesn't match, and I long ago discovered the big flat square "moon shutter release" that came with the later EL variants is incredibly unreliable, so I swapped it for the older "earthbound" ELM button. The HC3/70 finder is USAF surplus, as close as I'll ever get to NASA cred:

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by orsetto

On the Hasselblad website today, they have announced the release of a limited edition "On the Moon Since 1969" all-black, NEW digital back and mirror-less body (incredibly thin!) that allows one to feel an Apollo connection.

 

If I didn't know better, it almost looks like an April Fool's gag. Can't imagine how they pack AF and most other X1D features into that tiny body, unless the CF-VII 50c back now includes sensor AF and touchscreen control of the camera. That's quite an investment for Hasselblad in a very niche concept: surprising in the current MF market.

On the Hasselblad website today, they have announced the release of a limited edition "On the Moon Since 1969" all-black, NEW digital back and mirror-less body (incredibly thin!) that allows one to feel an Apollo connection.

 

Out of this world...:D

I just stumbled across this web page a few minutes ago with photos of what is apparently a reproduction of a lunar surface camera.

 

Notice the big orange sticker on the bottom that-as best as I can tell-instructs the shutter speed to be set at 1/250 and gives aperture settings both for different scenes and also for locations of different objects relative to the sun

 

The lens also has large "wings" similar to what I've seen on cinema lenses, presumably to make setting the focus easier. I've found other references to the astronauts essentially practicing zone focusing while still on the ground.

 

Space Camera Co.

Despite their best efforts (and like they had nothing else to do on the moon than snap a few pictures) some exposures were way off—in some cases, by a factor of 1000! As such, NASA had to clip off a portion and subject their test development to significant pushing or pulling to ensure they had a workable negative at the end of the day.

Wow! Now I want a 90 degree finder for my 553.