|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 16, 2007 19:35:07 GMT -5
Dear fellow camera collectors (and photographers, of course), I got my first (two) rolls of 120 film back today. While my yield was only in the range of 50% I am really very pleased with the results. I have troubles to scan it - I used my old HP7400 flatbed scanner which is already worn, and got a about unusable scan software. Anyway, my first picture out there was the pier of Hagna, the small village where I live... Planar 2.8/80, Velvia 50, handheld (tripod at home syndrome) The next one is the Lake of Pfaeffikon at the place where I work. I took it at evening right before driving back home. Planar 2.8/80 The next one is again near home above the Lake of Constance. Then there was bad weather for a couple of days. After the storm I took this one (still a lot of wind over the lake) Planar 2.8/80 The last one is a bit away from the lake, at a place where the dog-training takes place, and walking the dog of course. The walk passes by a beautiful oak tree. Again Planar 2.8/80 - I like this lens. Best regards Peter
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Mar 17, 2007 8:12:38 GMT -5
Hi Peter, You certainly seem to have got the hang of using the Hasselblad OK. I expect it felt unfamiliar after using eye-level 35mm SLRs, but I found it was a lovely camera to use with the normal waist-level finder.
I tried the eye-level prism (actually a Russian one but it fitted OK) and though the TTL metering was handy I wasn't keen on the feel of the camera at eye level. There didn't seem to be a 'natural' way to hold it.
The camera actually belonged to my wife, and I didn't use it a lot, but when I did I usually used the 50mm Flektogon. This is a superb lens, but very expensive even secondhand. But I agree that the 80mm Planar is also a very fine lens. I'm sure you'll get lovely pictures with it. Have you tried the other lens yet?
The scans look OK on screen. My fairly limited experience with scanners is that either they work or they don't. I've never come across wear on the moving parts, the rails that carry the scanning light, even on old well-used models but I suppose it could happen. I did once have to clean the rails because the travel was jerky, but that was all. Most problems with scanning seem to be with the software.
With my recently acquired secondhand Epson 2450 scanner I'm using Epson's generic Twain 5 software, downloadable free. It's not exactly intuitive to use, and the built-in help feature is pretty useless, but it's nice once you figure it out. I tried downloading the free trial version of Vuescan but found little, if any, reason to switch to it.
I don't use any of the 'picture correcting' features of scanner drivers, not even the dust and scratch filter. I find it better to do straight scans at the default setting and do any corrections afterwards in a picture editing program where you can see the result of any changes as soon as you make them.
I scan everything (except OCR) in RGB, even black and white negs and line art, and convert those to greyscale afterwards. Other people may have a different method, but it works fine for me. I tried using CMYK and Labcolor but found no real advantages.
I'm a great one for using free software. For OCR I use ABBY's FineReader Sprint 5.0, again downloadable free because it's been superseded by Version 6.0. I find it very good and very accurate, even on old yellowed newspapers. This works best for me at a fairly low resolution, usually 300 dpi, in black and white mode. In higher resolution or in colour any blemishes or old stains in the paper seem to intefere with its ability to recognise characters.
Ask Google or whatever search engine you use to look for free downloadable drivers for the HP 7400. I'm sure there are some out there, possibly from HP themselves
Anyway, good luck with the 'blad. I'm sure you'll get some lovely pictures.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Mar 17, 2007 11:18:12 GMT -5
Hello Peter, I like the 4th and 5th photos.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 17, 2007 11:28:13 GMT -5
What a wonderful oak tree!
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 17, 2007 13:03:05 GMT -5
Dear Peter,
I got the prism finder for 50 Swiss Francs as I bought most of the Hasselblad stuff from that guy (he got the camera from his boss - wish I had such a boss ;-) - but decided he's rather use the money to buy something digital). I find the standard viewer much more suitable to think about the pictures composition than any eye level viewer I used so far. I will need some time to get used to compensate for a tilt by turning the whole thing into the "wrong" direction. But I am shure I will learn to deal with this.
I think however that the prism viewer will offer some advantage when the lighting situation is such, that too much light is shining on the Hasselblad standard view finder.
The prism view finder I got is not having a meter built in - I'll have to figure out the EV value by different means. I did so by estimating the lighting difference from the sunny-16, and I did hit some, missed others. But I am confident, that I will gain the experience in EV-estimation so that I don't need allways to rely on a light meter. I will use bracketing when the shot seems worth the effort.
I got a 4/50 Distagon within the package. When You talk about a Flektogon, then this is about a Carl Zeiss Jena lens, isn't it? For me the normal lens is good - I do much more normal angle shots than wide angle ones. I decided however to hunt down a short tele, i.e. a 4/150, most likely an old, silver, single coated sonnar, as the T* variants are too expensive. Besides I read somewhere, that the old 4/150 Sonnar was just as good as the newer one (I read the same on the 2.8/80 Planar). I also read complaints on the 4/50 Distagon w.r.t. the lack of sharpness over the frame. I will test this out, but again I won't spent that sinful amount of money for a 4/40 or 4/50 CFE lens.
The scans are not good - well, they are good enough for WWW - but they are way below the standard I got in my 35mm photography. But I will be patient here - some day I will buy a decent MF scanner. In the meantime I save my 6x6 slides, and my money...
Dear Randy, dear Wayne,
Thank You for Your encouragement!
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by herron on Mar 17, 2007 18:41:15 GMT -5
Peter: I really like the first and fourth one. Almost feels like being there!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Fraley on Mar 17, 2007 22:12:02 GMT -5
Hi Peter,
Great work! The detail in the first one is wonderful, especially the distant mountains contrasted to the lapping water in the foreground. Number two has some great saturated colors, and number four is very striking with the smooth stones and wind-blown grasses. Medium format lends itself to careful composition, I think, and your pictures have that quality.
|
|
bobm
Contributing Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by bobm on Mar 18, 2007 9:00:55 GMT -5
I agree with Michael, they're excellent images. I can't speak for the Hassy experience as it's a TLR I have, but I find that MF and a fixed focal length slows things down such that you tend to take more time with composition. MF + Velvia 50 + landscape = heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 18, 2007 16:42:56 GMT -5
Dear friends,
Thank You for Your encouraging words!
I got some nitpicking comments on photocritique.net w.r.t. to shallow DoF - I have to carry the tripod with me to overcome this, but it will be worth the effort.
I got a few good ones on the second film, too (it ate the 12 frames too quickly ;-) ). I will try however to improve my scanning technique a bit. I will try to get the glass clean at least.
Dear Bob,
well, the square format is very much differing from the 35mm 4:3 format. I can't say, that I had lots of troubles with it. But it feels a lot different. The same applies to the left-right confusion, that slows the work down for me (usually that helps me!).
I can't imagine, that the experience with a TLR is much different from the Hassie. In the end You got the same one mirror construction for the finder, and You look down to a pretty big ground glass.
I think Your heaven formula is right! I did however order some Provia 100F and some Provia 400X to gain a bit speed. My first tests with Provia were pretty OK. I don't know what You think of these films...
Best regards Peter
|
|
bobm
Contributing Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by bobm on Mar 19, 2007 13:18:47 GMT -5
I was referring more to the fact that you can change lenses on the Hassy as opposed to the fixed lens setup of my TLR. As such your set-up will be that more flexible with regard to choice of focal length and lens quality - bank balance permitting..... I've always been a fan of slow film - Kodachrome 25 and occasionally 64 which I shot with up until 25 was discontinued. I also used Ektar 25 which I liked very much once I found a place that could develop it properly. I was introduced to Velvia in the early '90s and moved over to it when K25 finally disappeared. Currently I'm on the aforementioned Velvia 50 in both 35mm and 120 when I can get it although I'm being tempted back to B&W with Ilford Pan F Plus 50. Ignore the nitpicking - half the time it's probably down to jealousy. Critique is only someone else's opinion of how they think your shot should look. IMO photography is art, and if you as the photographer like what you shot, then who's to say it's right or wrong. Mind you, for landscapes, it's always a good idea to carry a tripod, or even a beanbag so you can sit the camera on something suitable to minimise shake.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 19, 2007 16:49:25 GMT -5
[Hassie vs. TLR - interchangeable lenses]
Dear Bob,
for the time being I try to explore the 80mm first. When I carry the camera I try to guess the angle it covers, then I have a peek to the view finder. Thus I learn to estimate the impression of the lens before I start fiddling with different lenses - I did this for my Minolta 35mm gear.
Besides of the three lenses I got, the 80mm fits the best to my viewing habits. I don't do much wide angles - and look on the first picture. It looks wide, and it is done with the 80mm. There is no single 50mm picture in the lot so far.
On the long side the 250mm is too long for daily usage. I will hunt down a 150mm, which will become my second option behind the 2.8/80.
[Velvia 50]
I like this film - but I find the Velvia 100F even a tiny bit more comfortable. I got no sharpness issue with the 100F either. I got the Provia 100F by a mistake, and I give it a try prior to complaining and sending it back.
I see quite some good b/w photography. Most of it is protraiture, which is not my thing - at least I didn't realize it so far. For me color is the first choice. I come from water color painting and color is very important for me. I saw however what Ansel did...
[Nitpicking]
I have enough self-ashuredness not to break down under critique. I think Your opinion on art is absolutely true. On the other hand there is some aspect of craft in photography, too. And here critique can help. And when I know, I would have stopped down further, if I had a tripod with me, than I do accept the nitpicking on foreground blurriness - as I already felt it.
Things get worse if You knew I am pretty perfectionistic. But maybe this shines a bit through my photographs.
But back to the Hassie vs. Rollei or some other TLR: I know all of my stuff would have come out with a TLR in exact the same way. There is no need for gear-madness here - the square format and a decent normal lens is everything it took on the technical side... a Walzflex or a Minolta Autocord would have been fully sufficient. I could afford the Hassie, and thus the Hassie is OK, too, of course - but it was not necessary.
My friend Klaus put a roll of Illford B/W into one of his backs. I may try one out...
Best regards Petre
|
|
bobm
Contributing Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by bobm on Mar 21, 2007 14:23:08 GMT -5
Peter: There were times when I wished that I could put a 50mm or even a 40mm on my 635 - I've since acquired both the WA at around 50mm and telephoto at around 100mm auxiliary lenses for it so hope to give them a try fairly soon. There's a UK photographer called Charlie Waite who did a TV series some time ago called 'Seeing Scotland' and all through this series of programmes about shooting landscapes, all he used was a Hassie + 150mm. It's out on DVD I believe and is well worth tracking down. Here's a link to his site - again well worth a look as it contains some B&W landscapes: www.charliewaite.com/gallery-page.aspAFAIK Velvia 100F was the replacement for Velvia 50 when 50 was discontinued. Apparently though, Velvia 50 is meant to be being re-introduced. ;D I agree with the craft aspect of photography but for me, a lot of what should be genuine "critique", amounts to little more than an extension of pixel-peeping and, if slavishly adhered to, can result in images that may well be technically perfect but lack soul. I had one of my images effectively trashed on another forum simply because the person, in their own words, "couldn't beat it themselves because they hadn't anything like it in their own collection." That's not critique, that's jealousy - hence my earlier comments. There's nothing wrong in being a perfectionist - I'm like that myself and quite often you'll be harder on yourself than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 25, 2007 16:17:26 GMT -5
The short telephotos may be overlooked by most landscape photographers. I have to confess that I rarely use them, too. The main handicap is that one needs to run a lot around, since the optimum standpoint quite often is more than a bit away from the place, where one first spots a photo possibility. A normal lens is less demanding in this respect. And there are simply a lot of situations, where the optimum 150mm spot is not accessible.
Maybe the highlands are open enough that this restriction does not hurt too much.
But again, I think doing landscapes with a 150mm lens means putting much more effort into the search for the optimum standpoint than were necessary for shorter focal length. With a normal or moderate wide angle one can shot immediately when spotting a nice scene. A short WA is a bit different, too - but situations where those are the first choice seem to be pretty rare, too.
I often heard opposite reports - mainly from WA buffs. But at least for me I came to different conclusions. But I am of course far from being a master photographer - so caveat on my rants.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jul 25, 2007 16:25:54 GMT -5
I've always enjoyed modest WA lenses for most landscape work, but my son (who once upon a time used a Hassie...before digital changed his workflow) has taken some really nice landscapes using a short tele. Of course, his lens has the built-in swings and tilts necessary for perspective enhancements, and costs more than my whole system.........
|
|
galenk
Lifetime Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by galenk on Jul 26, 2007 11:56:21 GMT -5
I love the Oak, BEAUTIFUL SHOT!!!
|
|