What is the Hasselblad "exposure test plate", and how does it work?

MattKing said:

It doesn't actually tell you anything.
It simply permits the TTL flash metering system to work the same way as it would with film.
And that metering system, and the feedback systems built into, are what tell you things - primarily about whether the flash(es) employed have sufficient power to be able to illuminate the subject sufficiently.
Essentially, it allows the TTL flash metering system to give you a go/no go result, without having to waste any film.

Click to expand...

Thanks Matt I was simply ignorant of what information was fed back to the user

pentaxuser

More critically it tells you if the f stop (and distance) that is chosen is go or no go.

This flash feature is available on the 503 CX and 503 CW.

Don't forget the 200 series

cowanw said:

Don't forget the 200 series

Click to expand...

I do not know much about the 200 series and the 2000 system since I only use my Hasselblad with film.

A simple device for simple control of vignetting.

Sirius Glass said:

I do not know much about the 200 series and the 2000 system since I only use my Hasselblad with film.

Click to expand...

Good grief…

Sirius Glass said:

I do not know much about the 200 series and the 2000 system since I only use my Hasselblad with film.

Click to expand...

I guess TTL flash with film in a focal plne shutter equipped Hasselblad was a technological bridge too far for @Sirius Glass !
The accessory essentially helped use a Hasselblad in the same way one would use a flash test button on something like a Vivitar 283 flash - confirm your flash exposure will work, but doing so through the actual lens employed, and without wasting a frame of film.

Does the Hasselblad TTL-OTF system work with a digital back? OTF implies off the film, are sensors similar in reflectivity

BrianShaw said:

Good grief…

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

I guess TTL flash with film in a focal plne shutter equipped Hasselblad was a technological bridge too far for @Sirius Glass !
The accessory essentially helped use a Hasselblad in the same way one would use a flash test button on something like a Vivitar 283 flash - confirm your flash exposure will work, but doing so through the actual lens employed, and without wasting a frame of film.

Click to expand...

By choice the 200 series and 2000 series have not been serviceable for years. My parents raised smart children.

Sirius Glass said:

By choice the 200 series and 2000 series have not been serviceable for years. My parents raised smart children.

Click to expand...

Children, so you have smart siblings??

I didn't buy those fancy electronic cameras because I was scared of all the buttons, and I didn't have the cash.

The version that had the Zone System (-3 to +3) development times on the magazine thanks to Ansel Adams input. What were they thinking

mshchem said:

Does the Hasselblad TTL-OTF system work with a digital back? OTF implies off the film, are sensors similar in reflectivity

Click to expand...

Film TTL systems reading the film plane mostly could not work with the surface sheen of the digital sensors, forcing the camera manufacturers to re-engineer TTL, to use in-body sensors to read tje pre-flash light reflected to them by supplemental mirrors moments prior to sensor exposure rather than to read the surface of the film plane..
I recall that Hasselblad used the same SCA-300 TTL metering as used by other manufacturers in the 503-CX, apparently using private label stuff made for them by Metz.

wiltw said:

Film TTL systems reading the film plane mostly could not work with the surface sheen of the digital sensors, forcing the camera manufacturers to re-engineer TTL, to use in-body sensors to read tje pre-flash light reflected to them by supplemental mirrors moments prior to sensor exposure rather than to read the surface of the film plane..
I recall that Hasselblad used the same SCA-300 TTL metering as used by other manufacturers in the 503-CX, apparently using private label stuff made for them by Metz.

Click to expand...

Sounds complicated

wiltw said:

mshchem said:

Does the Hasselblad TTL-OTF system work with a digital back? OTF implies off the film, are sensors similar in reflectivity

Click to expand...

Film TTL systems reading the film plane mostly could not work with the surface sheen of the digital sensors, forcing the camera manufacturers to re-engineer TTL, to use in-body sensors to read tje pre-flash light reflected to them by supplemental mirrors moments prior to sensor exposure rather than to read the surface of the film plane..
I recall that Hasselblad used the same SCA-300 TTL metering as used by other manufacturers in the 503-CX, apparently using private label stuff made for them by Metz.

Click to expand...

Digital sensors use a preflash, reflected light from a low powered preflash is measured by the image sensor, and then the correct power is applied to the flash for the exposure. Canon and Nikon call this ETTL and i-TTL.

itsdoable said:

Digital sensors use a preflash, reflected light from a low powered preflash is measured by the image sensor, and then the correct power is applied to the flash for the exposure. Canon and Nikon call this ETTL and i-TTL.

Click to expand...

And where I trusted film TTL in all my film cameras, I have little trust in the digital TTL implementation (at least Canon's), and put my Metz flash units on Auto photosensor mode rather than continue to use eTTL, especially when first using eTTL results first in failed proper exposure.

mshchem said:

Sounds complicated

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is one step backward IMHO. No wonder that the world isn't interested in supplemental lighting, compared to the levels of interest 15 years ago!

wiltw said:

Yeah, it is one step backward IMHO. No wonder that the world isn't interested in supplemental lighting, compared to the levels of interest 15 years ago!

Click to expand...

wiltw said:

And where I trusted film TTL in all my film cameras, I have little trust in the digital TTL implementation (at least Canon's), and put my Metz flash units on Auto photosensor mode rather than continue to use eTTL, especially when first using eTTL results first in failed proper exposure.

Click to expand...

Issues may have been early implementation and compatibility. ETTL and i-TTL are not that different from matrix metering, the sensor detects the pre-flash from the area on the image that the camera focuses on, so it's not just measuring the flash, but where the flash is reflecting from. It also has ambient light measured, so it can chose full flash or mixed ambient, based on the whole image.

The loss of interest in supplemental lighting may have a lot to do with CMOS sensors, which have very good low light sensitivity. I don't use flash anywhere as much as I use to for low light work, I use it mostly to control lighting during a session. And with digital, you can view test shots immediately. None of my flashes are TTL compatible with my current digital equipment...

mshchem said:

Children, so you have smart siblings??

I didn't buy those fancy electronic cameras because I was scared of all the buttons, and I didn't have the cash.

The version that had the Zone System (-3 to +3) development times on the magazine thanks to Ansel Adams input. What were they thinking

Click to expand...

Two but one passed.

Sirius Glass said:

Two but one passed.

Click to expand...

Me too

mshchem said:

Me too

Click to expand...

I hope it is not catching.

Sirius Glass said:

I hope it is not catching.

Click to expand...

ME TOO!

itsdoable said:

Issues may have been early implementation and compatibility. ETTL and i-TTL are not that different from matrix metering, the sensor detects the pre-flash from the area onN the image that the camera focuses on, so it's not just measuring the flash, but where the flash is reflecting from. It also has ambient light measured, so it can chose full flash or mixed ambient, based on the whole image.

The loss of interest in supplemental lighting may have a lot to do with CMOS sensors, which have very good low light sensitivity. I don't use flash anywhere as much as I use to for low light work, I use it mostly to control lighting during a session. And with digital, you can view test shots immediately. None of my flashes are TTL compatible with my current digital equipment...

Click to expand...

No, ...

1. the 'dependability' is as one consideration...I could mount the camera on a tripod with eTTL flash mounted in the hot shoe, and in a series of 10 test shots, one or more would be overexposed, as if the connect between hot shoe and hot foot had wiggled and disturbed the command between camera to flaah commanding a certain level of partial power output.
2. Secondly, where I could mount the flash in a softbox and get accurate flash output from TTL, if I mounted the flash in a softbox with eTTL, I would NOT get an accurate flash exposure. Yet, at the same time, if I took it out of the softbox and used ceiling bounce, the eTTL flash exposure WOULD be accurate in the exact ame setting! I could not use my desired lighting methodology.
3. Lastly, if the on-camera eTTL exposiure was accurate, if I took the camera off the hotshoe and extended it on an eTTL extension cord -- and this happened with two different brands of Canon cord and two different brands of aftermarket cord during testing -- the on-extension eTTL flash would be intermittently wrong (at full power when it should have flashed at fractional power under eTTL command from the camera. I lost 'flexibility' of lighting solution, the ability to hold flash source higher overhead, or slighting off to the side so that the source position was improved to suit the circumstances.

Low light sensitivity has indeed made it so that one can get away without flash to make an exposure, so that is indeed the main reason for loss of interest. At the same time however, the quality of the lighting can leave a lot to be desired, because faces are shadowed (the source is not filling the area of the face seen by the lens), serious undershadows under the chin or eye sockets in shadows are captured (the overhead, dim lighting), or seriously colored/tinted (ambient lighting is mostly gelled) really need to be compensated with near-camera source. The need for supplemental lighting still existing, but folks are too forgiving of the poor light quality captured by the highly sensitive sensors...the NEED is not eliminated!!!

Just a few days ago, I was at a ice skating area at night with extended family, as my wife and I were treating all to free skating session followed by hosted dinner, in lieu of buying them unwanted/unneeded Xmas gifts. The quality of light was miserable, although successful exposures could be made in the low light. And there were many shots that the light level was so low that a too-slow shutter speed (for the level of action of the skaters) blurred the resultant shot...flash would have remedied that! The NEED was not eliminated to freeze the action. Had been covering the event in a professional capacity, I would have selectively used flash to guarantee a satistisfactory exposure while capturing sufficient ambient light to preserve the inherent 'mood' of the place. But since I was effectively the typical snapshooter with no flash, there were blurred throwaway shots instead at those locations of very low light.

wiltw said:

No, ...

Click to expand...

I'll have to defer to your experience with Canon, as I'm not a Canon shooter. I'm pretty old school, so studio setup were mostly manual, all lighting power was manually set - there was a lot of resistance to automation back then And it was mostly MF. i-TTL worked pretty well when you needed it for dynamic situations though (most of the issues we had was with compatibility).

Indoor skating rinks! Yes, lighting in those are pretty sad, unless it's a rink that is used for televising games. And even then, a small fill flash was still useful. No argument there!