Is a Hassy 500 still relevant today?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by david_waugh|3, Nov 19, 2008.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

    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).
    Click for full size. Images have not been edited.

    I hope this helps.
  4. 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).
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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 :)
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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:

    Hope this helps.
  16. 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?
  17. I have had to shelve the interest, and the lab has lost me as a customer, not that they care.
    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.
    My experience indicates that while there are only a few film labs left, those that remain do excellent work.
    Les (Mamiya 645/Velvia)
  18. 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.

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

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

    daniel taylor
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. david_henderson


    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.
  24. Great for B&W Fine Art work.
  25. Can't match this look with film IMO
  26. Ooops, photo didn't upload
  27. Thank you so much for everyones thoughts and advice - very enlightening! Much appreciated.
  28. Not awake this morning, I mean 'can't match this look with DIGITAL'.
  29. I rent a Nikon 9000 when I need to do a serious (for a client) scan. Night and day compared to a flat-bed. Shoot with a fine-grain chrome and the results are stunning.

    Of course, you can't see it there, but the original was 80mp, if that's your measure of things.
  30. I've been more than happy w/the epson v700 even shooting 35mm film. I use it mostly w/4x5 and have made gorgeous
    20x24 prints that influenced my friends away from drum scanners (of course I'm not saying the v700 is better) and to the
    v700 instead. One friend got a great deal on epson's website for a refurbished one. I also bought an after market piece by
    doug fisher to hold the film flatter and to ensure I stay away from newton rings. I think you're better off w 6x6 film and those
    gorgeous lenses.
  31. I had to laugh. I entered my small town photo club contest this past weekend. One of my entries was an 11X14 Ilfochrome I printed from a Hassy 6X6 chrome. During the subsequent reception I was approached over and over again by club members (all digital folks) who, with wide eyes, just had to know how many megapixels my camera was - and what printer I used - and how do I sharpen my prints...on and on.

    I explained my 'work flow' and watched their faces glaze over then fade to blank perplexed stares.

    So, yes Virginia, the 500 CM is still revelent today, and no, inkjet printers have not yet gotten as deep into the emulsion as a well crafted Ilfochrome.
  32. "...and no, inkjet printers have not yet gotten as deep into the emulsion as a well crafted Ilfochrome."

    Then you must not know how to make very good inkjet prints. Having printed Ilfochrome for over 25 years, and having done it commercially for fine art clients and museums - I can tell you that a well done inkjet print will have more accurate color and a better gamut.

    The only aesthetic for an Ilfochrome is the super high-gloss finish and the sometimes metallic look to the colors. Ilfochrome never makes the color blue accurately and without very careful handling, is prone to color cross-over in both the shadows and highlights.

    I still have a complete color darkroom and roller transport processor - and haven't used them for over 4 years since buying my first large format inkjet printer. Except in certain circumstances, I'll take a finely crafted inkjet print over an Ilfochrome any day.

    The last ones I did were in conjunction with a local lab that had a LightJet printer. They would load the LightJet with Ilfochrome roll material. As at least 85-90% of transparencies require a mask to reproduce the dynamic range on the Ilfochrome material, scanning the film and controlling the contrast in PS was far better. However, the lab quit doing Ilfochromes as getting the bulk chemicals from Ilford was nearly impossible.

    I have no "wide eyes" for Ilfochrome having made probably 10,000 prints on the material, including at least 2,000 16x20's. So while you might dazzle the nimrods at the local photo club who couldn't figure out where to find the switch on a colorhead - I'll work with an inkjet and make far better looking prints.
  33. I would say "relevant" is a big area... and that "the best tool for your job" is probably a better question. I have a hassy setup (500c/m, 80, 150, 50mm lenses, prism, bunch of backs, blah blah blah) that I got on ebay for a song a number of years ago. I love it, I love the square, I love the detail, love it as an object, love the mechanicalness of it.


    I've been considering selling it all to help pay for my upcoming 5dmkII purchase. I probably won't, because it isn't worth that much. But I've been working on several projects that just don't make any sense to shoot on a manual-focus, manual-exposure, 12-shots-then-take-a-break-and-reload, fixed focal length, iso 400 is fast type of camera. I'm getting a focusing screen with a square on it, and I'll be shooting the same stuff with the 5dii. It won't have the resolution, but it will mean I get the shot more often, and it will mean I can do a project that needs high ISOs and simply wouldn't be possible otherwise.

    So, it's certainly relevant, if you mean "can you take an excellent picture with it." If you mean "do most pros use it" then no, but they don't use their mamiyas or rolleis that much anymore either. Hassys take great images, and they're a joy to use. I don't think they're a terribly rational choice for professional editorial, wedding, product, architectural, or fashion photographers. If you're shooting enough that you're a successful professional, then you're probably burning enough film to make the cost of a digital system reasonable. And if you're shooting enough to do that, I would bet that the pain in the ass of scanning it all and fixing the problems of the scan (or paying for it to be done) will make you switch to digi, love the hassy or not. After scanning the good images from the last 60 rolls of film I shot, I was more than willing to trade some resolution for saving 30-45 minutes per scanned/fixed shot.

    imho. like i said, I'm still keeping mine. Unless you want to give me $5k. In which case it's yours. and I'll even throw in the pistol grip and the quick-focus ring. ;)
  34. I still mainly shoot film and MF with mamiya 645 Pro and a Fuji GX680 III which is a monster. In addition I do lots of 35mm Film (Canon FD, EOS and Contax G2). My main issue is with labs - I find that they really can't be bothered with amateur film processing and have yet to find one that does not leave microscopic scratches on the negatives (Slide is fine). Quality wise MF is hard to beat especially B&W and velvia 50 / 100. I have invested in processing at home and can now do colour and B&W. I also bought a Nikon 5000ED (should have bought the 9000 but it is a lot!). The scans i do at home with the 5000 are gerat for Velvia and pretty good with negatives. It takes a while to get the hang of how to get the best results with the scanner and B&W can be very tricky (I still think it looks much better done wet). There is a certain sense of satisfaction to wet darkroom work and the results can be great. Since I did not buy the 9000 (and they have stopped making them) I have to use a pro lab for scans. A good scan is between $35 and $60 in Canada (Nikon to Drum Scanner) so you only end up scanning the very best Velvia images. I tried an Epson 700 but was disappointed. The Fuji GX680 produces superb images but when I scanned on a flatbed I always had worse results than from a Canon FD camera with an L series or near L series lens scanned on the Nikon. You can get reasonable results from a flat bed with lots of patience but they don't look great at 20x30 or similar. Thus I do lots of negative film in MF and put about 20-30 rolls of velvia a year through the Fuji. This results in about 5-10 commercial scans (say about $300). I suggest that if you only plan to shoot negatives go wet (although a good used colour processor is around $1500 these days and trey processing a painful). If you want to use Velvia or similar find a good lab our buy a film scanner (Nikon 8000 / 9000 or drum). I beleive someone posted a 750 vs a Nikon in the scanner section of have a look and you will see what i mean.
  35. If you like large negs with plenty of detail, then the Hasselblad is most relevant. I shoot alot of Leica glass, but when
    I am gaming for high quality & big enlargements then I shoot with the Hasselblad.

    I also have a V750 and it works fine for my needs.

    If you had a sitting with the Queen would you shoot the job with a D3, MKxx, or with a Hasselblad?

    Conversely, if you were shooting fast breaking news or, perhaps, reportage then the D3 or MKxx might be the way to
    go. The answer to the OP question is, yes, the Hasselblad is most relevant even today.
  36. Any camera is only as relevant as you make it.
    I own a hasselblad system that I put together earlier this year. And I own a Nikon 9000 ED scanner that I use to scan all
    my film work with.

    I find it entirely relevant.
  37. Well...every time I personally think about ditching film and shooting digital, I see a film shot that is just stunning in
    tonality - and it keeps me hooked. And you know...most of those times, it was a medium or large format shot that
    does it for me.<BR>
    For what it's worth, I just got a Fuji GA645zi off Ebay after reading this entire post. Will be nice to have some larger
    transparencies to look at on the light box! :)<BR>
    So...relevant? Absolutely! But I would be tempted to go the scanning way, at least to start with. Photo shop is
    easier than a color darkroom and takes up less space. You can always get your scans printed on genuine RA-4
    paper if you prefer that over inkjets.<BR><BR>

  38. After reading everyones posts, I went today to rescan some negs on a Nikon 8000 and the difference was incredible (I'll
    post some pics tomorrow if I can). The lab scans looked 'digital' in some respects - kind of pasty, lacking in tonality and
    smoothness. Side by side it is really noticeable. What I have been thinking was harsh bokeh was in fact the scans. I
    am very happy now and I owe to you guys to make me persevere (I was 'this close' to selling it on evil bay!)

    It's something I've always known but easily forget... using a cheap scanner well will yield better results than an
    expensive scanner poorly. It's still an art, and in many respects, scanning and processing is just as time consuming as
    the dark room.

    Next step will be a V700... and then the 50mm, the 120 Makro, another A12... bankruptcy etc :) Actually if only I could
    find a Bay60 to 67mm filter thread I'd be happy! I'm actually happy using the 80mm as an only lens - kind of a happy
    mix between a 35 and 50mm lens in 'normal' terms.

    Thanks again.
  39. Here's a comparison:
  40. Hassy 500 + Astia 100 + Nikon 9000 (plus some skill, can't buy that) = pictures that beat any digital camera, even the H50.

    But for convenience and speed digital still rules.

    When I shoot weddings I shoot ONE pictures with the blad: the bridal portrait. The rest are all digital.

    But that ONE picture is the one the clients love.
  41. Petr,

    No, the images were scanned dry and on the provided film holders as opposed to the wet scan tray.

    As far as learning the ins and outs of the scanner, as others have mentioned, it's not an exact science. My biggest enemy has always been dust, both on the scanner and on the negative. Making sure the glass on the scanner is always clean is imperative! However, it's dust on the negative itself which is usually the problem. Oddly enough I find it's more of a problem with 35mm than it is with say a 6x6 or a 4x5. If I had an honest answer as to why this is I'd share, but it's secret still eludes me.

    Here's what I mean by dust. To me the tiny flecks stick out like crazy. Murphy's law holding true, they'll always occur on your subjects face whenever they can. This was scanned last evening. Shot with a Nikon F5, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, using Portra 160VC. Again, no editing.

    click for larger

    With any of my negatives what I usually do is first flatten them so they scan as even as possible. This is an issue for me as I have one of the local labs process my C41 and E6. I request that they don't cut my negatives as I would rather do it myself. If you've ever requested a "no cut" before they (the local one here anyway) roll the film up causing it to curl. With the provided film trays, it's a pain in the butt. Of course with black and white this is never an issue as I it process myself.

    I will say that I've never been too crazy about the design of the film holders. There's plenty of room for improvement for the MF holder (hence why I flatten the film first). The 35mm isn't as bad, but could also use improvement I suppose. Something as simple as a couple of pieces of glass to flatten the film would help immensely.

    As far as the actual scan, I do everything in their "Professional Mode" using the scanner's software. The other two modes will often try to automatically correct your scans. If there's post processing that needs to be done, I would rather thumb through the images and do it myself than leave it up to an automated setting. Although I will say that the unsharp mask in the scanning software works damn well in my opinion. Terrific if you have a few rolls of 35mm to scan. Scanning at 1600dpi fits most applications for me. If I go larger than 12"x12" then I'll consider a higher resolution.

    I know the scanner comes with 3rd party software that's supposed to be absolutely terrific, but with my luck it's not working on Windows Vista for me. It also came with a copy of Photoshop Elements 3.0...
  42. Kenny, when you look at a 35mm image and a 120 format image at the same size on your screen, the 35mm is enlarged 2-3 times, and so is the dust on it.

    I never found dust to be a problem: blow off both sides of the negative and the glass with a bulb blower just before you scan, then use the Healing brush (I use Gimp; PS has a similar tool) to remove the stuff that's still there. The blower takes care of most stuff so going over the image with the Healing brush doesn't take me more than a minute. And it gives me the opportunity to look over the scan in detail as I go.
  43. Janne,

    That makes sense. Sometimes the right answer is the obvious one. A good, oh say, 95% of what I shoot in film is done on medium format. As I mentioned I'd get the occasional fleck on a 6x6 or 6x7 but nowhere near as bad as 35mm, hence my curiosity. Yes, there is always the healing brush, however I prefer it more when the negatives are clean to begin with. ;-) I suppose that's the minimalist in me.

    In either case thanks for the info. I'll note it for next time to be more critical when spotting for dust and more liberal with the blower.
  44. The portra is amazing film -- nice job with the 50mm/1.4.
  45. To answer the OP, yes, of course the Hasselblad is still relevant today. For me, a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar, Ilford Delta 100, Fuji's Reala, and an Epson V700 make MF film shooting extremely relevant, relaxing, and fun. Quality results from your Hassey vs DSLRs? You have nothing to worry about. Enjoy.
  46. I am a new 500cm user, and after four rolls, love it. As old-school as you can get without going to a view camera. This is the outfit I dreamt about since shooting the high school yearbook in the early '70s. I was using Kenmore West's (near Buffalo, NY) beat up Canon FT with a crummy zoom, and my own Nikkormat. The Hassy was the camera to have, and all those cool accessories.... Alas, no money. College, marriage, three kids, pointe shoes, their college, mortgage payments - you've all likely been there.

    For about $2,000, I have a late cm body, two backs, 50 and 150 CF lenses, hoods, Wildi's book and a quick release tripod mount. The results have been beyond my expectations. Lots of pop to the 5x5 prints that come from a pro lab. The mirror release/slap/noise is something to get used to. Maybe not a great travel outfit but a must for the Grand Canyon in 2009.

    Relevant? A dinosour by modern standards, but a testament to fine engineering. It forces you to think more about your composition, exposure and the fine tuning a good photograph requires. Old-school may not be for everyone, but is for me.

    Not to hijack the post, but what I want next is to post on and Flickr, and create a web site for the extended family. Lost as to what equipment to buy next, but the above information is helpful. Am I going to have to upgrade to a Mac or the latest Windows nightmare? How much memory, size of hard drive? Photoshop or something else? The cost of all this will decrease, while the quality is sure to increase. But the 500 can still be the basis of a very usable system when coupled to the right scanner and software.
  47. David,
    The Hassy in B&W (which you HAVE to develop yourself) is beyond the reach of any digital camera simply because of the
    tonality. In colour the difference is smaller.
    As to the scanning, the Epson V700, if you equip it with doug fisher's adjustable holders with glass, will help you get a
    decent scan with a real 2200-2400 dpi resolution, but you will not get more than that - so you can still challenge the digital
    files for up to 5000x5000 pixels, however a Nikon with the glass holder is a must if you want to get something close to the
    real quality of your negs.
  48. Yes, Hassy 500 is totally relevant :)
  49. One of the reasons I am shooting more film is FOR its limitations. In particular, heading out with a roll or two of 12 exposures beats the hell out of shooting 500 digital files in a day. And my 6TB full of hard drives are seeing a little less added these least when it comes to personal work. For assignment work, give me digital!
  50. Kenny, thank you very much for such a detailed answer. I read it carefully and I´ll apply this advice. Petr
  51. I moved to MF earlier this year, looking for better IQ and a more reflective, learning approach to my
    photography. My first results were shot with Mamiya 6 using Provia and FP4, on a grey, grey, day, and scanned on
    V750 in standard mount. I was immediately hooked on the sharpness and brilliance of the images compared with my
    5D, which always seems sharp until you look more closely. I have since moved on to 503CW when I want to take
    'serious' photos, same excellent image quality. For walkabouts, the Mam6 or TLR 3.5 are perfect.

    This is just a hobby for me, there are some days when it just feels right with a manual/MF film camera, other
    days when the 5D and digital zooms feel right. But with the V750, now I know I can do both. I used to do my own
    B&W developing/wet printing, and I have now re-acquired developing equipment for B&W.

    BTW, I have now ordered a 9000 ED, which should be even better with MF, and also because I still like using my
    old 35mm gear sometimes, and will be able to scan and digitally print the keepers. So, yes, for me there is still
    life in film and Hassie MF (and other).
  52. Being that I have two bags of them and that's all I ever use, of course they're relevant;) That being said, so is the whole digital thing, I'm actually getting ready to buy my first digital Nikon, just can't decide which one. Because of this terrible economic situation, I'm seriously debating re-entering shooting professionally part-time on top of my other jobs, and I know I need digital to submit my work and to cover some of the local studio sub-work so I'll be considering the opposite end of the spectrum. Camera and scanner etc. which is all totally foreign to me. Great thread good info on this one.

Share This Page