ernie_gec

Over the years I've noticed a number of hassie camera bodies for

sale on e-bay, in which the supplied picture clearly shows what looks

like 2 holes drilled into the upper two sides of the front face of the

body, just above the lens mount.

 

This can't be the same camera coming up for sale over & over!

What is the purpose of these holes?

You may have more luck than I did... the problem with dry mount tissues is that insufficient temperature results in a poor bond as does too much. The zone of acceptable temperature seems to be quite narrow as well. The other, not insignificant, problem is that the tissue needs sustained physical pressure to bond the print & backing together from the time when the tissue melts to when it re-hardens. The need to move the iron around to maintain the temperature over the 8 by 10 means that parts of the sandwich never have the necessary pressure.

 

I've done it... sometimes it worked, but often it was incomplete & bubble prone.

 

Good luck.

Wow!??

 

I guess no one knows about the plastic bands...

I've noticed that some "C" series lenses have what looks like a thin

plastic band that separates the shutter dial from the f stop dial,

while others don't. This is true between lenses of the same focal

length, ie. 150 mm sonnar, as well as between different lenses.

 

Was this a design change at some point in their evolution or is this

an aftermarket item?

Thankyou all so much for your thoughtful responses. This is a

fantastic site and without question, the contributions are

more informed than any other net based resource.

As a relative newcomer to zone system control of exposure & development I've tried, rather incompletely, to understand the strong emphasis placed on making negatives that will have a range of values supporting the visualized result, printed on "normal" grade paper.

 

<p>

 

In particular, I see repeated caution against an approach that ensures all imporant values are contained in the negative, with final contrast control left to selection of paper grades. This form of approach, I've repeatedly read, (without satisfactory explanation) is inferior to manipulating contrast in the negative development stage.

 

<p>

 

Why is this so? In fact, in my limited experience, it may be better to resist expansion development of the negative, for example, in order to control grain. Normal development with expanded contrast in paper grade selection can produce equally compelling results, no?

Between the choice of proxars or extension tubes, which choice results

in the least compromised image?

Thank you Kevin & all others for your input. It's comforting to know that the super expensive recent incarnations of the older products aren't something we budget bound enthusiasts need to strive for in order to produce good work.

As a "C" series Hasselblad lens user I'm surprised at the feedback on

various threads in this forum suggesting that the improvements in the

newer CF & CFI lenses are incremental, at best. I think of Kevin

Kolosky, a few threads back, who indicated that he's used all of them,

and can't see a difference in sharpness. For those with technical

understanding out there I ask, hasn't the intervening 30+ years of

evolution in manufacturing tolerance with CNC machining & other

methods of error reduction made the actual grinding of lenses & other

assorted lens assembly specifications more substantially capable of

improved final results? Think of 30 year old car engines. They pale

in comparison to the modern version in almost any respect; horsepower

per unit of displacement, fuel efficiency, reliability etc. How come

the same dramatic advances seem to have eluded lens design?

Gerald:

 

I have the same meter + conversion; no manual, but would be happy to help.

In response to a similar question posted some time ago, K. Fleischer, an employee of Zeiss responded in the following way...

 

 

 

 

The problem is real! This is what I wrote about it in Zeiss Camera Lens News (you can access CLN at

www.zeiss.de, select English language):

 

Is rollfilm 220 better than 120 in terms of film flatness?

 

Zeiss has recently developed a new measuring system to evaluate film flatness in medium format photography.

 

The new system is based on an computerized microscope that can automatically scan and focus on multiple points

of a film frame in a medium format camera magazine. The obtained focusing data are recorded by a computer

and evaluated by a propriatory Zeiss software. The result is a mapping of the film topography with an accuracy of

one millionth of a meter (1 micron), according to the developer of this system.

 

The purpose of this new device is to find out how well film magazine mechanics are designed in today's medium

format camera systems, how precise they position the film and how well they hold it flat. From these findings

Zeiss can draw conclusions about the field flatness required for medium format lenses and Zeiss can also trace

causes for lack of sharpness in customer's photos. This is particularly interesting since more than 99% of all

customer complaints about lacking sharpness in their photos can be attributed to misalignments of critical

components in camera, viewfinder, or magazine, focus errors, camera shake and vibrations, film curvature, and

other reasons.

 

So far, Zeiss has found that film curvature can have a major influence as a source of unsharpness. This has also

been known by Zeiss' camera making partners Alpa, Hasselblad, Kyocera (Contax) and Rollei. Since Zeiss'

evaluation program is not completed yet, we would like not to draw too many conclusions prematurely. But two

things can be stated already as hints to enable sharper photos with medium format cameras at wide open

apertures, since exactly those are invited by the high level of aberration correction in Zeiss lenses:

 

1. 220 type rollfilm usually offers better flatness than 120 type by a factor of almost 2. This is an advantage with

fast, motorized cameras like the Contax 645 AF, Hasselblad 555 ELD (and previous motorized Hasselblad

cameras) and Rolleiflex 6000 series cameras.

 

2. Film flatness problems are mainly caused by the combined influence of two factors: the rollers in the camera or

magazine that bend the film, and the time a certain part of the film is bent by such a roller.

 

Camera manufacturers usually space the rollers in a way that bent portions of the film will never be positioned

near the center of the image. Therefore only marginal regions of the image should be affected by sharpness

problems due to film flatness errors.

 

Since the photographer cannot alter the geometry and mechanics of his camera, he can only influence the other

factor: time. A film run through the camera without much time between exposures should result in good flatness

and hence sharpness. Five minutes between exposures may be some sort of limit, depending on brand and type of

film. 15 minutes are likely to show an influence of bending around rollers. Two hours definitively will.

 

As a rule of thumb: For best sharpness in medium format, prefer 220 type roll film and run it through the camera

rather quickly.

 

Camera Lens News No. 10, Summer 2000 [Quit]

 

-- Kornelius J. Fleischer, March 08, 2001; 03:21 A.M. Eastern

I mean this sincerely, but what possible reason would you have to justify this type of conversion? The depth of field refinement that it would permit (1/2 f stop maximum on any given exposure combination) seems a bit esoteric, no? I'd love to know why you want this.

 

Ernie

Zeiss is telling us that the biggest issue with film flatness is 120 vs. 220, rather than between brands. I attach a copy of a response to a similar question. Fleisher is an employee of Zeiss I believe...

 

 

 

The problem is real! This is what I wrote about it in Zeiss Camera Lens News (you can access CLN at

www.zeiss.de, select English language):

 

Is rollfilm 220 better than 120 in terms of film flatness?

 

Zeiss has recently developed a new measuring system to evaluate film flatness in medium format photography.

 

The new system is based on an computerized microscope that can automatically scan and focus on multiple

points of a film frame in a medium format camera magazine. The obtained focusing data are recorded by a

computer and evaluated by a propriatory Zeiss software. The result is a mapping of the film topography with an

accuracy of one millionth of a meter (1 micron), according to the developer of this system.

 

The purpose of this new device is to find out how well film magazine mechanics are designed in today's medium

format camera systems, how precise they position the film and how well they hold it flat. From these findings

Zeiss can draw conclusions about the field flatness required for medium format lenses and Zeiss can also trace

causes for lack of sharpness in customer's photos. This is particularly interesting since more than 99% of all

customer complaints about lacking sharpness in their photos can be attributed to misalignments of critical

components in camera, viewfinder, or magazine, focus errors, camera shake and vibrations, film curvature, and

other reasons.

 

So far, Zeiss has found that film curvature can have a major influence as a source of unsharpness. This has also

been known by Zeiss' camera making partners Alpa, Hasselblad, Kyocera (Contax) and Rollei. Since Zeiss'

evaluation program is not completed yet, we would like not to draw too many conclusions prematurely. But two

things can be stated already as hints to enable sharper photos with medium format cameras at wide open

apertures, since exactly those are invited by the high level of aberration correction in Zeiss lenses:

 

1. 220 type rollfilm usually offers better flatness than 120 type by a factor of almost 2. This is an advantage with

fast, motorized cameras like the Contax 645 AF, Hasselblad 555 ELD (and previous motorized Hasselblad

cameras) and Rolleiflex 6000 series cameras.

 

2. Film flatness problems are mainly caused by the combined influence of two factors: the rollers in the camera

or magazine that bend the film, and the time a certain part of the film is bent by such a roller.

 

Camera manufacturers usually space the rollers in a way that bent portions of the film will never be positioned

near the center of the image. Therefore only marginal regions of the image should be affected by sharpness

problems due to film flatness errors.

 

Since the photographer cannot alter the geometry and mechanics of his camera, he can only influence the other

factor: time. A film run through the camera without much time between exposures should result in good flatness

and hence sharpness. Five minutes between exposures may be some sort of limit, depending on brand and type

of film. 15 minutes are likely to show an influence of bending around rollers. Two hours definitively will.

 

As a rule of thumb: For best sharpness in medium format, prefer 220 type roll film and run it through the camera

rather quickly.

 

Camera Lens News No. 10, Summer 2000 [Quit]

 

-- Kornelius J. Fleischer, March 08, 2001; 03:21 A.M. Eastern

 

 

 

To Kornelius; Am I correct in assuming this flatness problem is only a problem at wide open apertures.

 

-- Artie C., March 09, 2001; 03:15 A.M. Eastern

 

 

 

It is a problem not only at wide open apertures. There, it can easily ruin your picture. But even with stopped

down lenses, say f/11 or f/16 you may experience focus shifts that you cannot tolerate. This problem has more

impact with wide angle lenses than longer focal lengths. Of course, it is worst wide open. The medium format

film magazine that we found gives the best film flatness is the rather new 4560 reversible magazine for Rollei

6000. We also found why and how the new Mamiya 645 AF magazine produces the sharpness problems

discussed elsewhere in this forum recently.

 

-- Kornelius J. Fleischer, March 09, 2001; 03:34 A.M. Eastern

 

 

Andrew is right. When you roll the focus over till it stops at infinity the moon should be in optimum focus. If not you need the rig adjusted.

Richard Baznik is SOOOO right about MF cameras being poor surrogate to 35mm for shooting kids (at least for me.) I've got 2 boys, 4 & 2 and can tell you that its a lot harder to compose, focus, meter, watch for expressions etc. all at once while hand holding a hassy, peering down into a waist level finder. The exception, I'd say is a tripod mounted "studio" type shot for which no format has a particular speed advantage.

 

The 35 mm. cameras with auto everything allow you to concentrate so much easier on the action & thus realize a higher percentage of "keepers."

 

On the other hand, when you do connect after umpteen dozen tries with the big camera, the enlargements keep you inspired enough to suffer on.

Another possibility is that the take-up drive occasionally drifts the film & paper toward one end of the spool, leaving a small gap on the other end into which light can flow. I've had this happen & if the film is unloaded in anything approaching bright light there is a smear on the film, although never shooting across the entire negative as you describe.

The reason leaf shutters allow flash synch at all speeds is that they don't have (as all focal plane shutter do) a range of speeds at which part of the negative is obstructed from the flash because the second "follow-up" curtain begins to track the first before the entire film plane is clear. Electronic flash speeds commonly range in duration from 1000s. to 50,000s in duration. Thus a leaf shutter, operating at maximum speed, ie. 1/500s. still allows the full burst of light to register on the entire film plane without problems. If you were to sych a focal plane shutter at 1/500s. you would end up with a shot that had perfectly exposed film on a fraction of the entire negative area. This is why focal plane shutters have a maximum "synch speed." It corresponds to the speed at which the first shutter completely clears the film gate before the follow-up curtain begins to move accross the film plane. Leaf shutters, by contrast, work on the principle that when the shutter blades have cleared the lens path, a short circuit trips the flash & fires it for it's brief duration. This works at all shutter speeds with such lenses.

I'd suggest (if you want the bride to keep smiling after the pictures come back) you forget about buying a camera on a budget given the time you have available. The bargain medium format systems are usually completely manual & require LOTS of practice to coordinate ambient metering, flash settings, shutter & aperture etc in a fluid automatic kind of way during the stress of a wedding. There are, in other words, a huge number of variables that have to be coordinated properly to get even adequate results. Murphy's law has special relevance in this kind of situation. Your EOS does all these things in an instant.

 

Instead, if you're really game to offset risk of failure against the benefits of superior enlargements, try renting a system for the weekend that has built in flash metering, coordinated flash, TTL metering; ... in other words, as automated as possible. It won't be cheap to rent, but far cheaper than the most basic medium format camera is to buy and your chances for good shots will rise dramatically.

Your use of the filters described will definitely make a difference,

but it's also useful to observe that "Ansel Adams skies" are very much

part of the world he photographed. High altitude (less moisture in

the air ie. haze) and naturally impressive cloud formations due to

mountain effects helped him achieve those stunning images.

 

<p>

 

You can be sure his skies would have been less impressive if his

portfolio hailed from, say, Britain, even with his mastery of filter

use & development manipulation.

Yellow filters lower blue values, as you mention. Shadow light

contains a significant proportion of blue reflected light and so

will definitely result in lowered negative densities where a yellow

filter is used. The extreme of this is achieved through the stronger

red filters, where shadow values are often completely "dumped." If

you want to preserve shadow values avoid the yellows oranges & reds.

 

<p>

 

It is somewhat possible to increase shadow placement & reduce

development to couter-act this tendency when using these filers, but

the question then is why use them in the first place?

Ian:

 

You've been inside the camera & I haven't & I salute you for your bravery... I recall a tech telling me that the inner chassis must be adjusted (when re-installing it back into the outer "box") very precisely, for the reason that the fore & aft play (small as it is) will affect focus in the same way that elevating or lowering the screen itself will. Those guys have some sort of jig for this purpose.

 

Does this make sense from what you've seen so far?

Bob:

 

<p>

 

I'm very interested in your adjusted figures. They don't correspond

at all to the Kodak supplied data & I'm wondering what kind of testing

underlies these numbers.

 

<p>

 

ernie

Many photographers use the CO2 spray cans to dislodge dust from

lenses, mirrors, etc.

 

Please forgive my ignorance of chemistry, but is the gas that

discharges from these cannisters free of moisture? Are we blowing a

moisture laden gas into the camera body & then sealing it in there

with the lens where it can promote rust etc?

If you look at the insert closely you'll notice that the 2 large rollers over which the film moves establish the "film plane," in conjunction with the backing plate. The "body" of the back has 2 additional small rollers that are factory aligned to match this plane. According to Hasselblad, there is enough variability in manufacturing tolerances to require these 4 rollers to be individually aligned for best result.

 

"Unmatched" backs may thus have an insert whose interface with these small rollers is not ideal, affecting optimum film flatness across the film plane.

Ian:

 

The rear curtains are actuated by a spring which will need replacement after 30+ years. As much as it's a daunting expense, the Hasselblad body overhaul will clean all inner parts, replace & update certain parts, re-calibrate focus, replace deteriorating foam under the mirror & around the focusing screen, etc.

 

The result will be a spot-on camera ready to face the next 30 years. Going cheap with a squirt of oil or sending it to a local repair guy who claims some kind of expertise is always risky. There are too many out there whose idea of CLR is a shot of degreaser followed by a shot of WD 40 or worse.

 

You obviously take great pleasure in the thing. Isn't it worth the peace of mind to have it done right? The 'ole girl will soldier on with distinction if you give it some TLC.

 

So many people, (myself included) have alternately tried do-it-yourself repair or marginal characters advertising low prices (whose results always seem low quality in the end.)

 

Just my opinion.