To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is the question..

Hello All- THis is my first post on here and the topic of the post is what brought me not only to this but also caused me to subcribe to it, so please forgive me if the question has been posed repeatly. I promise that IVe scoured this site and the internet looking for guidance....its actually made it worse..


OK first off, some information. My name is James (hey!), and I currently live in Japan. I'm technically just an enthusiast, but i do get paying shoots about 5 times a month. I shoot mostly portraits (studio with strobes and environmental/outdoors), and I prefer B/W. At the moment, I shoot a Canon 5D with quality L lens however, Ive found that these cameras dont have any soul, and I spend hours upon hours in post trying to suck the soul out of the pixels. If its not there, its not there right?
A few days ago, while scouring the internet on another whim, I ran across this guys site http://doerrfisch.de/html/portfolio.html and i was FLOORED. No matter what filters/actions/plugins I have, I cant accomplish that look ..that contrast...that dynamic range...with a DSLR. So I did what any annoying internet guy would do...I emailed him and asked for his set up. He gladly told me it was Hassy 500 CMs and Rolleiflex TLRs. This got me thinking and researching more... this post is long I know....want to make my first one a good one...

OK, now heres the problem/question. When I do a search for portraits done on a Rollei TLR, im BLOWN away... that contrasty look that i Love.. deep deep blacks and amazing whites all are there. Even on snapshots by people. I did the same search for Hassy and while most of the results were good to great, not as many had THAT look (I hope you understand what I mean by that). Seems that with the Rollei, its almost hard to NOT get a great photo. I want one, now..
No problem right? Well, Im worried because my sense tells me that pros since before I was born have both lived and died by the hassy name (dramatic I know) and are still using them professionally. Theyre moderately priced, and readily available. Great camera system no doubt, and would serve me great in the studio but would i be missing that thing, that contrasty look that I love by going with a hassy? Would I be sufferring if I try to use the Rolleiflex with strobes in the studio?

I know it seems like a non issue really, but its really been eating me. I KNOW if I get a basic CM system, I wont be looking back for sometime... so I dont want to make a mistake passing up the TLR. Maybe Im just seeing the wrong images compared to great ones on the TLR?
Help me please.

Love this site by the way.

Cheers

I think you are also mistaking the contrast as necessarily the camera choice, when it could well be the film and developer choices and how he prints.

As far as the cameras go, they are distinctly different in their flexibility, but I believe you can use both in the Studio. The Rollei offers the advantage of being an all round carry camera, so you can take it most places without looking like a pro, but without the ability to change lenses. I have both a Bronica and a Super Ricohflex, and use them equally (anyway once you buy an analog camera you soon develop GAS).

As for the mood of those images, I think you are seeing the film more than the camera (and his style).

Rgds, Kal

Welcome to APUG!! Please feel few to ask questions, after all all of us started off by asking questions.

I have used 35mm for years and a few years ago I inherited at Mamiya C330 which is a TLR. I was not happy with the camera because is was v-e-r-y s-l-o-w to use. I do think that would be a problem with a Rollei. I traded in the Mamiya for a Hasselblad 503 CX. I have been very happy ever since as you can tell by my signature.

I highly recommend the Hasselblad and its system. Check out www.keh.com for equipment prices. A wonderful place to purchase camera equipment. They have a 30 or 60 day return policy [do not try that on eBay].

Hasselblad will work with any strobe or studio lights that are out there.

As far as the punch, pop, wow factor is concerned, yes one can get that with film but some of that comes during the print making by bleaching portions of the photograph [chemically dodging] or by dodging and burning in areas of the print.

I recommend that you start with a medium format camera [MF] and learn how to use it and be comfortable. Later, if you wish, you may start processing film and later move on to printing the photographs.

Whatever you do, you will be happier getting into film.

Steve

The website you mentioned is outstanding. I can see why you like it but the look he gets is as much a function of his darkroom abilities as it is the camera. Actually more importantly his vision of the desired results would actually come first. I suspect he could get the same look with any number of camera systems but in this case it appears he is using a Blad. I have both Hassey equipment and a Rollei TLR. I love both of them and they both produce outstanding results. My version of the Rollei TLR has a tessar lens and I quite like the unique look or signature of the lens for people shots. However I am limited a 75mm lens and that's not going to cut it for a lot of stuff. On the Hassey I love my 150mm lens for people shots. It's a sonnar formula and again has a certain look that I like. It's also helps that it's razor sharp and contrasty.

I guess I haven't been much help to you, but in the long run you can't go wrong with getting a Blad system. From there work on your visiion and pick the film, developer, paper combo that will give you the results you are looking for.

BTW welcome to APUG. It's a lot of fun and you will find that there is a lot of depth to the members.

Eric

You can get Zeiss or Schneider lenses for either camera. I think the much bigger issue you need to consider is the idea of using a 80mm lens on a TLR... unless you are thinking Tele Rollei with the 135.

Steve Pyke does great Rollei work and gets in the New Yorker a lot..
Dead Link Removed

All my square portraits are done in studio with a Rollei TLR 2.8F 80mm
http://dennispurdy.com/Portraits/Portraits.html
Feel free to look around.
Dennis

Welcome to APUG. I enjoyed chatting with you yesterday in the chatroom.

Hardware is only part of the equation (and often a relatively minor part). Your vision is going to be the major contributor to the results.

If you're worried about the expense of a Hasselblad system, particularly before you know for certain that it is what you want, I think that a TLR would do the job a slong as the focal length of the lens works for you.

I happen to have chosen Bronica SQ-series gear (I'm an amateur and can't justify the expense of the Hasselblad) and it's certainly up to doing photography of the sort that that website contains. Thousands of pros lived off Bronicas, so surely it will suffice for me. (Yes, a little corner of my mind would prefer to have a Hasselblad but I'm quite confident that I wouldn't be getting any better results.)

Do some experimenting - the hardware isn't the crucial part. You are.

Bibowj, for what I see on that site is a range of lenses used on a Hassie: from 50mm wide angle to 250mm tele.
He loves to shoot wide open to seperate his objects from the background, something very hard to get with digital.
And then he prints his negatives quite contrasty.
It is great photography, something that can not be learned in a day or two, this takes years.

Buying a Hassie would be a good thing I think.
Get a 80mm and a 150mm with it and a lightmeter and start learning.
Be prepared to take your time with each shot and be very aware of the light you are using.
Photographing on MF is totaly diferent than with a digi, nothing is automatic and that is the beauty of it: you are in control, not the camera.

Welcome to the club !

Peter

I also see this to be a result of the film, filter usage, development, printing, that you saw. Film is much different than digital because your camera dosent change too much unless your comparing holgas and leicas. But in terms of tone, exposure , and contrast a cheaper mamiya 645 s1000 may do you just fine

bibowj,
I agree with virtually everything on the page. You have taken the most important step, you are looking at good photography. You can never do enough of that. Be sure to look a the work of Irving Penn and Richard Avedon both used Rolleis (as well as large format). You are responding (as several others have pointed out) to a "look" that results at least as much from film and processing decisions as from Camera choice. In this day of slow variable aperture zoom lenses and small sensors, you are also responding to the look imparted by a large aperture on a large piece of film, and in many cases the beautiful and nearly forgotten look of a fine lens in a focal length that is considered "normal" for it's format. I have nothing at all against wide angle or telephoto lenses and I use them, but by their nature they can "call attention to themselves" --that's how a previous poster identified them. The normal lens is more like a clean window, --you only see the subject.
The one critical advantage that a TLR has is that you never lose contact with your subject. You are looking into their eyes at the exact moment of exposure. There is no blackout, no mirror flop, almost no noise, just a soft click. The discipline of a single lens is imposed on you, if you use it for a while, you begin to know what will be in the frame before you look. For the kind of photography you've pointed out a rollei would be wonderful. But so would a Hasselblad and it would be far more versitile. I have 3 Hasselblads and a Superwide CF, Regrettably I sold my Rollei 2.8 C to buy my first Hasselblad. I still have a Mamiyaflex C3 (2 1/4 sq TLR w/ interchangeable lenses) and a Yashica Mat 124G.
I have a suggestion, the cameras I described ablve can be had very cheaply, and the mamiya lenses are blazingly sharp. I would bet you could find a user for less than $100. Buy it, try it, process 50 rolls of film, go after the look, and see how you like it. It will either Cure you, or convince you. I also shoot Digital (Canon 1Ds III) and love it, but for some things, film is still better.
You can then decide to go Rollei or Hasselblad or just keep your user for your portraiture projects.
You should also be aware that with the Bankrupcy of Franke & Heidecke collectors may start bidding up prices and putting nice cameras into shrinkwrap.
Good luck, let us know what you decide.
Michael

bibowj,
One additional point, it just occurred to me that no one mentioned the left right reversal in these cameras (unless you use a prism) . Some find this off-putting, or at least feel slowed down, while others find that the reversal provides a level of abstraction that aids composition. Most get used to it fairly quickly (especially if it's your primary camera) but if you use several cameras you may not like it.
I must confess I was never completely comfortable, but I'm already dyslexic (which is another reason the Hasselblad works so well for me because I almost always used a prism) If you don't use the prism of course, the Hassy has the same reversal. I don't seem to have the same problem with my view cameras ???

Someone that knows what they're doing can make beautiful images from a Holga just as they can with a Hasselblad.

If I bought the same clubs that Tiger Woods uses, I still won't be wearing a green coat any time soon.

I think a good place to start for you, since you already have Canon L glass, is to buy a good Canon film SLR (heck even a Rebel G or Rebel 2000, which can be had for well under $100). They'll work with your Canon glass, and will provide excellent results.

Once you get consistently good results with the Canon film stuff, absolutely move up to a Hasselblad or Mamiya or Rollie. But don't expect the more expensive gear to give you better results.

By the way:

I think you'll find, as I have, that once you start to use photography with "soul," as you so eloquently put it, your 5D will see less and less use. Getting more contrast is as simple as pushing film (exposing 400 speed film as if it were 800, for example) or using a #4 instead of a #3 contrast filter. It isn't a function of the camera's abilities so much as it is your ability.

I still use my Nikon D40 when I need to have the convenience of digital, but I find the fun of exposing, developing, and printing film to be much more fun. There are much more variables, and much more room for error.

My favorite part of photography is that instant when you see the image appear in the Dektol, and you know (even under red safelights) you have the perfect print. It also happens the instant you snap the shutter and you know you will have a beautiful photograph. It's Cartier-Bresson's famous "decisive moment"

i agree with brofkand

I think a good place to start for you, since you already have Canon L glass, is to buy a good Canon film SLR (heck even a Rebel G or Rebel 2000, which can be had for well under $100). They'll work with your Canon glass, and will provide excellent results.

Click to expand...

if you start out with the gear you already own, get a 35mm canon EOS, such as the ones above described, learn which film(s) you like, how to develop them to get the results that you like, and print them (if you do darkroom work). I made the mistake, regrettably no one that I knew told me this: so I'm warning you : learn with what you already have, rather than going after the gear you think you need. I had a pentax 35mm, and I went out and launched right into medium format, and granted, a few hundred rolls later, I'm still learning .

get the development and printing down, and then look at more expensive and better gear. this is not a "telling you what to do", but rather a "I've been in the same boat as you, and I'm trying to warn you before you're neck deep in equipment that you don't really need YET.


albeit, getting G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) is something that we all experience at some time or another.

-dan

Hey Everyone- Thanks so much for all the quick replies. Im amazed at the amount of great input Ive gotten so far! I belong so MANY forums, as Im sure most of you do, and ive never received such an outpouring of advice.
One think I would like to add is that im not really totally new to MF work. Ive owned both a C330 and a ETRSi in the past as well as many film cameras. Used them both personally and professionally.
I shot extensively in weddings, and was on the verge of being over saturated with work when I had a wedding incident that caused me to get out of the business for the last oh 8 years (I can elaborate on that if needed, lets just say there was a law suit involved). So in my absence, digital has come to be the main form of work out there is seems, and I bought into it when the passion returned. I admit, that it was nice to be able to deliver product the day after the shoot, but that was after hours upon hours in Photo shop overlaying and soft lighting, just trying to bring back that soul. I think that that is where all of this has come from. I agree that sites like the one I linked probably have allot to do with what is done in the darkroom, and I emailed the man and asked if he would shine a light (pun intended) on his process but I just feel the SOUL in the images that I saw taken with the mentioned cameras... coincidence? my untrained eye? Maybe... but I see it.

Ill probably go for the Hassy, even though artistically Im leaning toward the TLR. The reason is aside from the brilliant work that can be done with this tool, the image is starting to mean something to me. I know I know..Ill get flamed from that comment but hear me out. I did a paid shoot last week of a couple. Nice pair, that were in the end, very happy with the work I did for them.. but in the beginning of the shoot (again that I was getting paid for) the husband asked me if I was planning on getting the Mark 2 (his exact words) and if I ever wanted to borrow his I could. He wasnt even a GWC, just a normal guy that clearly had some extra money. Im sure this happened back in the film days, but I think maybe its does more now with digital. Crazy reason to buy a camera, but my decision is down the middle... and I will probably (eventually) get both.. Im single, with a serious case of GAS, so it only hurts me and I like ramen anyways


Again, thanks everyone for your input. I respect everything youve said so far.

bibowj said:

Im single, with a serious case of GAS, so it only hurts me and I like ramen anyways

Click to expand...

It get worse with LF.

I've never actually used a Hassy before, but I do think I would prefer it over a TLR if given the option.

I'll put in another suggestion to go the Bronica SQ-A route. The system is great, same as Hasselblad, just without the "name" or price tag. For the price you'll pay for an excellent conditon Hassy 80/2.8 CF Tstar lens you could purchase an entire Bronica SQ-A system and get the same results. I would go this route for now, take the hundreds of dollars you'll save and buy film, paper, and chemistry, things you'll really need to learn the process. Then after a few years if you feel the need, get the Hasselblad.

BTW... here's a portrait shot I took with the SQ-A and 80/2.8. Not sure if it was wide open or not, either f/2.8 or f/4. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It's not Hasselblad or Rollei that gives the 'look'.

There are 3 parts to it:

1. Large negative size - use 120 film. A picture from a $25 second hand 50's vintage folding camera will have the same smoothness to it.
   
2. Good lighting - the person referenced in the original post is a master at it, using a one light technique. There are several books on lighting, even ones specializing in one light portraits.
   
3. Skill in printing - the picture is really made in the darkroom. You will have to get hold of an enlarger and some darkroom supplies. With people going to digital it is possible to pick up the whole shebang in used equipment for pennies on the dollar if not for free.

If you like the look of the 'look' on a computer screen then you should hie down to the museum or gallery and see some medium/large format portraiture work up close in person.

EASmithV: you are right with LF.
I had both the Rollei SL66 and the Hassie in my place for testing and got the Rollei.

The Bronica would be the best option, I agree: the price tag is much lower and the camera's and lenses are just as good as the Hassies.
A SLR 6x6 (Hassie, Rollei SL66, Bronica ) versus TLR (Mamiya Cxx, Rolleiflex, Yashica): like apples and pears.
I have a Rolleiflex 2.8F aswell and do diferent shots with each camera.
The Flex is lighter, easier to take with you, more suited for street-photography, the SLR more for the "formal" shots, whether it is outside or in the studio.
For portraits I take the SLR all the time any time and mostly with the 150mm on it.

Peter

Going through a similar thought process myself, I ended up expanding my Mamiya TLR outfit and buying a Rolleiflex 2.8 as well. But that's because mostly I like 1) no delay in exposure between the press of the button and release of the shutter and 2) being able to see through the moment of exposure (which for MF SLRs I find even worse than 35mm, especially as many lack an instant-return mirror). I also considered a used Mamiya 6 at the same time for the same reasons, but decided to go with the old reliables.

However, you cannot argue with Hassy stuff, nor with the price of it right now. If you want it, get it and don't feel bad...just know it'll show you your limitations as a photographer, too. But at least you know the gear won't be holding you back.

Add on question:


Of the two main models i asked for (500CM in the Hassy) , which would I have a better chance of finding a qood model that wont need CLA right away... meaning one I can use for a bit first, and wont arrive broken? I use ADORAMA for my gear now because Ive had some bad dealings with KEH lately and the fomer ships to me (im in Japan) in less than 5 days and KEH is over 3 weeks. So that being said, Im ordering on Friday.

I know that the Rollei's are a million years old, but the some of the Hassy's might have seen heavy heavy pro use in their day... So what do I look for? Any pitfalls I should make sure to avoid (certain models, features etc)...

Thanks again! I really love this site, first time IVe been on a forum where there has been next to NO sarcasm in replies.... brilliant...

Welcome to APUG. I agree with you that this is a great forum with great people around.
Well, I suppose it's possible to use a 40 year old camera without servicing. The need of a CLA doesn't mean that it's broken; just that parts of the camera won't work finely, common issues are inaccurate shutter (sticking at slow speeds), lubricants that have dried up...
Can't help you on Hasselblad issues, don't have one, and I suppose I won't; I've never been seriously attracted to hassies, I prefer Rollei TLRs.

Bibowj, I have had the opportunity to use both cameras you are considering and honestly they are both great. Everyones opinion is different and I think you will like whichever one you get. There are trade offs with both. I prefer the Hasselblad because I can view through the taking lens, change film and lenses when I want. If I were traveling light the Rollei would win out.
Since you're thinking about buying from a dealer, make sure they have a return policy. That way if anything happens in the warranty/trial period you can send it back. Any of the more respectable dealers ( B&H, KEH, Adorama, Midwest Photo, etc.) want their customers happy and buying more from them so are willing to go the extra mile to make things right.

A friend of mine shoots a Rollei TLR and she swears by it. I shoot my yellow Hassey and I call in "My Precious". In the end it's your preference, test drive them both if you get a chance and go with what ever you choose. In the end it will be an extension of yourself.

Regards, Art.

I'd recommend a TLR. MF SLRs are fairly noisy and tend to cost significantly more for not really that much real advantage when it comes down to it. Interchangable lenses are biggie - but personally, I recommend a Mamiya TLR.

Welcome (back) to film. Chuck the digital on eBay and get decent money for it while people still think the 5D is the bee's knees. I hate to say it, but all the while people were binning their film equipment, analog photographers have been silently shouting about the loss of soul. It makes one wonder where priorities in photography lie at the end of the day. Knowing that analog will always come out ahead, aesthetic-wise - with even similar time spent in post-shooting activities (although for sports I think digital is the best choice).

One thing I will mention is that the photography on the site you originally mentioned looks like most of the manipulation was done in the digital domain after a scan. Not many look like prints to me.