Hasselblad underwater

<p>Hello,<br>

First time post here.<br>

I work as an underwater photographer (www.calmero.com.au)<br>

<br />I have a photography concept that I want to try but have had trouble with technical limitations.<br>

Basically I want to shoot underwater panoramas (1:3 or more ratios) and print them to 1m or more for exhibition purposes.<br>

These panos are of river systems and are in shallow water. In shallow water you encounter dappled light rays.<br>

These light rays move incredibly quickly so stitching images is not an option as the rays wont align.<br>

I could crop a shot down to the ratio I want but I want the detail and my nikon d90 won't hold up for exhibition prints at that size.<br>

So I have the option to purchase a 500cm with a 50mm lens and an underwater housing (hasselblad brand.)<br>

I'm thinking of purchasing this to shoot the rivers with. I'll then drum scan the negatives and then crop down to the desired ratios.<br>

Does that sound like it would work? Could I produce a print at 1m from a 1:3 ratio crop shot on the hasselblad?</p>

<p><img src="http://calmero.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/DSC_645211.jpg" alt="" /><br>

(cropped from d90 file)<br>

Thoughts?</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Cal</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That doesn't sounds like a good solution to me. The resulting piece of film will have significantly less resolution than 645 film, which itself is no shining example of resolving power. If you want to shoot film, what about a 6x17 camera? You would need to check minimum focusing distance and you would have to get a bespoke underwater housing made, of course, but you would get approximately 10x the resolution.</p>

<p>Hi Cal, and welcome aboard.</p>

<p>Is 1 meter the width or the height?</p>

<p>I like Graham's idea of starting out with the desired format. Better quality and less hassle.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

I don't know how the port of the underwater housing and the 'stuff' in the water affect resolution, but (despite the comment above) a 1 m wide print from a 6 x 2 cm crop is absolutely no problem. Not at all.<br>But of course, using a larger format like that 6x17 will provide an easier starting point (though Graham's "10x the resolution" is absolutely wrong. Given same quality film and lenses, it's of course never more than 3x. And not 3x "the resolution", but detail. And that depending on how big your print will be.)

<p>I agree with Q.G. on this.....</p>

<p>What about a different Hasselblad: An X-Pan? I would also look at a Fuji 6x17 if you could get a housing for it. If you go with the Hasselblad housing (and you probably should, be certain to get the O-rings serviced before using it though, as they'll probably be dried up. Here's a good link to the manual for the housing (I noticed the first image shows the domed port, and not the flat one). I think the domed version will take the 40mm.</p>

<p>By the way, I'm about 95% sure you have to use an EL/M type camera in these housings, and not a manual wind C/M. Otherwise, how to you wind the film and cock the shutter?</p>

<p>Here's the manual from a really good Hasselblad site ;-) http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/HasManuals/Underwater_Housing.pdf</p>

There's another, older Hasselblad underwater housing, Michael, that takes the 500 C(/M) (and with a different rear part, also the SWC). You can use the 80 mm, 60 mm and 50 mm lens in this thing. Longer makes no sense, since with the flat port, the difference in refractive index between air and water will change the angle of view quite a bit towards the narrow end.<br><br>The later style housing has a dome port, and needs correction lenses added to each of the (same) three lenses you can use in it.<br><br>The camera inside these housings are operated though knobs on the outside, that connect to rings that are fitted over the relevant parts of camera and lens.<br><br>That only works (with either older or newer type underwater housing) with the old C (Synchro Compur) lenses though. And you have to make sure you get all the appropriate parts (frame viewfinder and rings particular to the lens you want to use) when getting one of these housings.<br><br>There may/will be other underwater housinggs available that take Hasselblads and (!) also ones that take other cameras. I believe for the depths the project calls for, even a flexible one (like the ones once made/sold by Ewa (EwaMarine)) will do. Basically a thick, clear plastic bag.

<p>An custom made housing with shutter release and mechanical connector for film advance to house the Linhof or Fuji 617 would probablly yield the best results. Imacon has 6X17 holder for their upper end scanners.<br>

If you are in shallow water a housing with glove like insert might work to cut down cost and give you flexibility in the controls.</p>

 

<p>if your unsure have you considered renting some different equipment to see what works best ?</p>

If you only have to go down a meter or so, you might be able to build a simple box with one clear side, submerge it,

and put a non-waterproof camera inside. Sort of like an aquarium. It might be tricky to come up with material that's

both strong and clear enough for good photo quality.

<p>Hi!<br>

I shoot with a Nikonos with the Nikkor UW 15mm f/2.8 lens.<br>

I know exactly what kinds of shots you're talking about, I make them all the time. I think they show very well what it really looks like underwater. <br>

I know this won't exactly go down well in a medium format forum.<br>

I own 22 camera's and about 60 lenses, 35mm through 6x6 up to a Fuji GX 617 panoramic camera, so I know what I'm talking about.<br>

The Nikkor UW 15mm lens is the sharpest, most contrasty, most perfect 35mm lens I have. It's a lens without compromises. Really extremely sharp. There's nothing like it.<br>

It has 94° image angle, and is ideal to shoot panorama's of light rays. It's also absolutely rectalinear, so your light rays will be absolutely straight.<br>

I routinely make 12'' by 18'' enlargements from it, and they're real sharp. I think the lens can easily handle 3 feet. In fact, I had a close focus wide angle shot blown up digitally about 12 years ago to 4 feet, and it looks pretty good. That shot was scanned, with a scanner of those days, and printed on an inkjet of those days, I think it would be a completely different story now, scanned on an Imacon and printed on a Durst Lambda. <br>

The fun part is, that this lens used to cost 4,000 to 5,000 dollars, but now that film is dead, you can get it, plus a Nikonos 5 body, for about $ 1,000. That's about one tenth the cost of a Hasselblad underwater system.<br>

Try "Southern Nikonos", if they still exist, they'll sell Nikonos with full warranty.<br>

If you're interested, I can get a light ray neg scanned at 4000 DPI, and mail the TIFF or JPEG to you. My email address:<br>

<a href="mailto:dirkdirkdom@gmail.com">dirkdirkdom@gmail.com</a>.<br>

I can also get the center third of the image printed to 18 inches, then I can see the result directly.<br>

I used to shoot with ordinary Kodacolor Gold 100, I think that if you shoot Fuji Velvia, you'll get even more sharpness. You don't ned to get to very short shuttertimes for light rays.<br>

Because the 15mm is a super wide, you 'll get much less water between lens and subject, and you'll get much more contrast.<br>

Bye,<br>

Dirk.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi, again.<br>

I've made five underwater housings myself.<br>

The first two were made in flexible rubber sheet, glued with contact (neoprene) glue(flexible) with 1 inch wide strips over the seams. I had put plastic sewer pipe on both ends, and put heavy duty rubber gloves around those tubes, tightened them waterproof with hose fastenings. (Stainless)<br>

I shot through a plexiglass window, which was also glued with contact glue over 1 inch. The window was glued to the camera support, and the camera put onto that with a tripod screw.<br>

I had put a 5 pound piece of lead under it to let it sink.<br>

It cost me about 20 dollars.<br>

This thing was absolutely waterproof, and I made hundreds of shots with it up to 20 feet depth. The fun part was that I could screw filters etc on the camera while in the housing!!<br>

That should be more than plenty for your purposes. You needn't buy an extremely expensive pressure resistant UW housing.<br>

For information to peole who don't dive:<br>

Under water the pressure increases by 1 atmosphere per 30 feet you go down; So if your housing isn't flexible, and don't equalize pressure between in- and outside, your housing needs to be sturdy enough to take the force the pressure generates. That makes constructing rigid UW housings challenging. A flexible housing diminishes to half it's volume if you go down 30 feet. But with it, you have no strength issues, as pressure in - out is equal.<br>

The real issue is that to shoot wide angle under water you need a dome port. That's a large diameter spherical window. You need it if you shoot more than about 60° image angle. I'll not go into detail about it here, research the Net, but with a flat window the rays bend and you can no longer shoot wide angle.<br>

There is also the question of keeping your lens rectalinear if you shoot a dome port, you don't want your light rays bent!!<br>

You can't realistically make a dome port yourself. It had to be very high quality, and LARGE!!<br>

You can buy one for about $700. research underwater housing makers, they supply the domes separately, too.<br>

Add to that a Fuji GX 617, or a Hasselblad XPAN, or a Mamiya 7 with the 43mm lens, and you're set.<br>

PS: The dome will make a virtual image much closer than your subject distance - you'll need a lens that focuses this close, or use / make an extension tube.<br>

Realistically, I'd go for the Hasselblad Xpan; i think it has a 65mm wide angle.<br>

I'm thinking about making just this thing for my Fuji GX617, but that camera has cost me $ 7,000, I hesitate a little about taking it underwater, especially since the Nikonos + 15mm is already so good, and how do I put that very big thing on a plane?<br>

Enjoy your project,</p>

<p>dirk.</p>

<p>If you're going to try and make your own underwater housing: be careful, seriously. If your housing leaks you will flood your camera with seawater and it will most likely be a more or less total writeoff (or at least a large bill as you immediately overnight it to someone to strip and dry out). I'd suggest diving with it empty to 2x your intended depth to pressure test, check for any leaking or damage, then stick to your limit. I'd also be curious what the best way to execute a waterproof door is.</p>

<p>The Nikonos V is a great suggestion: it is, bar none, the best underwater camera for ultrawide shots, and extremely affordable. Nikonos RS are coming down to sane prices ($1100 for a basic setup without speedlite) as well, plus you get autofocus, but as a SLR the lenses must be retrofocal designs which makes ultrawides less efficient.</p>

<p>Hi Cal,</p>

<p>I have some hands on experience with the equipment you are writing about. </p>

<p>I currently own three Hasselblad housings, the H-38 for the Superwide, the stainless steel housing for the ELM sometimes referred to as the "Milk Can", and the blue housing with interchangeable backs for the 500C/CM and also for the superwide C. I also happen to own a drum scanner. I used to shoot 70mm Ektachrome in 15' lengths and then scan the good ones.</p>

<p>The blue or silver housing that you wrote about won't accomplish what you desire. It won't give you the wide angle you want for the shot because it has a flat port not a dome. You won't get the full angle of view when using a flat port and a 50mm lens on a Hassy is not all that wide to begin with.</p>

<p>Your best bet is to buy or rent a housing for the superwide with a dome port. The Gates H-38 was sold with different base plates to be used with either the 903 or the Superwide with the CF lens. With the dome port on this housing you do achieve the full angle of view from the lens. A digital back should fit just fine in the H-38. You could probably modify the housing for a cable to go to the surface for an AD to approve the shots.</p>

<p>Keep in mind the following things:<br />- The 38mm Biogon has a 90 degree angle of view on the diagnal not the horizontal.<br />- Depth of field is substantially less on medium format after all, it's a 38mm lens.<br />- You need to shoot around f8 or smaller. Which as you know, can be difficult to do underwater at a reasonable shutter speed.<br />- It is a BIG housing and is difficult to hold still in any current. You need to shoot at 1/125 or faster or you will lose sharpness due to movement.<br />- It is a BIG $$$$$ investment (and risk)</p>

<p>Non-digital <strong>High quality</strong> underwater photography is ten times more difficult than "topside" photography. However, with medium photography - when a shot works, it looks incredible. But you get far less keepers because of all the limitations.</p>

<p>The image you show could be done easily with the H-38 and then cropped.</p>

<p>BTW, I might be putting my H38 housing on Ebay (US) sometime in the near future. If I do I will send you an email.</p>

<p>Best of luck with your shot!<br /><br /></p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

New to this but have some comments in regard to Hasselblad. Like many others, they stoped producing housings. They did produce a fine housing for the 500C. I am slowly exploring the possibility of using a new electronic back instead of film. What I have found to be the big issue at least in underwater photography at sea is the lighting. The current problem is getting the new electronic cameras to sync with electronic flash....As for lenses, the housing was designed to be used with various lenses. There were extension tubes that were designed hy hasselblad for the housing. They did not produce a flash so most people resorted to Sea & Sea or Ikelite and used connectors that were developed for Nikonos.... Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Back with some additional comments,<br>

I shot with a Nikonos II until film essentially went away. My last investment for the Ninonos II was a Sea & Sea strobe and the adapter cord cost more than the camera...The photos with the hasselblad and a proper flash underwater were much better quality than any Nikon u/w camera.<br>

Replaced the Nikonos with an Olympis and its housing. The issue is that the flash on the point and shoot in the housing is not effective in the waster. You wind up having to get an exterior strobe and with a fiber optic attachment use it as a slave..<br>

With the hasselblad, you could see what you were shooting. Only the Rollei could compete. Film has passed and now it is a question of adapting / matching electronic resources. The electronic back for teh 500 body is quite an investment. Work in progress..</p>