cg

I would turn off the flourescent lights. Get MR-16 Solux halogen lights. These bulbs are around 4700K and are closer to D50 than flourescent tubes. Less metamerism because they are closer to full spectrum. We use two bulbs on a track lighting mount and they work well for colour matching. Make sure that any light source does not spill or create glare on you monitor. Besides the monitor I would not have any other light source within your field of vision when your colour correcting. Keep the room almost completely dark and paint your walls neutral gray.

I've done quite a bit of scanning and you will be dissappointed with any flatbed scanner if you are used to looking at pin sharp images through a high quality loupe. Flatbed scanners simply do not resolve enough details and they do not hold the film flat enough or precisely enough. The sharpest scans come from a drum scanner, Imacon and dedicated film scanners like the Nikon 8000. However, the 2450 does a very good job with film for the price and is useable for web based images and small prints depending on your quality requirements. You can also experiment with the way you place the film on the 2450 glass. I found that you have to experiment with shims to get optimal sharpness.

Diego the Hasselblad 40711 B50-B60 adapter allows you to mount B60 filters and B60 lens shades because it also has an outer bayonet mount. This is one of the reasons why it cost about $100-150 USD.

I have used the Mamiya 645 Pro TL with all the lenses you mentioned about 6-7 years ago. I recall that the results were fine. I was doing mostly portraits and the occasional product shots. The lenses I had were sharp and contrasty but they were not as good as Hasselblad lenses. The newer Mamiya 645 lenses are probably better. I now use Hasselblad 501CM and lenses including an older 120mm T* S-planar. This lens is very sharp and contrasty but you must always take care not to have any light spilling on the front elements. I always use a Proshade and the results are outstanding. I actually find the Hasselblad easier to use than the Mamiya. I found the various modes and automation on the Mamiya distracting and sometimes confusing. I would try to rent the Mamiya or Bronica ETR system before switching to see if it suits your quality and handling requirements. Good Luck.

B60 filters are expensive and there is limited selection. You can get a B60-67mm adapter from Hasselblad or other Japanese manufacturers such as Marumi. The Hasselblad adapters are nicer but cost a lot more. You can save a lot of money with B+W, Heliopan and Hoya 67mm filters. Compare the price of a B60 Polarizer and a 67mm Polarizer and you will be amazed. I guess the B60 mount is more difficult and more expensive to produce than the 67mm thread mount. The B60-67mm setup works well even with my Distagon 50mm CF FLE lens. There is only a very small amount of vignetting at the corners. There is no vignetting with longer lenses.

I just tried my B60 lens shade on the B50-B60 adapter and it works fine. Good luck finding the adapter.

Yes, you can get a B50-B60 step-up ring. The product code is 40711. It's not cheap but I see them on ebay once in a while. The ring is well made and works very well. I use it with B60 filters and the Proshade. I don't see why it would not work equally well with B60 lens shades.

I met Phil Borges about 3 years ago at one of his gallery opening reception. He mentioned that he selectively sepia toned areas of his prints by using masking materials. You can use liquid mask and self-adhesive masking sheets sold by graphic arts supply stores. Paint out or mask the areas you don't want toned, let it dry, sepia tone it and you'll get the same effect.

Thanks Al but I knew that Hasselblad shortcoming already. I just wanted to be sure that using the Chimney hood I will see the entire focusing screen. Maybe I should switch to the Rollei 6000 system but then again I love the simplicity of Hasselblad.

Which finders do you have? I have used the old Hasselblad Cds 45 degree meter prism and the PM5 both do not show the entire focus screen. What I meant was according to Wildi the focus screen corresponds to only 91% of the image recorded on the film and the PM5 45 degree prism shows only 88% of the image recorded on film. Apparently this was done intentionally to approximate what is cropped when the image is mounted as slides or how an enlarger film holder would crop. It also saves in size and weight because the camera and viewing system would have to be bigger in order to show 100% of the image recorded on film. With the type of work I do now, I want to be able to see as much of the film area as possible. 91% is already low and the other 3% that the prisms don't show can be a big deal for me.

About a year and half ago I saw on ebay a very nice collectible mint chrome 150mm C T*. The photos of the lens clearly showed the greenish and blue reflections that we see in many T* coated lenses. The T* star marking was on the barrel making it less likely that a repair shop may have put a T* retaining ring. The lens sold for around $1,100 USD. BTW, it is possible that a chrome C lens was repaired and T* coated lenses were used.

Make sure that it really is T* coated. My C T* coated lens show both green and blue reflections specially if viewed under flourescent lighting. Single coated C lenses reflect only bluish magenta.

Most Hasselblad prism's I've used including the PM5 crop in a bit. According to Wildi the waistlevel finder show 91% of the film area and the PM5 shows 88%. I believe these are fairly accurate figures based on personal experience. I don't know if the latest PM45 shows the entire screen.

I would like to get a chimney hood. Is there any optical or

mechanical difference I should consider between the old black/chrome

and current version (not hm-2)? What is the magnification of the

older version? Will I be able to see the entire focusing screen or

does it crop in a bit like the prisms? Thanks

This might be a late response but they might be useful for future work. Do you really have to shoot transparency? I've shot Provia III with an FLD filter under unknown flourescent lighting and the results were very green. The FLD filter is too weak. I ended up correcting the scans in Photoshop using curves. Using an FLD filter will not do much. Here are the CC filters you'll need for PROVIA 100F (RDPIII):

 

Flourescent Type:

Daylight(D)= 30R+10M

Cool White(CW) = 35M

White(W) = 25M+20B

Warm White(WW) = 80B+15M+10R

 

These are from the Fuji Data Guide. They are guidelines only and you will need to run a film test or use a colour meter because flourescent tubes are not colour consistent throughout their lifespan.

 

Is it a mix lighting situation or all flourescent? If it is mixed you may have to individually wrap the flourescent tubes with the approriate filters. You can get large sheets of filters from Lee or Roscoe. BUT You can consider using Fuji negative film with the 4th layer technology such as NPS, NPC or NPL. They are specially designed for mix lighting. They scan well in the Imacon but they are grainier and will also require a bit of cleaning up in PS. Good Luck

We haven't even mentioned the consistency of the machines and operators processing the films. I have found that reliably getting +/- 1/4 processing is difficult enough. Maybe 1/6 consistency is near impossible. There are too many variables in the process.

I agree with the above poster. Unless you are doing very precise work using very precise technique in a controlled shooting environment as in a studio setting, 1/3 of a stop may not be worth the difference. Most times I bracket half stops each way and process N for the first roll. If I have other rolls of film shot the same under the same lighting conditions I may push or pull in 1/4 increments during film processing. Most times it's hard to see variations between N or +/- 1/4 to 1/3 depending on the subject. I find that +1/4 is great for cleaning up the whites but hardly effects the rest of the image.

Maxwell Precision Optics now has email: maxwellprecisionoptics@toast.net or

maxwellprecisionoptics@yahoo.com

 

Maybe one day if we're lucky he'll have a website. I find that it's best to give Bill a call and he will be more than willing to answer all your questions about his screens or life in general.

I just got my Maxwell HiLux split/rangefinder screen today and it was

worth the wait. The Maxwell screen is equal in brightness to the

Acute Matte D but better. The image produced by the Maxwell screen is

very life-like with excellent color and higher contrast than the

Acute Matte D. Thanks to all the photo.net posters who influenced my

decision to get this screen.

I don't think you'll notice much difference between the 80mm C and C T* CF/CFI lenses unless you photograph objects that are against an overexposed white background or backlit. If you invest in a profesional hood and use it properly with your C lens you will eliminate most flare from light sources outside the image area. But if your photographs contain strong light sources in the image area you will lose a bit of contrast compared to T* coated lenses. However, I know many professionals who are still using old C lenses and their pictures are good enough to sell. If your lens is mechanically and optically fine and you are happy with the results I would keep it. Aside from the new Nivarox shutter spring, better flash sync connection and better internal baffling the C lenses are every bit as well made. In fact, I prefer the heavier focusing of the C lenses and the constant interlock of the shutter and aperture rings. The aperture/shutter detents in C lenses also seems more pronounced and smoother to use in my opinion than CF/CFi lenses. I have no problems with the narrower C lens focusing ring because I have small hands. C lenses are also more compact. From a styling POV I think C lenses look very "cool" and distinct compared to modern lenses. I'm really not a big fan of all the plastic parts used in the CF/CB/CFI series. But I have to say that the FLE distagons are optically better than the old C/CF design.

Base tilt cameras are yaw free. You get yaw distortion if you use tilt and swing movements at the same time. Yaw free cameras can be very useful for product photography. The basic Horseman LE is not yaw free, the Sinar F1 is. One reason to get the Horseman LE camera over the Sinar F series is the geared controls. I owned a Sinar F1 and it was a nice lightweight monorail camera but the controls were a bit slow to use compared to the geared movements of the Horseman LE. The Sinar also had plastic parts that would easily break if you over tighten. The Horseman LE is heavy but it is infinitely easier to use for architectural photography specially if you intend to use movements to fine tune your image. The comparable Sinar would have to be the Sinar X or P. I would not take the Horseman LE backpacking unless you have a very strong back or an assistant to cary the rest of the gear. A field camera or an Sinar F1 and a carbon fiber tripod may be more suitable.

I agree with Geoffrey. You don't need to go to school to become a good photographer. There is enough resources out there to learn things on your own. Having said that, I just completed a degree in photography from a school that used to be geared towards commercial work but is now focusing more an more on critical thinking and conceptual work. This school was reputed to be the school to go to if you wanted to become a commercial photographer but their program has evolved. It is simply not enough to teach students how to make technically good photographs. The university now has more liberal arts courses to choose from. The school gave me access to excellent production facilities and a knowlegeable faculty. The school environment also allowed for critical discussion of historic and contemporary photography. My advice to you is to use the school's resources to create work that you are passionate about and don't try to imitate. IMHO the line between commercial work and fine art photography has in recent years become very blurred.

 

BTW Geoffrey, I enjoyed very much your Paris book. I'm looking forward to seeing your next project:)

I was in the same situation. I only had an 80mm CB and a 21mm extension tube. Working with an 80mm and tubes require a lot of time and patience. If you are using a tripod and you should be, it can take a long time to set for a shot. Tight portraits with the 80mm will distort facial features. Optically, the results are ok. The 80mm lens is not optimised for close-up. I finally got an older black 120mm C T* f5.6 s-planar and this lens is perfect for close-up work. I've used it for product and portrait photography. It is very sharp corner to corner and the contrast is equal or better to my 80mm. There is no noticeable distortion for portraits unless you prefer a flatter perspective then I would opt for the 180mm. I have rented the CF 120mm f4 mackro planar and the one I got was very prone to flare. I think that I may have gotten a bad sample because there are many owners of this CF version and I don't hear too many complaints. I hear the CFI/CFE version is the best. If you decide to get a 120mm CF, it would be best if you can test it before you buy to make sure you're happy with it.

I want the 645 masks! Why? Because some clients just cant get their head around the square format. Some clients have trouble with the idea of cropping prints (too much abstract thinking). Some clients prefer to see the final crop on the transparencies (using silver tape is too messy for them). I love the square but I love getting paid even more.

It sounds like you are one of many photographers who appreciate fine photographic equipment. If the Hasselbad inspires you to take pictures get it. I own the 501CM and although it doesn't have the features of many modern MF slr cameras, this camera is like a very fine Swiss watch. It works and it works beautifully. Hasseblad V series is arguably the finest medium format made today in terms of quality materials and workmanship. I have work with the Mamiyas, Bronicas, Pentax and they are good cameras no doubt but none of them have the feel of fine quality the Hasselblad has. If you are shooting portraits and fashion the 503CW may be the camera for you. I have used the 501CM with a plain Acute matte D screen for portraits and it is very hard to get pinpoint sharp images from this screen specially in dim lighting. I lose about 25% of my shoots because of lack of critical focus for 12x enlargements. I have a split/grid screen coming from Maxwell Optics hopefully arriving soon. BTW. if you turn professional you will likely have more than one camera system. It is just a matter of which one to get first.