adrian_tyler

anybody out there know of s reliable sorce for astia in 220 format in

europe?

 

thanks

thanks for all the support, this is (unfortunatly) is my most used

camera, i bought in second hand so yes there may be rogue

lubricants, but having said thatt he first time i had it was cleaned

out (i was getting diaphragm "ghosts" on my negs) it was by

hasselblad "official" distributor in spain who cleaned off a kind of

white powder and as i said did not have a clue as to what it was

or how it got there...

 

as i am so dependent on this machine i'm going to consider a

trade up to a 903, giving it back to the dealer who sold me it,

seems like a real fix is going to be costly and i don't really trust

the people here.

 

thanks again, good luck dan, what format are you using the

copal mounted biogon on?

thanks again, it's really frustrating, the service people here do not

have my complete confidence, they really do not know, and the

fact that it is back afer a couple of years means that the problem

was not resolved.

 

it looks more like haze than fungus. i have written to hasselblad

directly and we'll see if they offer any advice. it becomes

noticable in big prints or 300 mb drum scans, where instead of

smooth grain, you get messy clumps.

 

if you want me to pass you an example i can be contacted via the

site:

 

adriantyler.net

 

many thanks

thanks for the ideas, i live in madrid with pretty low humidity,

infact it is dry as a bone. the problen is that the official

hasselblad technicians here who cleaned it off the first time had

no idea what it was...

i noticed a couple of years ago some dirt/fogginess on the

INSIDE of my swc/m lens. i had it cleaned out and the tecnicians

had no idea how it got there. now it's back, and it is impairing

negatives (agian), large scans/prints show this to affect

dramaticaly picture quality. surely this can't be normal? surely it

has a ong term fix?

yes it may be, but i was also wondering if strong side light could

compound the problem as often it is more pronounced on one

side... and as i said i have been working in strong sunlight with

no shade.

it is falling off on the sides, i can see it on the prints and i have to

burn them in a lot.

anyone experiencing light falloff with hasselblad lenses?

 

i work in stong sunlight, no shade, and usually work f11-f16, i?m getting falloff on

the edges of the negs, cf60 and c80 lenses, a12 and a24 back (yes both).

 

any ideas?

 

thanks

thanks vijay

 

i use the swc and find the 80 and 150 ok too, i was hoping that as the tlr has no

mirror that the thing may be distortion free, on 4 by 5 all my super angulons are

free of barrel distortion. for this alone i would have considered this a useful

camera for me but it looks like it is on par with the hasselblad 50 and 60, which i

cannot unfotunatly use for architecture.

 

adrian

vijay

 

i've compared the page for the rollei to that of the distagon 60:

 

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/DistagonT3560CFi_

engl/$File/Distagon_3_50_60CFi_engl.pdf

 

it looks like they are about the same, but i don't have a clue how to look at these

charts, what do you think?

thanks for all the help, i photograph architecture a lot so the barrel distortion

make the hasselblad 50 & 60 unusable for me in architectural situations and i

wanted to see if this lens does any better.

does anyone know if the schneider Super-Angulon 1:4 50mm HFT in the rolleiflex

fw produces any barrel distortion?

 

thanks

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004nuR

unfortunatly the hot shoe bubble level solution is unviable unless you have the

thing on a tripod. that is to say you need to be able to see the level and into the

viewfinder at the same time.

i'm interested in using the gw690 (90mm) hand held and would like to find a

usable solution to keeping the thing level both with horizontal and vertical shots.

 

are there any good accurate solutions out there? i use the swc/m too and that

has a great little built in level/viewfinder, well i find it easy to use anyway.

 

thanks

 

adriantyler.net

i got rid of the gx and use hasselblad for all the fexibility the system offers. the gx

has a great lens though it isn't nearly as well made as the older rolleis, it's like a

cheapend down version, go for a rollei 2.8 c or f or hasselblad and forget the gx.

 

most of what needs to be said is here in the archives, take a look.

yo instale un "maxwell screen" que venia con instrucciones, bastante facil para un

manitas. yo encanta me 2.8c, pero lo tenia que llevar a jose luis mur (fotocasion)

para una ajuste, tenlo en cuenta con el presupuesto. hay un 2.8f como nuevo en

daylight lab (c/prudencio alvaro), pero otra vez digo que si no lo compras de una

tienda especializada probobilidades que lo tendras que dar un CLA.

 

adrian

after spending 5K on a leica, need some reassurance that the photos are not total rubbish?

well architecture photography really needs a camera with movements.

 

however if you have a style that your clients like and use the swc then great, its a lot less hasstle then setting up a plate camera.

 

here are some houses done with the swc:

 

http://www.adriantyler.net/page1.htm

 

adrain

same set up as the swc but with a 60mm biogon in stead of the 38mm, with all the barrel distortion corrected.

here ia an example of editing: 3 years of leica work in madrid, down to about 20 pics, very painful, but coherent and got published in an article in "baseline magazine" entitled "invisible cities".

 

http://www.adriantyler.net/CityPages/Gallery8.htm

 

if you don't do your own lab work i have a good contact for a guy here who does excellent revelado y copias and is a vitriolic critic, and will teach you, also juan manuel castro prieto does a good weekend lab course and encorages portfolio viewing (organised by efti), well worth the time.

 

but agin it all depends on what you want to get out of your work, repetition, nice photos, or personal expresion, or whatever...

editing is something personal and very subjective. i think it is much more important than the actual act of taking pictures. but that depends what you want out of your photography. find a couple of loacal photographers whos work you admire and get them to crit, it hurts but it's good for you.

in many cases better.

yes brian you are right, and i like film too, but those backs and those ink jet printers are incredible. in the graphic arts where i work the ink jets have replaced most of the traditional proofing methods, the photographs they are reproducing are exceptional, just like the real thing.

minilux