Jump to content

How many Leica owners also have a Hasselblad ?


too old to care

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I repeat the quote:

 

 

 

Contributing to the discussion in favour of your chosen equipment is one thing I can easily live with. Taking advantage of the thread to spout your empty rhetoric is something else.

 

 

Jerry would probably not agree with your self-effacing opinion. Neither do I.

 

Lol!!!

 

Honcho, I think you have lost the plot! Repeating comments, that were in answer to your 'questions'. i don't get it, nor am I interested. Who the hell is Jerry anyway? (Don't answer that, the question was rhetorical).

What you agree with is of absolutely no interest to me. Sorry, but interaction with your 'carry on' is tiresome. It is clearly intended as confrontational and I am bored with it.

 

Over and out.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like interchangeable backs gives you a lot more flexibility but in terms of every day use I prefer my Rollei 2.8f I also dislike the "gathunk" of the Hassleblad mirror slap, and then again most lenses are absolutely fantastic.

 

Something to say about everything it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like interchangeable backs gives you a lot more flexibility but in terms of every day use I prefer my Rollei 2.8f I also dislike the "gathunk" of the Hassleblad mirror slap, and then again most lenses are absolutely fantastic.

 

Something to say about everything it seems.

Jan, you are absolutely right, the Rollei is and always will be fantastic as long as you can live with one lens focal length.

The Hassy sound, usually described as a "ker-plop" rather than "gathunk" ;) is, maybe a bit like the 'roar' of a vintage Porche. You either get off on the sound of it, or try to suppress it! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank everyone for their advice on the Hasselblad, I purchased the camera based upon the information.

 

When I started the thread I did not think it would at times take a negative path, I just wanted advice on spending what I consider a large amount of money. For the most part the advice was excellent, but at times the path it took has not been pleasant and I would like to ask that we end the thread.

 

Thanks again,

 

Wayne

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank everyone for their advice on the Hasselblad, I purchased the camera based upon the information.

 

When I started the thread I did not think it would at times take a negative path, I just wanted advice on spending what I consider a large amount of money. For the most part the advice was excellent, but at times the path it took has not been pleasant and I would like to ask that we end the thread.

 

Thanks again,

 

Wayne

 

 

...good luck with your Hasselblad, Wayne.

 

I have so far restricted myself to 35mm (on the grounds that my trusty V35 enlarger could not handle MF), but having followed this thread, there may well be a re-think. I have used Hasselblads in the past, but never purchased one of my own because I believe in doing my own processing and printing. I echo the great equipment/super results assertions throughout the thread, and never found the required measured approach a drawback.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also own a 500CM and find that it's a beautiful and really solid camera to use.

 

I'm finding it harder than I thought to adapt to the square format in composing, and I often find that images that appear dynamic in the standard 35mm format somehow don't 'work' within the square frame. What this means is that I simply haven't used the camera enough yet.

 

A nice observation. I've always been attracted to 6x6 precisely because it IS so different from the Barnack format (which I also love for its dynamism). But it does require a mental gear-shift. It doesn't hurt to look at how masters of the square have used it - not to copy, but to synthesize how the square can be incorporated into one's own vision:

 

Ralph Eugene Meatyard

 

Irving penn - Google Search

 

bert stern - Google Search

 

diane arbus - Google Search

 

fritz henle - Google Search

 

werner bischof - Google Search

 

It seems like there are at least two primary approaches (among many others, no doubt):

 

Find something really interesting and dynamic in and of itself, and simply put a neutral box around it (from the psychotic "family snapshots" of Arbus to the cool reportage of Bischof to the arranged fictions of Meatyard to the carte-de-visite "found people" portable-studio portraits of Penn)....

 

Or use extreme in-camera cropping to chop away body parts and create tension in the shapes and edges formed thereby (the tight celebrity portraits by Penn and Stern).

 

Fritz "Mr. Rolleiflex" Henle incorporates both approaches into a more eclectic style.

 

Then there are the empty spaces of David Plowden: david plowden - Google Search - which intrigued me as a student, but which I find a bit TOO sterile and empty these days.

 

and the more recent reportages by Peter Marlow of Magnum (although - rangefinder content - he uses a Mamiya 6 instead of a Hassy): Magnumphotos

Edited by adan
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I got over the stereotype approach of 'shooting to fill the paper,' Often necessary to please clients!) I learned to look at my subject without a standard crop in mind. Just look at the subject and decide where it needs to be framed. It's surprising how many naturally will form a square, or near square, IMO.

 

A side benefit I always enjoyed, if cropping was a requirement, is that there is no need to turn the camera to switch from vertical to horizontal. That is purely a mental, and therefore much faster process. Every square is equally easily cropped as V or H as desired, after the shoot. I still prefer square though!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adan - wonderfully informative post! Thanks!

 

One of the techniques I (over)use in the 35mm format is the 'dynamic' positioning of the subject at the golden section, with (hopefully) a tension of spaces that leads the eye across the frame. I'm intrigued by how 6x6 can be used to generate a different tension by playing symmetry against asymmetry: the way that portraits can be centered, but arrange the subject in such a way as to subtly 'unbalance' the two halves of the frame, for instance.

 

In any case, that's just one tiny aspect of how I'm beginning to think differently when using the Hasselblad. It also helps break my 'routine' of using the 35mm cameras, so that I come back to them with a slightly fresher attitude - something we maybe all should try sometimes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way to look at composition is what I think I do. Let the subject decide it's own composition. All I do is put a box around it, (because I use a camera) somewhere. Letting a fixed ratio decide all compositions is, IMO, a mistake. All good images do not conform to the standard size of any camera. Break out of it, if you can. That is when cropping can be mandatory.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The square format is a very versatile one for the many compositional options it offers. You may need a little time before your eye is 'trained' but it very quickly becomes second nature to compose for a desired print size or aspect ratio, or indeed as a square image in it's own right.

 

By comparison, it is not so easy to compose a square image on a rectangular format.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason I have rarely posted here at the forum this year. It was Rolo what made me do it, honest gov!

 

BTW, I use the SWC far more than the 500CM and the results are at my Flickr stream.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M8 28/2.8

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also own a 500CM and find that it's a beautiful and really solid camera to use.

 

I'm finding it harder than I thought to adapt to the square format in composing, and I often find that images that appear dynamic in the standard 35mm format somehow don't 'work' within the square frame.

 

"You can crop the square anywhere." I'm sorry I cannot remember the attribution. I think it was David Vestal.

Edited by pico
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like the Zeiss lens look why don't you try one of the ZM lenses? I had a Hasselblad a few years ago and got hooked on the imagery of Zeiss lenses. This continues with my Linhof, which I still have and use, and with the ZM lenses I use on my M9 (25mm & 35mm, both f2.8).

By the way, I saw Andy's (adan) M9 vs Hasselblad 80 Planar comparison prints and I can vouch that the only way I could distinguish the M9 print was the color aliasing pointed out to me in some highlight areas. Now, the only reservation to the comparison was the scanning process, but unless you have everything drum scanned, it is what you will get from that size film.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, everyone is different - which makes the world go round!

 

I'm finding it harder than I thought to adapt to the square format in composing, and I often find that images that appear dynamic in the standard 35mm format somehow don't 'work' within the square frame.

 

I agree but I must have somehow adapted because I now find it hard to go back to 6x4 format which is why I have rarely picked up my M8 this year.

 

 

By the way, I saw Andy's (adan) M9 vs Hasselblad 80 Planar comparison prints and I can vouch that the only way I could distinguish the M9 print was the color aliasing pointed out to me in some highlight areas. Now, the only reservation to the comparison was the scanning process, but unless you have everything drum scanned, it is what you will get from that size film.

 

I have no doubt that side by side comparisons make it difficult to determine which is film and which is digital. However one thing I do like about film is that different films have different characterstics. I have to post process my digital work for a particular look but I don't have to do the same with the different films I use because the look is in the film itself.

 

LouisB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...good luck with your Hasselblad, Wayne.

 

I have so far restricted myself to 35mm (on the grounds that my trusty V35 enlarger could not handle MF), but having followed this thread, there may well be a re-think. I have used Hasselblads in the past, but never purchased one of my own because I believe in doing my own processing and printing. I echo the great equipment/super results assertions throughout the thread, and never found the required measured approach a drawback.

 

If you go to MF, Leica's IIa or IIc are great MF condenser enlargers. I don't know if Leica actually makes them. I have used both but own and use a modified IIa today. I would avoid their earlier Focotar enlarging lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have been buying and using Hasselblad for the last 30+ years. Shudder to think of the total expenditure! However, I consider the gear owes me nothing. It paid for my house, paid to educated my two children at private school, put food and wine on my table and gave/gives me great pleasure just to own and use it. What else in life does so much for me?. Well, maybe my dog. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the dog be out at work, now? :)

 

The truth is, he is constantly on the job. Whenever I stop somewhere to set a pic, he stops and sits and keeps 'noseyparkers' at bay, unless they have treats in their pocket. :D

 

P.S. I have just commence booking for .......... ! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...