Dissapointed Hasselblad owner

I'm not familiar with the Epson scanner you mention, but flatbeds often have problems with holding the 120 film flat and even if they do, the very best scans (which delve into the MF quality) come from much more expensive scanners.

Dont be dissapointed with the Blad, suggest you concentrate on getting the best from your current scanner or paying to have drum or flextight scans.

Whether a digi back is better is probably down to economics and how much this could save in terms of film, processing and scanning. If you do a lot it would make sense to originate the image on digital.

Yep, it's the scanner. One of the reasons I have no internet portfolio. If you want to show your pictures on the web, your digital camera is the tool for this.

I think you should first assume that it's you before further purchases. You should eliminate all possible screw-ups that might have taken place. There are too many factors to assume the Hassey isn't taking sharp pictures.

Marcus, you could always get the chemicals out and print in the manner film was intended? Once film goes digital it looses credibilty and becomes scribbly. If you scan, usually you`ll have to sharpen the image and the merry go round starts. Take the time to process your work correctly and avoid scanning unless it`s high end. I doubt any scanner will live up to the camera`s image quality.

The reason I want to scan is first of all I want to show my work on the 'net. Second I used to print my copies myself, but I unfortunately don't have that time anymore. The reason I bought a Hasselblad is merely that I like to work with a medium-format and I have always wanted a nice old Swedish camera :)

At the same time when I see photos here on photo.net where the photographers saying they use a Hassy it seems as they have wonderful images (perfect focus etc). Maybe I have to do some real testshots with a heavy tripod and MLU?

Have you looked at the film under high magnification to see if it's really sharp?

Hi Marcus,

Film can do just fine scanned and assuming your camera is working well it will take sharp images. To be sure you should look ar the negatives with a magnifier or perhaps shoot a roll of slide film and convince yourself that the image on the film is fine. If so then it is yoru scanner. The issue is commonly where the scanner places it's focus (not always at the plane of the film, if your film is held flat and to some degree the type of film you are scanning.

Personally now I use a MF film scanner but I did use a flatbed scanner (3200) with Epson then these 3rd party negative holders and had fine results.

holders:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html

notes on your specific scanner:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/3170notes.html

I print some of my images with tradition means and digitally print others. There is a lot that can go wrong with a film to digital work flow set up but there is a lot to be said for the overall control of your image (especially for color images) once it is digital.

Some newer flatbed scanners are perhaps easier to work with for negative scans that your, another option might be to see if you can spring for a newer scanner.

Robert

As others have suggested, the first thing to do is to rule out "operator error" which with a Hasselblad generally means "camera motion."

Are you shooting on a heavy tripod at 1/250th or 1/500th second ?

If you are hand-holding, that's an 80% likely source of the problem. The 'blad doesn't hold like most other cameras and there is that big mirror slap that introduces camera motion. While it might be only a thousandth of an inch movement during exposure, it shows up immediately as an unsharp image. It takes a lot of practice and an appreciation of how to minimize camera motion to shoot a 'blad hand-held and expect big enlargements.

I have not taken any images sloer than 1/125. Usually I use a tripod and 1/500. I have an WLF that have -1 diopter. But I have lenses on and maybe this makes it harder for me to focus correctly. I will test to shoot on a ruler at 45 degrees and see how that comes out.

/ Marcus

Keith Laban Photography

Hasselblads do nothing for me at all.

.....and that's why I love them.

Really, any camera is only as good as the person behind it, and all the more so when it's basically just a light tight box with a lens on one end and comes with no user friendly programs. Hasselblad cameras have probably been used to make more stunning images than all the rest of the medium format cameras put together, but in every case it was the photographer that created the image and was responsible for how sharp it was. If you really want to just point it at something and get the perfect shot then I'm afraid that as you have discovered it will be a huge disappointment to you.

Keith, it was merely a joke. Photography for me is NOT about pointing at anyting and just wait for Magnum to call. You can see in my portfolio if you want to :)

But since I have had this dream for many years now and when finally received all parts I got a bit dissapointed that the quality is lost someware. And if it is in the scanner it isn't that fun, since I have to pursuade my wife for one more cost :)

/ Marcus

Keith: By the way, nice photos you have. How do you get your images digital?

/ Marcus

Marcus, moving to a manual world is quite a shock. I found focussing to be a real challenge for a while after years of auto-everything cameras. I never even try using my Hasselblad handheld. It's always on a tripod with MLU. A good tripod and head is a must but it doesn't need to be particularly heavy. All of these shots were taken on a Gitzo 1227 with an Acratech head: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=384568 and there are some 6 minute exposures in there.

Bottom line, go practice and contemplate how you are going to fund a decent scanner.

I use MLU 95% of the time. I occasionally do not use MLU when I am shooting people in the street or kids under really bright light with a fast film.

Don't forget that ALL scanned negatives are soft. They must be sharpened, and most good scanners produce a file that is very tolerant of sharpening.

In fact, most digital SLRs produce a soft RAW image that must be sharpened, usually after converting, in order to produce a usable photo, in most instances.

Of course, out-of-focus exposures and movement from hand-held shots cannot be "fixed".

As a sidenote...it is very easy to enter a mind-set and become "hypnotized" by digital enhancements, such as sharpening. Usually, when people start working with digital tools, like Photoshop, they tend to over-sharpen because it makes their pictures "pop". Eventually, this look becomes very grating to the eyes and not very natural at all. I think that almost everyone goes through this phase when first working digitally.

It might be a good exercise to print a traditional darkroom print at the absolute best quality you can achieve, and then scan the negative and experiment with different sharpening settings, looking back and forth from the screen to the print. It's like the exercise I've heard about toning prints, always having an untoned print next to you for quick comparison.

If you are real dissapointed, you can send it to me!

Marcus: I am looking at this picture of yours, taken by 500C/M and Planar 80mm and I honestly do not see what complaints you might have.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4246507

Besides being quite an accomplished portrait it is also perfectly sharp to my eye. As far as my experience goes I found I must agree with those entries suggesting a sharpness increase through digital post-production whenever negative scanning is involved.

One more thing: the eye area might just be ever so slightly less 'sharper' than the nose and fingers, but thats merely due to how you focused the subject. With low f-stop and consequent shallow depth of field, in a portrait, you want to measure the focus on the eyes.

A split-field focusing screen might do the trick more easily. While C/M does have focusing screen interchangeability I do not know if split-field screens can be mounted.

The 500 C/M should take any screen. I have an Acute Matte D screen in a 500 EL/M. Another thing with portraits is that you need about two stops extra with MF over 35MM for the same DOF.

You said "maybe" your negatives are in focus. Are you sure? A fairly common mistake for first-time Hassy owners is to load the film incorrectly - forgetting about the all important step of placing the film between the spring-loaded film gate strip and the pressure plate. You know, the space which opens up over the pressure plate when, as you twist the insert lock, the metal strip along the edge of the pressure plate lifts slightly - revealing a space between the two? Remember that the film goes under this strip - not over.

Keith Laban wrote my exact words. we have been inundated with such great photography from 'Hassleblad cameras' and much more importantly 'Hassleblad photographers', that it is easy to expect to 'point-and-shoot' and find every frame 'Hassleblad perfect'. not so, of course, and that is when you realize the incredible skill and commitment to the camera by the person in back of the lens. the thousands of images that didn't make it, are behind the ones that do. my advice? slow down, learn your camera, find it's resonance with your style, and then make adjustments.

you might just be surprised ...

all the best

Daniel Taylor - afloat off of San Juan Island, Wa.

Scanning a sharp Hasselblad negative; a sharp Kodak Duaflex, a sharp Holga negative on a DRUM scanner and you will see the sharpness of the better camera. Scan them on a flatbed is like using a low pass filter, you just cut off most all the data above say 30 line pairs per mm. This is like maybe a bad 3 element TLR at is poorer f stops, or my Kodak Duaflex TLR on a good day. It is like placing nylons over your head and wondering why things are not as sharp. Flatbeds are not bad, they just dont pull out the whole cigar, and never will. This was known when professional flatbeds cost more than a Hasselblad kit, and were only 1200 dpi.

and please, even though I have twenty-thousand dollars worth of Hasselblad equipment here, I still get confused by the correct spelling. I'm not dyslexic, but it is a good excuse.

Hasselblad, Hasselblad, Hasselblad ...

The portrait of Ellen shot with your Hasselblad is very nice. To me it looks like a photo shot on MF film. Why don't you post more as shot with the Hasselblad? I'd like to see more to compare with your Canon 300D.

Keith Laban, I thought you shot with Bronicas?

Hi Marcus,

The Hasselblad is a totally different beast compared with the 300d. It really takes a lot of time and money to get the full potential out of this camera. That being said, when used correctly (read, no expenses spared) the images will blow any digital slr out of the water especially when it comes to enlarging. (unless, of course, you use a digital back for medium format, some how I doubt your wife would like this idea).

Anyway, judging from your post, the weakest link in your arsenal is your scanner. I'd recommend finding a lab in your area which use professional quality scanners like the flextight 949.

here's an example, this is a 100% crop from this image. It was shot handheld with MLU at 1/60s 2.8f on 400iso HP5 with the 80mm C. it was scanned at 3200dpi with the flextight 949, the entire image is over 50 megapixels.

First of all, I have to thank you all guys.

My bad experience with my camera may depend on two things:

1) Since I haven't been shooting film since I had an LF-camera (3 years ago) I have forgotten all about grain and so (even though it didn't show up in my 8x10" camera). If one look at the eye of the last post, due to it grainy look it looks unsharp to me. I know that it isn't at 1/500 etc and since it looks sharp in the uncropped version, it is maybe what one should expect when magnifying a film. I should say though that I love the grain in a film, but maybe the grain is one of the reason it doesn't look as sharp as it does when using a digital camera.

2) My Ellen portrait looks ok or pretty good when viewing it in 600x600, but if one takes the original and makes an 100% crop it looks as the last post. I just want to be able to count individual eye-lashes (spelling) and I don't feel that it's sharp enough.

However. I will take photos with my Hasselblad of two models this weekend. Since they will have perfect makeup and their hair layed by proffessionals it may help a bit :)

My camera has the standard Acute Matte (with standar I mean only four black lines in the middle). I have bought a standard (not Acute matte) with microprism. But I think it's too hard to focus with that one when it's dark.

So, when shooting! my models this weekend I will try to rememer that use at least f8 to minimize error in my focusing.

And when it comes to my scanner I feel that I have to buy a newer one, because when I scan a dark B&W I can see the two lamps that light on the film in the picture, but that's another story :)

/ Marcus

First of all, looking on a screen at 100% is very misleading. If your screen has the now typical 100dpi resolution and you have scanned at 3200dpi, you're looking at a 32X enlargement. No enlargement of that size can be pinpoint sharp nor does it need to be.

Secondly, the useful resolution of your current scanner is probably around 1600dpi. Try to scan at that setting and see what it does. I have no experience with the 3170 so I might be off on this.

Finally, consider the new Epson V700 scanner. This one has a useful resolution of 3200dpi and should help you taking advantage of your large and sharp negatives.

Marcus,

Grain increases the sense of sharpness. Not the other way round. I suspect you are just zooming in too much on the image beyond the resolution it was scanned at.

Keith Laban Photography

"Keith Laban, I thought you shot with Bronicas?"

Andre, no, I've never used Bronicas.

The obvious point is that you can't buy the right to make good photographs- you have to earn the good stuff by learning to use the equipment well. You do succeed in giving the impression that all you had to do was buy the Hasselblad and great results would automatically and immediately follow. That would be wrong. You haven't seen any photos shot by a Hasselblad. You've seen photographs by people who used a Hasselblad well, and where the entirety of the process leading to a print has been understood and under control.

But I also wanted to talk about your scanner. Its a low cost, low spec scanner. I use that sort of thing for the web, and the occasional small proof print to demonstrate the general characteristics of an image. I would not expect to get decent prints, and especially decent large prints, from a scan made by one of those. Not least this is because it won't cope with the range of contrast that your film can deliver, though it also won't pick up all the detail from a sharp original. There's plenty of potential for more disappointment here.

You're expecting it to come too easy, I'm afraid.

Do you have a lightbox and loupe so you can tell whether the negs are sharp or not? If not, how are you going to tell whether the biggest problem you face is unsharp negs or the scanner? You could fix the scanning problem all sorts of ways but if you're not using the camera in a way consistent with sharp images you could buy the best film scanner in the world without seeing much difference. Equally, once you are sure you're using the camera in a way consistent with achieving sharpness, how are you going to distinguish between a camera problem causing poor focus/sharpness and a poor scan? You need to be able to assess your work at each point, and draw conclusions that will guide you towards what you might need to do best.

It is true: as already mentioned (by Bob the Builder) grain does increase the sense of sharpness. What you are looking for is more detail, and you need to know whether the lack of it is due by bad scanning settings, scanning limits or film/processing limits.

I suggest taking test shots of a singular inanimate subject with different films and have them enlarged/printed on paper by a professional lab accoding to your maximum magnification requirements. You don't need to print the whole area, just a critical portion. Then you'll see.

For detail I would try experimenting with supposedly fine-grain, slow emulsions (Efke, Adox) and appropriate processing. At 25 ISO/ASA, however, you wind up needing either more light or an even lower f-stop.

Leo: Since I intend to shoot my models this weekend I will have my nonanimated subjects :)

/ Marcus

Charlie Xia wrote "it was scanned at 3200dpi with the flextight 949, the entire image is over 50 megapixels." Charlie, someones pulling your leg. My Imacon scans at 3200 are about 280MB.

Marcus, maybe you could you post some images so that we can see what are talking about re. sharpness.

re: jeff... i said Megapixle, not megabite. the resolution is 7418x7418=55,026,724 pixles =) but size wise... it's about 50 mb. considering it's a monochrome, 8bit tiff.

I use an Epson 4490 scanner and I have some excellent 50x50 cm. prints made from my scans of slides made with a Hasselblad.

Thanks for the link to the filmholders. I might just order one. Improvement is always possible though I have no complaints yet about the epson film holder.

Sorry Charlie, too long in IT, I read MB.

No, it doesn't have to be the scanner. I've had a 6x6cm negative printed to 40x40cm by a top printer using top quality enlargers and lenses. Then I've scanned the same negative on an Epson 3170 and printed it in 36x36cm using an Epson 4800. Guess what? Yes, the wet-print was perhaps sharper, but not much. I've also had a picture on a magazine cover that was scanned using the same cheap scanner. No problems, but as others have mentioned, you need to keep the negative flat.

Tomorrow I'm opening an exhibition where many of the pictures are scanned on a 3170. They look very good on the wall. What more can you want?

Well, the reason that I was a bit dissapointed is that if you just go to hasselblad.com and look at those images. They look superb. But perhaps they have ran through PS or a digital back was used.

I have found one big error in my handling. You see. When I have developed my Ilford FP4+ 120-film, I used an development chart I found on the 'net. It said that I should develeop the film in 9 minutes @ 20 degrees (D76 1+1). It was just the other day I saw on the paper container around the film that it said it should be 11 minutes!! Probably the chart I used to use as my guide was for 135-film :)

So perhaps the contrast should be a bit better and therefore I assume that the images would look a bit sharper aswell. At least the eyelashes should be more visible now.

/ Marcus

For me, there's just one word: Cropping. With the Zeiss lenses and the 6x6 negative I've taken full length portraits then cropped down to a head-shot and have it come out great as an 8x10. With the Hassy you never have to worry about framing. Just leave a comfortable amount of space around your subject and crop at a leisurely pace when it comes to printing or scanning.

Note that if I use a low grain film like Pan-F I can get a 60mp image with no sign of grain.

I'm happy again :)

After taking a couple of rolls this weeken of my model. I noticed that the images was indeed even better than my 300d. Naturally if I zoom into 100% it won't look super. But I would never do that (the image is 6000x6000).

Anyway. I appreciate you all for taking your time and respond to my questions.

If you want to take a look of the result of the Hasselblad-images you can see them in my portrait-portfolio, called Anna and Anna ii.

/ Marcus

This old TLR negative was scanned with a Epson 1200U flatbed at the "1200 dpi setting"



This old 2 1/4 square negative was scanned with a epcon 2450 flatbed; at a "2400 dpi setting"

You can judge the sharpness of the negative without printing and without a scanner. I've been doing it for decades. Hold the negative or transparency against a decent 8x to 10x loupe. It shows all.

If your images are truly soft, and your technique is correct, then check the ground glass to see if it's seated properly.