ernie_gec

Regarding your issue with the fudged numbers...

The black & chrome lenses have these numbers printed on thin metal bands that screw into the lens body. I'm told by Hasselblad Canada that the chrome ones are no longer an available stock item, but the black ones are still in supply...

My 2 cents:

The Lowepro Micro Treker is great for light trips. I pack a Hassy kit in the center section, leaving enough room for a spot meter, spare backs, film, filters & bellows shade. It's a great setup. I love it.

Ian:

A very good overview of things to check can be read at this site:

http://www.smu.edu./~rmonagha/mf/hassybuy.html

good luck

Kevin is mostly right. The earlier A12 backs have the number on the insert written out in full on the center panel between spools, and it can be very faint & hard to read at times. Look carefully & you should be able to make it out.

Ernie

Mark:

There is nothing wrong with your camera. The speeds 1 second through 1/4 must be held "down" until the shutter closes. that's why there is a coloured indicator on the lens barrel at these speeds. At speeds greater than 1/4 the shutter cycles faster than the rear curtains.

This rule is not applicable on the self timer, however. With that function the rear baffles open just after the shutter closes & stay open until you reset the timer lever.

Mark:

Other possible factors:

Enlarger lens of insufficient focal length to cover the corners & edges of the image field (80 mm minimum.)

Rear secondary "shutter" on body may be tired & failing to flip out of the way completely at time of exposure. Take back off the camera & fire the camera a few times, observing closely where they end up. Action should be crisp & smooth.

You may have a back that's leaking light. You say the PRINT has lighter values on the edges... that suggests the negative has higher density in this area, which can easily result if your light seal in the back is old.

I agree with the other posters about the developing tanks etc, but I'd be inclined to suspect something with the camera first.

Good luck

The world of photographers seems to be crudely divisible into the "image is everything" crowd vs. the "gadget & gear" crowd. For the the first group, it doesn't matter if you're using a pin-hole camera made out of a shoe box... if the results are art you need not trouble yourself with more. To do so reeks of status obsession or some other indefensible motivation.

The second group love pictures, too, but also derive enormous pleasure in a finely crafted device, whose lenses are capable of exquisite sharpness, whose quality & manufacturing tolerances are things to admire in themselves.

Adherents to either group don't seem to understand one another very well. It's like the difference between people who regard cars as boring transportation and those who love them as objects of great beauty.

I remember going through the same debate as you once. I knew intellectually that the cheaper brand was just as good as the Hasselblad in terms of final results, but I also knew that I'd always lust for the mechanical refinements of the higher priced brand... I got the "better" camera & have never regretted it. I'm not a better photographer, or a more sophisticated person or anything else. I just love my choice. It gives me great satisfaction.

And to those people who say "yah, but it ain't rational," I'd suggest you try giving your wives a zirconia diamond & tell them its just as good. Good luck.

I just got a "c" chrome lens from the 60's CLA'd by Hasselblad Canada & the tech told me there was no problem finding parts for needed repairs. The only thing becoming difficult to track down were the chrome bands that have the shutter speeds written on them. Rough use can abrade these painted numbers off, & they're not stocked parts any more.

As for CF lenses, much newer, much better prospects for long term service.

David:

Lugging all that stuff for 15 miles is making me hungry just thinking about it. I can only talk about the Lowepro, since I have one, and it's a very ergonomically sound design. The shoulder straps are well padded and the internal separators are easily adjustable for different configurations. The one issue I have yet to see addressed in these designs is waterproofing. I don't know that any are available in Goretex or other breathable waterproof designs. If you're out that far from the car & it starts pouring you have to put the whole ensemble into a plastic bag or other waterproof device. If anyone knows of a waterproof design I'd love to hear about it.

Ernie

One of the oft repeated lessons in Ansel Adams' "The Negative" regarding the "luminous" quality of images is the need to ensure that both shadow detail and highlights are in the range of values capable of printing on paper. For outdoor scenes of higher than ideal contrast this usually means placing the imporant shadow details rather high on the scale and underdeveloping the negative to bring the high values within acceptable limits.

Highlight values are especially prone to a too high placement, contributing to that washed out, detail free, pure white soot & chalk quality you refer to. Burning & dodging are important. Diffusion enlargers also help to prevent blocking up of values, especially in the high tones.

Brian:

I too have a 500C from 1969 that was doing the very same things. I'm with Ulrik on this one. The back will be put straight quite easily, but the lens & body will also need an overhaul at this age. The springs age, the foam begins to decay & fall apart in the body, the shutter speeds start to get iffy & focus starts to drift...

The good news is that if you can spring for an overhaul, you'll get another 30 years without worry in amateur use.

Lei:

I saw the same show. Most of the conspiratorial tone of the editing & background music was ratings driven nonsense.

I'd be willing to bet that any complete version of the interview with the Hasselblad guy would have offered the rather ordinary possibility of reflected light from a source off camera??? Like a hill in the background???? But that wouldn't be exiting.

One interesting thing I did puzzle over was the fact that some of the photos, upon close examination, seem to have objects in the picture that mask the reference lines of the Reseau plate. For example, an astronauts arm hides the reference lines. This could only happen, as I understand it, if the man's arm was between the negative and the glass plate, which is impossible. I still haven't figgured out that one.

oohhhhh...

Peter:

I have one. What would you like to know?

Ernie

Isn't the issue of acceptable handheld shutter speeds all about acceptable sharpness?

If a small enlargement is all you want, with care you may be able to get away with handheld shots in the lower speeds.

On the other hand, any kind of enlargement, say 8 by 10, will show show deteriorated performance, no matter who you think you are. If in doubt, steady yourself with a pair of binoculars & fix your eyes on a point source in the image. Jumps around, doesn't it. Thats happening as you hand hold the Hassie, too, whether you appreciate it or not.

If you really want a lesson in the frailty of hand held shooting, look through a rifle scope some time, and try keep the cross hairs on target. Bench rest shooters always use sand bag rests, & concrete platforms & all kinds of other tricks.

At longer time intervals, these inevitable movements create image smears, to some degree. You paid lots for your lenses. If you want the most out of them, use a tripod.

I too have owned the single coated 180 sonnar & pentacon six TL. The lens is very sharp, and somewhat prone to softness when directed at flare producing light sources.

The bigger problem is the camera itself. The black paint inside the body is not nearly light absorbing enough. Try this experiment. Open the back, trip the shutter at "B" and point the lens in such a way as to create a reflection off the camera body's internal parts. Its FAR too reflective.

Compare against, say, Hasselblad's internal flocking & the difference is stark.

I gather one can get these cameras re-coated to fix the problem, but I don't know where you would get such service.

Much opinion has been expressed in medium format sites about whether

cameras like the hasselblad suffer a diminishment of sharpness in

frames that have been advanced after sitting for a while, taking on

the "set" of the reverse curl in these types of magazines. The idea

being that the film bulges away from the backing plate, somewhat, thus

creating resolution problems.

Some photographers always waste the next frame, in this situation, in

order to avoid these alleged problems.

Has Zeiss done any objective research into this matter and do you have

any advice? Is this totally overblown paranoia or a legitimate

phenomenon for concern?

I've been looking for something without success, which may not

in fact exist. The standard lens caps for the bay 50 "c" lenses on

hasselblad cameras mount on the outside flange, or bayonet. If a lens

shade is mounted on this flange, this type of cap can't go on too,

obviously. I'm looking for a type of cap that bayonets on the inside

lens mount, or filter.

Is there such a thing?

This reply may or may not ring true for your situation.

I just had an 80 mm "C" lens CLA'd. One of the problems I asked the Hasselblad tech to put right was a focusing ring that tended to stutter, or have some free-play before that nice smooth focusing movement happened.

When I picked it up it was smooth as silk again, with no play or hesitation in movement. He told me the focus ring is simply a large screw packed with grease that ages, becomes hard & creates these kinds of results over time.

You mention, however, that the "free-play" has no forward or back lens barrel movement. Are you certain? If its just an elaborate screw, the focus should move even if is halting & jumpy.

All I can say is that the before & after difference in my case was amazing. Could that be your problem?

Why wouldn't you do the Ebay "thing."????

You have a worldwide potential market, you have control over final price throught the means of a reserve, you don't send the camera away until you receive payment...

The seller carries no risk in Ebay transactions, and all the potential benefits. The commission structure is cheaper than an equivalent rate to advertize as broadly.

I used to be skeptical of Ebay, but have come 'round. Most photo threads rant & rave about the idiots out there who pay too much for used equipment in their adrenaline fueled bidding frenzy. Why wouldn't you want to capitalize on that?

Just an opinion

Mark:

I just tried the timed release on my Pentacon 6TL and can assure you that the mirror does not flip out of the way until the final moment of exposure. There is no vibration minimizing advantage, therefore, in the self timer release approach. DASS EES NO GOOT!

I think a more helpful way to approach this is to remember that all lenses of a set focal length have the same depth of field, irrespective of the format they're used on. For example, an 80 mm. lens for 35 mm has the same depth of field as an 80 mm lens for medium format, which has the same depth of field as an 80 mm. for 4 by 5 etc.

The practical difference arises when we consider that the 80 mm. lens for your 35mm camera is slightly telephoto in the expected compressed depth of field. Yet, 80mm for medium format is considered a "normal" lens, but it must by definition have the same depth of field as the 80 mm for the 35mm format.

It is in this sense that we commonly say there is less "depth of field" in a lens of similar perspective as format increases in size.

I recently bought a zone VI modified pentax spot meter to use with my

500C camera. The other day I casually held some B&W filters in front

of the meter and compared the EV values between unfiltered and

filtered light falling on the same reflected light source. I was

surprised to notice that the EV spread between various filters was

different than the "filter factor" recommended by the manufacturer,

sometimes by quite a bit.

Am I better off ignoring the manufacturer ratings and adjusting

exposure based on the meter's indicated EV adjustment or is it

important to adhere to the manufacturer ratings irrespective of what

the meter readings are?