semmelblad
Member
Had a look into a magazine. Now I know what you mean. How much time did it take to test/adjust a magazine?
Regards, Ulrik
Regards, Ulrik
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.
I got my new 503cx
- Thread starter matt335
- Start date
wbulte
Active Member
Ulrik,
Really depends. Checking it out is a matter of minutes. Fixing it depends on the amount of realignment that is needed. If the realignment is needed in the corners (which are stiffer) it can be necessary to dismantle the back. It needs skill as well as experience to determine how much force to apply. One can force cracks in the brass parts, which if course is seriously bad news. My backs took about 10 minutes, but they were mostly OK, so no dismantling needed.
Wilko
Really depends. Checking it out is a matter of minutes. Fixing it depends on the amount of realignment that is needed. If the realignment is needed in the corners (which are stiffer) it can be necessary to dismantle the back. It needs skill as well as experience to determine how much force to apply. One can force cracks in the brass parts, which if course is seriously bad news. My backs took about 10 minutes, but they were mostly OK, so no dismantling needed.
Wilko
Hi Wilko,
It's not that I'm questioning there is a tolerance for this, I am questioning that it is adjustable. The filmgate really can't be "bent" into shape. The surface that is claimed to be able to be adjusted is machined...look inside of the back...and it's also got a compound curve. If you've ever spend any time working with metal and presicion tolerances, you'd probably understand how impossible this is. It also appears to measure at only one point. It doesn't looke like the back can be turned around to measure the other side, nor does it look like it can slide the length of the side. The dial gauge is in a fixed position.
So, though they may be able to measure it, I don't think they can do anything about it if it's out of spec.
Perhaps one of our Hasselblad service guys can answer what that gauge measures, and if the film gate registration is adjustable, that is without drastic measures.
Regards,
Austin
It's not that I'm questioning there is a tolerance for this, I am questioning that it is adjustable. The filmgate really can't be "bent" into shape. The surface that is claimed to be able to be adjusted is machined...look inside of the back...and it's also got a compound curve. If you've ever spend any time working with metal and presicion tolerances, you'd probably understand how impossible this is. It also appears to measure at only one point. It doesn't looke like the back can be turned around to measure the other side, nor does it look like it can slide the length of the side. The dial gauge is in a fixed position.
So, though they may be able to measure it, I don't think they can do anything about it if it's out of spec.
Perhaps one of our Hasselblad service guys can answer what that gauge measures, and if the film gate registration is adjustable, that is without drastic measures.
Regards,
Austin
As a guess, from the picture of the gauge and the procedure described, that gauge could very well be measuring the edge of the film gate (as in the side) to the edge of some registration point on the gauge block.
Look at how they show two pointers, and since there is only one in reality, the two are showing the two points that are being measured. The pointer being horizontal is measuring something horizontal. To use it vertically, as would be required to measure the film registration, you would have to rely on the human eye to line it up...which certainly is not standard practice.
It looks to me like that pointer and the lever that hits the pointer on the gauge is a "L", and has a 1:1 ratio of the two sides. It would have a pivot at the corner. If it is like that, then it, as I said above, would be measuring horizontal, not vertical.
So, my guess is that this could very well be measuring the film gate side to side positioning. The only way to really know is to find someone who has this gauge...and knows how to use it.
Regards,
Austin
Look at how they show two pointers, and since there is only one in reality, the two are showing the two points that are being measured. The pointer being horizontal is measuring something horizontal. To use it vertically, as would be required to measure the film registration, you would have to rely on the human eye to line it up...which certainly is not standard practice.
It looks to me like that pointer and the lever that hits the pointer on the gauge is a "L", and has a 1:1 ratio of the two sides. It would have a pivot at the corner. If it is like that, then it, as I said above, would be measuring horizontal, not vertical.
So, my guess is that this could very well be measuring the film gate side to side positioning. The only way to really know is to find someone who has this gauge...and knows how to use it.
Regards,
Austin
I sit corrected. I spoke with someone who actually has one of those gauges (thought a -36 model) and has a lot of experience using one.
His does not have that mounting plate that the one in the picture above shows, it's just completely flat. It does allow them to measure the film plane registration. They place the back on that horizontal "plate" with the pointer resting on the registration surface, and move the back around all four sides, including rollers. He said there is no adjustment, but sure, it could be "hammered" back into tolerance...somewhat. It's used mostly for impact damage assessment, not as a routine check.
He's not sure what that plate shown in the picture Wilko posted is, as he's never seen one with that plate. The thought is that it's just a spacer, and that it's not attached to the base plate. You attach the back to it, and can still move the back around to check the periphery registration.
So, it appears that with this tool, the film plane registration can certainly be checked. Adjusting it is a different story though...if you have a talented elf with a small elfen hammer who can bang a machined compound curved surface back into "correct" shape, well, then it's "adjustable". It would probably be cheaper (and better) to just get a new back these days though.
Regards,
Austin
His does not have that mounting plate that the one in the picture above shows, it's just completely flat. It does allow them to measure the film plane registration. They place the back on that horizontal "plate" with the pointer resting on the registration surface, and move the back around all four sides, including rollers. He said there is no adjustment, but sure, it could be "hammered" back into tolerance...somewhat. It's used mostly for impact damage assessment, not as a routine check.
He's not sure what that plate shown in the picture Wilko posted is, as he's never seen one with that plate. The thought is that it's just a spacer, and that it's not attached to the base plate. You attach the back to it, and can still move the back around to check the periphery registration.
So, it appears that with this tool, the film plane registration can certainly be checked. Adjusting it is a different story though...if you have a talented elf with a small elfen hammer who can bang a machined compound curved surface back into "correct" shape, well, then it's "adjustable". It would probably be cheaper (and better) to just get a new back these days though.
Regards,
Austin
wbulte
Active Member
Austin,
The measurement rig allows the single 'sensing finger' to be moved along the brass ridge, so one can measure over the full length of the brass ridge. You just move the back's shell back and forth over the flat metal table, the L-shaped finger will then measure the full length of the ridge. I have seen that the ridge can be out of tolerance in places, OK in others. Sort of a miniscule mountain range.
And really, the standard procedure is to gently bend things into tolerance. I have seen and played with the device. It is owned by a 30+ years Hasselblad repair veteran. He showed me how it is operated.
The alignment bending is done with a round piece of timber (he used a paintbrush handle) which is entered into the filmgate and (in my case) pulled towards the magazine's registration plate to slightly reduce the distance between registration plate and the film plane.
The plate shown in the picture was also not part of this guys kit (at least he did not show it to me), I guess Hasselblad might have produced different variants of the measurement rig.
What is also not shown is a metal caliber block of exact height which is used to calibrate the rig.
So, contrary to your feelings, it does work ;-) It looks totally unscientific when you observe the procedure, I fully agree there. But the rig clearly shows that when the procedure is performed by a skilled craftsman it works just fine. The trick is in knowing how much force to apply where. Get it wrong and you can even break the little film rollers.
As for buying another back: how do you know the one you buy is better than the one you have? Forget about visual inspection: you simply do not see this minimal dimensions (within 0.05mm remember..). I have seen shabby looking backs that were dimensionally OK, and shiny ones that were basically warped. As in: 0.15mm wrong..
hth
Wilko
The measurement rig allows the single 'sensing finger' to be moved along the brass ridge, so one can measure over the full length of the brass ridge. You just move the back's shell back and forth over the flat metal table, the L-shaped finger will then measure the full length of the ridge. I have seen that the ridge can be out of tolerance in places, OK in others. Sort of a miniscule mountain range.
And really, the standard procedure is to gently bend things into tolerance. I have seen and played with the device. It is owned by a 30+ years Hasselblad repair veteran. He showed me how it is operated.
The alignment bending is done with a round piece of timber (he used a paintbrush handle) which is entered into the filmgate and (in my case) pulled towards the magazine's registration plate to slightly reduce the distance between registration plate and the film plane.
The plate shown in the picture was also not part of this guys kit (at least he did not show it to me), I guess Hasselblad might have produced different variants of the measurement rig.
What is also not shown is a metal caliber block of exact height which is used to calibrate the rig.
So, contrary to your feelings, it does work ;-) It looks totally unscientific when you observe the procedure, I fully agree there. But the rig clearly shows that when the procedure is performed by a skilled craftsman it works just fine. The trick is in knowing how much force to apply where. Get it wrong and you can even break the little film rollers.
As for buying another back: how do you know the one you buy is better than the one you have? Forget about visual inspection: you simply do not see this minimal dimensions (within 0.05mm remember..). I have seen shabby looking backs that were dimensionally OK, and shiny ones that were basically warped. As in: 0.15mm wrong..
hth
Wilko
wbulte
Active Member
I might have added: of course if a back really suffered major damage, like a drop on a concrete floor or something similar like that you can bend it enough to make it a writeoff. We are talking adjustments in the 0.01 - 0.2 mm range. This is not removing dents from a car fender ;-)
Wilko
Wilko
matt335
Member
Thanks everyone. Here is a proof sheet where you can see what I'm talking about. They have sent the film back off for a service. I think its a matter of a few fine adjustments. Anyway the back that was causing this issue is a 16 back. I wanted primarily to shoot in 6x6. They gave me a 6x6 back to use while the other is being repaired and I will more than likely buy this 6x6 back. Still trying to find a reputable dealer in second hand Hasselblad gear in Sydney. Anyone know any out there?
thanks again everyone
Matt
p.s. this also higlights the lack of proper frame spacing. due to my ignorance I also thought I had a 6x6 back and when I was getting more than 12 images I knew there was something weird going on. Hence you can see that I've lost the top and bottom off my framed images.
thanks again everyone
Matt
p.s. this also higlights the lack of proper frame spacing. due to my ignorance I also thought I had a 6x6 back and when I was getting more than 12 images I knew there was something weird going on. Hence you can see that I've lost the top and bottom off my framed images.
matt335
Member
@Wilko
yes I did wind it up to 0. But you know I'm still getting used to threading the paper onto the empty spool etc so I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't do it properly. I am using a 12 frame 6x6 filmback now and running through some 100asa film as a test. I need to get a light meter too soon, although I'm enjoying guessing the aperture and speed
regards
Matt.
yes I did wind it up to 0. But you know I'm still getting used to threading the paper onto the empty spool etc so I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't do it properly. I am using a 12 frame 6x6 filmback now and running through some 100asa film as a test. I need to get a light meter too soon, although I'm enjoying guessing the aperture and speed
regards
Matt.
Hi Matt,
Some films have more than one set of arrows. It's the second set (if I remember right - solid line) that you use.
Also, I believe it was Ilford, had rogue film spools that were slightly larger than the "standard" film spools. If you used these film spools as takeup spools (didn't matter if you used them as supply spools) you had to like up the arrow ahead of the triangle, or you would run off the end of the film.
You can search here or the Hasselblad mailing list for more info on this subject.
Regards,
Austin
Some films have more than one set of arrows. It's the second set (if I remember right - solid line) that you use.
Also, I believe it was Ilford, had rogue film spools that were slightly larger than the "standard" film spools. If you used these film spools as takeup spools (didn't matter if you used them as supply spools) you had to like up the arrow ahead of the triangle, or you would run off the end of the film.
You can search here or the Hasselblad mailing list for more info on this subject.
Regards,
Austin
simonpg
Active Member
You're welcome Matthew.
I certainly believe that MF has helped me become a better amateur photographer - in a number of ways.
I also believe LF photography which I took up 2 - 3 years ago has added to that learning.
The ways I have improved due to MF have been in both technical as well as creative aspects of photography.
Shooting MF is much more of a contemplative / deliberate and exacting type of shooting. The one word that sums up MF is QUALITY - optics, mechanics, image output, media...... etc.. We take it up so that our finished output benefits from the relatively higher quality image that comes from making bigger images and using what is often more exacting equipment (logic being that MF is largely the domain of pros, thus the gear needs to satisfy their expectations - ceteris paribus of course).
Firstly 6x6 images and especially positive film is just such an eye opener to the first time MF shooter - not only is the "look" different to the "machine gun" 135 format "all-singing-and-all-dancing" electronic SLRs; one begins to see much more of an image's attributes.
It is to my mind a process of awareness and appreciation and taking the time (or, even being forced to!) for deeper consideration of all facets of what goes into making quality images.
Keep in mind I do NOT seek to denigrate any types of the 135 format here - different horses for different courses!!
Secondly, MF is by its very nature a more "contemplative" form of photography - LF therefore being the most extreme end of contemplative photography. The gear is bigger; slower (relatively of course) to operate; and often much more manual (like using a 503CW or 501CM).
Of course (I must generalise) the more recent 6x4.5 format AF electronic wizards that have emerged in the past 10 years have made MF a faster (or maybe just more convenient to some shooters) medium; but, it is nonetheless still more "contemplative" than 135 format. Sure the brilliant Hasselblad 200 family of cameras included many fantastic electro-mechanical features; but, they could hardly be described as being fast to work with in a 135 format context!
So in its more traditional iteration, MF photography requires one to plan what he is going to shoot; consider how he will shoot; carefully prepare and shoot..... These attributes are driven by the process (especially of the more mechanical MF equipment) - only 12 frames (6x6 120 film assuming just one magazine) to play with; larger cameras to handle, far slower firing rate, typically lower geared and larger lenses to operate; mechanical or electro-mechanical camera settings and operations.... etc..
BUT all this means deeper consideration of our creative intentions as we stare into that huge and wonderful 6x6 viewfinder!!
Oh, what a joy that is!!
When I shoot 6x6, I truly feel that I am more engaged by my subject; my purpose is very clear - to make an appealing image from my subject (rather than being absorbed in or distracted by using the camera itself, which like I often feel happens when shooting a 135 SLR). I seem to automatically consider more carefully every part of the image frame. Even when under time constraints such as when the sun is setting on a landscape; or, when the outside light miraculously peeps in through a window onto a subject's face creating a perfect portrait moment.
As I write this I am visualising many such occasions and it amazes me that while I am a big fan of the MF kit I chose and the wonderful traits of the Hasselblad and Zeiss equipment, whenever I use my 6x6 kit, I am totally absorbed by the subject and my purpose!
Likewise even the operations of the camera and lens make me consider each technical element much more - for ex&le: much more considered use of aperture and DOF; very careful thought about the exposure values and the impact of all areas of the image on that; placement of the image's elements; and even the finishing touch (before I fire the shutter); and something I call "perfection" of the process: e.g. use of a cable and tripod, use of the mirror pre-release feature, etc..
So, for me the impact of shooting MF is an absolute JOY, which began as a revelation and something of a new found passion - no longer a risk of good luck versus bad luck shooting that I found I was engaging in when using just a 135 SLR - "the more shots I fire away at 10 frames per second, the more likely I will get a good one!!"
Sure I may sometimes have a need to engage in some attempted fast action and les contemplative MF shooting too; but, when I do, I know why and the purpose is clear for that shoot.
Finally, the journey with MF from the beginning has driven me to learn more - technically and creatively - drive a thirst to have real expertise in the art itself and give myself some pleasure from the new things I have learnt and the images those learnings enable.
You have begun a wonderful journey that should give you huge pleasure for the rest of your life.
I certainly believe that MF has helped me become a better amateur photographer - in a number of ways.
I also believe LF photography which I took up 2 - 3 years ago has added to that learning.
The ways I have improved due to MF have been in both technical as well as creative aspects of photography.
Shooting MF is much more of a contemplative / deliberate and exacting type of shooting. The one word that sums up MF is QUALITY - optics, mechanics, image output, media...... etc.. We take it up so that our finished output benefits from the relatively higher quality image that comes from making bigger images and using what is often more exacting equipment (logic being that MF is largely the domain of pros, thus the gear needs to satisfy their expectations - ceteris paribus of course).
Firstly 6x6 images and especially positive film is just such an eye opener to the first time MF shooter - not only is the "look" different to the "machine gun" 135 format "all-singing-and-all-dancing" electronic SLRs; one begins to see much more of an image's attributes.
It is to my mind a process of awareness and appreciation and taking the time (or, even being forced to!) for deeper consideration of all facets of what goes into making quality images.
Keep in mind I do NOT seek to denigrate any types of the 135 format here - different horses for different courses!!
Secondly, MF is by its very nature a more "contemplative" form of photography - LF therefore being the most extreme end of contemplative photography. The gear is bigger; slower (relatively of course) to operate; and often much more manual (like using a 503CW or 501CM).
Of course (I must generalise) the more recent 6x4.5 format AF electronic wizards that have emerged in the past 10 years have made MF a faster (or maybe just more convenient to some shooters) medium; but, it is nonetheless still more "contemplative" than 135 format. Sure the brilliant Hasselblad 200 family of cameras included many fantastic electro-mechanical features; but, they could hardly be described as being fast to work with in a 135 format context!
So in its more traditional iteration, MF photography requires one to plan what he is going to shoot; consider how he will shoot; carefully prepare and shoot..... These attributes are driven by the process (especially of the more mechanical MF equipment) - only 12 frames (6x6 120 film assuming just one magazine) to play with; larger cameras to handle, far slower firing rate, typically lower geared and larger lenses to operate; mechanical or electro-mechanical camera settings and operations.... etc..
BUT all this means deeper consideration of our creative intentions as we stare into that huge and wonderful 6x6 viewfinder!!
When I shoot 6x6, I truly feel that I am more engaged by my subject; my purpose is very clear - to make an appealing image from my subject (rather than being absorbed in or distracted by using the camera itself, which like I often feel happens when shooting a 135 SLR). I seem to automatically consider more carefully every part of the image frame. Even when under time constraints such as when the sun is setting on a landscape; or, when the outside light miraculously peeps in through a window onto a subject's face creating a perfect portrait moment.
As I write this I am visualising many such occasions and it amazes me that while I am a big fan of the MF kit I chose and the wonderful traits of the Hasselblad and Zeiss equipment, whenever I use my 6x6 kit, I am totally absorbed by the subject and my purpose!
Likewise even the operations of the camera and lens make me consider each technical element much more - for ex&le: much more considered use of aperture and DOF; very careful thought about the exposure values and the impact of all areas of the image on that; placement of the image's elements; and even the finishing touch (before I fire the shutter); and something I call "perfection" of the process: e.g. use of a cable and tripod, use of the mirror pre-release feature, etc..
So, for me the impact of shooting MF is an absolute JOY, which began as a revelation and something of a new found passion - no longer a risk of good luck versus bad luck shooting that I found I was engaging in when using just a 135 SLR - "the more shots I fire away at 10 frames per second, the more likely I will get a good one!!"
Sure I may sometimes have a need to engage in some attempted fast action and les contemplative MF shooting too; but, when I do, I know why and the purpose is clear for that shoot.
Finally, the journey with MF from the beginning has driven me to learn more - technically and creatively - drive a thirst to have real expertise in the art itself and give myself some pleasure from the new things I have learnt and the images those learnings enable.
You have begun a wonderful journey that should give you huge pleasure for the rest of your life.
matt335
Member
Hi Simon
wow, I asked you the "right" question! Great to hear your passion and devotion to MF. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings here so openly.
Photography has always been an experience of expression for me.
I am looking forward to my time in MF. You are so right in saying that MF is so much more contemplative and purposeful.
thanks.
Matt
wow, I asked you the "right" question! Great to hear your passion and devotion to MF. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings here so openly.
Photography has always been an experience of expression for me.
I am looking forward to my time in MF. You are so right in saying that MF is so much more contemplative and purposeful.
thanks.
Matt
G'Day:
Well said, Simon! I endorse the remarks 100%.
Although I have available to me various 35s, motor driven 35mm AF, and manual 35mm RF cameras - each one great for its own purpose - the use of a purely mechanical MF HB or Rollei, or the older 6x9 folders, makes one plan ahead, and be much more meticulous. And from that approach grows a confidence that inspires the creative. I rarely have an exposure that doesn't make it through my first edit process when I use MF. In fact, I demand of myself 12 usable images from a roll. Of course, I may vary the depth of field, or point of view, but they will all be useful.
There is no trick to it: I almost always only use Ilford Delta Pro 100 or 400, always a tripod, always a cable release, always a proshade, almost always a spot /incident meter, and always mirror-up. And I home process the BW film in Ilford DD-X. (Similarly, I use Kodak 160NC for any colour work, but out-process.)
Frankly, if I need very mobile, no accessories, MF "on the run", I grab my Rollei TLR, use the Delta 400 or sometimes XP2, crank up the shutter speed, and do what I need to do. ;-)
Enjoy, Matt.
Cheers, Colin
Well said, Simon! I endorse the remarks 100%.
Although I have available to me various 35s, motor driven 35mm AF, and manual 35mm RF cameras - each one great for its own purpose - the use of a purely mechanical MF HB or Rollei, or the older 6x9 folders, makes one plan ahead, and be much more meticulous. And from that approach grows a confidence that inspires the creative. I rarely have an exposure that doesn't make it through my first edit process when I use MF. In fact, I demand of myself 12 usable images from a roll. Of course, I may vary the depth of field, or point of view, but they will all be useful.
There is no trick to it: I almost always only use Ilford Delta Pro 100 or 400, always a tripod, always a cable release, always a proshade, almost always a spot /incident meter, and always mirror-up. And I home process the BW film in Ilford DD-X. (Similarly, I use Kodak 160NC for any colour work, but out-process.)
Frankly, if I need very mobile, no accessories, MF "on the run", I grab my Rollei TLR, use the Delta 400 or sometimes XP2, crank up the shutter speed, and do what I need to do. ;-)
Enjoy, Matt.
Cheers, Colin
