ND Filters and V System Hasselblad Cameras

[steve_turner7]

<p>Having recently acquired a 501cm Hasselblad I have been trying out various lenses to see which one I will find most useful when it comes to landscape photography. Having looked at my recent prints (Provia 100) I have been a little disappointed with the results and was wondering whether or not I should invest in a ND Filter to cut down the light coming into the camera. If so which Filter would you recommend and why?<br /> <br /> When I handed in my film to be processed I was asked if I wanted it processed at 50 and declined because of the range of subject matter and lighting conditions the film was exposed in. Most of the coastal photos that I took were metered at EV14 and I used a 40mm Distagon CFE IF lens.<br /> <br /> Thank you in advance for your time and patience.<br /> <br /> Steve</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The "right lens" for landscapes depends entirely on the subject and your interpretation of that subject. Other than field of view, there are only minor differences in color and rendering between Hasselblad lenses. The widest rectilinear lens for a 501CM is the 40 mm. The IF version is optimized for digital, and supposedly less sharp in the corners than the non-IF version. My personal taste for medium format landscapes centers on a "normal" focal length like 80 or 100. I'm more likely to go wider than longer, but find a 180 very nice for closeups in nature (with extension tubes).</p>

<p>Provia is a very nice reversal film for portraits, perhaps a bit on the flat side for landscapes. If your objective is printing, negative film offers more flexibility, dynamic range, and generally better results, IMO.</p>

<p>You would use an ND filter mainly to allow longer shutter speeds, for example, flowing water, or to reduce the depth of field. A graduated ND filter is perhaps what you have in mind, to darken the sky with respect to the earth. If you print from scans, that's probably easier to do in Photoshop (e.g., split-tone processing or even bracketed HDR). Negative film gives you that kind of dynamic range. If you don't need to use a filter, why put another piece of glass between your lens and the world?</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>I'm with Edward on his points, the only difference being that I prefer Ektar 100 for landscapes. That said, the camera and lens combination should be able to handle full daylight exposures on ISO 100 film with no problem IF the exposure controls are working properly. I would exercise the full range of apertures while watching the opening to see that it closes down properly; and then the shutter with the lens wide open. This will be a bit subjective but it has identified a problem for me in the past. Then think about using Hasselblad's relatively inexpensive "Check to Spec" service since this appears to be used equipment.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>A couple of points. <br>

First, without understanding the nature of your dissatisfaction, how can anyone know that the problem isn't in scanning or printing? You say you're dissatisfied with the prints. Are you equally dissatisfied with the slides- do you have the facility to view the slides properly? </p>

<p>Second, I'm as puzzled as the others about why you think there's an advantage in cutting down the light coming into the camera. Sure, if you want to create a different effect on streams, the sea, waterfalls etc there's a point, but as someone who spent more than a decade with MF cameras and slide film, I can remember many more times when I'd have liked a bit more light/speed than less. </p>

<p>A ND grad , as indicated above , is a different beast altogether and frankly if you're going to continue with slide film then I would, without any doubt, expect that your results can be improved by the use of grads, rather than assuming that you can create the same effect in post production. Slide film has a very low dynamic range and its very common to be completely unable to expose the "land" properly without fatally overexposing the sky. In fact, despite that I switched to dslrs years ago, with a much higher dynamic range, I still use a range of grads as an essential part of my kit.</p>

<p>But there is a problem , which is that there are different types of grad; hard edge, soft edge, reverse, and different strengths, and there are different brands. You'd probably find that a set of grads to cover most eventualities and the rings and holder you need to use them might well cost not far off what you paid for your camera. Its not just a question of buying a single filter.</p>

<p>If you want more detail there's a lot on "ND Grads" on this site , or you can do a little research, narrow down the options a bit and ask another question along the lines of "what sort of grad(s) should I buy- giving us a bit more info about the types of photograph you want to take and in what environments. </p>

[steve_turner7]

<p>Thank you very much for your time and advice Edward, Curt and David. It is much appreciated. <br>

I was not aware of the Check to Spec service which I will investigate further along with trying Ektar 100 in future. I only chose Provia on the recommendations of a photographer I know who uses a Bronica and has been doing so for a number of years. His subject matter happens to be racing cars and formula 1 which is a little removed from landscape photography which is what I am interested in!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Provia is just fine for landscapes. It is not as bright and colourful as say Velvia, but its more realistic and easier to work with, within the confines of the fact that no slide film is really easy to work with. . </p>

<p>The real issue you face is whether to use slide film or negative film. Each have their own adherents , advantages and disadvantages. Slide film offers instant gratification, makes it easy to select which frames you might want to print , and looks great when viewed correctly on a projector, or a lightbox . Holding the slide up to a window doesn't really count. So you get to focus all your efforts on scanning, post production, printing on those frames that look good.</p>

<p>On the other hand its restricted dynamic range makes exposure critical and sometimes very difficult- hence the discussion about ND grads. And you have to scan before you print because there's not really any means to print direct from a slide any more. Manipulating colours, exposures on a scanned slide is much more difficult than on a scanned neg or digital original- and if I'm having trouble in getting a scanned image to look just right on my screen then I can bet its a photograph that started life as a slide. </p>

<p>Meanwhile negs give you a nice orange strip to look at and you really need to get a contact strip at worst or a set of prints, or a scan, with your processing to begin the understand just what your exposures actually look like and choose which you might want to make a print to hang or put online. The really good thing about colour negs though is that the dynamic range is much wider; so the neg often contains much more real shadow and highlight information for contrasty scenes than does a slide. Scans are easier to manipulate colour and exposure wise, and you might get away without grad NDs or at least with fewer of them because there's more chance of rendering both highlight and shadow correctly in a single exposure. And poor exposures are easier to rescue than with slides, where frankly the only place for a badly exposed slide is the bin. </p>

<p>Personally I used slide film for all the time I used MF cameras except of course for b&w. Its what landscape photographers did in those days and the established "heroes" did mostly used high contrast, highly saturated slide films. And then added a polarising filter to try and get the saturation up a bit more! People like me learned ( sometimes painfully) how to expose colour slide film and used sophisticated spot-meters etc to assess exposure carefully and sometimes slowly. If I had the opportunity to start over, I'm not at all sure I'd make the same decision again. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I too do not understand why an ND filter would help. Did you get the exposures wrong? Way overexposed or something? Or are you thinking you want to increase the background blurring, or smooth out ocean waves etc? Provia is a fine film for landscapes - highish saturation and lowish contrast. Rather good for making prints in fact. As stated above, though, negative film is easier to handle and expose if your ultimate aim is prints (who projects slides today?). Interesting question from your processor about whether you wanted it pulled to 50 as, in my experience, pulling slide film is unusual. Exposing Provia at 50 ISO with normal development I can just about understand. It would help a lot to know what exactly it was you did not like about your results.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>You need a ND grad, not ND. Can just handhold it, makes a huge difference with landscape photos.<br>

I just picked up a mint 503CW Millennium w/80mm and am planning to use my Lee filter system with it.</p>

[steve_turner7]

<p>Thanks for all the advice. Perhaps my expectations were too high. Looking at the prints again I think my dissatisfaction could be that the composition lacks sparkle and does not on reflection seem to be an accurate record of my memory of what I saw. Perhaps I should have got a 50mm lens instead. I am looking at getting a Sekonic L758 spot meter to help improve my metering and to ensure correct exposure more regularly. A Polariser would help with water and having watched Joe Cornish demonstrate the use of the Lee Filter system I thought It might help me improve on the quality of my slides. Very jealous of you Ian and your 503cw!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm unsure about whether you have the right answer or not. You can use the best exposure meter on the planet, but if the scene's dynamic range exceeds about 6 stops the Provia film can't cope with it- you're either going to blow out highlights or block up the detail in the shadows, or maybe both. In no way am I attempting to dissuade you from spot-metering- its important to be able to decide how much exposure to give highlights and shadows with slide film. It's just not a panacea if your scene's contrast is higher than the film can handle. A ND grad or two -whether Lee or otherwise- will be a great help if using slide film to make landscapes- and will make using your spot-meter more productive. </p>

[steve_turner7]

<p>Cheers David for your advice it is much appreciated.</p>