Hasselblad 500 series

[gollum]

I can remember looking at these cameras and lusting over them when I was younger (read a long time ago), i now have over thirty of them at my disposal in the Uni store, so am keen to try one out.
So I have a few questions for anyone in the know:

First I don't pocess a light meter, any recomendations?

second, what size file can I expect if I scan the 6x6 neg digitally?

If you were using colour film, what would you use?

Cheers Martin

[Barney]

Martin, you do realise that you've posted this in What Digital Camera Help section?

I've flagged it so a mod can move it to a more appropriate section.

[gollum]

Martin, you do realise that you've posted this in What Digital Camera Help section?

I've flagged it so a mod can move it to a more appropriate section.

Buggar....thanks for that

[OneTen]

I've moved the thread but know nothing about 'blads.

For light meters I prefer the Sekonic range, the 308 is an excellent starting point.

Scanning can produce some huge files, I seem to recall 200Mb from 6x7 negs but not sure what resolution that was at.

For colour my favourite was always Velvia for oversaturated colours but I found it hard to get good scans from. For black and white I loved Neopan, loads of grain and great tones.

[gollum]

I've moved the thread but know nothing about 'blads.

For light meters I prefer the Sekonic range, the 308 is an excellent starting point.

Scanning can produce some huge files, I seem to recall 200Mb from 6x7 negs but not sure what resolution that was at.

For colour my favourite was always Velvia for oversaturated colours but I found it hard to get good scans from. For black and white I loved Neopan, loads of grain and great tones.

Thanks Richard appreciated

[Benchista]

Meter? Well, you could start out with the "Sunny f16" rule. Scanning - depends on the scanner. Film? For scanning, I like Kodak Portra 160 NC. Don't use Velvia unless you've got access to a top-notch scanner.

[gollum]

Meter? Well, you could start out with the "Sunny f16" rule. Scanning - depends on the scanner. Film? For scanning, I like Kodak Portra 160 NC. Don't use Velvia unless you've got access to a top-notch scanner.

Have the best of scanners in the digital room at my disposal, but have never done any of this apart from 35mm negs on my Jessops PF3600 at home and haven't a clue on 120 roll film, but I'll give anything a go. After all these years I just want to give one of these beast a go

Cheers Nick

[Malcolm_Stewart]

Good luck with holding 120 film flat and in the optimum position.

I found it was much more difficult than with 35mm film negatives, and difficult to get any real increase in scanned detail despite the increase in negative area. (But I wasn't using wet scanning techniques etc.)

[zx9]

At 3200 dpi by Epsom V700 turns out 84MB 16 bit gray scale tiffs from the Bronnie. (16 bit colour would be huge 250MB ish.)
Have fun with the Blads, and get into the darkroom, far better than LightRoom

[gollum]

Thanks Malcolm & Keith

Yes I'll be having a play in the darkroom too, its been a long time sice I blacked out the bathroom, this time I won't have to

[Zou]

I generally scan 6x6 at 2400 and get very manageable files around 100MB (I always scan as colour). I would try a medium speed film, one of Kodak or Fuji's 160 speed films, the choice of which is down to how you like your saturation. You could just use another camera as a meter if sunny 16 is not suitable.

[gollum]

Thank you Zou,

Yeah I thought about using the DSLR for metering, but I know I'm going to be doing a bit of studio work too, so I though I'd bite the bullet and buy a meter

[Rhys]

With my old 'blad I used to use a meter prism, gives you values in EV's that you dial straight into your lens as well as correcting the image. Favourite colour print films were Fuji NPH and NPS for the skin tones. Fave reversal film was Kodak E100SW and then cross processed it. As for file sizes I don't know - I used to get the lab to put my images onto CD when they devved them.

[OneTen]

I'd forgotten about Fuji NPS and NPH, used to use them for weddings and portraits, excellent for people shots reproducing skin tones very well as Rhys says.

[gollum]

Thank Rhys and Richard, making a list of these film types now!...don't understand why velvia would be harder to scan though.

[Benchista]

Thank Rhys and Richard, making a list of these film types now!...don't understand why velvia would be harder to scan though.

Because the contrast range on the film itself is beyond the dynamic range of most scanners.

[parisian]

Thank Rhys and Richard, making a list of these film types now!...don't understand why velvia would be harder to scan though.

Because the contrast range on the film itself is beyond the dynamic range of most scanners.

Agreed, the only hope you would have would be something like the 'Flextite' scanners; co-incidentally produced by Hasselblad themselves I think.
Doesn't your big Minolta cope with that Nick?
I suppose the Nikon Coolscan 9000 may do the job but, like the Flextite they are horrendously priced.
Otherwise it would be a drum scanner at a Pro lab for very best quality.

[Benchista]

Yes, Peter, the Multi Pro does cope well - but it cost me a fortune. I'm sure the Nikon would cope with it, but I don't think anything less would, from my experience. Velvia 100 is easier to scan, though, and at least the current films don't suffer from "pepper grain", a light-scattering effect in the film base that plagued the old Velvia in particular when scanned with high-res film scanners.

[gollum]

I'll be be looking at the scanners in the lab this week at some point, I do know one of them is in excess of £8000 but haven't a clue what it is

[Zou]

At that price most likely a Hassie Flextight.