Troubleshooting a 500CM

[LMNOP]

Hey APUG,


Thank you to everyone who had input on the "4th roll with Hasselblad" thread. I've learned a lot this month about the 500CM and I am more excited to shoot with this thing than ever. I'm on my 8th roll, still have some negatives I have yet to see, but I am about ready to throw the towel in on this one. I've yet to see anything superbly sharp, and in some cases it seems that I am close, but no cigar. At first I thought that the focus was just slightly beyond where I would like it to be, but I am starting to think its not completely sharp anywhere. I spoke with KEH today, and they said it could be the way the focusing screen is shimmed, or the foam that the mirror rests on. They did not provide any trouble shooting or solutions that could avoid mailing this back to them. The thing I realized today is that it could somehow be my scanner, though I have no other way of seeing these negatives. I am not here to discuss scanning methods, as that is not what APUG is for, but if anyone has something related to that they'd like to share, please PM me, I would appreciate it. Other than that, I wonder if there is a way I can examine the sharpness somehow and determine what I am getting exactly.


I'm looking for any tips you may have. Any way that I can rule out one thing or another, without wasting much more film. If I need to pursue repair, that is fine, but this could all be my own fault somehow.


Thank you in advance, or maybe I'll just quit complaining.

 

[MattKing]

Getting scans that do justice to the resolution, contrast and acutance ("sharpness") of a negative is not simple or easy.

A good magnifier and some back lighting will help you determine the quality of your results. And a 50mm lens from a 35mm camera makes a good magnifier.

EDIT: even better, a darkroom print!

 

[Arvee]

How about examining the negs with a loupe? As soon as my negs are dry and able to be handled, I give them a once over with a loupe just to be sure 'all systems are go.' If you don't have a loupe, use a 50mm lens from a 35mm camera, reversed, to substitute as a loupe until you get a genuine loupe.

Edit: bear in mind that the depth of field on a 6x6 will be much shallower than what you are used to on a 35mm camera with a 50. When I first moved to 2 1/4 I thought my negs were unsharp until I examined them with a loupe and found a very narrow depth of focus (@f4) compared to my 35mm negs. Examine carefully and search for that narrow band of focus; it's not going to be very much.

 

[LMNOP]

Getting scans that do justice to the resolution, contrast and acutance ("sharpness") of a negative is not simple or easy.

A good magnifier and some back lighting will help you determine the quality of your results. And a 50mm lens from a 35mm camera makes a good magnifier.

EDIT: even better, a darkroom print!

Ok - I can try to arrange some dark room printing, I'll ask around and see about that.

For the 50mm Lens thing, I have a few FD 50mm 1.8 lenses - is that as simple as it sounds? Just hold it up and look through the smaller opening?

 

[LMNOP]

Alright - I was able to do this just now with a roll of Delta 3200 - shot at 3200 on the 500CM with a 50mm 1.8 in front of my computer display. To my eye, these look sharp as hell, almost like they were drawn with a razor sharp charcoal pencil, I can count the beard hairs on my buddy's chin. We'll see when I scan them, this could be a proving case for this whole issue.

 

[LMNOP]

That said, all my images have been CLOSE to in focus. would I really see the fine difference while examining with the make shift loupe?

 

[Arvee]

The 50mm loupe (reversed) should be just fine for 2 1/4 negs. If you you are shooting portraiture/head shots, as you indicated, the depth of focus is extremely shallow. Try and use the smallest aperture possible when the subject is 6-7' away. Depth of focus at, say f5.6, is only going to be a couple of inches or so.

 

[MattKing]

Ok - I can try to arrange some dark room printing, I'll ask around and see about that.

For the 50mm Lens thing, I have a few FD 50mm 1.8 lenses - is that as simple as it sounds? Just hold it up and look through the smaller opening?

It is as simple as that.

You probably want to have the aperture on the lens wide open.

It works just like any magnifier - you adjust the distance to increase or decrease the magnification.

And you want the back light to be out of focus.

A blank computer screen can work as a back light, but a back light that is a lot larger than the negative works best if it is masked down a bit - to help with bothersome flare. A sheet of construction paper with a hole cut into it works great.

 

[LMNOP]

It is as simple as that.

You probably want to have the aperture on the lens wide open.

It works just like any magnifier - you adjust the distance to increase or decrease the magnification.

And you want the back light to be out of focus.

A blank computer screen can work as a back light, but a back light that is a lot larger than the negative works best if it is masked down a bit - to help with bothersome flare. A sheet of construction paper with a hole cut into it works great.

Starting to see the value of a light board and loupe... Not to mention a dark room. That said, I am scanning sharp results with my GW690 as always, so I am not yet convinced. I have to try making contact prints. If only I had a darkroom! I will ask around town though.

 

[MattKing]

That said, all my images have been CLOSE to in focus. would I really see the fine difference while examining with the make shift loupe?

It is quite likely that your negatives are in focus but your method of presentation (scans + digital viewing) is destructive of the resolution and acutance inherent in the negative.

It is easy to achieve a 5x magnification with a reversed 50mm lens.

That equates to an 11" x 11" print, which is quite capable of revealing high resolution and excellent acutance.

By the way, a 50mm FD lens provides excellent optics. The only thing "make-shift" about it is as a loupe is that it lacks any way to set it repeatedly to a particular distance.

 

[MattKing]

Starting to see the value of a light board and loupe... Not to mention a dark room. That said, I am scanning sharp results with my GW690 as always, so I am not yet convinced. I have to try making contact prints. If only I had a darkroom! I will ask around town though.

Your GW690 may produce higher contrast negatives. High contrast tends to fool us, because something that is contrasty is often perceived as "sharp" even when the resolution is poor.

Your Hasselblad may be producing results with higher resolution and acutance than the GW690, but lower contrast than the GW690, and once the scanning process intervenes, the result may turn out to be perceived really differently.

Please note that I am not saying that it is impossible to obtain high quality scans that do justice to the resolution, acutance and overall contrast inherent in film negatives. I am saying that it isn't necessarily easy to do so, nor is it easy to use scans to compare the qualities of two quite different cameras.

 

[shutterfinger]

When I was shooting 6x6 TLR's I had difficulty with the focus until I used the built in magnifier in the view hood. Your GW690 with accurate rangefinder calibration should be tack sharp. Looking at a 6x6 view screen is far more difficult to get the focus correct on. The focus test for any camera is to put it on a solid tripod, set up a focus target such as a ruler or tape measure a few feet away at an angle to the film plane, loupe focus on a point on the test target and make an exposure with the lens wide open then check the processed film with a loupe and see where the actual focus is.
Another possibility is camera shake. Camera design can affect ones ability to hold the camera steady during exposure even at fast shutter speeds. A solid tripod and cable release will tell the story. Built in self timers can induce vibration.

 

[gone]

Maybe you're just used to different manners of sharpness? I came from Rolleiflex TLRs, and then to a 'blad w/ an 80 Planar, and never thought that the negs from it were as sharp as the negs from the Rolleiflex cameras. It was the same w/ the half dozen or so of later 'blads I owned. It's just a different way of imaging. To me, that Planar was all about nice IQ more than ultimate sharpness. Your Fuji is also known for making tack sharp negs, although I found them a little too sterile for my tastes. Not enough "character", just sharp. I admit to not being a modern lens kind of guy, and prefer old glass to new.

So maybe you're just used to somethign different. I don't think any 120 camera has lenses that are as sharp as a top of the line TLR, but there are other things of interest other than ultimate sharpness. My old 1937 Voigtlander Brillant TLR w/ an uncoated Heliar lens was not quite as sharp as the sharpest of the best TLR's, but it terms of image quality I would rank it at the very top.

As mentioned, you absolutely have to find focus on a 'blad using the magnifier. Just looking at the screen w/o it will not work, unless you're at infinity of course. Just out of curiosity, have you checked your Hassy lens for haze?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I find the focus on the Hasselblad very sharp when in focus, but I am not using the WLF, instead I use the PME which magnifies the image. That could well be the difference that you need plus it includes the light meter.

 

[Arklatexian]

Alright - I was able to do this just now with a roll of Delta 3200 - shot at 3200 on the 500CM with a 50mm 1.8 in front of my computer display. To my eye, these look sharp as hell, almost like they were drawn with a razor sharp charcoal pencil, I can count the beard hairs on my buddy's chin. We'll see when I scan them, this could be a proving case for this whole issue.

I don't think your scanner will prove anything, but the developed negatives, looked at with a quality magnifier, all of which you have done, and proofed or printed in a borrowed darkroom with a good enlarger will prove what, I think, you already know.......Regards!

 

[LMNOP]

The 50mm worked nicely as a loupe. You know what works even better? The 150mm 3.5 RZ lens! This gave me a huge look at my negatives. I think they're sharp as heck.

 

[MattKing]

The 50mm worked nicely as a loupe. You know what works even better? The 150mm 3.5 RZ lens! This gave me a huge look at my negatives. I think they're sharp as heck.

Glad you were able to be re-assured.

But I would rather risk fingerprints and the chance of dropping with an old lens for 35mm than with something like a lens for an RZ67.

Not to mention the weight .

 

[Darko Pozar]

My Hassy is 35 years old and am lucky to have possessed it for the last 30 years. It is a part of me and I never have had to think twice when she would operate seamlessly to her correct functions or on occasion break down. I would feel every sound and vibration while she was correctly functioning.

Having photographed weddings every week for 20 years with her, my only disappointment has been the focusing. In the speed of things it was difficult to have the focus pin sharp every time. Of course stopping down was never an issue, but when I had to resort to wide apertures with my 100mm and 80mm lenses due to low light , I had to accept softer images. I've seen other colleagues give up with their Hasselblads only to resort to Mamiya RB67.
Despite these shortcomings, I felt that images slightly softer gave a more organic feel to portraits as opposed (in my opinion) the sharpness of today's DSLRs.

I love the sound Hassy makes.

 

[LMNOP]

Can anyone describe where the mirror foam would be seen?

KEH told me that I can pursue repair but they want me to check that out first because they said due to its age that part should be replaced by now if it hasnt been already, making me think that KEH believes it is likely defective.

I cant find a tutorial on this inspection.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 50mm worked nicely as a loupe. You know what works even better? The 150mm 3.5 RZ lens! This gave me a huge look at my negatives. I think they're sharp as heck.

The more that you use the Hasselblad, the more that you will be impressed with the sharpness abilities. There are times when you will want parts not being in sharp focus and you have control of that.

 

[LMNOP]

I cant find any mirror foam info on the forum or online. Anyone have input?

 

[TooManyShots]

The Carl Zeiss Hasseblad 80mm is sharp...this shot was taken at F5.6 1/125s. 553 elx Hasselblad 80mm f2.8 C T. Ektar 100. Tetenal C41. You can click on the photo and look at the flickr larger version, 3000 pixels. The original size is 6000. You can see cracks in between each bricks with grains of course.


rawvideostore by vracing, on Flickr


Same roll at wide open, 1/60s. The focus is on the small bear. Is a bit soft due to lower light and slower shutter speed and shooting at wide open.


rawbears by vracing, on Flickr


I thought you outsourced your scanning and developing to a third party. Depending on what scanner you are using, a 6x9 negative would appear sharper than a 6x6 if you are using some low, low end scanner. BTW, I DSLR my "scan." That's all I would say about the scanning subject. The subject is too complex and complicated to be discussed in this thread here.

I thought I would add one more....first roll from the 553 elx. Tmax 400 expired with HC110. F8. 1/125. A16 back, 6x4.5. Click on the photo and look at the larger Flickr version at 3000 pixel. You can read off the "Empire State" off the plate!!!! With grains of course.

carwash2 by vracing, on Flickr

 

[shutterfinger]

A Google search for Hasselblad 500cm service manual gives this result https://www.google.com/search?q=hasselblad+500cm+service+manual&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
The first link, scribd.com request a membership signin when clicking the download. It says its free. I'm not willing to create an account to download a manual for a camera I do not have. I will help you interpret it if you download it.
Standard design dictates that the foam will be at the top of the mirror box, the rear of the mirror box, or both. The rear most likely has bumpers that the mirror rest against when the mirror is at the focus position and if worn or deteriorated would affect focus. Foam is commonly used at the top of the mirror box or edges of the mirror frame to eliminate light from the focus screen from entering while the exposure is being made.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I cant find any mirror foam info on the forum or online. Anyone have input?

My 500C/M, 501C, and 553ELX have no foam on the little tabs that support the mirror (and my photos are sharp). As far as I can tell, there has never been foam there.

The lowering of the mirror is probably damped somehow, probably with foam, but I can't see it.

So - is the conclusion your photos really are sharp after all and it's just a scanner issue?

 

[LMNOP]

A Google search for Hasselblad 500cm service manual gives this result https://www.google.com/search?q=hasselblad+500cm+service+manual&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
The first link, scribd.com request a membership signin when clicking the download. It says its free. I'm not willing to create an account to download a manual for a camera I do not have. I will help you interpret it if you download it.
Standard design dictates that the foam will be at the top of the mirror box, the rear of the mirror box, or both. The rear most likely has bumpers that the mirror rest against when the mirror is at the focus position and if worn or deteriorated would affect focus. Foam is commonly used at the top of the mirror box or edges of the mirror frame to eliminate light from the focus screen from entering while the exposure is being made.

This is great! Based on that, the foam that I can see looks pretty fresh. On the front of the mirror box, right behind the Hasselblad logo, it looks great, but that would be the resting foam for when the mirror is up. The additional foam I cannot see. I will join this site, download the service manual, and post again tomorrow after work. Thank you - and by the way, my LF lens is still firing like a dream since the CLA - accurate as hell.