Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Hasselblad CFV Digital Back CONTINUED
- Thread starter uaiomex
- Start date
vandevantersh
Member
The PME 45 is a great metering system.
It is very useful with film. With the CFV, maybe less so. But a prism finder and the winder is a very nice combination.
Steve
It is very useful with film. With the CFV, maybe less so. But a prism finder and the winder is a very nice combination.
Steve
Let's talk about the Prism meters for a bit.
I have 2 different meter prisms. The simple, semi-mechanical. one button PME-51, and newer, modern looking electronic, multi-button PME-45.
For years I used the 51 while shooting weddings, and it was as accurate as my hand held meter. My assistant used to meter hand held and I'd get exactly the same reading every time.
Not as good luck with my PME-45 ... which of course shouldn't be true. So, I need to figure out what I am doing wrong.
Is there an on-line manual for the PME-45? Perhaps it needs to be calibrated.
Also, Stephen, why less useful for the CFV?
I have 2 different meter prisms. The simple, semi-mechanical. one button PME-51, and newer, modern looking electronic, multi-button PME-45.
For years I used the 51 while shooting weddings, and it was as accurate as my hand held meter. My assistant used to meter hand held and I'd get exactly the same reading every time.
Not as good luck with my PME-45 ... which of course shouldn't be true. So, I need to figure out what I am doing wrong.
Is there an on-line manual for the PME-45? Perhaps it needs to be calibrated.
Also, Stephen, why less useful for the CFV?
blowupster
Member
I have the old PM 45 (2.5x)it's not so easy to fucus. When I'm tired and want sharp images, I take the standard one (4.5x)or the best: the 4x4DPS (5.5x) witch was done for digital.
The PM 90 sales badly and I suspect that the poor 2x helps for "no-usability".
In fact I prefer to control in the viewfinder if the image is sharp than on slide film one day after.
The PM 90 sales badly and I suspect that the poor 2x helps for "no-usability".
In fact I prefer to control in the viewfinder if the image is sharp than on slide film one day after.
polypal
Active Member
Marc,
The integral mode from the PME 45 is not all that different from the PME51.
Could well be that the PME 45 needs adjustment to the focusing screen you are using.
In spot mode a larger area than 1 degree is measured.
It is the circular area that can be drawn across the cross haires of a standard Acute Matte D screen i.e. 12 mm.
The integral mode from the PME 45 is not all that different from the PME51.
Could well be that the PME 45 needs adjustment to the focusing screen you are using.
In spot mode a larger area than 1 degree is measured.
It is the circular area that can be drawn across the cross haires of a standard Acute Matte D screen i.e. 12 mm.
michaelhcothran
Member
I've got a slew of meters at home, and all had to be "calibrated." With 100 speed film, for ex&le, I set my Nikon bodies, my RZ and RB AE prisms, and my Minolta Flash Meter IV to EI 125 (-1/3 compensation). For my Contax 35mm bodies, and my PME 51, I set the speed to 200 (-1 full stop compensation). The only meter I own that works with 100 speed film set to "100" is my Pentax Digital Spot meter with Zone VI modification.
My "calibration" was purely subjective. With each camera/meter in hand, I chose a variety of outdoor scenes, including some fairly easy to "eye" meter considering the sunny 16 rule. I shot exposures from -1 to +1 in 1/3rd stop increments (in the case of the Hasselblad, I shot in 1/2 stop increments). Then, laying the transparencies on a light table, I picked my favorite from each series. I found, that in most cases, the exposure I liked the best was usually the same exposure setting from each set. And whatever that EI was, it became my new normal working EI for that particular camera/meter. And once set, I've never had to go back and retest.
Curiously, I did find it interesting that Hasselblad and Contax required a -1 stop compensation, while all the Japanese designed cameras - Nikon, Mamiya, Minolta all required -1/3 stop compensation.
These calibrations, albeit subjective, are consistent and reliable. Given scenes with unusual lighting, I use the chosen EI as a starting place when further compensation might need to be considered.
Works for me!
Michael H. Cothran
My "calibration" was purely subjective. With each camera/meter in hand, I chose a variety of outdoor scenes, including some fairly easy to "eye" meter considering the sunny 16 rule. I shot exposures from -1 to +1 in 1/3rd stop increments (in the case of the Hasselblad, I shot in 1/2 stop increments). Then, laying the transparencies on a light table, I picked my favorite from each series. I found, that in most cases, the exposure I liked the best was usually the same exposure setting from each set. And whatever that EI was, it became my new normal working EI for that particular camera/meter. And once set, I've never had to go back and retest.
Curiously, I did find it interesting that Hasselblad and Contax required a -1 stop compensation, while all the Japanese designed cameras - Nikon, Mamiya, Minolta all required -1/3 stop compensation.
These calibrations, albeit subjective, are consistent and reliable. Given scenes with unusual lighting, I use the chosen EI as a starting place when further compensation might need to be considered.
Works for me!
Michael H. Cothran
michaelhcothran
Member
"I'm curious, what Contax cameras were you using? All the ones I have (which are modern ones) were designed in Japan as far as I know... "
Hi Austin,
Yes, they were "built" in Japan by Yashica/Kyrocera, but to my knowledge (and I could be wrong), they were German designed, and then contracted to be built in Japan.
But, right or wrong, my point was simply to point out the coincidence that the Contax/Zeiss and Hasselblad/Zeiss cameras I've owned all need the same EI adjustment/calibration in order to provide what I consider to be a correct exposure.
My Contax bodies, by the way, were 139's and 159's. The 159 is probably my favorite 35mm body of all time.
Michael H. Cothran
Hi Austin,
Yes, they were "built" in Japan by Yashica/Kyrocera, but to my knowledge (and I could be wrong), they were German designed, and then contracted to be built in Japan.
But, right or wrong, my point was simply to point out the coincidence that the Contax/Zeiss and Hasselblad/Zeiss cameras I've owned all need the same EI adjustment/calibration in order to provide what I consider to be a correct exposure.
My Contax bodies, by the way, were 139's and 159's. The 159 is probably my favorite 35mm body of all time.
Michael H. Cothran
Paul
Half the time I don't even use a meter.
Right now I am concerned with getting the dealer to sell me the CFV
BTW At a ratio of 1,5, what is the widest CF or CFI lens usable on =20 the 603CW with the CVF and does anyone have real issues with =20 distortion as many of the lens and MF competitors are putting out =20 there =97 the angle of light striking the sensor etc... is this a real =20=
issue?
Trey
Half the time I don't even use a meter.
Right now I am concerned with getting the dealer to sell me the CFV
BTW At a ratio of 1,5, what is the widest CF or CFI lens usable on =20 the 603CW with the CVF and does anyone have real issues with =20 distortion as many of the lens and MF competitors are putting out =20 there =97 the angle of light striking the sensor etc... is this a real =20=
issue?
Trey
"BTW At a ratio of 1,5, what is the widest CF or CFI lens usable on the 503CW with the CVF, and does anyone have real issues with distortion as many of the lens and MF competitors are putting out there, the angle of light striking the sensor etc... is this a real issue?"
Trey, if you are using a different program to compose your messages, and dragging them to the dialog box, it's why there are all the added numbers and symbols in your posts. Typing directly in the dialog box provided will eliminate them.
Answer: 40/4 = 60mm field of view ... no distortion issues or color shifts due to the 1.5X crop factor eliminating the outer edges. Micro lenses are not used in the CFV.
You can use the wider Fisheye, but it does exhibit the typical distortion, although not as severe as with full frame on film.
Trey, if you are using a different program to compose your messages, and dragging them to the dialog box, it's why there are all the added numbers and symbols in your posts. Typing directly in the dialog box provided will eliminate them.
Answer: 40/4 = 60mm field of view ... no distortion issues or color shifts due to the 1.5X crop factor eliminating the outer edges. Micro lenses are not used in the CFV.
You can use the wider Fisheye, but it does exhibit the typical distortion, although not as severe as with full frame on film.
frozen_time
Member
Marcus Clausen wrote:
'Nice feature Andreas. Is CS3 worth the money?'
CS3 does have a few nice features which makes it a more worthy upgrade then CS2 for me ever was. I am in the need for a new Mac and therefore it is a good point that it is universal - means that it runs natively on PowerPC and Intel. The newer ACR is handy even when i have Lightroom also - so i am able to open the D2X NEFs again direct into PS. The smart objects/smart filters are really great - think of it as layering filter over your picture - anytime editable again. Thats worth a great part the update. A new tool to select parts in the picture inclusive a newly refine selection dialog - cant remember the name atm.
Have a look at Adobes website - there are Videos to look at - good ones by the way. Find them here.
Andy
'Nice feature Andreas. Is CS3 worth the money?'
CS3 does have a few nice features which makes it a more worthy upgrade then CS2 for me ever was. I am in the need for a new Mac and therefore it is a good point that it is universal - means that it runs natively on PowerPC and Intel. The newer ACR is handy even when i have Lightroom also - so i am able to open the D2X NEFs again direct into PS. The smart objects/smart filters are really great - think of it as layering filter over your picture - anytime editable again. Thats worth a great part the update. A new tool to select parts in the picture inclusive a newly refine selection dialog - cant remember the name atm.
Have a look at Adobes website - there are Videos to look at - good ones by the way. Find them here.
Andy
My LCD display has horizontal stripes. I have been told by Hasselblad service that this is normal for the LCD display. Anyone else have the same experience? The images from the back are perfect, just the display has these bands, to me a point and shoot has a better LCD display. The service technician at Hasselblad in Renton, WA says that this is the norm for the LCD display and sending it back to Sweden for service may or may not clear it up.
Am I asking too much from this back?
Al
Am I asking too much from this back?
Al
frozen_time
Member
Hi Al,
my screen does have some kind of stripes also. The display of the CFV isn't a LCD but a OLED display - i do not know how this come into play, just added it for completeness. But anyhow - the display is by far the most lousy one i haver ever seen to date. Even the cheapest p&s does have a better one. But the good news is - you get used to it.
Greetings Andy
>
my screen does have some kind of stripes also. The display of the CFV isn't a LCD but a OLED display - i do not know how this come into play, just added it for completeness. But anyhow - the display is by far the most lousy one i haver ever seen to date. Even the cheapest p&s does have a better one. But the good news is - you get used to it.
Greetings Andy
>
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Al and Andy
I have the settings for brightness and contrast at level 5 . I do not see any stripes .
When I increase the value for brightness to the highest value , I can see very thing grey "stripes" . Increasing the value for contrast , does not show any "stripes" .
Try to change the values and see what happens .
But I must admitt , the screen is lousy . No doubt about this .
Jürgen
I have the settings for brightness and contrast at level 5 . I do not see any stripes .
When I increase the value for brightness to the highest value , I can see very thing grey "stripes" . Increasing the value for contrast , does not show any "stripes" .
Try to change the values and see what happens .
But I must admitt , the screen is lousy . No doubt about this .
Jürgen
peter_turner
Member
Having just purchased. Tried to post some pics on here but Having difficulty. so here is my link. As a first time user of Medium Format, (hence the cock up with my lens jamming)..
I am trying to give a pictorial journey of my 503CWD.
http://clikpic.smugmug.com/gallery/4075970#237417944
if that does not work then: www.eyeofjazz.co.uk
where the first gallery is the Hasselblad 503cwd Journey.
Peter
I am trying to give a pictorial journey of my 503CWD.
http://clikpic.smugmug.com/gallery/4075970#237417944
if that does not work then: www.eyeofjazz.co.uk
where the first gallery is the Hasselblad 503cwd Journey.
Peter
I want to post some images: can I ask what the best process is to get the file size down to 800x800 @ less than 200KB?
some of the posters here have amazing looking- very detailed images at 150kb or so... when I shrink mine down like that in PS they look terrible...
I am using a CWD kit and Flexcolor- should I resize the images in Photoshop- or RAW in flexcolor- or some other way?
do you all set to 72DPI?
<img>
some of the posters here have amazing looking- very detailed images at 150kb or so... when I shrink mine down like that in PS they look terrible...
I am using a CWD kit and Flexcolor- should I resize the images in Photoshop- or RAW in flexcolor- or some other way?
do you all set to 72DPI?
<img>
peterbkk
Member
To shrink images from the CFV for the web, I load them as RAW into FlexColor but don't do much adjustments there, maybe adjust the color balance and exposure. Then I save them as TIF (full original quality) and open them in PhotoShop.
In PhotoShop I do some or all of the following (in this sequence):
- Adjust the curves (make it a little brighter and punchier) *
- Adjust color balance (only if required)
- Change the mode to 8 bits per channel
- Edit -> Convert to Profile: sRGB *
- Change the image size to the target size (Bicubic sharper, resolution 80 pixels per inch)
- Add a frame and signature and Layer -> Flatten Image
- Finally Save for Web Jpeg (Progressive on, ICC Profile on)
- Adjust Quality until achieve target file size)
- If happy with right-hand preview, hit Save.
(The two steps marked with * are to make the images display better on Windows computers which have poorer colour and a smaller gamut than Macs.
For most images, I have recorded an "Action" that does all this for me so I can run a Batch from Bridge for a whole bunch of images at one time.
See the result: http://web.mac.com/peter.walker/iWeb/peterwalker.com/Yap.html and click on one of the images.
It is important to get all the adjustments done BEFORE shrinking the image size.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Peter
In PhotoShop I do some or all of the following (in this sequence):
- Adjust the curves (make it a little brighter and punchier) *
- Adjust color balance (only if required)
- Change the mode to 8 bits per channel
- Edit -> Convert to Profile: sRGB *
- Change the image size to the target size (Bicubic sharper, resolution 80 pixels per inch)
- Add a frame and signature and Layer -> Flatten Image
- Finally Save for Web Jpeg (Progressive on, ICC Profile on)
- Adjust Quality until achieve target file size)
- If happy with right-hand preview, hit Save.
(The two steps marked with * are to make the images display better on Windows computers which have poorer colour and a smaller gamut than Macs.
For most images, I have recorded an "Action" that does all this for me so I can run a Batch from Bridge for a whole bunch of images at one time.
See the result: http://web.mac.com/peter.walker/iWeb/peterwalker.com/Yap.html and click on one of the images.
It is important to get all the adjustments done BEFORE shrinking the image size.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Peter