Hasselblad 16E 32E

[Gary Holliday]

I wish to photograph some jewellery about 3 inches in width, which Hasselblad extension tube would fill the frame for a product shot? 16E or 32E? I have 80 and 120mm lenses.

Thanks.

 

[John Koehrer]

Here's a chart that should answer you. There's on column that give actual size relative to focusing screen.

http://www.farines-photo.com/images_assets/assets/extension_tube_table.gif

 

[Gary Holliday]

I can barely make that out. Did anyone ever tell Hasselblad that a photograph speaks a thousand words?

 

[bdial]

I just did a test with an 80 and a 55mm tube, at infinity I can just get 3 inches in the frame, which is consistent with what the chart indicates.

Per the chart, a 32 and a 16 would probably work well for you (roughly 3 inches with an 80mm lens focused close). That would give you some framing flexibility.

 

[Gary Holliday]

Thanks, I found my 56E and tried it with the 120 lens; framing wise it is perfect for the objects, but too much DOF is lost. I might go for the 16E and crop the neg just to gain some depth. Getting too close with the 56E reveals every spec of dust and imperfection.

 

[cowanw]

This will now turn into a can of worms.
I thought that DOF was a function of magnification and that when you crop to the same magnification the DOF will be the same.

 

[MattKing]

This will now turn into a can of worms.
I thought that DOF was a function of magnification and that when you crop to the same magnification the DOF will be the same.

Bill is correct.

However, the approach that relies on cropping may give you a more convenient working distance, which may make it easier to light the subject.

 

[Gary Holliday]

Oh can of worms! It's been an extremely long time since I done any close up work so any theory has been well forgotten. Trying to view with DOF preview gets very dark at f16 when I was doing an unlit test indoors, so I couldn't really tell. So what you saying is that the 16E 32E 56E extension tubes will have the same amount of area in focus, only the distance from camera to subject will change?

 

[MattKing]

Oh can of worms! It's been an extremely long time since I done any close up work so any theory has been well forgotten. Trying to view with DOF preview gets very dark at f16 when I was doing an unlit test indoors, so I couldn't really tell. So what you saying is that the 16E 32E 56E extension tubes will have the same amount of area in focus, only the distance from camera to subject will change?

No.

Each of the different extension tubes give you the potential to obtain different maximum magnification. They do that by permitting different working distances, each of which will give you a different field of view.

The greater the magnification, the shallower the depth of field.

You can also change the magnification by changing the focal length, or by adding more magnification at the printing stage (cropping) but for a given final magnification, you will get a set amount of depth of field, no matter how you get there.

The advantage from either using a longer focal length lens or cropping at the printing stage to increase the magnification is that your working distance (lens to subject) can be longer, and therefore more convenient.

The only way to increase depth of field is to decrease magnification by decreasing film (or sensor) size. This only results in improved quality if you use slower film or more densely packed sensors.

 

[Gary Holliday]

The greater the magnification, the shallower the depth of field....but for a given final magnification, you will get a set amount of depth of field

The first part I've always understood, the second part I think I understand the theory. But I'm still confused about whether purchasing a 16E will achieve the results I need. That is, getting up close to the bangle and having it all in focus...the 16E will do a 'better' job at keeping it all sharp.

 

[MattKing]

The first part I've always understood, the second part I think I understand the theory. But I'm still confused about whether purchasing a 16E will achieve the results I need. That is, getting up close to the bangle and having it all in focus...the 16E will do a 'better' job at keeping it all sharp.

None of the extension tubes will perform better than any other when it comes to depth of field, because any benefit you think you will see on the negative will disappear when you actually print the negative - the magnification at the printing stage is also part of the equation.

But then, so is the viewing distance.

If you are doing smaller prints, you will see a benefit from using smaller formats, or cropping the negative.

What size prints are you looking to do?

 

[John Koehrer]

I can barely make that out. Did anyone ever tell Hasselblad that a photograph speaks a thousand words?

Didja click on the chart? It makes it about 2X bigger. Still not great.

 

[Gary Holliday]

None of the extension tubes will perform better than any other when it comes to depth of field, .............

What size prints are you looking to do?

They will only be product shots, so they never make it to print. (My darkroom photography goes onto products which I manufacture and sell to gift shops).

 

[Gary Holliday]

Didja click on the chart? It makes it about 2X bigger. Still not great.

I can't click on the chart to make it bigger, but I'm on a larger screen now and can make out the blurred text. If I've read the chart correctly I have my answer.

With a 120mm lens, the depth of field with a 16E is 100mm, 32E is 25mm and the 56E is 10mm.

 

[MattKing]

They will only be product shots, so they never make it to print. (My darkroom photography goes onto products which I manufacture and sell to gift shops).

This is going to sound like heresy on APUG, but if you are only presenting the shots digitally, I would recommend digital capture on a small sensor - micro 4/3 comes to mind.

The relatively tiny sensors are a great aid when seeking more depth of field.

Failing that, 35mm film is a better choice than 120, when it comes to depth of field and low resolution presentation.

 

[philipus]

I believe it's this chart, isn't it?

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/HasManuals/Extubes.pdf

 

[Sirius Glass]

The first part I've always understood, the second part I think I understand the theory. But I'm still confused about whether purchasing a 16E will achieve the results I need. That is, getting up close to the bangle and having it all in focus...the 16E will do a 'better' job at keeping it all sharp.

TRANSLATION:
Use faster film if you need a better DOF. You have to pay the piper.

 

[bkarasek]

I have a neighbour, coin collector, who asked me to photograph his coins.... 1:1 contact print, no shadow, white back ground. These are Roman coins. I have the soft box and soft lights, white back ground... a hasselblad 500cm, 80, 120, 150 lenses and 8, 21, 55 extension tubes and waiting to buy a 32 (or would a 10 or 16 be preferable?).

What I need is a starting point and why ....at least I'll know the why of what I am doing and not just pot luck.

Thank you!
Bogdan

 

[bdial]

To get to 1:1 you need to extend by the amount of the focal length, assuming the lens is set to infinity.

I have a copy of a "Hasselblad Close-up Photography" pamphlet which has a table indicating the extension needed for 1:1.
According to it, for the 80 you need a combination of the 55 & 21 tubes.
for the 120 you need two 55's.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu has PDF's for the bellows unit and extension tubes, with some useful charts, though the extension tube pdf charts don't show the combination needed to get to 1:1.

Update, I made a scan of the page that covers the 80, 100 and 120 lenses.