Is a Hassy 500 still relevant today?

I should point out that I am not looking for a film v digital argument. I respect the views of the people in the forum, and simply wanted to

gauge your views on how you see MF film today. Yeah we're all pretty sick of this kind of debate, but I have a more specific need for

your thoughts :-)

 

Of course there are many valid personal reasons to shoot film that have nothing to do with what most of the industry perceives as

'quality'. But forgetting about these intangibles for a minute, does anyone here use their Hassy V's for pro/semi pro work?

 

I am a graphic designer that has always used photography as an adjunct to my design work, and have done a few pro gigs over time but

mostly outsource photography. Because photography accounts for such a small part of my income, I sold my Nikon digital kit a couple

of years ago, and have been either hiring or shooting film ever since (and I should point out, I simply love shooting film!)

 

I'm certainly not afraid of digital - I have worked as a high end retoucher on propriety systems since the late 80's, am an Adobe ACE,

Aperture user and work on other people's D3 and 1Ds files every day of the week.

 

I guess I am like a lot of people here who derive some income from photography and there lies the issue... I bought a 500cm recently for

90% emotional reasons (and I could finally afford one!), but 10% from the head thinking that it will be used professionally and for

personal work on regular occasions.

 

So far, my results have been extremely ordinary. I shoot 400CN with a bit of Reala and Velvia. I had a preferred workflow organised

where I would use the lab to process and scan the C12 stuff - assuming it would meet a reasonable quality standard but it's been

horrific. Scans have been full of dust/scratches that aren't on the negs, tonality poor and the max resolution I can get is about 2000

pixel square. It's not cutting it anywhere near what I thought it would. Trouble is, I don't have a viable alternative apart from buying a

MF scanner.

 

I have used the Nikon 8000 in the past, and been spoiled with various drum scanners. I am not in that league price-wise. I have heard

reasonable reports of the Epson V700 but it's hard to work out whether it would really give me a quality standard that can at least rival

mid range digital SLRs. I really don't want to, but the cost of the Hassy gear so far and a scanner is actually getting pretty close to a

D700 (and I have lenses already).

 

So in your honest opinion, do you think I am just being emotional, or do you think (particularly for Black and White) that there is a valid,

rational argument for a Hassy 500cm with something like a V700 as a system today? Don't suppose anyone has any high res examples

of 400CN on the V700?

 

Many thank for your time.

I suggest you don't use lab scans, or if you do, be prepared to pay a lot.

 

If you must scan at all, I would suggest getting your own MF scanner and be prepared to lose a lot of time to achieve high quality.

 

Frankly, if you're emotional about film, shoot real black and white print it through an enlarger. Or shoot colour and give it to a lab and ask them to print the negs.

 

Nothing wrong with scanning per se if you have lots of time, but you sound like a busy professional to me.

 

One of the reasons digital rules commercial work is because of its time advantage. In a world of instant gratification, digital can't be beat.

As far as I understand, the V700 is pretty much the same thing as the V750 as far as the optics go. I have a V750

and have been very happy with it. While it's certainly no drum scanner, it is a very nice cheaper alternative

that gives great results in comparison to its cost as far as I'm concerned.

<br/>

<br/>

Here are a couple of images that I've scanned with mine using a Hasselblad 500C/M w/ a Zeiss 80mm C T* on Portra

160NC (for the first) and Portra 400NC (for the second).

<br/>

Click for full size. Images have not been edited.

<br/>

<a href=http://polaris.smugmug.com/photos/374129462_ufHnG-O.jpg><img boarder="0"

src="http://polaris.smugmug.com/photos/374129462_ufHnG-S.jpg"></a></br>

<br/>

<a href="http://polaris.smugmug.com/photos/348259915_qs4Qr-O.jpg"><img boarder="0"

src="http://polaris.smugmug.com/photos/348259915_qs4Qr-S.jpg"></a>

<br/>

<br/>

I hope this helps.

Yeah it's a bit of a cop out not using a darkroom :-) but with a young family it's kind of difficult now. And my dilemma is

that I still need the ability to be digital. Ultimately anything I shoot still needs to be a digital file regardless if it's

commercial or personal work. Of course it's absolutely pointless comparing something like a D700 directly to MF film... I

guess all I really wanted to know is what people genuinely think of the V700... yes, there's plenty of reviews on the web

but little real samples that I have found. I also hear much about the Newton ring issues. Unfortunately the 750 isn't

available in Australia so that's not an option.

 

To be succinct (sorry my first post wasn't). Do you think a V700 scan of a 6x6 B&W neg is at least vaguely comparible

to a mid level digital SLR at say a 10x8 size? I am particularly interested in the DR of real-world V700 scans (or similar

scanners others would recommend).

Kenny - that's great. Thanks mate. Exactly the kind of image I would have liked to see as a sample - nice shots too. I

must say the bokeh on your 80mm seems much creamier than mine... it's the only thing I have been a little disappointed

with. It's incredibly sharp, but the bokeh seems slightly harsh. Anyway, you're swaying me towards the V700!

You do want to use a real pro image lab for good scanning. Using some cheap scanning service (like the Kodak stuff) is the worst option. Yes, using a higher-end service will cost a bit, so what you do is get a decent scanner for most of your work (how often do you need the highest possible resolution after all?) and bring only the negatives you need the maximum out of to the shop.

 

For MF there is unfortunately a big, gaping void in the market. At one end you have the Epson V700, which should give you good scans in the 2000dpi range. The next step starts with the Nikon Coolscan 9000 with much better results but at five times the price. Nothing in between, as far as I've been able to find. But of course, at 2000dpi you're still talking about an image file at 10k pixels to a side, which should be plenty for most uses, including fairly large material for pre-press work.

Edit: ugh, forget the size numbers above; no coffee yet. I meant 4500 pixels of course.

 

Kenny, I've hesitated on actually getting a V700 and wanted to hold out for something a little more high end. You just convinced me I need not wait for something better. Looks like I may get myself a new scanner for Christmas :)

Don't have a V700, but I just bought a used Nikon 8000 ED w/ the glass holder. It's pretty impressive! I don't have a darkroom, but I bought the little tanks and reels and am now doing the developing myself and scanning the files on the Nikon. A drum scan would probably beat it, but I think the results are better than I had ever hoped for. Here's a crop from a Fuji GS645s shot w/ Tri-X. Your Hassy has a better lens and you should be able to do even better w/ it.<div></div>

By the way, the combination of the FujiGS645s and the Nikon scanner blows my Leica R shots away, and the R lenses are some pretty decent glass. It's not even close. Shots from your Hassy would surely be much better than a DSLR image, especially since you favor B&W. The scans are very, very sharp and could be printed very large w/ no quality loss. It doesn't really show up on this small file here, but when you open the files in Photoshop you really see the difference. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the line for me. Shooting MF and using the Nikon scanner give me exactly what I was looking for w/ my Leica lenses but wasn't able to realize. I think it's because the grain looks so tight using 120 film, whereas in 35mm the grain was becoming an issue. What I am seeing is that w/ a good scanner and 120 film you can get a clean image similar to a digital file w/o getting all the grain issues of smaller film and w/o losing all of the shadow detail of digital.

David,

 

I have a Hassy, Epson 4870 and now a Nikon 8000 (also a Nikon D200).

Even when I only had the Epson 4870, the VIBE of the Hasselblad was still so much nicer that I only shot Digital when

the client didn't want to pay for film.

 

That said....scanning is a pain and a non-exact science.

I would like to own a D700 ALSO but Hasselblad is still way cooler.

 

jmp

Hello David

I have been working with Hassy the last months, and scanned the slides/negs on a Imacon x5 scanner. It is easy, fast and comes out in very high quality. I use film to preserve the tones and details in highlight and shade, since I work on a research in lighting in old buildings, and as far as I know still no digital equipment can cope with the wide tonality of film. Also the slower workflow contributes to my project - it forces me to think and experience before shooting.

Claus Asp

I rarely use my D3 these days, honestly. I have just had enough of all this digital rubbish. I find film more convenient. Nothing in my bag gives me the quality and enjoyment like the Hassey. Hasselblad have all but abandoned the V series, which is a shame, because it has made them what they are today. There is still no small format or medium format digital camera that can match the quality produced by your 500cm.

Get yourself a Nikon 8000. They are great scanners and they aren't that expensive anymore used. I purchased a D300 several months

back and just recently purchased a Pentax 6x7II cause I got a killer deal on it. Well, it's not a hassy but it's just as good and now my

D300 sits in the cabinet. I purchased the D300 cause I got tired of scanning but since I went back to film and scanning, there's no

comparison. In my opinion, I would rather sit at my computer scanning film for hours than look through the images from my D300.

Purchasing the Pentax made me realize how much I love the look and feel of film again. I also have a hassy that I used to shoot a lot with

but I no longer use it cause I realized that I like the horizontal view better vs. a square. My advice, find a used Nikon 8000 instead of

purchasing the V700. I've had my 8000 since new and it's been great.

Had a similar hankering to get back to film earlier this year, and did exactly what you're thinking of ... bought

myself the best 2nd hand V series Blad (501cm) I could find. Using Velvia again and loving it - colour depth is

unbeatable. Use a pro lab to process film.

 

Also bought the EPSON V700, but will tell you that there is more to scanning than might first appear. It is much

tougher to get great scans than I imagined (not too hard to get average scans), and have found that practice is

making better scans. Very envious of Kenny's scans above.<div></div>

I have a V750 and use it for pro work. I think for the money it's excellent. My stock agency recommended the Imacon, but frankly I cant afford one of those, not at the moment anyway, and the v750 does a great job. However, colour profiling with the Eye1 helps and I shot and scanned about 150 rolls with the additional 3mm feet on the scan holders before noticing the scans could be sharper, so I took them off again and all is well.

Im passionate about film too, although I have a 5D and like the speed/workflow of digital, the purist in me still likes film, mainly b&w but Velvia/Astia are also lovely and for huge files the v750 is great for crops if needed. Im now shooting 135 too for times when size doesnt matter but I want proper b&w tonal range, bite and feel. It's all good, just apply the right technology for the job - here's what I use mine for: www.paulcooklin.com

 

Hope this helps.

The V700/750 are great. I have one. There is also the possibility of 'wet scans'. I have not done it myself, but there is

a lot on the net about it.

 

But yes, it was a sad day my favourite lab-chain went over to digital prints only. It thoroughly killed the pleasure I

used to get from Reala. A great combination was my 1950s Summicron and Reala, especially on those bright but

hazy days. I have had to shelve the interest, and the lab has lost me as a customer, not that they care.

 

Some impressive scans on this thread. But have you got good printers to put these on paper?

<i>I have had to shelve the interest, and the lab has lost me as a customer, not that they care. </i><p>

 

We do care. It's just that there is insufficient film business in the general marketplace to justify the cost of

maintaining film labs in every store. At the Name Withheld chain where I work, we have gone to a central lab

facility, with film machines in a few of our larger (and wealthier) stores. It's a business decision, not a lack

of caring for our customers. We still have film shooters who are willing to wait for their prints to round-trip.<p>

 

My experience indicates that while there are only a few film labs left, those that remain do excellent work.<p>

 

Les (Mamiya 645/Velvia)

David:

 

I have been using a 500 CM for over 20 years and still love it. I shoot with Ilford FP 4 and HP 5 and the negatives from

both films scan very well with my V700, it is a great scanner and a lot cheaper than having drum scans done.

 

Although I rely on digital for most of my work now I still love the 500 CM and doubt I will ever give it up. For gallery work

I still print in the darkroom but the digital prints from these scans are starting to look very god now that I am starting to

know what I am doing.

 

In short, I would consider a film change and get the V700.

 

-Owen

thank you for a very informative thread .. and kudos to those that took the time to post their scans.

 

this thread exemplifies what photo.net is all about .. helping everyone become better at what they love.

 

daniel taylor

I recently finished scanning about 75 b/w negs on 120 film that I shot between 1980 and 1980 with a Rollie TLR. I used an Epson V750 scanner that I purchased specifically for this projects. Scans were fast, clean, well-exposed, and sharp enough to make 12x12 inch exhibtion quality prints. At the same time I can get comparable results from my Nikon d300.

Excellent photos Kenny! Did you use for those scans the wet scanning or not? How long did it take you to achiefe such a good results using V750? Would you share with us some tips? After seeing your photos i am highly considering to by V700 or 750. For scanning so far I was using imacon x5 but it´s expensive to scan everything on it. Thank you! Petr

The Hasselblad 500 is high on my 'next camera' list. But to get a feel for MF I bought a nice Yashica Mat 124 first.

 

Anyway, lots of good stories about the Epsons. As it so happens, I still own the 1200 Perfection Photo. Did my first 35mm transparency scans with it 10 years ago. Probably won't do justice to what my Yashica can do, but at least I can scan my negs.

I think some people make a rod for their own backs by looking for a single solution which they can apply to every shot they take. Meanwhile I don't suppose I'm alone in making any use of less than 10% of what I take and printing probably much less than 1%, and tying my post shooting workflow to the use I'm going to make of a particular image is the name of my game.

 

So, for the stuff I'm going to put to a stock agency, I'll scan it quickly on a flatbed, and make my initial submissions that way. That which gets accepted I'll have re-scanned on an Imacon to the quality my agencies require.

 

For stuff for the web, for CD/DVD, the flatbed scans are fine.

 

For prints other than contacts & proofs. The b&w( real stuff, not C41)gets printed on fibre and toned. Doesn't need a scan. The colour work gets scanned on an Imacon or if the prints are going to be very large or my life depends on it, I might get a drum scan.

 

I don't agree that lab scans are expensive. Frankly given the ease of getting good Imacon scans, cleaned manually in PS for pretty low prices, and the fact that a flatbed scans my b&w prints as well as slides, the only scanner I need to own here is a flatbed. I'm putting my money where my mouth is here, my Coolscan 9000 is on eBay. I'm not kidding myself that I'm going to make anything for people's walls based on a flatbed scan. But it really doesn't cost a fortune if you tie how much you spend on an image to what you're going to do with it.

Great for B&W Fine Art work.

Can't match this look with film IMO