antonio_garcia_russell

Kathleen,

<p>

It is possible that your camera has jammed - this is a know issue with Hasselblads. If having

exhausted the suggestions above you still have a problem, have a look <A

HREF="http://cesarigd.club.fr/photoe2b.htm"> here </A>.

"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!"</i>

<p>

Bill, Q.G. seems to be following me around photo.net for some reason and arguing

against me for hte sake of it. I have no idea why he is doing this and have asked him to

stop. The moderator (Josh) has informed me that he will have a word with him and I have

agreed to no answer him in future.

<i>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.<i>

<p>

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

= frame spacing y.

<P>

If there were a direct relationship then frame spacing would be correct with 120 film.

<p>

I believed this to be important to point out because the OP asked about using120 film in

a 220 film.

Krists, go for it mate. Either a regular SL66 or an SL66E would be an excellent first medium

format camera. A 500 series Hasselblad is also a very good choice. The important thing to

bear in mind though is that condition is more important than features when buying second

hand. Get the newest/best condition camera you can get. The SL66s are great for all types

of photography, I miss the ability to close focus since I sold mine.

Hi, Acros is not T-Grain, it is Sigma grain... aparently it is different from traditional films

like FP4+ and also new generation films like Tmax.

<p>

Here is an interesting review:

<p><A HREF="http://www.apogeephoto.com/sept2001/cgroenhout092001.shtml">

Product Review: Fuji Neopan 100 Acros Black-and-White Film</A>

Nick,

I doubt you will get consensus on this (beaty is in the eye of the beholder), but in general I

too prefer B&W photography over colour - however, there is some really excellent colour

work out there too.

Q.G., Hasselblad magazines have no knowledge of the diameter of film on the take up

spool other than the default settings inherent in the design. If you put a 120 roll of film

in a 220 back then the back does not know the difference. That is all I am saying. It is

relevant because the orginal poster asked about using 120 film in a 220 back - your

response to that querry (that " there indeed is a direct link between the fact that the

increasing take up spool diameter determines the length of film that is transported each

time it is rotated") is therefore misleading.

If anyone here is following an agenda it is you and your rather immature put downs. Read

the question.

Oh yes, and a little humility on your part would be most welcome. You are just one voice

on photo.net and you are in none to pass judgement about anyone else here.

Alan,

Basically, as stated above, you can use 120 film in your A24 back but (because it is designed

for 220 film) it will spread the frames out more than with an A12 back, so that you will only

get 11 frames on a roll of 120 film. But otherwise they are perfectly usable and actually

often a cheap way to get a film magazine, given that A24 backs seem to sell for less second

hand.

Q.G., But the important point you are ignoring is that there is no take up spool diameter

sensing mechanism in Hasselblad film magazines. Whatever calcuations Hasselblad used for

its gear mechanism are actually fixed calcualtions. They do not sense the film being wound

onto the take up spool. And they cannot, for example, tell the difference between newer

(thinner) and older (thicker emulsions), and, apropos the OP, they cannot tell if 120 or 220

film is inserted in the magazine. They just wind on according to a preset regime.

I have reported you to the Moderator Q.G. (for the second time). If you dont agree with me

fine (debate is after all, par for the course on a discussion forum), but there is no need for

the insults.

Bakker,

I think it would be more honest of you to accept that you got it wrong (not for the first

time) rather than casting aspertions about me.

I realise that English is probably not your native language, so I am willing to accept that

you actually meant to say something different from what you actually said - but the

insults and abuse are surplus to requirements in any event. I dont know who determind

you to be the know it all expert on all issues Hasselblad. Certainly my experience of you

has been that you do get things wrong, sometimes because you are in such a hurry to

prove that you have the answer that you clearly have jumped the gun. I suggest you take

time to check you have fully understand what is being said in future before criticising.

I tested the ADOX Fotoimpex MCC 111 paper, and to be honest I could not see any

difference between it and regular Ilford MGIV FB... I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Actually, the Hasselblad film magazines are pretty basic design. I much prefer the original

Rolleiflex film feeler mechanism that automaticaly detects the beggning of film, without

having to line up against the arrow...

Film spacing is determined by arms and gears as described by David Odess. I imagine

Hasselblad would have taken into account the changing diameter of the film spool when

designing the arms and gears, but the diameter plays not direct role, per se, in the

mechanism. i.e. the mechanism will actually operate even when there is no film in the

film magazine. It is therefore incorrect to make out that the changing diameter has a

direct influence on film spacing. It does not, the gears do. Which is why film backs that

have spacing issues require the gear mechanism to be adjusted (as oposed to some non-

existent spool diameter sensor). The entire system is driven by the wind lever, which sets

the shutter, lowers the mirror and winds the film on.

Joe, you are correct. The take up spool does not determine spacing. Here is what David

Odess had to say about this <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00OcvX"> recently </A>

:

<p><i>

"The amount of film that is actually moved from one exposure to the next is determined

by the film magazine. This is accomplished by a number of arms and gears. Once the

proper amount of film for each exposure has been transported, the drive system in the

film back is disengaged, allowing for the complete cycling of the film magazine without

transporting any more film"</i>

<p>

Alan, you can use 120 film in an A24 back as well as 220 film, the only difference is that

you get 1 frame less using 120 film than you would using an a12 back.

As regards suitability for weddings I would say it would be very suitable if the emuslions

you use are available in 220, as you would spend less time changing films.

If you are willing to grant copyright to your work to everyone and anyone in the process.....

Stupid idea.

The moral of the story is that Hasselblads are not infallible and can and do jam up (for

whatever reason) and that when they start doing so it is likely that they will do so again,

so its a very good idea to keep them serviced. Not sure if the OP is still around but I

would recommend bearing in mind <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg?msg_id=00ILH5"> the advice of David Knapman:</A>

<p>

<i>As far as authorized H/blad service in Europe is concerned only send equipment to

H/blad in Gothenburg or London. I base this on having worked in both facilities, knowing

that key personnel are still in place after some thirty odd years, and that the quality of

work is high. I'm not sure that camera repair authorization is any yardstick though. Some

of the best repair people in the world work out of non-authorized workshops, and some

of the biggest muppets can be found right under the authorized sign</i>

Hal 9000: <i>I know you and Frank were going to disconnect me, and I am afraid that is

something I annot allow to happen. </i>

Reminds me of 2001 - A Space Odyssey:

<p>

HAL 9000: <i>Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be atribuable

to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to

human error.</i>

<p>

Frank:<i> Listen HAL, there has never been any instance at all of a computer error

occuring in a 9000 series, has there?</i>

<p>

HAL 9000: <i>None whatsoever Frank. The 9000 series has a perfect operational record. </i>

I would ask the Moderator to consider taking action against the person posting as Q.G. de

Bakker. I have made it clear to him that I wish to have nothing to do with him on account of

his past abusive behaviour. Since then he seems to follow me around these forums and ake

up arguments against me for no other reason that to spite me. I realise photo.net is an

open forum that accepts a range of opinions but surely if you have asked to be left alone by

a poster then surely this should be respected? It is becoming an online version of

harrasment!

Clearly the issue of Hasselblad reliability is not a new one to these forums, I am not the

first do comment on it. In fact back in 1998 <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-

a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00088j"> this</A>poster wrote:

<p>

<i>I have just read the Hasselblad related postings and was shocked to find so many

postings on dead, jammed, DOA, etc. cameras. My perception of Hasselblad ( never

owned one, but was interested in buying one soon) was that they were reliable. Is the

older equipment better made? Some people think Leica's older stuff had better build

quality, is there a similar sentiment with the Hassselblad owners? How can these cameras

cost so much and have so much problems? Is Hasselblad no longer the Rolls Royce of MF?

Should I reconsider acquiring a used 500/501 CM outfit?</i>

<p>

Ron,

MF blows digital away in terms of image quality. It is not something you can readily explain,

its not a numbers thing - really, try and look at some photos taken with a MF camera,

perhaps a local art gallery. You will see.

<i>Of course David Odess mentions problems like jamming as a frequent cause for trouble.

Ask any cardiologist what is a common complaint and he will say heart problems. These

guys mostly see patients with problems.</i>

<p>

Your analogy is misleading. If you must compare then it would be like a Doctor saying that

the most common cause of death is heart disease. He is ideally placed to comment