So why did you and why will you

[qnu]

Simonpg,

I don't understand, how is digital capture, or even digital post-processing taking away any of "the process of seeing and recording images"?

Photography hasn't changed: you still have to consider the same limited set of basic 'technical' parameters, still have to use your head to find/see/create images, etc.
What has changed is that there is less time spent inhaling fumes in dank and dark places. No great loss, i think.

Using different tools brings a different set of things to annoy us. Error messages instead of edge fogging, etc.
But the difference in ease of use between 'old-fashioned' and digital post-processing posibilities/tools alone makes it worthwhile.
(I still do not use direct digital capture myself. Just scanning films. Which in itself is a real pain in some posterior parts, as it takes forever.)

Now "fine tuning" vs "making my images something they were not"...
What takes precedence, do you think, the things your imagination tells you you should do to the 'raw material', or the 'raw material' itself? Should diamonds be left the way they came from deep below, or...?

But yes, if the 'raw material' is meant to provide a representation of something, any processing that would make it less representative obviously is a bad thing.
On the other hand, the added posibilities new tools offer could and should be used to 'free' our 'creative imagination'. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary: it would be extremely silly if we want to do something, can do the very thing, but do not because someone says these new fangled devices are the work of the devil.
It's a decision we make. The tools are not to blame if we do the wrong thing. So i can't see why i should not like "all that digi stuff".

Hugely off-topic again. Sorry!

The 'ancient' Hasselblad stuff is indeed a joy to both have and use. To really appreciate it, i think you have to think back and imagine how that little part of our world called 'photography' was before these things appeared.
It's hard to do that, i feel, since we are all so used to the new things these cameras offered.
It's hard to do too while using these 'ancient' things, because there is very little difference to how modern Hasselblads 'work'.

 

[simonpg]

Qnu, with regard to {I don't understand, how is digital capture, or even digital post-processing...}, please just accept that this may simply be one of my personal foibles!

Actually your discussion about post-processing "tweaking" is not really off topic. On its own it's a very interesting topic too. But, I whole-heartedly agree that manipulation of images captured on either media, film or digi, is simply further use of one's own talents and artistic capabilities. Just like mixed media used by painters as a part of their art, such manipulation in photography simply reflects added artistic input to help create what they are seeking to achieve. Manipulation is not new to digi photography, just new tools.

In Australia around the time of WWI one of our most iconic photographers, Frank Hurley, who was credited with helping to develop the concept of reportage and the film documentary (he became internationally famous for his trip to Antartica with Mawson not long after 1900 - Chrities sold some original prints a year ago for between 70,000 and 100,000 sterling!) was heavilly criticised for manipulating film images. He (quite openly) took images of fighting in the trenches on the Western Front and was unhappy with the skies of many images and felt they detracted from the drama, so in his dark room he dropped in dramatic stormy skies above hand-to-hand combat scenes. He argued that this was part of his art and more accurately conveyed what he felt as he took his images.

That's a more extreme ex&le of minipulation, but many commentators of the day agreed with him and many diasgreed. Today, they remain divided.

When I referred (in an earlier post) to my reluctance to do much manipulation like saturating colours in Aussie outback scenes, I was not criticising those who do; but, more importantly stating that I prefer to convey what I am seeing - if I am "seeing" bleached tones in trees etc, that is what I personally want to convey. Painters do much the same especially among abstract artists - overstate colours and shapes reflecting "what" and "how" they see.

When I look at a major photographic piece I judge it on it's appeal to my eyes, not on how the photographer produced it.

Of course if the image is meant to record some historic fact, then I prefer it to be "natural". Not everyone may agree with my preferences. This is where Hurley was open to criticism and certainly got much.

 

[simonpg]

Wayne, some of those "smaller" format Linhofs are marvellous. I was recently tempted to buy that 6x7 (looks like a movie camera with its built-in handle (6x7 in portrait format) which seemed designed for wedding shooters. I found what looked like an affordable and mint "collectible" on ebay but went to sleep and missed its close. Very annoyed with myself, as I would make good use of it.

Likewise I am also intrigued by Hasselblad's mastering of industrial design. Every time I use my 501 or 503 I marvel at the details such as its prevention of removing the film back without the dark-slide in place!

When I borrowed an SWC/M with the C T* lens and its moving DOF pointers, I thought how marvelous these details are (IMHO really should have remained on the newer CF and CFi lenses).

Ultimately when you hold a Hassy body, back and say 80mm lens with a WLF fitted, you cannot help but admire the compactness, balance and design appeal. Yet it's so simple - simplicity seems to win the day!

Jurgen, although I had had some years with a nice Bronica SQA kit, I did not "move" to Hassy. I'd replaced my extensive Olympus OM4 and Zuiko lens kit with an EOS 1vHS with L series glass 2 or so years beforehand. I then developed a thirst for 6x6 negs (having sold the Bronica kit many years before). I kidded myself that a 501CM, 1 back and the 80CFE would satisfy my needs. But, a year later the thirst became an insatiable appetite for things Hasselblad/Zeiss.

BUT, no one has indicated if they be professional, semi-professional or amateur. I know Marc is a pro from other threads. I've seen ex&les of his "before the wedding" images and really like his style. So what are we?

Me, I'm all amateur.

 

[qnu]

Hasselblad's "mastering of industrial design" gives the impression of being perfect. And it is, to a degree (Oops! Degrees of perfection? Anyway...

)
What i find fascinating (the things i like to collect more than the actual equipment) is the story of how things got to be, and the errors made underway.

The mechanism that prevents exposure when the dark slide is in, for instance, wasn't that perfect from the beginning. In the older backs, the block was lifted as soon as the slide was drawn out a little, still covering the film. They changed that so that it had to be drawn out far enough (approx. halfway) for us to notice it was still not out.

A really fascinating story in this context is that of the Hasselblad focal plane shutter.
Victor Hasselblad wanted such a shutter because (among other things) he wanted the fast shutterspeeds it (and only it) can produce.
As we know, the first Hasselblad cameras had very thin stainless steel shutter curtains. Though they work(ed) they are also very vulnerable, and caused many problems.
In the early to mid 1950s they decided that the problems were too much, and switched to leaf shutters (which in itself wasn't a trivial task).

The result is well-known: the famed and fabeled V-system still with us today. The recepetion and acceptance it got was so overwhelming that very few people today even know they were not the 'original' Hasselblads. Not the thing Victor Hasselblad initially wanted.
So when Hasselblad returned (!) to focal plane shutters in the early 1970s (2000 FC), the press even talked about a "break with tradition", and about an "end to the conservative approach", etc. What Hasselblad was doing however was get in touch again with where they started.

And not just that: Hasselblad never abandoned the focal plane shutter. From the late 1950s onwards, they have been working continuously on an improved version, which wouldn't suffer the problems the original shutter had. They tried many things, eventually to come up with an almost identical shutter curtain, but in a completely new, electronic-control focal plane shutter.

Perfection comes through trial and (!) error.

(Even more fascinating, at least i think so) is the reason behind the never abating effort to get a reliable, working focal plane shutter again. But that's another story.)

 

[jotloob]

Qnu
Very interesting aspects for the HASSELBLAD History .
I will print your comment and add it to RICHARD NORDINS compendium.

I have very strong emotional relation to the design of HASSELBLAD .
So , if i look at "that cube" i am fascinated . But if that cube is in black , i get tears in my eyes . the design is spoiled , you do not see that genius design . that's why i would never buy a "black" HASSELBLAD .

 

[qnu]

Jotloob,

I have both black and chrome Hasselblads. Though the black ones do not move me to tears, i too like the chrome better.

As you appear to be interested in this, a brief outline of the "shutter story":

- Hasselblad knew that the choice of material to be used for the large shutter curtains would be problematic. (For some reason, they dismissed rubberized cloth. They apparently thought it was too sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity to be able to be used in precision machinery).
So they explored the possibility of a focal plane shutter consisting of (better sit down...) solid plates (!). The edges of the plates would slide along the focal plane forming a slit between them. The plates themselves are huge (each one must cover the entire film gate, when sitting at an angle).
This was in the 1940s, before (!) the 1600 F was 'finalized'.
Needless to say, this thing never was used.

- The problem with metal foil used in the focal plane shutters was that, though strong under tension, it was very flexible, and would buckle and fold, destroying itself.
The solution they found was to corrugate the foil, giving it structural strength in all but one direction (it has to roll off and onto spools quickly). That worked, but only 'so far'; the curtains could and would still buckle.

- The corrugation itself introduced another problem: metal fatigue. The stresses involved in the rapid acceleration and deceleration concentrated in the bends, leading to stress fatigue and pin prick holes.

- That, together with the vulnerability of the shutter curtains when exposed, was enough to make them think about other shutters.
At the same time (early 1950s), electronic flash came along, and the full-synch leaf shutters provide was another reason to want them instead of the 'slow synch' focal plane shutter.
The 1600 and 1000 F cameras were very expensive to produce too, and that had to change as well.
So they switched shutters.

- In 1959 a short specification was written, describing a focal plane shutter camera that could also use leaf shutter lenses, in C-mode. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? In 1959!

A single person was given the task of finding ways to 'cure' the focal plane shutter, find a way to get around the problems. Hasselblad still wanted a fast focal plane shutter.
That one person took much time trying to get a faster synch speed out of the focal plane shutter. That meant speeding up the curtains, which in turn meant they had to be longer (so they could accelerate before passing the film gate).
The increasing problem (apart from not solving the vulnerability issue) was that there was not enough room inside the camera to accomodate the thing (both sides were completely taken up by shutter curtains).
A bigger problem however was that the increased mass and friction got in the way of exactly what he was trying to achieve. So after 4 years he quit.

- A new designer took over, and in no time he had designed the lightest and smallest focal plane shutter system ever seen, which reached 1/2000 with no problem.
The curtains were still corrugated steel foil though. Nothing changed there.
And the system used two permanent magnets in the time setting mechanism, which didn't work properly.

- They also started the search for another, less vulnerable material. They tried the material of that 'age': plastic.
No good, The sun would burn holes in it.

- The time setting mechanism kept them busy too. Mainly because their only electronic engineer did not want to hear about what the 'mechanical people' had come up with: a curtain release system using electromagnets.
That worked fine. But imagine the expert being told what would work by a bunch of amateurs... So time passed.

- That was 1965.
Around 1970 the H-III project was occupying most of Hasselblad's design staff. It was going very well.
They practically completed a focal plane shutter camera, capable of using leaf shutter lenses as well, and (!!!) with an electro-mechanical integration of inputs, provided by a (mechanical) film speed setting on the film back, a mechanical transmission of aperture setting from lens to body, and a meter inside the body. These inputs were integrated and the output would be transfered to the time setting mechanism of the focal plane shutter:

they had a full automatic Hasselblad, as good as ready to be launched!


- The shutter curtains kept posing problems. After trying plastics, having not looked at rubberized cloth (that had been dismissed earlier), they decided upon titanium.
Less prone to fatigue, apparently, but even more vulnerable when touched.

- Meanwhile (1975 already), the buzz word of the era had become "electronic". The mechanical parts of the automatic camera had to be replaced by electonic devices. We know the result: the 200-series.

- Not to delay the introduction of the HIII camera any further (i.e. not to miss the extra revenue this camera would generate), the thing was stripped from all electro-mechanical 'automatic' features, and finally hit the market in the form and shape of the 2000 FC. In 1977.
In the words of the person responsible for very much of this project: "It took us just 17 years to finish the job!"

(That 'wink' is not mine, but part of the quote in as much as it reflects the spirit in which these words were spoken)

- We all know how much 'pleasure' the corrugated metal foil shutter curtains continued to bring.
So someone finally decided to look at rubberized cloth again.
So that's what the 200-series finally got.


And as an extra, another shutter related bit of info:
The shutter presently in the H-System lenses (a marvel of engineering) were originally not meant to be used in the H-system.
The H-system hadn't been conceived yet when they started working on the shutter (first mechanical, later electronic).
So what then were they intended for? An automatic 500-series camera we have never seen? Or the full digital camera (with 'full movements') they were working on before the then owners decided there was no quick profit in digital photography?

And another extra tidbit:
The CF improvement of the Synchro Compur shutter (which Deckel stopped producing) was not 'invented' by Gauthier/Prontor (who had to take over where Deckel had left of), but was a Hasselblad product.

 

[jotloob]

Hello Qnu
Thanks a lot for your remarkable contribution .
I will answer it by tomorrow .
I just won an E-BAY auction for a HASSELBLAD SWA .
I am still very excited . So i can't find any words this evening .
Regards Jürgen

 

[qnu]

Yes, i was there, and saw you winning it.

Congratulations! A great catch!

Not just a SuperWide*, but with ancient back, focussing screen adapter, extra finder...
I don't know what the "Kompendium" would be though. A 'ProShade' to fit an SW???
Anyway, well done!

*It's not an SWA, but an SW. See page 50 in Richard Nordin's most excellent book.

 

[simonpg]

Thanks for the fascinating story Qnu. I adds a new perspective.

Congratluations to Jurgen on "winning" that SW.

I too far prefer the "chrome" bodies and backs (as well, of course, as the earlier lenses).

But while unlike Qnu,..... OOOOOPS, HERE I GO AGAIN - I'm not "simonpg" but Simon, so I'll try to get it right QG (and I think a while ago you pinted that out to me - too much meds!)

.

.....I don't have black bodies, but I do have a black current A12. While I was shopping for a chrome, a dealer said to me: "do you keep B&W film ready while shooting colour?" I do. So his logic was: "have one black film back and you'll always know what is inside!"

So I did. But of course, it does not really look the part; certainly does do the job of highlighting what film's inside as he suggested (subtle think but very very effective); never gives me the same feeling of warmth; above all it works!

While I had no understanding of Victor's focal plane shutter "commitment", I enjoyed the tale.

 

[jotloob]

Hi Qnu

First of all , let us all know again , how we shall speak to you .
(Regarding Simon's last comment)
Is it Qnu or Q.G. I can remember , that there was a comment about this , but can't remember the outcome of it .
So please will you put me right .

Now to the "shutter story"
If find the information you gave , very , very interesting and will put this in printed form to an appendix in the compendium .
You shurely study a lot of information about HASSELBLAD , but i never came across such info . All i have in my hands is "Udo Afalters book" and the compendium by Rick Nordin . So you shurely must have some other sources .

As you know , i have 2 cameras 1600F . Both have a working shutter .
The one is a 1600F CHxxxxx (1952) . This one shows the typical "vinyl shrinkage" . The shutter got repaired by Nils Peterson and i have a certificate for that repair . But the shutter still shows little wrinkles . Not very much but fairly visible .
The other 1600F is a CP13787 (1953) . (The 1000F was obviously already in production) . This 1600F is in a beautiful condition . The shutter curtain(s) show no wrinkles , all speeds run well and the vinyl is as it should be . No scratches , no damage , just in very good condition . I am very proud to have this camera . I got it from a friend , who deals with used cameras of all kinds , and he has no emotional connection to any brand .
All he wants , is earning money with the cameras he sells . So it was easy to convince him , that this 1600F is in better hands , when i have it instead of him .

Yes , it is a SW i bought from E-BAY yesterday. I know , there is a SUPREME WIDE ANGLE and a SUPER WIDE version . But i have sometimes trouble to keep the names as they are . The guy , who sold the SW will take a motorbike trip on sunday and bring me the camera . I will report you the details , when i have the SW.
Have a nice weekend .
And regards to all of you . It was an interesting "discussion week" .