tore h.

There should be two masks:

 

1. Description from PDF manual:

 

"Used to prevent stray light from dulling the image when a large amount of shift and/or tilt are put into effect. (Supplied already fitted to rear standard)."

 

2: Description from PDF manual:

 

"Format mask 4x5cm. Used both as a compositional aid and as a film mask to avoid vignetting. It is advicable to make sure that the mask has been inserted when the shift facility is to be used and especially when using lenses of focal lengths from 40mm 60mm, inclusive".

 

Take the first mask and put it in a drawer somewhere. You don't need it. Then take the second mask and put it in a drawer somewhere because you don't need that one either. :)

 

Sorry if this should be the same as in the link above. I'm a little pressed for time so I haven't checked it.

My sympathies... the exact same thing happened to me. I want to urge you to do a good job of making the edges sealed if you plan to use it outdoors. Mine fogs over completely between the glasses now at the slightest air humidity.

Allthough I am not a landscape photographer, I do use the Flexbody as my main camera outdoors and I just want to add one point about using it outside of the studio; It's not as robust as other Hasselblad tools.

 

First of all there are a few very weak points, such as the cord release coupling (don't know the correct term in English... where you screw the cord release into the camera). -It sticks out and if you walk around with the cord mounted on the camera, you can easily bump into things and break it off or break the grooves where you screw in the cord release. It is a very weak point of construction. The L shape cord release joint that comes with the camera is also very weak. Also the cord tends to flap around a bit if you walk with it mounted and it easily unscrews itself and gets lost. I have secured mine to the camera body itself with plastic strips. But that means that the cord is always on the camera, sticking out. I have nearly broken the part where it connects to the camera on several occasions. And I am a very careful person in handling my gear.

 

The bellows is anonter potential weak point, or so I would imagine. I don't know how solid those things really are. But in a landscape situation, I can easily see a branch ripping through it or it getting wet from rain.

 

The frame of the camera itself isn't all that sturdy. Lots of moving parts. The first (of two) Flexbodies I bought looked unused when I bought it second hand. But the horizon in my shots are always a little skewed. Either the camera frame itself is slightly bent, or the water pass is slightly unstraight. That is another weak part that sticks out. On the first version of the camera, like I have, the water pass is on top of the shift adjustment screw. It is not sturdy and if you touch it a little it will move slightly back and forth. It's a bit like a loose tooth. (Another bad explanation in English, sorry).

 

Finally and probably most importantly, you have the ground glass frame and any viewfinder you may choose to add, and also the correction lenses you would need when tilting more than a little, to counteract light falloff in the finder... I managed to drop my ground glass frame on the pavement and the glass fell out and split into two halves, cracking a little in the corner. The ground glass in a Flexbody is NOT the standard size. You cannot just buy any acu-matte replacement and fit it in there. The correction lenses are also vulnerable. I dropped one of mine once and it survived with a crack in the corner. I'm not sure that Hasselblad can supply spare parts like these at all anymore.

 

So for landscape photography, I can imagine many dangers to this vulnerable camera. But of course... With any camera gear... if you treat it extra well, it will serve you well. And of course... if you don't dare to use your camera then you will not get any photos. :)

That is a very interesting idea, Colin! I do see a couple of difficulties with it, such that you would need to do this for each exposure and it would break the workflow a great deal. Also I suppose you would need to haul a very big sheet of sepia colored paper around. If you move it too close to the lens it would be in the shade, so it would have to have a certain size. Also, it may be difficult to get the color in during low light situations? I don't know...

COLIN: Thank you for your input!

Smoking a glass with burning wood or paper would not give a brown tint, but rather a grey one which would be rubbed off as soon as one touched the glass. One would have to use two glass filters sandwiched and then smoke it in the middle. I have a homemade vaseline filter I have made this way. If I had a big stack of old filters it would be fun to make a set of different strange homemade ones. But for the effect I'm looking for at the moment, I doubt it would work.

 

And sunglasses... they are all smaller than 67mm and have strange curved surfaces. It wouldn't work. Allthough I have myself thought that if I ever get obscenely rich, I would comission a set of filters from someone. RayBan maybe.

 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you on the last idea. You mean flashing paper like you would in a darkroom? I don't have a darkroom I'm afraid.

A great big thank you to all who have answered so far, and so quickly!

 

Yes, I could try a light sepia filter... Part of my reason for posting this question is that there are so many filters out there and so many of them seem to have very (too) strong tints. I use Hasselblad lenses and the big glass filters I see in different web stores are often $100 or so. (I use an adapter ring to regular 67mm filters). So it would be a bit bad if I bought one and couldn't use it.

 

It seems like the stores here in Oslo don't have this kind of thing in stock, so I would have to buy something online from abroad. Web stores like B&H appear to use simulated example shots for their filters, so it's a bit difficult to know exactly what you buy. Then there is waiting, a 25% customs fee... the risk of it breaking in the mail, etc.

 

That is why I was hoping to get lucky and stumble upon someone here who knew what brand and number filter would be a good option, if indeed any for this kind of color look. Then at least I wouldn't have to sit and wait a month or more for one to arrive and then find it to be something completely different than I wanted.

 

I like the colorization idea tho. Earlier I was admiring the red bird on this page by Pascal Renoux and it looks like it could be a colorized b&w photo. Not exactly the same as I want to do, but I can see the possibilities opening up with a bit of practice in a technique like that. Isn't that a great photo? http://pascalrenoux.free.fr/Divers.html

 

Still, I am sort of hoping that it would be possible with a good old fashioned glass filter. I like the thought of actually seeing that unreal world through the camera and really get into it while working. Also I like the idea of printing straight from the negatives onto color paper, which for large medium format enlargements will save me $50 of scanning expenses per negative.

I have never really gotten the hang of color photography. Since I

tried using it mostly in pre-Photoshop times, I was always

disappointed by how the color tones looked when my films were

developed and printed at a lab. Since color films are so many times

more expensive to use than b&w, I have never really gotten fully into

it. Better, I thought, to use black and white where I have the

experience to know what the results will look like as I shoot the

exposure. And more control.

 

Often however, I see beautiful color tones in photos here and there

and I am jealous of how people are able to get colors like that. And a

bit ashamed by the fact that I have no idea how to control color and

tone through choice of film and filters.

 

What I am looking for at the moment, is a color tone which is a bit

like a weak sepia but without being too saturated or stealing all of

the colors in the image. It's not a naturalistic look I am after. It's

a mood.

 

Examples of something very close to what I am aiming for can be found

in Chip Simons' series "Bunny" (http://www.chipsimons.com) or in some

of Mark Tucker's work, such as the current splash screen on his

website with the lovely photo of the girl and the horse

(http://www.marktucker.com)

 

Are tones like these achievable through the use of a glass filter

and/or a type of film? Or can it only be achieved digitally? I suppose

I could write either of these gentlemen an e-mail and ask, but I'm too

shy. Besides it seems a bit impollite to ask a complete stranger to

reveal his secrets. So it's better to ask someone else to stab the

photographers in question in the back and reveal their secrets for them ;)

Louis Sohn, your link is to the wrong camera. I think the Lica version is called D-Lux 2 and not Digilux 2. It looks like <a href= "http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05100101leicadlux2.asp">this</a>.

 

I had a long look at the LX1 in a store the other day and I was frankly a bit disappointed with it. It looks so great when you see photos of it, but the actual camera seemed a bit flimsy. And small. Very small. I found it very difficult to hold steady, compared to many other digital pocket cameras. You need very small hands to be able to use this. (The controls were very well placed tho).<p>

 

I would have probably picked one up if it hadn't been for Panasonic's sales representative and his overly slick rehearsed pitch. Basically he was lying through his teeth, which is something that always annoys me. It probably saved me from wasting a lot more money than this thing is worth.<p>

 

But if you are looking for something really tiny that shoots widescreen format, only plan to use it in strong light situations and have really small hands and too much cash, there probably isn't an alternative to this.

I think this page may be a useful reference for us mathematically challenged people. I don't understand any of this plus and minus stuff myself. This site has a chart towards at the bottom of the page. Print it out, roll it up and place it inside your extension tube in the bag. :)

http://www.clearsightusa.com/extubecomp.html

A great big thank you to all contributors! I went to buy the (second hand) lens today and ended up not getting it after all. At least not until I have thought some more on it. I don't know... I just didn't have that sure thing feeling.

 

The lens turned out to be a non-FLE Distagon CF 50. Or rather... I think that is what it was. It didn't have any second focusing rings. I didn't know there were different versions. So I should research the difference in image quality and price between them, if any. In terms of wear and tear I think I can do a bit better by waiting for another copy anyway. By then of course, I may have changed my mind and decided on say... a 40mm instead. I'm like that unfortunately.

 

I believe I have more than enough photos to look at now to give me a good impression about the field of view results from this lens. Wish there was a thread like this for all kinds of different lenses. Thank you again everyone!!!

Great!

 

Two very useful answers! And lots of beautiful shots to look at too. I think this lens may be just what I need. Thank you both for helping out!

 

p.s. I don't know how to include images in posts either.

I'm thinking about buying a (Distagon CF 50mm) wide angle lens for my

Hasselblad. And I have Googled myself into hundreds of web pages

describing it's many technical aspects. But what I really need is to

see actual shots taken with it. I need to get a feel for the format in

order to see if it's something I can use or not.

 

Can someone point me in the direction of a few shots that may give me

an idea of what 50mm in a 6x6 format actually looks like? It doesn't

have to be the same lens or even brand.

 

And please... I can't tell anything from open landscapes. It needs to

be in a setting with something in the foreground or on the sides of

the shot. Like a room or a street scene maybe. I'm planning to use the

lens for portraiture of people in their work and home environment.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hi again.

 

No, I haven't looked at any other ringflash brands so far. I think that what I need now is examples of various effects one can achieve. I always have a hard time with these technical things. It is so abstract to me. What I really need is visual imput. I don't know if a photo I see is taken using only a ring flash or if there are other flashes or reflectors at work as well. What effect(s) can one get from using a ring flash only, outside of a studio, -say for a portrait of someone in their home.

 

And even more important... I would love to see the actual product in a store where I could get an impression of how cumbersome it would be to use, how big and heavy it is, etc. I called the company that import and sell the flash brand I mentioned, but they didn't have time to talk to me. I apparently had to set up a meeting. It was all very formal and complicated. The guy promised to call me back but that was 5 or 6 days ago now and I still haven't heard from him.

I came in here to ask the exact same thing. I'm wondering if I should buy a ringflash or not to use with my two old non-TTL Hasselblads. I have been looking at <a href="http://www.farnes.no/fagfoto/Visatec_Litepac_Fashion_Kit.html">this thing</a> ( English info pdf's <a href="http://www.bron.ch/_data/vt_do_ds_litepac.pdf">here</a> and <a href="http://www.bron.ch/_data/vt_do_ds_rf_en.pdf">here</a> ), but I have never seen any results from it. It's "only" 6 kilos and appears to be very portable. I want to shoot things like someone standing next to their car in a cramped garage with no room for studio lights. Most ring flash-links seem to describe Macro photography. But like you I'm not interested in using it for that.

<p></p>

This rig is $2870 in Norway, on sale at about $1200 off retail. I'm sure it's only half that in other countries. We have to pay a lot of taxes on things here.

<p></p>

Is a ring flash the best way to go for someone on the move without an assistant and without a car?

I have found a new clue! A very important one. I stumbled upon a test film I took last year with a Diana camera I bought. Hadn't really looked at it before because I knew that all the photos were crap anyway. Here you can see the white stripes more frequent and distinct than on any other roll. (The stripes run the same way, it's only the film that runs horisontally through the camera as opposed to vertically in a Hasselblad back).

 

I think that fixing could be an interesting area to look at, like you say. Don't know what I have suddenly started to do wrong during fixing though. Maybe the storage bottle itself could be replaced. I always use fairly fresh fixer, but I haven't thought about the bottle I keep the solution in being contaminated.

 

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.cookiefactory.no/layout/photos/possiblelightleak3.jpg">

</br>

</br>

But isn't it odd that the light streaks are on parts of a film where I didn't take the magazine off inbetween any of the shots? That just occurred to me... mostly I use a Flexbody and take the magazine on and off all the time, but on this one roll there are a few stripes as well. And I shot that roll with a different camera. How could light get to the middle of the film and not the edges if the back was on all the time?

 

Thank you for all thoughts and suggestions so far!

 

P.S: I tried to order two sealing kits from your link, but they go through Paypal so it doesn't work. For some reason Paypal is unable to verify my Norwegian Visa cards. Have tried to register regular Paypal accounts with them before (this was a Visa shopping cart and not a PP account payment). In case of the Paypal accounts, they do manage to deduct the $2 registration fee for foreign customers, but somehow they don't manage to verify the card so that they can give you an account. Shame on me for falling for that scam twice.

The one I posted is the clearest one, I think. It's pretty clear, isn't it? Here is another typical one at the bottom, but it is less clearly defined.

 

And as far as I know there are no $5 light seal kits here in Norway. The magazine would have to go into the service place, and prices for work there start at around $85 if I remember correctly. Then there is the parts, which will be at least $20. And there will be waiting. Weeks of waiting. If I want to order such a kit or two from the states I would need to find a place with a secure online payment system since sending money order or cheques is very difficult. No paypal either. Doesn't work from here, I've tried. And ordering stuff from the states takes at least three weeks because of the absurdly slow postal system.

 

 

<br><br><img src="http://www.cookiefactory.no/layout/photos/possiblelightleak2.jpg">

</br>

</br>

Couldn't get the forum upload to work. Here is the example photo:

 

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.cookiefactory.no/layout/photos/possiblelightleak.jpg">

</br>

</br>

Lately I've been having some dull white smudged stripes appear on my

negatives. They have a sort of cloud-pattern. I have never seen

stripes like these before. There seems to be no pattern as to where

they appear, except that they are never along the edges. They can be

anywhere on the roll, appearing and disappearing across the middle.

They do not come in regular interval as if it was a case of light

entering from one side of the developement spool or the film spool. In

this example photo, the streak is inbetween frames.

 

I have tried two different lenses and two different Hasselblad bodies,

but only one A12 magazine. Also the film is from the same batch, but

several films from the same batch is free of annoying stripes.

 

I know I should replace everything one piece at the time, but I'm

hoping for a quick answer since I have a job coming up and there is

little time to follow false leads. If it is a leaky A12 it's probaly

going to take to fix here in Norway.

 

To sum up:

 

Different camera bodies

Different lenses

Different rolls of Agfa APX 400 film but from same batch

Different developer

Same Film magazine

Same fix

Same developement tank and spools

 

Has anyone seen anything like this before? Would be extremely happy if

someone has an answer to this little mystery.

I've never added any exposure when tilting (Have never used if for shift actually). I don't see why you should have to add anything either. If light has traveled all the way from the sun it can certainly travel an extra inch without any noticable falloff. All my shots have been correctly exposed in accordance with the meter readings and they have been evenly exposed from edge to edge no matter how much I tilt. I know that increased tilting makes everything appear darker when looking at the ground glass, but the ammount of light that hits the actual film is still the same. I'm sure that something else has to be the problem. Since everything controlling exposure is in the lens, I would start to look there and also at the exposure meter.

You mean bring your body and the Flexbody? Sounds like a plan. If you have any additional needs while on holiday, you can always lease some body for the evening.

Hmm. That's an interesting piece of information. I didn't know which lens range area was most useful. Good to know. Thanks.

 

Looking at the manual here, it says that all C and CF lenses manufactured since 1957 can be used. No limitations are mentioned. The catalogue says that all V-System lenses are fully compatible, so that means that all CFi/CFE and CB lenses are good as well as far as if they work or not.

 

But if you cannot use the tilt outside of this mentioned range, then I guess most people would choose a less cumbersome camera to shoot their ordinary un-tilted photos. Unless you are one of those rare people on this forum who actually don't own 52 different Hasselblads and need to carry them all. If you are one of those (like me) then it's reassuring to know that you CAN use it with future lens purchases as well, but it becomes less fun to use outside of the mention focus range.

Yes, I'm sure you are right. At least I hope you are. I think that some types of film may disappear only to resurface later in the same way that the old Coca Cola vanished and then reappeared as "Classic", or in the same way that vinyl records almost went extinct in the late '80s. One of the reasons for the latter example has been the early over-confidence in the estimated lifespan of digital storage media. It's easy to say that the biological degradability of a CD record is at least 100 years when they have only been around for one fourth of that time. Yes, some darkrooms or negative storage cabinets burn down along with the houses they are kept in, but so far in my life I've had a lot more hard drives crash than houses burn down (he said while nervously knocking on the edge of his wooden desk).

 

Even thought we seem to be drowning in images now, maybe a hundred years on there will simply be so many lost archives of data and so many faded digital prints that only a few photographers from our time will be remembered. I hope that at least one of my photos will survive. Preferably that really great one that I haven't made yet.

Ryan Radtke: when Agfa themselves say that they will no longer produce APX film, I think that there is cause for general concern for those who prefer using that film. If the film will no loger exist then using it may become slightly difficult. It's true that many people still have telephones and VHS collections. I have both. But I also know a lot of people who don't have either one anymore. There is a constant change in the evolution of all consumer products, and that change often leads to the extinction of older and better products. Sometimes it's because new products, like digital cameras, may give a particular company a chance to regain it's foothold in a market where they have been playing catch-up for years... Sometimes it's for environmental and health reasons and sometimes it's just a case of people jumping on anything new. After a while it is no longer profitable to keep a production line going of a small old fashioned niche product like black and white film. Yes, you can still make b&w images digitally, but they don't have the same properties or indeed qualities as film. And that is a very common symptom of progress; that things get worse. I can still remember when Gladpack cling-film still clinged and when my cigarettes still had a reasonable level of nicotine in them. I know that before my time there were gas stations where they filled the gas for you, gave your kids a free small box of either candy or marbles or something like that and then saluted when you drove off. The gas hardly cost anything either. Things change. Whenever kids come over to me in the park and ask me to take photos of them and their new girlfriends like they tend to do for some reason I cannot comprehend, they don't understand anything when they realize that on my camera you cannot see the results right-away on a screen. (they also try and scare the girls by offering to show me nude photos of them on their cell-phones. That never used to happen before either).

 

In my country you can hardly even buy paper and developer anymore. Forget about bleachers and toners. Who wants to keep a stock of that? They are bound to lose money. My pro developement lab / film wholeseller cleaned out half of their store last month and put up shelves with digital cameras and photo printers instead.

It's not the end of the world for film photography, but for Agfa users at least, it is the beginning of the end.

Yes. It's better to have a trustworthy camera with one lens than a crappy camera with several crappy lenses. Sooner or later you will want to build on the system you have and you want a quality foundation for that. Look around the apartement and see if there is something you can sell. As they say... if you own too many things, the things own you. Pawn something. Ugly jewlery someone once gave you... anything of some value that doesn't mean anything to you. I sold all kinds of other stuff to get my new Hasselblad. What do you want the most? -A good camera or a good couch. In 100 years... what will people remember you by? -"She was a great photographer" or "she always had a comfortable chair for guests to sit in".

 

If this isn't possible for you then at least consider that the content of an image is more important than the technical quality of it. A cheap medium format camera would then be better than no medium format camera. It also depends what type of photos you would make. It's difficult to get ahead in commercial smooth slick product photography with a cheap camera. But it's easy to make artsy looking Diana or Holga photos that are as good as other peoples' Diana or Holga photos because for that you can afford the same equipment that all the other people use.