Hasselblad 101

[KatFan]

"Clarify what you mean by that"

Well, I see my only options to process 120 negatives would be to print them in a b&w darkroom (which I don't have), send them out to be processed at an unknowable location which I assume is costly. Or, scan the negatives on an appropriate digital scanning bed (preferably a bed that accepts other sized neg) that can then be edited in photo editing software such as Light Room or Photoshop.

 

[KatFan]

Once a positive is rendered. I'm not entirely sure what kind of printing I want. That will be trial and error as I'm paper fussy. Definitely web friendly.

 

[Pieter12]

"Clarify what you mean by that"

Well, I see my only options to process 120 negatives would be to print them in a b&w darkroom (which I don't have), send them out to be processed at an unknowable location which I assume is costly. Or, scan the negatives on an appropriate digital scanning bed (preferably a bed that accepts other sized neg) that can then be edited in photo editing software such as Light Room or Photoshop.

Little bit of confusion with accepted terminology. Processing usually means developing the film. Easy to do at home for B&W, more challenging for color. If you are not shooting at the film's rated speed or want to use a particular developer such as Rodinal, you are better off processing your own B&W film. Printing can then be done conventionally in a darkroom, either at home, a community facility or a commercial lab. Once again more demanding and expensive for color than B&W. For either B&W or color, you can scan on a flatbed scanner that has a backlight unit or on a light table with a DSLR and then adjust and manipulate with a program such as Photoshop, Lightroom or Capture One. And then print on an inkjet printer on photo paper or send to aa service bureau for printing, especially for larger prints. Having a fast computer with a calibrated monitor makes all that a smoother process. On the other hand there are plenty of labs that will process the film, make a scan of all the negatives and provide you with a CD and proof prints.

From the questions you are asking, I would suggest trying to find a local school where you could take a basic film photography and darkroom course.

 

[Duceman]

Processing usually means developing the film. Easy to do at home for B&W, more challenging for color.

You know, I hear this a lot, but really have to disagree. In fact, I think it's actually easier; the development times are almost always the same, regardless of film speed, so there's not a lot of chance of under/overdeveloping. Now, obviously the key is temperature control. However, I've found using a small foot tub (or kitty litter tub... I think that's what I have) filled with water at or above the desired temp is all that is necessary to use as a bath to control temp during development. Once this little trick has been learned, there isn't much of any difference between B&W and color developing (even developing chrome, for that matter). And I recently got 25 rolls developed off the same chemistry kit, so it can be quite cost effective too!

 

[BrianShaw]

From the questions you are asking, I would suggest trying to find a local school where you could take a basic film photography and darkroom course.

… or a good basic photography book, of which there are many.

 

[bdial]

There are some workshops coming up at Vermont Center for Photography in Brattleboro that might be helpful;
https://vcphoto.org/workshops-events/

As for film my favorites are Kodak, Ilford is good for B&W, though there are plenty others that folks have good experience with.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"Clarify what you mean by that"

Well, I see my only options to process 120 negatives would be to print them in a b&w darkroom (which I don't have), send them out to be processed at an unknowable location which I assume is costly. Or, scan the negatives on an appropriate digital scanning bed (preferably a bed that accepts other sized neg) that can then be edited in photo editing software such as Light Room or Photoshop.

Actually it is much cheaper to sent my color print film to be processed and printed than if I do it myself. There is no reason to digitize.

 

[Pieter12]

Actually it is much cheaper to sent my color print film to be processed and printed than if I do it myself. There is no reason to digitize.

An 8x10 color C print is going to cost a bit more than a decent color inkjet print on good paper done at home, provided you have a good photo printer and a calibrated monitor.

 

[Sirius Glass]

An 8x10 color C print is going to cost a bit more than a decent color inkjet print on good paper done at home, provided you have a good photo printer and a calibrated monitor.

Of which I have neither.

 

[KatFan]

Actually it is much cheaper to sent my color print film to be processed and printed than if I do it myself. There is no reason to digitize.

I have knowledge of darkroom processing although, I'm no longer interested in doing it. Sold my darkroom outfit. The photos I plan to create will have to be digitized for various uses, web, some high res print, etc... The negatives are most important to me. I'm open to scanner suggestions. I have a light box and dslr, hadn't thought about shooting negatives this way. Can I really achieve a good quality negative capture?

 

[mcrokkorx]

Apologies in advance to anyone here in the analog forum who might be offended, but since OP is asking about film scanning techniques as part of his analog interest in his Hasselblad thread it seems appropriate to supply a quick primer response here (which he can later pursue in more detail in the hybrid, scanning and/or digital forums).

KatFan, if you aren't going to do your own BW printing, and are more interested in seeing/using your Haselblad images (esp color) on a TV or computer screen, you'll need a good scanning setup. The difficulty there is medium format scanning drops you into another giant can of squirmy conflicting worms: everybody has a different idea of acceptable "scan quality" and preferred method of achieving it. Also, making good scans is like photography itself: there is a learning curve where you'll need to pick up new skills (and if you shoot a lot of pics, getting bogged down in scanning can become a tedious chore).

The "best" scans are typically made with dedicated film scanners like Nikon CS8000 or 9000, Minolta MultiPro II, Polaroid SprintScan 120 (aka Microtek Artixscan 120) or various Imacon/Hasselblad FlexTight units. These are all long discontinued (aside from one or two hideously expensive Hasselblads): you'd need to buy one second hand. The Minolta was arguably the best but was also the rarest: finding an operational example today is nearly impossible. The Polaroid/MicroTek was more common but you don't see them around much anymore: they were popular for BW negative scans but lacked the hardware dust/scratch removal features popular for color work. The Imacon/Hasselblads were fastest, but handling can be tricky, they have wear points that require occasional parts/servicing, and they tend to be very pricey unless you opt for an early model with antiquated connections like SCSI.

That leaves the two Nikons: these are probably the most popular, available and widely-sought medium format scanners. They have modern FireWire connections, hardware dust/scratch removal for color films, and extremely durable LED light source. OTOH, they have quirks galore: mechanically fragile, the circuit board with FireWire socket is fragile and can short out easily, Nikon software is unsupported beyond Mac OS 10.6 or Windows 7 (there are workarounds), the 120 film trays are fussy to load, very thin depth-of-field almost requires using the optional glass tray which costs a bloody fortune, the 8000 model can be much slower in use than the 9000, and they generate a loud whining noise that will make your dog, cat and spouse flee the premises. Nikon will no longer repair them: while there are some very helpful DIY repair tutorials on various forums, disassembling and servicing these boxes is not a trivial undertaking. Pricing jumps a little higher with each passing year, as examples that don't need repairs become scarcer and scarcer (figure minimum cost at $2495 for the CS9000, $1495 for the CS8000).

Extremely popular alternatives to the Nikons are the Epson flatbeds with film scanning optimization features. Top of the line include the V700, V750, V800 and V850 (all very similar, differing mostly in global marketing and software bundles, price ranges from $1100 brand new to $250 used depending on model/condition). Operated with care, these can produce very nice medium format film scans, esp of BW negatives. Third party upgrades are available from companies like Better Scanning who offer adjustable film holders and wet scanning kits. Epson also sells more affordable, somewhat less high-end models like V600 for approx $250 brand new which can produce decent results if used very carefully. No consumer flatbed can quite equal something like a Nikon or Hasselblad dedicated film scanner for absolute printable resolution, but they can certainly be more than good enough for screen viewing (and printing, if expectations are moderate).

"Camera scanning" with a digital camera. macro lens and copystand is a rapidly trending method of digitizing film. The actual "scanning" is as fast as snapping the shutter button. However, there are surprisingly few commercial solutions available: you generally need to cobble together and jury rig your own combination of copystand, film holder and light source. This may involve a lot of time-consuming trial and error, esp for medium format film vs the smaller 35mm film strips. Results can rival dedicated film scanners in resolution, but color management can be difficult and there is no automated hardware dust/scratch removal.

Larger cities and towns with many photography enthusiasts often have rental facilities where you can rent a room with complete turnkey scanning system by the hour. This can be very efficient, allowing access to premium hardware without huge upfront costs or taking up space in your home. Its also a good way to dabble in scanning to see if the hybrid workflow suits you at all before making a large investment. If you find the scanning process too difficult or tedious, that discovery should make you feel more certain and secure in a decision to go full analog or full digital instead.

You seem familiar with the full analog workflow, so I'll just touch on the Hasselblad digibacks for a moment. The nicer, most current, most convenient versions like Hasselblad CF-V-50cII still cost upwards of $9K new but if you're willing to compromise on somewhat lower resolution and ISO that tops out at 200-400 an older second-hand back from Phase One or Leaf can be had for $1200-$3500 depending on features. Cheapest require tethering to a laptop to view/evaluate/save files, more money gets you fully portable self-contained operation with a rudimentary LCD screen on the back and internal file saving to CF card. Coupled with a lens like the 120mm Makro Planar and extension tubes, the digital back could also be used to "camera scan" your film work.

 

[bdial]

I have knowledge of darkroom processing although, I'm no longer interested in doing it. Sold my darkroom outfit. The photos I plan to create will have to be digitized for various uses, web, some high res print, etc... The negatives are most important to me. I'm open to scanner suggestions. I have a light box and dslr, hadn't thought about shooting negatives this way. Can I really achieve a good quality negative capture?

As mentioned above, the short answer is "yes". We're in the analog section of the forum, so diving into digital camera scanning is OT here, but there are discussions going in the hybrid section.

 

[mcrokkorx]

As far as I know, all Hasselblad scanners are discontinued. What hideously expensive units do they sell?

My bad, you're right: they're all gone (discontinued summer 2019). I thought places like B&H still had current stocks on the x5 model, but its down to just a few leftovers a couple specialty dealers are offering at $24,995 list price.

 

[mcrokkorx]

If the sales of film are (supposedly) growing, and all scanners are discontinued, re-introduction of some models is inevitable.

Thats what everyone thought, then Plustek re-introduced an updated version of their 120 scanner a few years back at roughly the same cost as a used Nikon CS9000. It flew off the shelves initially, then quickly belly flopped when word spread it was buggy and balky with several design defects that should have been caught in pre-release testing. Some early buyers had to exchange them three or four times to get a "good" one, only to have that one crap out on them within a few months.

Granted, Plustek film scanners were never on par with Nikon, MicroTek, Minolta or Imacon to begin with, so perhaps expectations were unrealistic. Still, that trainwreck could indicate its much harder to design and build a really good quality and reliable medium format film scanner than we might have thought. At least at the max $2299 price point people seem willing to pay today: if Nikon were to re-introduce the CS9000 now, they probably could not price it less than $4995 given the lower unit volume they could reasonably expect to sell vs when it debuted in 2004.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I had a contact at Hasselblad when I owned an 848 and an X1. This person was amazed at their intransigence when it came to the question of updating FlexColor so it would continue to run on a modern OS (it's a 32-bit app). They decided it was too expensive to port to 64-bit in house, so they went to LaserSoft to see if they would modify SilverFast or adapt FlexColor. That didn't turn out well, wasting over a year of the available time before Macs would no longer run FlexColor. I had approached Ed Hamrick and he felt he could easily make VueScan work with Flextights, but needed some engineering details to do it. Hasselblad had refused him these in the past, and continued to do so even when they made the decision to discontinue the scanners (the profitability of the scanner line was marginal, and they doubted they could recoup the investment in the necessary new software to keep them usable in the future. Most of their sales in recent years had been to museums and galleries for copying documents and images, and that market had dried up somewhat when all the museums with a budget for such a scanner had already bought one.) What really irked me was that the decision was made but not announced, presumably to sell the remaining stock of scanners, even though unsuspecting buyers might turn out to have bought very expensive paperweights. Even then, it would have been more respectable of them to allow VueScan to keep them functional - it would have cost them nothing and buyers of the remaining stock would have known there was a path forwards. I felt rather disgusted by all this and rather then buying up old computers running an old OS with all the security issues that brings (it doesn't fill me with confidence to imagine myself in five or ten years scouring eBay for ten year old Macs running an ancient OS in order to keep the X1 going!), I decided to fall back on my Nikon 9000 and sell the Flextight. It's slower and noisier, but for my purposes it works just as well.

I hope you are right that someone sees the opportunity that the small resurgence of film offers. Even buying the rights from Nikon, Konica-Minolta or Hasselblad to put their scanners back into production would do, though I doubt if the CCD sensors are available anymore. Otherwise we are dependent on the likes of Plustek, PrimeFilm and Epson flatbeds. Looking at it that way we may one day have to bite the bullet and make camera-scanning work as well as dedicated scanners do. Maybe it already does - I've dabbled with a D850 and its cheesy plastic film copier, but have no experience of digitizing MF or LF film this way.

 

[eli griggs]

Learn the order of basic operations, use it religiously and, get comfortable with the longer time needed in setting up a shot.

Figure in the time to install, preview and decide on filter use, yes or no and approach each shot with that consideration in mind.

Practice exchanging backs mid shoot, and if you are using an instant film or digital back to preview a final composition add that to the time needed to take a practical shot, every time you take an image.

Practice loading and reloading a roll of film with a trash roll of film/backing, while watching TV reading the news or while taking time for yourself with a cup of joe.

Try to use your bellows lens shade as often as possible.

I know it is bulky, and awkward at times, it certainly attracted gets attention, but it also gives best coverage and accepts 75mm gel filters, framed or no and failing to get your image because of preventable lens flare or ignoring the correct filter in your bag, really sucks.

Buy and use the best shutter releases you can find, short & medium locking and, a long, pneumatic with locking mechanism.

Use a monopoly when able, and the same for quality built tripod.

Do no cheap out on a good tripod, a heavy aluminum tripod and matching head is a plus and less expensive than whatever carbon fiber is 'flavor' of the day of retailers and gearheads.

As you accumulate film backs, mark smaller format backs with coloured tape, ie, an A16, etc., and, Always set the iso on the back and use the box end holder in case you are no shooting/processing the entire roll in a day.

Keep a glass round filter on every lens and where possible a lens hood too, even if you'll use the bellows hood when shooting.

Use the mirror lock-up, buy a/several first quality single grade N.D. filters to be able to cope with fast films on bright days and flowing water, etc. and install the Hasselblad level on the side of the body.

Use extension tubes often and always carry a metric tape measure.

Lastly, buy the small clip-om flash brackets (2) for a hard lens hood and even if you never try a flash panel, make and use white paper reflectors as a "ring light" in close-up photography for additional light and interesting reflections in the final shot.

IMO and I hope this has some help for you, etc al.

My spell check is changing correctly spelled/used words so please forgive.

 

[eli griggs]

Plus one (p1) ;-)

Very important: every three months, remove the film back and fire all lens fifteen times on 1 second to prevent the shutter from becoming stuck or sticky. This is from my Hasselblad repairman.

 

[Pieter12]

instant film or digital back to preview a final composition

I don't think you're going to be able to preview the full composition with either if those. The viewfinder is more accurate.

Also, you might as well be shooting LF with all the steps you want this poor fellow to follow.

 

[eli griggs]

As I said, "I hate my spell check", as it's changing correctly spelled words for things like "monopod" to "monopole", etc..

You do no need to be in a desert to ruin a lens by misadventure. One lens or lens and camera drop, into a sidewalk or stone or tile floor will do the trick and, from the experience of many of us, in professional work or pursuing a hobby in photography, misadventures happen to Everyone!

I have had two cameras and lenses saved from serious damage by glass filters and hoods, plus an unknown number of both, in which damage was most likely avoided by this dead simply best practice.

Drop and destroy a thousand dollar lens on an favorite camera, without precautions and learn for yourself the intimate pleasure for slack practices, yourself.

Polaroids in 6 cmx 6 cm will show details that can no all be seen in the viewfinder, especially in still lifes, landscapes and portraitures and can be marked upon, ie, alternative formating area, out of control highlights, range of values or out of place details.

There is are good reasons professionals have used such preview tools for decades, even today and is that no the secret goal of many non-profesional photographers, to meet or surpass professional standards and, today, we have many different means to preview the majority of non-action photographs, including small, light d. cameras and tiny portable colour printers for field use.

 

[Pieter12]

Since type 55 has been discontinued, I am not aware or any instant film that is very sharp at all. As a matter of fact I don't know there is any 6x6 instant film available currently that would fit a Hasselblad back.

 

[eli griggs]

The typical 6 cm x 6 cm image from Hasselblad - Polaroid backs used/uses (if lucky enough to have original Polaroid instant film in hand, as I have, a limited supply of), 4.25" x 3.25" pull apart sheet films.

This meant that a large section of the 100 camera series, film image area was 'wasted' in each shot, but this was accepted as a part of the process and was valuable in detailing enough of the photograph's set-up for approval or troubleshooting.

Besides the b&w positive photographs Polaroid also offered the same positive film with printable darkroom negative as in type 55 4" x 5" film.

Today, Instax wide films are being used to make adapters for several medium format cameras and if no already done, should be available soon.

There is also the "Polaroids Original" sx-70 and 600 films to work with and photographers themselves are making backs/adapters for their cameras to use these offerings.

Sharpness in instant films is a movable feast, and acceptable results depends on the photographer/art director and their abilities in using their kit in concert as a whole.

One last, (from me) option is a portable box film processor, for use with positive enlarging papers, on site, for single sheet Hasselblad backs.

A box of order pre-cut paper positive papers, a dark bag/tent for film loading/unloading in and out of the back, and a sturdy dark box with blackout sleeves, with developer, stop, fix and rinse water, (Ziplock box type jars will serve well in this instance) completes the kit, which would be as useful in the studio, near the set, and be more usable than a nearby darkroom, as the art director, models, clients, etc will be impressed with the small magic show that would ensure during a shoot.

Think and become acquainted with the many possibilities out there for enhancing your ability to bring home, the "money shot" when it really counts.

By-the-way, even if you do no develop on site, during the shoot, a single sheet back and dark bag/shot print box is still valuable in it gives you the opportunity to check each shot print/paper negative before loading your films into developing tanks, so you can be aware of important negitives needing some adjustment in processing for best results.

IMO.

 

[Ai Print]

Secretly hoping they'll reconsider. The demand for film scanning must be growing, and it must be true for both SMB (labs) and the consumer market. AFAIK, Noritsu/Frontier are also discontinued. If the sales of film are (supposedly) growing, and all scanners are discontinued, re-introduction of some models is inevitable.

Anyone who puts R&D into other than a El’ Cheapo made for web scanner these days would be a fool in my opinion.

A few years ago I had a good full depth $90 drum scan made of a darker transparency that would have made my old Nikon 9000ED choke on the D-max. The drum scan looked much better but what absolutely blew it away was the RAW file from a then D850 DSLR and 60mm macro lens. It truly pulled out the deepest shadow detail I could possibly see when holding the slide up to a bright light source.

Nikon, Imacon / Hasselblad all saw this coming and nixed their lineup, especially when Phase One announced a specific rig that used their high end backs that can also go on their…cameras.

I don’t do much scanning these days because I no longer shoot color film and wet print my B&W film. But if I do need to make a scan, I have a fully ready to go setup that uses my Sinar P2 4x5 and a light panel. The geared movements allow me to stitch absolutely huge files from up to a 4x5 transparency or negative.

DSLR scanning is where it has all gone, there is no turning back.

 

[Pieter12]

The typical 6 cm x 6 cm image from Hasselblad - Polaroid backs used/uses (if lucky enough to have original Polaroid instant film in hand, as I have, a limited supply of), 4.25" x 3.25" pull apart sheet films.

This meant that a large section of the 100 camera series, film image area was 'wasted' in each shot, but this was accepted as a part of the process and was valuable in detailing enough of the photograph's set-up for approval or troubleshooting.

Besides the b&w positive photographs Polaroid also offered the same positive film with printable darkroom negative as in type 55 4" x 5" film.

Today, Instax wide films are being used to make adapters for several medium format cameras and if no already done, should be available soon.

There is also the "Polaroids Original" sx-70 and 600 films to work with and photographers themselves are making backs/adapters for their cameras to use these offerings.

Sharpness in instant films is a movable feast, and acceptable results depends on the photographer/art director and their abilities in using their kit in concert as a whole.

One last, (from me) option is a portable box film processor, for use with positive enlarging papers, on site, for single sheet Hasselblad backs.

A box of order pre-cut paper positive papers, a dark bag/tent for film loading/unloading in and out of the back, and a sturdy dark box with blackout sleeves, with developer, stop, fix and rinse water, (Ziplock box type jars will serve well in this instance) completes the kit, which would be as useful in the studio, near the set, and be more usable than a nearby darkroom, as the art director, models, clients, etc will be impressed with the small magic show that would ensure during a shoot.

Think and become acquainted with the many possibilities out there for enhancing your ability to bring home, the "money shot" when it really counts.

By-the-way, even if you do no develop on site, during the shoot, a single sheet back and dark bag/shot print box is still valuable in it gives you the opportunity to check each shot print/paper negative before loading your films into developing tanks, so you can be aware of important negitives needing some adjustment in processing for best results.

IMO.

That is why the pros all shoot digital today.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Going back to 101 level stuff, I got an acute matte screen today. It's so much brighter than the screens that came on my (now gone) 500c and the split image (pre-acute matte) in the 500c/m. Easier to focus too, but I still need glasses to do it. I'm going to get a chimney with a diopter adjustment and go without the glasses - I only have a -0.5 diopter prescription for distance, and generally prefer not to wear them.

 

[Ai Print]

That is why the pros all shoot digital today.

That is not true, I shoot both and know at least three local weddings photogs who do part of the offering on medium format color neg film.