bill_palmer2

<blockquote>

<p>The C 120 mm S-Planar is the same design, but the mount/shutter restricted the speed to f/5.6.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Comparing the MTF curves for the C 120 S-Planar and the CF 120 Makro-Planar suggests that they are not identical to the degree that say the C and CF 150 are. The CF 120 is better at infinity focus, and the C is better at 1:5. Doubtful that one could do much better than chance looking at a handful of images shot with one or the other and identifying the lens used, though. The CF is almost certainly easier to focus, with its f/4 maximum aperture vs the f/5.6 of the C, but on the flip side, you get f/45 on the C as the minimum aperture vs. f/32 on the CF. </p>

Okay, you've just told me that you captioned the jpeg files in Bridge, and later the

captions disappear. How could this possibly be Hasselblad's fault, when you haven't

been using their hardware or software since before you added the captions, and are

operating on standard file formats?

I think you need to save your work from Photoshop & Bridge and then look at one of

those files before you upload it by FTP or DVD, preferably with a different program.

If you were on a Mac, I'd have some suggestions as to what to use, but on a PC I

don't know. You could email me a sample file if you like. My suspicion is that we'll

find out that the captions aren't there. Unfortunately I've got an ancient copy of

Photoshop, and no Bridge...

We might have to agree to disagree on the default caption behavior. I don't see the

harm having a non-empty caption field is causing. If you typically caption your

images, it will be overwritten. If you don't typically caption your images, it gives you

a pointer back to the original file even if you've renamed the image file. I find that

more useful than a blank field.

Okay, for starters, you have not logically shown that the problem is definitely the

camera. You take a picture, download it from the memory card or camera to your

computer. You edit the picture's metadata in some program. At some point, it

reverts back. How exactly is that the camera's doing? It sounds to me like Bridge

is the culprit from your description, but your workflow description leaves out some

important details.

Are you opening the 3FR/FFF files directly from the camera in Bridge, or

TIF/JPG/DNG files you exported from Flexcolor? I am able to take an FFF file from

my camera, open Flexcolor's metadata window and change the caption (which does

default to the filename, what else would you have as the default?) and export the

image as a TIF, DNG or JPG. I then open the TIF, DNG or JPG file in Photoshop

and the caption seen in the file info is exactly what I put in there. Add your captions

in Flexcolor and they should remain intact downstream. If not, come back and

describe your workflow with more detail and I'll try to help you track down the

problem.

Looking at BHPhotoVideo's website, I see the following 220 offerings in stock:

Print:

Fuji Pro 160C

Fuji Pro 160S

Fuji Pro 800Z

Fuji Pro 400H (out of stock)

Kodak Portra 160NC

Kodak Portra 160VC

Kodak Portra 400NC

Kodak Portra 400VC

Kodak Tri-X Pan Professional (320)

Slide:

Fuji Provia 100F

Fuji Astia 100F

Fuji Velvia 100

Kodak Ektachrome E100G

Kodak Ektachrome E100VS

Kodak Ektachrome 100 Plus

Taking just one data point (Fuji Velvia 100) a ProPack of 5 rolls costs $41.95 and $20.95

respectively for 220/120, so while the 220 offering does cost more, it's only a penny a

roll, and that is swamped by the price break for E6 processing of 220 vs. 120 at my local

places ($10/$6).

I think the trend is clear that 220 offerings will continue to diminish, and that one would

have to be quite a salesman to expect to turn a profit buying and selling A24 backs at this

point :-)

A quick perusal of completed transactions on the big auction site suggests you probably

would still have to pay $60-80 for an A24 in decent shape plus shipping. It's not like they

are completely useless if you can't find any 220 film, either; just put 120 in them, and

accept the possibility that you may only get 11 complete frames.

Alan,

I take it you don't have a Winder CW :-)

No electrical contacts/connections between winder and body, and the two bodies that accept

it don't have any batteries! I agree that your suggestions would be worth trying if the system

did have such connections, however.

No, not directly. You can convert the files in Flexcolor to DNG files which Lightroom will

support, but it is possible to get better color from Flexcolor. You'll also lose the

Hasselblad DAC corrections, if you have an H-system model.

To do the conversion, select the desired images in the Scratchpad view, click the Save

button, select DNG for the mode, and go catch up on your photo.net reading while it

grinds them out :-)

I've gotten 3 new 80 mm Planar CFE's from Hasselblad USA in the last year in 503CWD kits.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that the latest 80 mm Planar is back in CFi form, but I wonder

why they are ordering new lenses if the pipeline is apparently full of CFE versions, and the

cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves? Of course, these have mostly been exchanges,

and I suppose that they could have been assembled into kits in 2006 and the people who are

buying plain 503CWs (both of them :-) are getting newer CFi lenses fresh from CZ...

Cap? There was a cap?!? No wonder it always seemed so dark looking through the meter

:-)

I carry my meter in an old Zone VI leather belt holster, and haven't seen the cap in years.

Just keep the greasy thumbprints off the lens and it will be fine. My Mitutoyo vernier

caliper said the outer diameter of mine was 1.741 inches, so a 45mm press-on cap

sounds right. The eyepiece didn't have a cap, and that's where I find the crap

accumulating - skin flakes, stray eyelashes, etc. Mostly you just don't want the big lens to

get dirty and cause sufficient flare (or loss of light) that might throw off your reading. The

inside of the front rim is threaded, so maybe a 41 or 42mm UV filter would also do for

protection if one thought it necessary. My old Nikon 43mm filters are definitely too big,

but not much.

There is a discontinued Voigtlander right-angle finder that is supposed to be pretty nice,

but they are hard to come by, I understand. Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest website might

still have a write-up on them, to help judge whether it might be worth the effort to find

one (he was the primary outlet in the US, I believe).

Another option, if you're going to be using it on a tripod instead of as the world's sexiest

point-and-shoot would be to get a ground-glass viewing screen for it (I think 41050 was

the Hasselblad model number for the most recent version) and use it like a little view

camera that doesn't have any movements. That will get you more accurate framing and

focusing, too.

It is possible that you will eventually conclude that the lack of a finder and the absence of

really good, convenient alternatives had something to do with the good price :-) The SWC

finder is no optical marvel, but it does give you a quick idea of where you are aiming!

I had an opportunity to step outside the usual bounds the other day, and lived to tell the

tale :-)

It turns out that a Hasselblad with 45 degree prism works just fine turned on its side if

you've got a grip like the Winder CW. It's a little odd for the first minute or two getting

used to looking in a different direction than you are pointing the camera, but no more so

than initially learning to track a moving subject with a waist-level finder. I had to shoot

over a fence which was too high for me to use the camera in the usual fashion (with the

camera over the fence, I wasn't tall enough to see through the viewfinder, but not an issue

with the camera on its side). I was able to track my subject matter (young animals

scampering about) with no appreciable difficulty and operationally it was just like shooting

an SLR - albeit one made out of cast iron instead of polycarbonate :-)

In the US, podiatrists typically have a Doctor of Podiatric Medicine degree (DPM), which is

gotten through a course of study roughly comparable to that for an MD or DDS or DO. Four

year university degree followed by a four year medical degree and a two or three year

residency.

No, no, it isn't strictly necessary to roll the trailer around the film before opening the back,

but doing so provides much better image contrast between highlights and shadow detail :-)

"Bill, yes, but my point was that it is not a direct relationship, i.e. take up spool diamter x

= frame spacing y."

Antonio, the relationship is a bit more complicated: the amount of film taken up is a

function of the diameter of the take-up spool prior to film advance, the thickness of the

film (plus backing paper, if any), and the count on the magazine (in other words, which

frame the mechanism "thinks" it is on, which determines how many rotations of the take-

up spool occur). Those three variables will determine the distance the film travels, and

after subtracting out the size of the frame, you'll have the spacing at that point.

Antonio, Q.G.'s original answer to the query correctly describes the situation. The film

spacing DOES depend on the diameter of the take-up spool, even though there is no

mechanism to sense it. No need to take my word for it. Wrap a few layers of gaffer tape

around an empty spool, cut a slit for the "tongue" of the backing paper, and load some

cheap film. Take 12 exposures and see how the spacing comes out compared to a roll

exposed in the usual fashion. If you want to do it really cheaply, don't even bother

developing the film, just remove the back after winding each time, pull the dark slide and

trace the outline of the magazine window. The only thing that will have changed is the

diameter of the take-up spool (including the film), so if the results are different, it clearly

does depend on that (assuming a properly functioning magazine).

The OP asked if not having the backing paper made a difference. It does, and Q.G. not

only said that, but gave an explanation of why it makes a difference (and correctly pointed

out some places where it does not, in a Hasselblad, unlike some other MF cameras).

Carefully reviewing his statements before your "it would be more honest to admit you got

it wrong" statement, the only place where I see any possibility of error is the assertion that

cameras and film backs make use of the properties of the changing diameter of the take-

up spool to do the spacing; one could also design a camera or back that operated by

sensing the length of film that had gone past the gate, by using sprocket holes, or a roller

turned by the passage of the film, for example. For cameras such as the Hasselblad, his

statement is correct; for a camera using another method it wouldn't be, but I do believe

the original poster was talking about Hasselblad given his third question.

I haven't bothered to read every thread you've posted on in an attempt to find out why you

appear to get in arguments with Q.G. so often. Without taking sides, I'll simply suggest

that both of you might do well to remember the saying "Never argue with a fool, onlookers

might not be able to tell the difference!"

Anthony, what do you mean by "it focuses a bit closer" than it says it should? Are you

measuring to make this determination? If so, how are you measuring? There's a mark on the

side of the film magazine that shows the location of the film plane, and that is the place from

which you must measure, NOT the front of the lens or the front of the camera body. I think

if you measure from there you will find that the markings on the focusing ring are very close,

if the lens (or body) is not grossly out of adjustment.

You might also look into renting time on an Imacon. From my brief experience watching

one in action, they are pretty speedy (certainly much faster than my Epson V750!) and you

can save an FFF file which works like a RAW file from a camera so that you can fiddle with

it later (be sure to get a copy of the Flexcolor application!) None of the foolishness the

Epson makes you go through with the film holders, etc. to get the best results, either.

Alternatively, take a pile of negatives down to your local Hasselblad dealer and say you

want an in-depth demonstration :-)

Add me to the chorus of folks who think this will be a challenging endeavor!

Robert White in the UK has them on their web page, with a note saying available Jan 2008.

Comparing the prices for the 120 mm lens vs. the Hasselblad/Zeiss standard model, it looks

like you pay an even steeper price if you want a lens that doesn't say Hasselblad on it!

<p>1. It has a rangefinder. No matter how much apparent depth of field you get with a

38mm or 43mm lens, having a rangefinder makes a big difference. Would you be

comfortable using a 38 or 43mm on a 35mm camera without any way to focus? The depth

of field is the same, and errors will show up in large prints. You can roughly estimate, but

by doing so you are wasting the superb performance of these lenses.</p>

<p>

Well, if I didn't have any way of SETTING the focus distance, yes, that would be a problem.

But the SWC has this nice ring, complete with distance markings and DoF indications. I

use it for focusing.

</p>

<p>

What it doesn't have is a built-in means for MEASURING the focus distance, this is true.

But besides eyeballing it or using the hyperfocal setting, you can actually measure with a

tape measure, optical rangefinder such as used to be a shoe-mount accessory for folding

cameras, or even make yourself a little card that you hold at arm's length and sight over to

become your own optical rangefinder. See <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=003HEV">make your own rangefinder</a> for details. For the most

stringent conditions, you can mount the camera on a tripod and fit a ground-glass

adapter (or a digital back).</p>

<p>

Most of the pictures I take with my SWC don't involve flat subjects all at the same distance,

so not everything can be at the point of sharpest focus. I don't find a rangefinder camera

to be all that helpful in judging the overall appearance of such an image, either. Sure, I

can focus directly on something (though watch out for focus error due to reframing) but

that doesn't show what will be sharp or how unsharp something that is not will be.

</p>

<p>

Also, a few other points: the SWC has the button on the top, not the front, and if you're

using it handheld instead of on a tripod, at eye level is about the only way you CAN use it

if you want to have it be level and framed to your liking (unless you buy that Voigtlander

finder).</p>

<p>

I think if you have a Hasselblad kit already, the SWC makes a lot of sense, but ideally you

should borrow or rent one to make sure it is a serendipitous match. The Mamiya can

clearly produce fine images as well, depending on the idiot at the controls, and if one was

new to MF, didn't need digital back options or the ability to change film mid-roll, didn't

like square format, etc. it clearly has a lot to offer. Again, if trying before buying is an

option, that's probably a smart move. If anyone is looking for a good home for theirs,

contact me for a shipping address and I'll try to get it a good spot in the rotation :-)</p>

Sunny day f16 rule = front sun-lit subject, no clouds, set shutter speed to 1/film speed and

aperture to f16. As there probably won't be an exact match between film speed and shutter

speed options, adjust to taste depending on whether you're shooting negative or

transparency film (or digital).

Interesting comment about taking pictures out of airplanes in Norway. Do the flight crews

confiscate the cameras of tourists doing the same on commercial flights?

Speaking of David Odess, he has a good how-to on his website for checking over a V system

camera/lens/back for proper operation <a href=

"http://www.david-odess.com/faq.html"> here</a>. I'd do his checklist before

bothering with film; if it fails any of the tests you'll want to send the gear back (or in for

servicing).

Well, looks like you won the auction, Courtney! Be sure to let us know how the camera turns

out. My 503CX is also an RR (1415XXX), and has cracks in the Palpas lining in the mirror

box, but not on the rear shutter flaps. Looks a bit scary the first time you see it, but there's

been no discernable impact on the images produced.

>The 180/4 isnt discontinued on the Hasselblad site or at vendros such as Robert White.

The Hasselblad site still shows the 250 CFi, which was discontinued, available while supplies

last as of the Jan '07 price list I have. The only conclusion to be made is that there's more

urgency to announce that you have a product available for sale than there is to let it be

known that you no longer do...

Speaking of jamming, the only time I've had a problem in the 16 or 17 years I've had the

pleasure of using Hasselblad gear is when I don't bother to put the dark slide back in the

magazine before changing lenses, extension tubes, etc. Seems to be cheap insurance

against a jam. You can bump the shutter release as you fumble about and the magazine

interlock keeps it from triggering. I suppose it is possible that a poorly maintained body or

magazine would defeat this tactic.

>One of the disadvantages of the older 500C (and I believe the 500CM) is that the screen

is not user changeable, and the pop-up magnifier in the WLF is not changeable for

diopters if you need to do that in the future.

The focusing screen on the 500C/M IS user-changeable; that's the primary reason for the

/M in the name. Also, the modern WLF has user-changeable diopters for the magnifier.

If the magnifier is on a stalk instead of a flat panel, you have an older WLF (even if it is a

newer camera, buyer beware!) and the magnifier cannot be interchanged. The WLF that

has a hinge running down the middle of the side panel from top to bottom is the one you

want if you'll need to change the magnifier. It came out in 1984, but given the ease of

switching viewfinders, the date won't help you much unless you know it is original to the

camera in question.

My reading of Nordin's text about the 500C/M is that the early 500C/M bodies from 1971

and part of 1972 may say 500C on the side but do have the interchangeable screen. You

can figure out the year of manufacture by looking at the camera's serial number on the

back and applying the following cipher:

VHPICTURES

1234567890

or using the converter on the http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu website.

One other thing you need to watch out for using the CFV on the SWC -- a small amount of

pressure on the shutter release, not enough to normally cause an exposure when using a

film magazine, may trigger the CFV without (or before) opening the shutter. You need to

do a faster motion than with the 503CW's release button which one can just slowly

squeeze until it releases. This is likely to be your problem.

I also find it helpful when using the CFV on a tripod to use the flash sync cable from lens

to back instead of fooling around with the exposure time setting on the back (or in

Flexcolor if shooting tethered). Be sure to set the body type to Flash Sync when doing this,

or it doesn't work right! It appears to me from my experiments that if light is striking the

sensor as it is being read to retrieve the image, you'll get a lot of interesting magenta

streaking in the image that probably won't be what you envisioned.