What's new
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.

New to Medium Format and to Hasselblad

Hi Wick...

> Nice balance on your post! 30,000- 100 meg photos would take almost > exactly 652 DVD's to store indefinitely (presumptuous, perhaps, but > let's agree they will last at least as long as film, if both are > stored with care). A DVD which contains 4.6 gigs or 46 hi rez 100 > megabyte photos weighs 10 grams. 46 medium format 6x6 cm > transparencies weigh 15 grams. That's a storage weight savings of 33%- > DVD vs. film- or in this case, 6520 grams for digital archival storage > versus 9780 grams for film- 14.38 pounds of DVD's versus 21.6 pounds > of film- a bigger weight saving as well.

That's really a biased comparison...you're not including the case for the DVD, and you're comparing slides, not simply negatives, which have no frame.

> And what are you going to do > with that film? A light box is truly a poor substitute for a thumbnail > followed by a full screen view. Further, the film, if stored in > archival books, can scratch/be affected by dust and mold/ deteriorate > in color composition and is subject to temperature/humidity variables > much more so than effects like these will harm DVD's (you can freeze > the things and nearly cook an egg on them without screwing up the > reposted data).

But DVDs do scratch, and do deteriorate...and are quite subject to environmental issues... Film stored properly is really not a problem, but you have to store it properly, same with DVDs, or anything archival. You can't just expect it to last laying out on your dash board, ya know!

> Finally, it is a whole lot easier to back up/copy and > archive your life's work in digital format rather than film in case of > an event of a serious unexpected tragedy.

Why is that any different for digital? You could keep an entire copy in a vault somewhere...but...at least with film, in 100 years, you're guaranteed to be able to use it. And, with film, you don't have to keep copying it every 5 years, when the wind blows in another direction, and the format/media du jour isn't around any more.

> As a matter of fact, those > that have archived their work digitally most often complain about the > time and effort it takes them to be "organized" so they can find a > specific file- an organizational matter- as opposed to those in film > who simply buckle under the weight of the actual archiving process, > who, it may be implied, never even reach this organizational stage.

The issue is about the same, for either. It's up to your orgainzational skills, and there are obviously methods that work for both.

I think I'm seeing a bit of bias in your evaluation here ;-)

> I > hope the kid that asked the opener question is now sure about which > camera he wants to buy;-)...

Any Hasselblad will do...

Regards,

Austin
 
Since I joined this group (recently)I have thoroughly enjoyed the level and creativity of the contributions. Sometimes the resultant smile from a post takes the edge off of the day.

Thanks
 
When the first commercial digital imaging systems came into wide use in the printing industry, prepress houses archived all their clients files on 9 track tape. These digital archives were seen as vastly superior to the old analog methods and they were -until the next wave of technology. What happened to the millions of images stored on those tapes? 99% wound up in the trash, to expensive to copy them all to the latest storage media (magneto-optical discs or some other now obsolete storage medium) and soon nobody had the equipment to read the tapes.

Be prepared to transfer your entire archive to some new medium every 5-7 years or so.
 
Hi there!

Just developed my 40th Hassyfilm - Fuji Neopan ACROS which is supposed to have the highest resolution ever (400 lines, contrast 1:1000); I am very curious how the pictures will be. On weekend I should have time to enlarge some prints. So I will stay analogue as long as possible.

Regards
Wolfgang
 
> You hear people say that CDs and DVDs are suppose to last for a > hundred years, but that does not apply to the type used by most people > where they are "burned" on a home computer. Your CD of Olivia Newton > John's Greatest Hits you bought at the music store may physically last > 100 yrs ( made from pressing into a glass master ) , but the CDs most > of us burn at home will last maybe 10-15. >
 
I have an Eliot Porter print that is supposed to last 70 years. What if it doesn't? If I don't care or know what will happen archivally to a recognized artist's work, then why should I care how long yours or mine will last??
 
>I'm new to medium format and have purchased the HI system. My question: >has anyone used the following combination: the HI, the 150 and the 52mm. >extension tube. Were you able to retain autofocus function? What was the >closest focusing distance obtainable. Thank you. Roberto
 
> To some people it matters...maybe its the idea of leaving something > behind so "others" will know you existed...maybe its vanity...maybe > you'd like to imagine that you'll be 'discovered' in 70 yrs like the > photographer (I do not remember his name but there have been a couple > of articles about him in the last couple of years) who left behind > hundreds of pictures of the New Orlean's 'red light' district of the > early 1900s....take your pick. It is more comforting (in general) to > think one's work 'might' survive than to imagine it won't. I may not > care about Eliot Porters work, or an original Ansel Adams print, but I > might care a great deal about my favorite picture of "Aunt Linda'" or > of a NY skyline on "9/11" if you were there at the time. It is often > the emotional background that is the real driving force, even if that > force applies only to yourself.
 
I had asked Imacon's product manager if the new iExpress digital backs would be ever available for 200 series cameras. This morning the answer is yes. So, I'll keep my favorite camera body and lenses... Yahoo!!!
 
Just shot 18 rolls. Off to develop and then scan and edit then speedily email good ones to client... maybe he'll have the images by next Monday if I get it in before 5?? You want to buy a really beautiful 205FCC kit?
 
>Shootpixter, you really have some good news there! But did you ask Imacon if this counts for the FE lenses as well??? As far as I know (and Hasselblad The Netherlands) any digiback for the 200 series has two limitations: shutter speed not going faster then 1/90, being the sync speed where the shutter is completely opened, and ... lenses with there own shutter, so anything but FE lenses. I would be more than happy to continue with my (Zeiss!!!) 50/2.8, 80/2.8, 110/2.0, 150/2.8 and 250/4 FE lenses. I do not know if the Fuji lenses ("Hasselblad") from the H1 series are so much better, and I lived with and can live without auto focus. But to have a high end one shot digiback, mmmmm.... If not possible, the other Dutchman can take over, including my 201F and 203 FE bodies, winder, compendium, Sinar filters, etc, etc. Just do me an offer I cannot resist. >

Bas.
 
Here's the info straight from the horse's mouth... How come horses are so predominant in our threads here? From Imacon regarding use of their back on 205FCC/ 200 series camera body: We do only cover the rectangular format and not the whole chip. It is not a question of losing some detail, we have superior detail but we do not have the corners covered. So you would shoot it like a 6 X 4.5 camera. I shoot with the H1 almost every day. It is an incredible camera as a platform for the Imacon Ixpress. You would have shutter speeds up to 1/800th. (leaf shutter with full flash sync). The Hasselblad 200 series presents several problems for Digital Backs. > Imacon can work around most of them. The issue is how the flash pulse > is sent from the Hasselblad, it is not a simple closing of the circuit

> but a sophisticated flash pulse. In order for us to use this body, you

> will need > to use a CF lens (one with a shutter in the lens). This mode only works > in > single shot only. The software would be in Flash sync mode and our > dealer > can explain that to you in detail. You can also use the F lenses and a > double cable release from The Kapture Group, again for single shot only. > > For multi shot, you can work in a totally dark studio, open the lens > to the working aperture and open the shutter (still totally dark) and > then select > multishot in the "Pinhole Mode" and the Imacon Ixpress can shot a 4 shot > image and when it is over, you will need to close the shutter BEFORE > turning > on any lights. Then you have a 4 shot
 
I am new to hasselblad (a 500CM and a 80mm lens) and I also have a digital camera but I dont know what is all this about what is best and should I sell my film camera or not. In art, there are always more then one way of doing things, You can paint in oil, acrylic, do pastels, ink, whatever and they are all pieces of art. It is the painter that makes the difference. So I will still use my film cameras and my digital camera for they suit different purposes for me.
I dont want to sound "moralizing" but I think the most important thing is to make good pictures.
 
This must sound like blasphemy to some of you, but does anyone know how much a digital back will set you back?
 
>Hi. I'm fairly new to this forum and very new to medium format. I actually >have no experience with the V system, thus nothing to contribute. I own an >HI and am desirous of joining that forum-if it exists. Can anyone advise >me as to how I can join the Hasselblad H system forum? Thank you.
 
> kind of depends but a kodak 16mp back will set you back around > $14.000, perhaps a bit less now, but they ain't selling cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top