Hasselblad Focus issues...again

[macfred]

+2
First of all I would try one of those cheap Chinese or Hong Kong split image screens just to see wether focussing will be easier for you. If not you won't have much losses. https://www.ebay.ie/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_nkw=hasselblad+split+screen&_sop=15&_frs=1
A friend uses one of those screens in his 500 CM and he is quite satisfied. I have a split image screen from the same seller (ecbuyonline) for my Rolleiflex 3.5F and I like it.

 

[ted_smith]

Chris
Funnily enough, I've been doing some Googling this evening and I also found the chimney listed at Camera Museum (https://www.cameramuseum.uk/product-page/chimney-finder-exc-1). I've made an enquiry as to how much they may offer me that item plus a strap and a quick focus adapter.

I didn't go too much into detail for fear of boring people, but as you've asked for more detail I'll offer it up.

The fact is this: I wanted a blad since I was a kid but I got on the Nikon train until, in 2011, all my Nikon gear was stolen except for one of the two F5's that I had. So I used that opportunity to move to MF and Blad was my first choice. Due to digital and the drop in prices for analogue blads in recentish years, I able to eventually buy one, back in 2012. So I'm not new to Hasselblads as such...I've shot quite a lot through it. For landscapes, it's amazing. See attached landscapes which I took with it.

But the problem is I am a father of two who works a lot and I seldom get out doing landscapes these days. My main photographic interest these days is my family and the odd special event that people ask me to shoot, like family\friend weddings and so forth. The last wedding I did, I used the Blad and my F5. I got some nice shots with the Blad, but many were ruined due to shots that I thought were focussed not being so. Same goes for shots of my kids who even when they stand still about 5 feet in front of me, they look in focus, I shoot at say f8 but the results are not as sharp as I'd expect, so I can forget trying with f2.8! Again, sometimes I get it right (also see the others attached) but for every one that's good, I have 3 or 4 that are ruined. My F5 kind of saved the day at the wedding, as I got a good few dozen extra shots that were well focussed thanks to it's fast AF. That's not how I expected Hasselblad life to be. I was expecting nearly every shot to be bang on.....

I do have a Manfrotto tripod that I use for landscapes, but it's not something I carry around for more candid stuff of the family, but I want to use my Blad for exactly that kind of thing. Lets face it - until the late 1990s, pros were using Blads handheld all the time at model shows and using them for weddings. Surely tripod use isn't essential for Blad use? Or am I expecting too much of the camera?

I just want to be able to use the Blad well and find that most shots I take with it come out bang on, like they do with my F5. I took that on holiday this summer and I shot 5 rolls of Kodak Porta 160 with it. Of those 5 rolls of 36, guess how many I threw away? 6 shots! The rest went in my album. I have nowhere near that level of success with the blad. If I shot 6 rolls of 120, I bet 50% would be garbage. And at the cost of MF film, I can't justify that failure rate.

Perhaps as you state, I need to a few tests to rule out film plane and so on. And if it's not that, then it just must be my inability to use it properly. So the chimney will be my last stitch attempt at success. And if that fails, maybe I will sell and just invest in more lenses for my F5.

The pics below are some of my Blad success stories. I don't have copies of my failures to hand at the moment (I working away from home) but the attached pics show, I think, that the Blad itself is functioning OK.

 

[itsdoable]

Have you tried manual focus on the F5, and what is the success rate there? Might be a good experiment to see if it's your technique, or the camera.

When you shoot the Hasselbald on a tripod, do you still get the same # of out of focus shots?

Are your rejected photos front focused, back focused, or motion blurred?

Manual focus is not easy, there is a reason auto focus took off.

The magnification of the Chimney Finder is 3X, the magnifier on the waist level finder is 4.5X - I find determining critical focus with the WLF easier. I wear eye glasses, so the eye-cup on the Chimney finder is not very helpful.

 

[etn]

Ted, someone as experienced as you surely already considered this, but reading your previous post made me think that your pictures might simply be blurred due to camera shake? In my case, although I find the Hassy perfectly usable handheld, I notice a big difference in “sharpness” in handheld vs tripod shots. I didn’t want to believe it at first but am now using my tripod more and more. I know, it is not an option for what you are doing, but maybe try a faster film with faster shutter speeds?

I see you are from UK, let me know if you happen to travel to Munich, I’ll let you run a test roll through my Hassy (with split screen).

Due to digital and the drop in prices for analogue blads in recentish years, I able to eventually buy one

Yes, isn’t digital great?

 

[Chris Livsey]

I didn't go too much into detail for fear of boring people, but as you've asked for more detail I'll offer it up.

.

Without seeing your "failures" it is hard to know the degree of "error" we are talking about but your expansion is appreciated. Now don't forget that I presume you are scanning and viewing on screen so your scrutiny is literally microscopic. In film days when emulsions were (still are) around 20 microns thick absolute critical focus was impossible in all layers simultaneously and SLR autofocus was optimised for the central green layer so a tiny error would only shift to the red or blue layers and would be almost impossible to detect in print but now scanning is cruel. I have shot Hasselblad since the early 80s and re-visiting frames that were pin sharp then now scanned are perhaps not as sharp as they could be. Now it does sound as if your error is of a greater magnitude and if you exclude camera movement blur and holding technique, remember the F5 for example is an ergonomic wonder to hold with a heft that helps steady a shot like a modern OS system and the Hasselblad is a square box with a mirror you could use in a dressing room, then it will be worth exploring another screen, I think your money would be better spent on a split image screen than a finder. Everyone has a favourite focus aid, I hate with a vengeance micro-prisms, with a split image there is no wriggle room but in some subjects a straight line is problematic I would though still recommend one even a cheaper pre-acutte matte will do to experiment with, Camley have a 42188 for 35 pounds which is a less expensive route than a chimney although using a prism or chimney will aid you aligning the spilt image to avoid the blackout.
Finally bear in mind we have had many discussions on here about screens and although the Acute Matte are bright that does reduce the focus "snap" of the image, the first series of AM was indeed replaced as photographers complained they could not reliably hit focus as well as with the original screen, the second series was designed as a compromise, you will see similar discussions with Rollei screens where the old "dim' screens are reported to be easier to focus than aftermarket "brightscreens" . So for composition especially in challenging light the AM are superior but without a focussing aid you are comfortable with they may not work as well for focus. Partially it is how we "see" the screen image, in the older screens the image seems to float independently of the screen and focus is easily seen, the AM type seem to "fix' the image on the screen and the texture of the screen can fool the photographer, all a little nebulous but borne out by many reports here and elsewhere.