colm boran

Thank you to those who contributed answers to my recent post regarding

how to test the scratched 50mm C T* lens that I still haven't

received yet. If the tests show significant optical anomalies, I

might consider replacing the lens elements. I checked through old

postings and found that one MFD reader had replaced his own front

lens element on a 250/4 Zeiss lens. I e-mailed Zeiss in Germany

(info@zeiss.de) and inquired about the availability and pricing of the

front and rear elements for the 50mm C T*. The front element is DM160

(about $100) and the rear element is only DM60 (about $40). Not bad.

 

<p>

 

I'm now interested in two things:

 

<p>

 

1) I'd like more information regarding how to repair it myself to

see if I'm up to it. Jim Lebiedz is the guy who posted in the MFD that

replaced his own elements, but his e-mail is no longer valid. Has

anyone else tried this or know how to contact Jim for more info?

 

<p>

 

2) Assuming that I chicken-out on replacing the elements myself, does

anyone know of a trust-worthy repair shop that can handle replacing the elements?

I have recently purchased a 50mm C T* from a photographer in the UK. I haven't actually seen the lens yet, but it is on it's way across the pond. Apparently, the front element has a pretty significant scratch about 2 mm long, near the edge of the element. There's another much finer scratch on the rear element also about 2 mm long, but this one is closer to the center of the element. I have two days to check it out and return it if not satisfied. I am looking for suggestions on what to shoot to determine if the scratches affect the image.

 

<p>

 

I plan to shoot into the sun at wide apertures to see if the scratches induce significant flare or other anomalies. I'll also be shooting at all shutter speeds and apertures to ensure everything else is OK.

 

<p>

 

Any advice on what subject to shoot to show off/exaggerate the flaws in the glass? Also, does anyone have any idea what it costs to replace one or both elements (or is it simply not worth my while)?

 

<p>

 

I'm getting the lens for about $725 US, which is quite a bit cheaper than I've been able to find in advertisements in Shutterbug, on the Internet, etc. I've been looking for about a year for 50mm T* (C or CF), but the $1200-$1500 that most owner's want is well beyond my budget.

I just got back from a business trip to England and Germany that lasted for 11 days (I had a weekend in England to myself). I could only take one roll-around carry-on bag with me (for my clothes, camera and a SLIK 444 Sport tripod). I took along my Hasselblad 500 C/M, 150 mm C and an A12 back. I rented a 50 mm CF and a shop in Birmingham, England for 17 pounds/day (including insurance). The shop loaned me a new Tamrac bag to put it all in for free! The SLIK tripod is barely sturdy enough for the Hasselblad and comes with a sad little head, but it worked. I got some great shots of the Cotswald-area towns and countryside.

 

<p>

 

I definitely recommend this type of equipment for travel. The fact that you can rent Hasselblad equipment almost anywhere (check their website) makes the Hassy a great choice. That way you don't have to lug all that stuff through airports, etc.

I'll be traveling to the Birmingham/London area in early June and am wondering if anyone has rented Hasselblad equipment in England. If so, please provide the name/location and what you need to rent it (credit card, etc.) Thanks!

If you can get your hands on a copy of The Medium Format Advantage written by Ernst Wilde, he has a few pages devoted to calculating equivalent focal lengths among various formats. I'm on the road traveling right now or I would post it here now.

I would also recommend that you meter the light coming in the stained glass window and set your shutter and aperture as recommended by the others above. However, I would suggest manually setting the power of the flash. I own a Sunpak 522 (similar to the 555 but less powerful). For this type of shot, I would focus on the subject in front of the window and read the distance-to-subject off your lens (assuming your flash will be at this same distance - if not, measure the distance from the flash to the subject and use that number for the directions below).

 

<p>

 

Procedure:

 

<p>

 

Set flash to manual.

 

<p>

 

Set the proper ASA/ISO film speed ring on your Sunpak.

 

<p>

 

Turn the power ratio dial on your Sunpak so the flash-to-subject distance number lines up with the next largest aperture (smaller number!). For example: If the subject is 15 ft. away and you have metered the window at f/8, turn the power ratio dial so that the 15 ft. number marked on the power ratio dial lines up with f5.6. This is a 1:2 lighting ratio (i.e., you're configuring the flash to put out only 1/2 the light required to properly illuminate the subject at this distance).

 

<p>

 

In general, this type of "fill" lighting looks better where the subject is *slightly* underexposed. If you set the power dial to f/8 you may burn out the detail in the faces or the wedding dress. Of course, with the flash set to manual, you can bracket the flash power all you want (which I would recommend). Also, independantly bracket the aperture setting on your camera as well to ensure a good exposure of the stained glass window.

 

<p>

 

Using the flash on manual also helps ensure that the photo-electric cell that governs the flash exposure won't be fooled by the bright light pouring in from the stained-glass window resulting in the bride and groom being underexposed.

 

<p>

 

Take your time, these shots can be tricky to light properly and require you to think clearly. Good luck. E-mail me directly if I you want to discuss in more detail.

I also use the Photoflex Medium Litedome. When I started out, I used the softbox much like you described and had similar results (some relatively hard edges on the noses). I assume you're using both the inner baffle and the removable front diffuser panel. A wedding pro gave me some tips a few months ago that helped me tremendously. It's a bit difficult to describe without diagrams, but here goes:

 

<p>

 

Assuming you're photographing a woman, put the softbox a few feet off to one side and about half way between the camera and the model. Turn the model's shoulders away from the softbox a bit. Turn her face toward the camera and tip her head slightly toward her higher shoulder. Aim the softbox so it is shooting light *across* the imaginary line between the camera and the model, not at her! Look at the model and note how the light is falling on her face and body (assuming you have a modeling light in your flash unit). Move the softbox toward the camera to reduce the shadow, toward the model to increase the shadow. Don't turn the box toward the model, just move it forward or backward. Also, you should probably try a white posterboard reflector on the other side of the model and reflect some light back into the shadow side. This reflector can be angled slightly to direct light onto the model and away from your camera lens. This lighting can yield great results but you have to take care that the camera lens is not exposed to direct light from the softbox. In the layout I described above, you will probably need something black to block the direct light from the softbox from hitting your lens (or a good long lens shade helps).

 

<p>

 

If you're shooting a man, turn the shoulders the other way and tilt the head toward the lower shoulder. Men typically look better with some shadow, so you'll probably want to move the box away from the camera. When shooting couples, keep the man on the far side (away from the softbox) with his shoulders facing it and the woman on the near side with her shoulders away from it.

 

<p>

 

E-mail me directly and I can send you a drawing if you want.

I shoot with a 6x6 Hasselblad that I bought recently (my first move into medium format from 35mm). From what I've read over the years, wedding photo albums commonly use square prints (5x5 and 10x10) as well as rectangular prints, so the choice is up to you. IMHO you do have to turn the 645 cameras 90 degrees for vertical compositions. Definitely rent or at least try this a few times at the dealer before buying. I tried rotating the Mamiya 645 for verticals and found its bulk (compared to a 35mm) rather cumbersome. I chose the Hasselblad with its square format assuming it would be easier since I didn't have to rotate the camera and could just crop the image if I wanted a vertical or horizontal composition. However, when I'm shooting with the Hasselblad, I tend to fill up the square frame with a composition that looks good to me on the spot. Then when I want to make a rectangular composition I end up having to cut something out that I really didn't want to do. I have to always remind myself to step back a bit further and don't fill the frame so much so that I can crop down to a rectangular format and not lose something important. I know there are focusing screens that show cropping guides, but I don't own one and I don't like putting paper cropping mask down on my focusing screen because I have to keep changing it for horizontal vs. vertical compositions. Most of the shots I do with my Hasselblad are portraits. Although I like the look of square pictures, it's really hard to find a good selection of square frames as compared to rectangular ones (5x7 or 8x10).

I rent Hasselblad bodies and lenses occasionally. The guy

at the store recently replaced his 500 C/M rental units with

501 C units. Recently I purchased a used 500 C/M (not from

him) and I was discussing the purchase and whether I should

have opted for the new 501C. He glanced around to make sure

no one was listening and whispered that he had had to send his new

501Cs in for repair several times since he had got them a few

months ago but had hardly ever had to send his 500 C/Ms in for

the many years he had them as rental units. So he thought the

501C wasn't a particularly robust camera compared to the older

500 C/M which it replaced. He didn't have any concerns with any

of the other new Hasselblad bodies though.

 

<p>

 

For those of you out there with trouble-free 501Cs, don't gripe

at me for the above text. I'm only passing along what the man said.

I have no personal experience from renting 501Cs that would confirm

this dealer's experience.

I once washed an acute matte screen on a Hasselblad I was renting

to get rid of bunch of particles that appeared to be stuck on

the glass. After washing it very gently under a stream of water,

I discovered that the screen was a sandwich of two plates held

together by a metal frame and now I had water trapped between the

two panes! I had to shoot in a few hours and needed to dry the area

between the panes. I decided to put in in a slightly heated oven

with the burners extinguished (the temperature was probably around 130 F (55 C). Since glass and nearly all metals don't even soften at these low temperatures, I figured everything would be OK. I put it

in the oven on piece of paper towel and took it out after about 1

minute. Almost all the water had disappeared from between the panes! I stuck it back in the oven for about 30 seconds and pulled it out again. To my horror, one of the "panes" had warped! The second "pane"

of the sandwich wasn't glass at all but some kind of plastic which I

had just thoroughly ruined. I had to go out to a store and buy a replacement acute matte for my rented camera ($230!). That happened

a few years ago and I've never had the courage to tell the story

to anyone until now because I felt so stupid.

 

<p>

 

So, beware of washing the screen!