Is Hasselblad FlexBody good enough for product shots to replace 4x5 view cameras?

[ken_lo]

I have been an avid photographer but never dedicated enough to have

considered either medium or large format in the past.

 

Recently I have been approached by our boss to setup our own studio

within our company to shoot our own products which are primarily

toys. Technically I believe I would be good enough to handle the

job, given some time playing around with the equipment. A very good

friend who has been a professional photographer for over 20 years has

also offered to help me in case I run into problems or questions.

 

When I flipped through our past records I notice most product shots

were taken in 4x5's, and the rest from 120's. From my discussion

with our graphics guy I learned that medium format would not be able

to supply the depth of field we would need for our large toy

products. Furthermore, he said that he needed great details for

packaging use where products are usually blown up pretty big.

 

As I am now evaluating the kind of equipment we would need, I have

come across the Hasselblad FlexBody which was claimed to have a

tiltable back, which theoretically should help increase the depth of

field. Since I have had almost zero experience with either formats

before, my question is whether the FlexBody can give me the kind of

product shots our graphics designer needs: sufficient depth of field

and adequate resolution for packaging use (these are reasonably big

products fitted in large boxes measuring up to 30" on one side). And

if so, we can really save buying the 4x5 view camera and more

importantly, shooting medium format is much simpler too.

 

Thanks for your time and I look forward to learning from you all.

 

Regards,

Ken

[peter_witkop]

I'm not familier with the Hasslblad, but you say it has rear tilt, depth of field is primarily controld with lens board tilt, rear is used to correct perspective. You said that you've never worked with MF, or LF, just that alone gives you a very steep learning curve. If you haven't got a good background in lighting, the learning curve will approach vertical, quickly. Since you're talking about product photography color correction and balance becomes very important as well. There's a very good reason good product photographers get paid well, thier job takes signifigant training, and very considerable experience to do well. If you're going to go ahead and do the job, I'd suggest investing the money and time into a view camera, it's really the right tool for the job. It will allow you to manipulate the plane of focus as much as needed, and keep correct perspective, and allow you (providing you get an appropriate lens) much more movement than a PC lens or I believe the FlexBody. And before you assume that the hassy will be cheaper make sure you check your prices. My cambo with a good nikor lens, film holders, etc, etc. was only around $1200, with the camera and lens used, everything else new.

[ken_lo]

Peter,

 

Thanks for your inputs. I understand the learning curve would be steep, but as I said, my friend who has been shooting product shots for us part-time, will be helping me out at the beginning. He has been a wedding photographer for over 20 years and truly the best in town. We have had several discussions on this and he has taught me quite a bit on color balance and lighting requirements.

 

The reason why I consider bypassing LF is because we would need MF for other purposes as well. If I had to purchase the LF in addition to the MF setup, we would have to invest in extra lenses as well as bodies, and everything else. That's why I would prefer to stick with my system, if at all possible. Thanks.

[michael_briggs2]

I would guess that the product shots on packages aren't printed with the resolution of fine prints made with an enlarger. If so, medium format should have plenty of resolution.

 

The real issue is controlling the position of the plane of focus. In the photography of table-top and smaller size 3D objects, depth of focus can be very narrow. Using a lens tilt can change the position of the plane of focus to emphasize what you want to be in focus. While there are medium format cameras with this capability, the difficulty is judging the image on the smaller ground glass. This is doubly true for a beginner. For the best results I too recommend a 4x5 camera.

 

The fact that many pros are no longer using 4x5 shows that it isn't essential to good results. The simplest technique would be to use a smaller format and stop way down to increase the depth of field -- much quicker, but sometimes the photos will be of lower quality than what could be done with 4x5 camera.

 

Used monorail 4x5 cameras can be found at very reasonable prices because many pros are abandoning them and most amateurs prefer more portable field cameras. Portability is unimportant for your application. Many pros are switching to digital capture, but this probably won't be cost-effective for you unless you do a lot of photos per year. Used LF lenses are readily available. Even new LF lenses tend to be competitively priced compared to MF lenses, perhaps because LF photographers aren't locked into lenses from the manufacturer of their camera.

 

Perhaps you should rent a MF and a LF camera and evaluate the photos that you make with them.

 

You might want to browse some of the past threads on the photo.net LF forum.

[tor_kviljo1]

Hello Ken

You might find the flex-body to be to tiny & cumbersome with a to little viewfinder to be able to compose carefully. I have regarded the flex-body as a cute little device that the hassy user bring along on location to have some control of perspective with the freedom to use glass & magasines allready in posession. I would never reccommend any one buying it separately as a mini LF as there is very much better stuff out there (not to mention the cost of a flex-body + hassy lenses + hassy backs + hassy viewfinder = easily approx $$ 3000-5000) - also in MF's with LF features. The best one in terms of total perspective control & work comfort probably being the Rollei X-Act 1 or 2 with electrical film-transport & shutter operation (+ being prepared for digi-backs) as well as much more movements than the Flex-body and controls big enough to use... However, from Your description, the best camera might be the Fuji GX 680 SLR with LF front movements, built in light meter + all electric operation & a big & nice viewfinder + 6x8cm film format in rotatable back + ready for digi-backs + very solid & perfect in the studio.... I had a GX-680 for a time and liked it alot, but finally found my way back to 4"x5" when it came to camera with movements. Not being a 4"x5" user, I would not advice You to jump into that one just for studio-product shots as You describes it, rather go the much more comfortable & less-to-go-wrong route of the GX-680 or max perfection of the X-Act 1. The Fuji's have been along quite some time now: can be bought reasonable at KEH in atlanta and other places. In case You get one of these: remember to put your hands on the AA battery holder so that your rechargables (which were standard for the older cameras) don't halt you. If You have the possibility to try a LF camera and find You like working with it - then the hunting grounds are big. The ultimate studio-camera - which can be found reasonable (P & X versjon mostly) these days & is very easy to work with + the largest system in the world is the Sinar P/P2/P3. I have a P-P2 combo: the moste precice piece of equipment around & veeeery much at home in the studio!

[Jochen_S]

1st: Hasselblad is damned expensive ( but maybe worth it's money) in general. For me the only acceptable reason to use a flexbody is needing or better having a big hasselblad system for something else than still life. The thing is a cripple like or worse than a Linhof Technika in studio work. Surely it is better than a solution which allows no tilt at all, but it will cost your boss maore of your expensive time than a monorail with full movements. Hasselblad lenses have to narrow image circles for serious studio work. If your boss is rich (my wasn't) get hold of a modern monorail system like Arca Swiss monolith M.

I don't know the exact borders of MF ask your pre-press folks what they need exactly and how large will the images be offsetprinted?

You can always shoot 120 film with a 4x5" monorail. Getting into studio work by accident a digital solution is nice and dramatically increases learning speed. (My own experience!) The stuff can provide usable quality with MF/LF monorails.

Please tell us demanded print size and budget. Look at the LF forum for more 4x5 vs flexbody discussions. Ask folks there, they are nice & experienced. I did my work with a lousy coolpix and haven't really tried my LF gear yet.

[desmond_kidman]

Hi,

 

You mention large toys. If they are large, chances are you need a reasonable amount of tilt to manipulate the plane of focus like I do with our large audio products. Forget the flexbody. This is a waste, the amount of control is nearly useless and the lenses have too small an image circle anyway, even if there was more flexibility. I never see this camera used for product shots.

 

You really need a monorail view camera if you want to significantly enhance your depth of field capabilities and correct perspective. If you desire the ease of medium format, and you don't need big neg size, size, you can get some of it by obtaining a roll film back and shooting 120 film. You can pick up a really good used 4 x 5 setup with a roll film back and lenses cheaper than you could get a flexbody with similar lens assortment. You would be able to experiment for yourself with MF and 4 x 5 film size to answer your own question about which gives you the quality you need. You can't get that from other folks on any forum.......some will swear you can get "tack sharp" (love that one) 40 x 50 enlargements with 35mm and others will argue that even at 8 x 10 enlargement size they can't live with a neg smaller than 4 x 5. Don't listen to me or anyone else about that, you need to see for yourself.

[scott_walton2]

Ken, Being a product shooter I have to agree with what's been said here. The

flex body is to correct for distortion (straighten lines, buildings, boxes, trees,

ect.) when using a wide angle lens. You have seen the pictures when

someone takes a picture of a building and it bends because of the wide angle

lens... By tilting the back and making it parallel to the building, you are

correcting for the converging lines. You would be better off getting a 4x5

monorail (there are many on the market that aren't expensive like Cambos)

and a 6x7 roll film holder for when you need to use roll film. A 150mm-210mm

lens is a "nornal" perspective as far as shooting goes. For the DOF, your

going to need a powerful strobe system, no less than 1000w/s (2000-2400w/s

would be preferrable!) , a large softbox at least, reflectors (foamcore works

well to start) background material (roll paper, muslin, plexiglas ect to convey

whatever look your company wants), lightstands, a reliable strobe meter, and

a boom to put the softbox over head to name a few things. The more powerful

the lightening system, the more DOF you will be able to muster and shooting

products at f45 isn't abnormal at all. Sometimes, because of bellows factor, I

have to multi pop the strobes to get the f stop I need so, which in effect, 2 pops

will raise my f stop by a factor of 1... Not to scare you, not only are you jumping

into a fire pit but the walls are REALLY high getting out!!! Your learning curve

is not only with the 4x5 camera but with strobes AND the use of backgrounds

effectively as well. Your boss maybe doesn't know what all is involved here

and it may become detrimental to your job if you don't produce right out of the

starting gate! That is the reason why I answered your post here today

because it raised my eyebrow when you said..."Technically I believe I would

be good enough to handle the job, given some time playing around with the

equipment" You may not have time to...play with the equipment! I just wanted

you to be sure that you know what your getting into. There is a reason why

most of us product shooters are getting day rates of $2500-$4000 dollars

aday and that's only for shooting a job! We have to have vision, extrapolate

what the client needs/wants (there is a big difference between the two), know

what to put into a shot and how to carry it off effectively without over

shadowing the product and make sure the film is perfect!... As stated, the front

axis is what is used for DOF (and sometimes it can get challenging to say the

least but for me, that is the fun in all of it...) and the back is used for correcting

distortions. With a monorail camera, you have almost infinite corrections as far

as swings and tilts go and then there is the lighting aspect of product

shooting. Your boss may have an idea of what he/she wants and by you

looking at the 4x5's from the past, it should help but you will have to know how

to execute this consistently. I'm not saying all this to scare you but to shed

some more light on the subject and to make sure YOU know what is

involved... Shooting medium format may be simpler but if your going to a trade

show needing images for displays (read large and flashy), the perspectives

need to be correct, you need a large negative/chrome for enlargment and on

and on and on...

[ellis_vener_photography]

First some primary stuff:<P>

1.) The depth of field for a specific focal length lens at any given aperture remains the

same. Tilting or swinging does not change that depth of field.<P>

2.) With cameras that don't have swing or tilt the subject plane (plane of focus), the

lens plane and the film plane are locked into a definite relationship where these three

planes are parallel to each other, swings and tilts allows you to change that

relationship so you can pick your plane of focus. Stopping down extends the area of

focus around that plane. <P>

3.) Tilting and / or Swinging the front (lens) standard changes your distribution of

focus and nothing more. <P>

4.) Tilting and / or Swinging the rear (film) standard changes your distribution of

focus and also lets you control the perspective rendition of the object on film.<P>

5.) combining front and rear tilt & swing gives you the controls you are looking for.

<P>

To answer your question directly: the Flexbody really is not designed to do serious

product photography. It simply doesn't have the range of controls that a full monorail

view camera does. It also has limited bellows movement and requires a set of

expensive dedicated lenses or a tele-converter on a limited range of standard

Hasselblad CF lenses. These are much more expensive & limited options than are

available for any view camera. There are medium format monorail cameras that you

should consider if you do not want to shoot 4x5. these are the Arca-Swiss metric 69

FC or the Linhof TK69s. The other option is to get true 4x5 monorail view camera

and use it with either a rollfilm holder or a 4x5 back. My recommendation to you for

the kind of work you are going to be doing is the Sinar P2 4x5 or possibly the

Cambo Ultima 4x5. <P> In conclusion I think going with the Flexbody will not save

you money or meet your production departments requirements needs. You can try it

but you will always be a disadvantage and you will definitely be swimming upstream,

if for no other reason (and this a very good and real reason) if the photos are not up

to par, you will always be blamed and your work with it will be viewed with suspicion.

Another reason from your point of view is that I do not find the tiny ground-glass on

the flexbody easy to work with, especially once you start using tilts, swings and

shifts. Nothing is worse than thinking what you see on a dim ground-glass is in focus

and getting the film back to find that it is slightly out of focus.<P> To simply working

with a 4x5 I recommend that you :<P>A.) Shoot Fuji Quickloads. These are pre-

loaded film holders. They are more expensive but you will save a great deal of time

and eliminate dust problems.<P>B.) practice. Sinar has a manual that contain

exercises to help you reasonably quickly develop your view camera skills using

Polaroid as teaching & proofing medium. I found this to be very useful when I started

using the view camera. The view camera is a very simple machine capable of doing

some very complex things. But if you start out slowly and work with a good camera

that lets you concentrate on your subject you will find that working with one is very

straight forward without having to make compromises. There is a basic rule to follow

when using a view camera: never correct your corrections. If you find yourself doing

this it is better and faster to re-zero all the movements and start all over again.

Please contact me off list if you need more help.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Am I the only responder on this thread who owns and has actually used a Flexbody � for serious commercial work?

 

Much of what has been said is correct, but some also is wrong.

Being a wedding photographer for over 20 years �and truly the best in town� is not much of a qualification for the job in hand.

 

Ken:

 

You say that you would to �stick with my system�, implying that you already have some Hasselblad equipment, even though you have never been dedicated enough to have considered either medium or large format.

 

I have never previously known Ellis to be wrong, but it is the Hasselblad Arcbody that requires special lenses.

 

If you already have some Hasselblad lenses (especially the Macro-planar 120) the Flexbody is a very much more cost effective option, even if far from ideal: the standard MF lenses do not have much spare coverage for shift (14mm on the 100mm and 120mm, 15 on the 150mm, all at f16 and 55 x 55 mm image size).

 

Shift is, of course more important for architecture (and pack shots) than most product shots.

 

Medium format should have plenty of resolution if you do not have to print larger than A3.

 

You get more depth of field with MF than LF.

 

>Many pros are switching to digital capture, but this probably won't >be cost-effective for you unless you do a lot of photos per year.

 

See ProDig � the cost of a decent full-blown upgrade to digital studio (assuming you already have the studio, light etc) is £25k to £35k. I am still about to buy a Sinar P3/Zeiss eyelike 11/42 Mpixel DigiBack and Schneider Digitar lenses. A further advantage of digital is the increased depth of field that comes with the smaller format. Some firms even manage with an SLR and the Nikon 85mm shift/tilt lens � ask Robert White.

 

LF costs about £5 per sheet � so you can calculate the saving in film cost� but the big benefit for you is the short learning curve, and the ability to go home knowing you have got it right.

 

The catalogue work I did with my Flexbody (with my Sinar p in its bag) were antique silver platters, so there was no need for complicated movements, and the other bits I did with my 555 ELD� but the requirement was 10 x 8 prints.

 

If you do have to keep perspective square, set the back vertical when you have more or less framed the shot. Movements move the lens relative to the film or vice-versa � it only depends to which bit you attach the tripod!

 

If you do not have a full-blown monorail system, you will be limited in the type of shot you can take � but even if you do, you only have one plan of sharpest focus per exposure� but you can cheat electronically.

 

If you get to the right side of the Atlantic (I believe you are on

the left side of the Pacific) come and asses the kit.

Dick

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

A Sinar monorail is very much quicker to set up than a Flexbody.

[richardcook]

Successful product photography, especially table-top shots used for marketing (e.g. packaging, large adverts, magazine placement), depends more on the professional expertise of the photographer than on the mechanism of image capture. Especially for esoterica like food shots, the camera and format are almost a secondary issue. Lighting, composition, and styling are incredibly important and this is why the folks who do this for a living charge so much. There is, as others have pointed out, some risk here. People generaly do not become successful table-top photographers by buying a monorail and some film and "playing around". Rather than being something one stumbles on, product photography is a specialized area that is at the high end of photo expertise. In general, learning how to do this sort of work is accomplished by combining at least some years of formal training with long periods of apprenticeship in already-successful work settings.

 

You may want to analyze the reasons your company is interested in taking this work in-house. Unless your production volume is quite high, it is unlikely that there will be any cost saving in setting up your own studio. Depending on what sort of quality the marketing people require, you may well find yourself unable to produce what they demand irrespective of what sort of equipment you buy. If people are really serious about this, you should be able to get the management to agree to let you spend a couple of weeks working as a gopher for a commercial table-top photography house in order to figure out whether the in-house approach is at all feasible. The paradox is that commercial table-top photography exists because so few organizations can afford to do it themselves. If the volume of work for your company is low, there may not be sufficient return to justify the investment in equipment, space, and, most importantly, the time it takes for you to acquire professional expertise. If, on the other hand, the volume is very high, management would be well advised to hire a professional table-top photographer and have him or her run the show.

 

None of this is important, of course, if only mediocre quality is needed in the final product. If you are doing mainly internet marketing without glossy magazine placements or packaging designed for marrketing (e.g. boxes on shelves), the poor rendition of the medium may make all this moot. But in that case, there is no need for either LF or MF; your ordinary 35mm or even a pro-sumer digital will provide everything you need.

[f._william_baker]

Simple Answer: No

[charles barcellona www.bl]

You CAN do it. But why?

 

1. Its a royal pain in the butt to use.

 

2. It lacks the fullest movements.

 

3. Its cost... you can get a cheapie 4x5 (like a Cambo 45CN) AND a 210 lens, AND probably two more lenses used, in perfect shape for what a new flexbody would cost.

 

4. No replacement for displacement - the 4x5 is gonna trump the smaller (smaller even than 2-1/4 square with the Flexbody) negative size.

 

5. The 4x5 Readyload packs are not bad to use at all.

[peter_witkop]

Ken-

 

Please don't take my previous advice as discouragement. I've heard of quit often, and not just in photography, in working as a programer very often also, of employees with some knowlege asked to do work in house to save money that they aren't really prepared for. And nobody has a good time, least said employee as they get the late nights, stress, etc.

 

I'd also encourage you to invest in the view camera particularly if you're going to be playing with the plane of focus, as not only do you have movements to spare, you're looking at a 4x5 inch ground glass, which is much easier to see sharp focus, and make asjustments on than a 2 1/4 inch focusing screen. For really critical focus in studio, I ussually take the finder off, and focus with a loupe on the focusing screen.

 

Peter

[ken_lo]

Thank you everybody for your valuable feedbacks. I understand the benefits of a view camera and was prepared to invest into it, but was only attracted by the FlexBody's description on Hasselblad's website. With all your comments, without a doubt it will be a view camera that we will be acquiring for the product shots.

 

I realize there will be a lot of hurdles to overcome with the steep learning curve at the beginning, but I will remain patient and learn through assisting other photographers in the meantime. Note that our office will move at the end of the year, and our studio will only be setup then. It's not a lot of time, but with the right mentors, hopefully I can learn quite a bit in the next three months. Thanks again and I really appreciate all your inputs.

 

Regards,

Ken