danielheller

Hasselblad 500cm paired with a Zeiss lens.

<p>Antonio, "anything short of a drum scanner won't be satisfying" I tend to differ here. A scan from a Hasselblad Flextight would be very satisfying!</p> <p>Paul, if you can't afford the cost of a decent scanner you can always do what was suggested here by Colin. Let the pros do it. You only need to scan your best shots don't you? This will help reduce the hundreds of slides into a much more manageable quantity and save you a lot of money and the heartache if you were to purchase a scanner, spend hundred of hours scanning and perhaps end up with less then desirable results that would not meet with your expectations.</p>

The CF T* version is what you should be getting IMHO. And possibly newer model. You will pay a premium though. I am not sure dust has any impact at all on final output. In fact there probably aren't many lenses that do not have some dust. What you should be watching for is fungus. KEH is a good source although I bought lenses on e-bay too without a problem.

The 3f (fff) is the native file format of the Imacon/Hasselblad scanner. It is somewhat like a RAW tif file. I maintain all 3f files as archives and work in .tif files. Diego's suggestion is a good one. Also from my experience, it is best to have the Flextight produce the 3f files as Linear Scans (no manipulation in software before the scan!). Good luck let us know what the lab said.

<p>Chances are that the scratches were created during development. No, 120mm negatives are not more susceptible to more damage than 35mm. Try to develop another film to see if the issue repeats itself. You can also send the back to be tested by a Hasselblad factory technician.</p>

<p>This should not happen on a scan from a Flextight X5 fully maintained serviced machine. It certainly never happened on mine. Did you show it to the lab? You pay top dollar for these scans and should get top results.<br> I recommend you contact Hasselblad's technical support to get confirmation of anything whatsoever that may have caused this.<br> The other thing you may try, on one of the negatives that you had this experience with, ask the lab to scan it again on the same machine, at the machine's full capacity 3200PPI (pixels per inch). From a 6x6 frame you should get a file of 7000x7000 pixels +/-140mb. See if you still get the square grid. My guess is yes, but it's worth a try.</p>

<p>Scott,<br> I own and scan on a Flextight X5 myself.<br> Bela is right, you need to provide a larger detail, otherwise I can't see any "weird patterns" in your image. Also provide your workflow.</p>

Andrew, you have certainly purchased the best. Nowadays I have a few rigs which I use intermittently: Hasselblad 503CW 80mmCF, 150mmCF, 250CF Hasselblad 903SWC Sony Alpha 7r I resisted for a long time digital but must confess that for some jobs it is so much easier. So I use now both technologies, I do understand your dilemmas and wish you good luck, and please post your work.