jeff.grant

<p>The 1228 is fine. I have taken many long exposures with a 503CW and vatious lenses. I normally use a 1325 but have used the 1228 on holidays at times.</p>

<p>Here's one that I forgot: http://richardwoldendorp.com/richardwoldendorp.com/Home.html<br>

I don't know what he uses but his work is outstanding. His aerial images of the Australian outback are superb</p>

<p>Glad you liked them, thanks.</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.hansstrand.com/">http://www.hansstrand.com/</a></p>

<p >and you'll find a stack here: <a href="http://www.jeff-grant.com/portfolio315669.html">http://www.jeff-grant.com/portfolio315669.html</a></p>

<p>Great answer, Andy and you even managed to start a couple of urban myths of your own.<br>

1. Phocus is used by many photographers in commercial environments. The hasselbalddigitalforum is very quiet these days. I suspect that's because Phocus is stable.<br>

2. I don't know what you are comparing it to but I never had any issues with AF on H cameras. They can hunt in low light, low contrast just like many others. Of course they can't keep up with a DSLR but who expects them to? </p>

<p>Arthur, I suspect that the plate will be fine. I always use RRS plates these days as I have the non-screw clamps and need consistent size. I have an old Clearsight foot which I used on one of my 503s which you are welcome to have.</p>

<p>Arthur, it's more than enough. I have used a 1228 with up to 6 minute exposures with no problems with a 503CW. I recently used the 1228 with an H4D and 35-90 on a Arca D4 head in Iceland. That's much heavier than the 503.</p>

<p>It is an excellent back. I had one years ago. You won't get much in the way of EXIF data as there is no way to feed the info from the camera to the back. From memory, the connection is via a sync cord?</p>

<p>No</p>

Bloody autocorrect. That should be any suggestions.

I kep finding myself logged out nd then go through umpteen login sequences until I get lucky and get back in. Ny guest

ions?

<p>LuLa is not the best place to go for Hasselblad info. You are more likely to get venom than information. The Hasselblad Digital forum would be a good starting point: http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php/board,14.0.html</p>

<p>Before going digital, I used a 608 for some years. It never gave me a minutes worry. My only complaint is that it gave up too soon in very dim light, imho but I guess that any light meter would do the same. </p>

<p>An aerial shot taken in Iceland, cropped to 6x12. Certainly the most fun that I have had with a camera this year.</p><div></div>

<p>It's such a personal thing. I started off with a 503CW and V96C as my entry to MF digital. It is an excellent combination but the H system gave me a lot more options. I then ended up with an H3D and HC adapter using my Zeiss lenses. It didn't take long to work out that the new H lenses are the best choice today for me. The new lenses are superb and the lense to software integration excellent. I think one of the strengths of the Hasselblad is that you can ease your way in gently.<br>

Hasselbladdigitalforum.com is the best place around to get to talk to Hasselblad users. It's Hasselblad only and barely a salesman to be seen.</p>

<p>Thanks QG, I was composing a similar post on the Fuji topic. The funny thing is that my other camera is an X100. I would buy Fuji over Canon or Nikon any time. To use Fuji to denigrate Hasselblad shows that the person making that statement has no idea how good Fuji is.<br>

<br /> I'd go for an H4D 40, they are the best of the current bunch for a landscape photographer.</p>

<p>Another point worthy of note is that hasselblddigitalforum.com is one of the quietest places on the net. It will often go for a few days with no posts. I suspect that is because the gear works and the dealer network really does support their customers.</p>

<p>I use an H4D and post images on PN but when I want help I go to haselbladdigitalforum.com. It's only Hasselblad digital and is the best source for support. Hasselblad provides excellent support through the dealer network so it is also easy to get help that way.</p>

<p>Tim, why are you doing this alone?I would expect that your Hasselblad rep should be there to make sure that you are off and running. That is their model, not dump and let you sort it out. </p>

<p>If you are using colour neg, then one stop either way is pretty useless. I would not do less than 2 stops. I used to use 160 colour neg rated at 40 to get B&W. If you have a good scanner, it will produce great results. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photo/3080842</p>

<p>There is an Imacon users group on Yahoo which I would suggest is the best place to ask questions: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imaconusers/<br>

I haven't used mine in a couple of years as I can't bear the pain of scanning again so I have forgotten most of it. There were also some instructional videos which may still be available. Google would probably find them. Flexcolor is a great tool once you get the initial concepts under control.</p>

<p>I have a Flextight Photo sitting on my desk waiting to scan my last film images. What you say about the -120 is correct. I never bothered with that. I just set it to 0 and left it that way. I use Photokit to sharpen once I have scanned, just as I do now with a Hasselblad DB. I don't set levels in Flexcolor. I prefer to get the full range out of the scan, and make all adjustments in PS. This has worked for me.<br>

There is no focus on a Photo.</p>

<p>Thanks Dave. Without wishing to do what I recently complained of, I often think that most folks who compare MFDB to DSLR have never actually used the MFDB for any length of time. My last DSLR was a Sony A900 with Zeiss glass. I sold it because I was disappointed with the IQ each time that I used it. If you cast a quick eye over my seascapes, in particular, you see a lot of images with lots of tonal wash effects. My H4D delivers this superbly but the Sony just didn't cut it.<br>

Whether that is bit depth CCD vs CMOS, I neither know nor care. I'm just happy that I get it.</p>

<p>Does any of this answer the OP's questions or help his understanding? There seems to be an immutable law of nature that the longer a thread runs the further it digresses from the original question.</p>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly about Hasselblad support. It's simply excellent. That's where my agreement ends,<br>

I have also done the comparison that you suggest and am now shooting with an H4D 40 and am very happy. I have no interest in a film vs digital debate, digital simply works better for me.<br>

You mention dynamic range so I assume that you mean colour neg. No argument there but what a limited palette you get and grain to sand walls with.<br>

As for size, I used to get about a 280MB scan with film on a 503CW, now I get a 240MB file from the H4D. There is no competition, the digital image can be poked, prodded and resized and still come up smiling. Try that on film.<br>

I also wouldn't count on film being upgraded forever, either.<br>

My portfolio is full of both film and digital images her on PN. I don't think that my work has suffered or been limited by going digital, but that's just me.</p>

<p>Tim, you may be a lot different to me but, once I started with a digital back, it was the end of film for me. I was never a great lover of film, and couldn't wax eloquent about grain etc. To me, it was a PITA.<br>

It's very difficult to assess but you may find that your love of film is shallower than you think.</p>