Back to the Future

[stever]

1) 503CW, two A12 backs, a state of the art darkroom

I would opt for:
Hasselblad 503 CX
Hasselblad 903
Four (4) or more A12 backs
50mm CF, 80mm CF, 100mm CF, 150mm CF, 250mm CF, 350mm CF and 500mm CF lenses.
a state of the art darkroom

Option 1 is too limiting. A camera and two backs are useless without the lenses.

YMMV

Steve

 

[michaelhcothran]

Ahhh ..., but there is not need to put four film negatives together because the dynamic range is already there! Steve

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree whole heartedly. Film latitude, as the dynamic range used to be called, is only about 5 stops for transparency film and maybe 7 stops for color negative. Good enough for many shots, but not good enough in high contrast scenes. In film days, we just had to live with burnt out highlights or blocked up shadows. For Cibachrome printing, many diehards created unsharp masks in the darkroom to help control contrast, but with digital we now have other, more useable options that include HDR stacking, or as I do mostly, use of luminosity masks.
I am not trying to debate the film vs digital, but I believe you are blindsided if you think that film (even color negative film) has enough dynamic range to cover any situation. It simply doesn't. Nor does digital. But digital simply allows the photographer more options when a wide range of latitude is needed. And again, I concur with Marc that if I had my druthers, I'd be 100% digital, but I know those situations where film is still the better choice, and I embrace whatever will bring home the bacon.

 

[bensonga]

I would opt for:
Hasselblad 503 CX
Hasselblad 903
Four (4) or more A12 backs
50mm CF, 80mm CF, 100mm CF, 150mm CF, 250mm CF, 350mm CF and 500mm CF lenses.
a state of the art darkroom

Option 1 is too limiting. A camera and two backs are useless without the lenses.

YMMV

Steve

Well, I didn't mention lenses because frankly, that's not relevant to this discussion.

My combinations were simply meant to highlight the three basic workflow choices at their most basic level of 1) film capture with a darkroom, ie no digital output or 2) film capture with a conversion to digital via scanning and no darkroom 3) digital capture and output

Why 2 A12 back? Why one for color and one for BW film of course....one of the great things about the Hasselblad vs my Pentax 67.

Gary

 

[stever]

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree whole heartedly. Film latitude, as the dynamic range used to be called, is only about 5 stops for transparency film and maybe 7 stops for color negative.

Slides do have a narrow range of light latitude, but I have gotten 12 metered f/stops out of Tri-X. I have not had a good stress test of color negatives yet. With black & white, the problem is getting 12 f/stops on 7 f/stop paper. When I worked at Kodak, some of my fellow employees captured 14 f/stops. I guess some people live right.

Besides, if I spent $50kUS on a d-back, I would not have the lenses and the SWC I have. If you really want me to try a D-back, just send me one that meets my specifications. Meanwhile, I am happy with film.

Steve

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Hi Marc -- I think this is a good decision. The 203FE is really made to shoot film, or at least a 6x6 square image. Having a viewfinder mask in there and having to turn the camera and back around to switch from landscape to portrait -- it is all just a distraction. A major part of the beauty in the V system is the square, symmetrical image and viewfinder. Since you already have good digital options, you might as well focus on film with the 203FE. I also agree that digital makes much more sense for work, but for personal or fine art shooting, you use what you like and what pleases your eye. I think for a lot of us, that is still film.

This is my first post here, but it looks like I already know some of you. In any case, it is nice to see people here are still actively shooting the V cameras!

 

[fotografz]

Hi Marc -- I think this is a good decision. The 203FE is really made to shoot film, or at least a 6x6 square image. Having a viewfinder mask in there and having to turn the camera and back around to switch from landscape to portrait -- it is all just a distraction. A major part of the beauty in the V system is the square, symmetrical image and viewfinder. Since you already have good digital options, you might as well focus on film with the 203FE. I also agree that digital makes much more sense for work, but for personal or fine art shooting, you use what you like and what pleases your eye. I think for a lot of us, that is still film.

This is my first post here, but it looks like I already know some of you. In any case, it is nice to see people here are still actively shooting the V cameras!

Hi Stuart !!!! Welcome. This is a "good ol' boys" V club here ... some of the most knowledgeable Hasselbald V users around.

One other aspect for me in this decision, was the cost to constantly keep current with two different MFD systems. Yikes!

First the CFV/39 hits the market, then the new H4D ... so ... it became clear that I should use each system the way they were designed.

This doesn't mean that the CFV/39 isn't a terrific digital back for V lovers, it's just that for me it's a real financial chore to keep both V and H systems at peak performance.

If I can't keep that going then the unfortunate victim will be the 203FE kit ... which I'd hate to sacrifice ... but business is business ... and that is always the priority.

-Marc

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I find that the best thing you can do for your Hasselblads is use them a lot! If you don't, things get gummed up. The best example of this would be the 110/2 -- if you let it sit for a really long time, there is a very high chance that the aperture blades will accrue oil and begin to slow or stick. It's the same with the film backs -- the more you use them, the better they seem to work.

I have had my 203FE since 2005, and still have not had a CLA. I don't know how long the previous owner had it or whether they CLAed it, but it is still going strong. Truth be told, it could use one now I think (the shutter button sticks a bit), but everything else works great. I have had more problems with the backs than with the lenses and body...

 

[polypal]

Storing lenses and filmbacks.

If for any reason it can be foreseen that a lens will not beused for sometime it is best to select the smallest aperture and close the blades.
The same goes for shuttered lenses: release the lens before it is stored.

Do not forget to cock the lenses before any attempt is made to fit them to a body.
That is the only snag with this procedure.

Contrary to what some believe light traps do benefit if the dark slide is removed before the back is stored.
With later style backs the DS can be fitted to the plastic retainer.

 

[jlm]

think of the CV back as a proofer so you can nail your tri-x shot

 

[bensonga]

Can someone described for me the method for determining the dynamic range actually captured by either a particular exposure on film, a digital camera image or a scanned image from film? I think I know how to determine the dynamic range of an actual scene (perhaps by measuring the darkest and brightest areas of a scene with spot meter, for example). I assume for film a person would need to use a densitometer or something of the sort. How about for a digital image, whether digital capture or scanned film?

For those of us who scan film and proceed from there to the digital darkroom....I always assumed that the dynamic range a decent scanner was able to capture from film was not that much different from a very good DSLR or MFDB. If that's correct, then if you were able to capture a wider dynamic range with film, by the time you scanned it the resulting image wasn't going to offer much if any improvement over the dynamic range you could capture with a good MFDB.

Am I right or wrong in this assumption or line of reasoning?

Gary

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Dynamic range is a tricky concept, and for film especially, there is no definitive "dynamic range" for a type of film, or even a particular film. For example, if I take Fuji Acros and develop it in Rodinal 1:25, it will have a certain dynamic range, but if I develop it in Rodinal 1:100 with semi-stand agitation, it will have a significantly larger dynamic range because the developer is having a compensating effect.

The output method will have a large influence as well. What you capture in a print will be very different if you are printing on a graded paper with a condenser enlarger than it will if you use a multigrade paper and practice split-grade printing. Same for scanning -- the scanner will make a huge difference.

Personally, I have sort of given up on talking with trying to figure out a definitive concept of dynamic range. For me, it is more about practical experience. To me, it seems like slow to medium speed black and white film has the most dynamic range at capture, followed by medium format digital. Then full frame 14bit 35mm digital, then color neg, then slides. While in general the more dymamic range the better, that is more about printing latitude than actual final product. I tend to print contrasty anyway, which can mean throwing away a lot of dynamic range in the highlights and shadows.

 

[bensonga]

Hi Stuart. Nice to see you here too!

Dynamic range is a tricky concept, and for film especially, there is no definitive "dynamic range" for a type of film, or even a particular film. For example, if I take Fuji Acros and develop it in Rodinal 1:25, it will have a certain dynamic range, but if I develop it in Rodinal 1:100 with semi-stand agitation, it will have a significantly larger dynamic range because the developer is having a compensating effect.

That's what I had in mind, although I probably wasn't clear about it. I assume the only way to really measure the dynamic range captured by a certain exposure on film is after you've developed the film, by using something like a densitometer and measuring different parts of the exposed film? This would take account of what you said re different developers and methods of agitation etc.

The output method will have a large influence as well. What you capture in a print will be very different if you are printing on a graded paper with a condenser enlarger than it will if you use a multigrade paper and practice split-grade printing. Same for scanning -- the scanner will make a huge difference.

Agreed, I was pretty much aware of all this and which is why, for me, just saying that film captures a wider dynamic range than digital capture or scanning doesn't mean much....I'm always ultimately more interested in the final product, which is usually a print. However, I'm still interested in how dynamic range would be actually measured, whether it's a piece of exposed/developed film, digital capture image, scanned film image etc.

And of course, this is just one of the qualities of interest when discussing film vs digital images.

Gary

 

[stever]

Can someone described for me the method for determining the dynamic range actually captured by either a particular exposure on film, a digital camera image or a scanned image from film? I think I know how to determine the dynamic range of an actual scene (perhaps by measuring the darkest and brightest areas of a scene with spot meter, for example). I assume for film a person would need to use a densitometer or something of the sort. How about for a digital image, whether digital capture or scanned film?

For those of us who scan film and proceed from there to the digital darkroom....I always assumed that the dynamic range a decent scanner was able to capture from film was not that much different from a very good DSLR or MFDB. If that's correct, then if you were able to capture a wider dynamic range with film, by the time you scanned it the resulting image wasn't going to offer much if any improvement over the dynamic range you could capture with a good MFDB.

Am I right or wrong in this assumption or line of reasoning?

Gary

I meter the darkest and the brightest and write down that information in my notes. I have not scanned the negatives since I rarely post photographs or print from scans so I cannot answer your other questions.

Steve

 

[rmuscio]

The three reasons I don't shoot digital:
1. Digital backs are too expensive.
2. Digital backs are too expensive.
3. Digital backs are too expensive.

PLUS the learning curve and expensive computers, hardware and software to process.

Terry

I'll second that motion, plus the fact that your fine WA lenses are no longer Wide Angles..........I have a DSLR for digital, when the need arises.

Ron

 

[fotografz]

Can someone described for me the method for determining the dynamic range actually captured by either a particular exposure on film, a digital camera image or a scanned image from film? I think I know how to determine the dynamic range of an actual scene (perhaps by measuring the darkest and brightest areas of a scene with spot meter, for example). I assume for film a person would need to use a densitometer or something of the sort. How about for a digital image, whether digital capture or scanned film?

For those of us who scan film and proceed from there to the digital darkroom....I always assumed that the dynamic range a decent scanner was able to capture from film was not that much different from a very good DSLR or MFDB. If that's correct, then if you were able to capture a wider dynamic range with film, by the time you scanned it the resulting image wasn't going to offer much if any improvement over the dynamic range you could capture with a good MFDB.

Am I right or wrong in this assumption or line of reasoning?

Gary

RE: scanner verse a digital back ...

Think about it ... a digital back is capturing an image in a fraction of a second ... a scanner is ... well ... slowly scanning across the film.

How well scans comparatively work depends on the scanner. The amount of detail and tonal range that can be captured depends on the D-Max of any given scanner ... for example, the Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight scanners have a pretty high D-Max compared to a Flatbed. The ability to see into the shadow areas is pretty phenomenal.

In other words, no, the range of a scanner isn't the same as a single shot digital back. A multi-shot digital back is another matter altogether.

-Marc

 

[stever]

In general given a good digital camera and a good flatbed scanner, the flatbed scanner will win. Some 35mm sized dslrs only have 12 bits/color while my inexpensive Epson 4490 Photo Scanner has 16 bits per color. Comparing a digital back for a Hasselblad to that scanner, consider that I can get 320 megabytes from a 6x6 negative or slide on that scanner.

I still like chemical prints better and I do not have to buy expensive ink cartridges.

Steve

 

[polypal]

The Epson 4490 may be a pretty good flatbed scanner but it can not come near the detail a good drumscanner can produce.

 

[stever]

Of course, it does the work that I need it to and one day I will spend my money on a drum scanner rather than a digital back.

Steve

 

[fotografz]

I find that many who comment on digital backs haven't used one ... or if they did it was for too short of a time to grasp the workflow necessary to get the most out of a MFDB. It's no different from learning good dark room technique except there is no dark room. It just takes time.

In nose to print inspections the big digital backs will out do film every time. The dynamic range of today's common digital backs is 12 stops ... but it is absolutely amazing how much you can squeeze out of the files if you expose correctly for the conditions and get the white balance correct ... which is an often overlooked aspect when comparing film verses digital capture. Correct WB or color temperature has a huge effect on balanced exposure. No complex calculations to do, just shoot a quick custom WB frame and off you go.

IMO, film is an esthetic decision, not a technical one. It looks different, and if you think it looks better then digital then shoot film. I personally don't shoot very much color film even though I like the look of it. The Digital backs do a fine job of color. But there is just something about B&W film that can't be duplicated ... yet.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

The Epson 4490 may be a pretty good flatbed scanner but it can not come near the detail a good drumscanner can produce.

The 4490 can't touch a digital back either ... I know, I have both. The Flextight 949 holds it's own but your film has to be well exposed. Good drum scans with a GOOD operator are the best ... but yikes! it's expensive and time consuming. The 949 comes pretty close to a drum scan ... and a 6X6 neg takes about a minute.

-Marc