Considering moving from Hasselblad CM to H4D-40.

[edober]

Gentlemen
I’ve been working with Hasselblads CM/ELM since the early 80’s.
Still do with pleasure and great quality, using Fujichrome Velvia or Provia 100 F, mainly for studio portraits with flash, then scanning with Nikon 9000ED run by Silverfast.
The scanned files are of about 450 MB at 306 ppi, size 100 cm x 100 cm (40"x40"). Fine art printing is then made at that size.

Note that on my scanned film files show no visible grain, sharpness and resolution are quite amazing (“you can count hairs” like lens/film testers back then use to say and recently with the just discovered help of Photokit Sharpener, even used sparingly, prints are just amazingly “there”.

I’ve been thinking of going digital with an Hasselblad H4D-40 since focusing manual lenses begins to be quite difficult and Autofocus would be of a great help (tethering on a MacBook is also considered for studio work).

So now I wonder if the Hasselblad 40 Mpixels, which, I believe, will result in a 240 MB file is good enough, same or better, compared to my 450 MB scans for big prints.

Considering the cost and putting aside the Autofocus advantage for a moment, I need to know your thoughts.

Thanks.
Kind regards
E.

[Josef Isayo]

I just purchased the Hassy H4D 40 and the quality is much higher than my 5D MKII which was quite a bit better than high quality scans from my Hasselblad 205.

[edober]

Thank you gentlemen.
One more thing:
if the files put out by the HD4-40 are 5478 x 7303 (46.38 x 61.84 cm) at 300 ppi I would have to interpolate them to 11811 x 15748 at 300 ppi (100 cm x 133.33) to get to the size I usually print my film scans.
Is’nt that stretching them a bit too much to retain the quality I usually get with the film scan files?
I always thought that upsampling so much is something one should avoid.
Kind regards
E

[Peter Devos]

Thank you gentlemen.
One more thing:
if the files put out by the HD4-40 are 5478 x 7303 (46.38 x 61.84 cm) at 300 ppi I would have to interpolate them to 11811 x 15748 at 300 ppi (100 cm x 133.33) to get to the size I usually print my film scans.
Is’nt that stretching them a bit too much to retain the quality I usually get with the film scan files?
I always thought that upsampling so much is something one should avoid.
Kind regards
E

Maybe a shock to most people: no epson or Nikon scanner can ever get 450Mb of information out of a 6/6cm slide or negative.... no way. A scanner also creates info but since we all believe a negative or slide contains a zillion megabyte of information it is hard to believe that a low end scanner such as Nikon and Epson scanners cannot extract all that information.
When scanned on a drum scanner most hasselblad 500 system user would be shocked about the real effective " megapixel" or " megabyte of information" there is in their hand held shots: in most cases less than 14 megapixel. Because there is grain and dirt on a film, we get the impression highlights still contain info and the grain makes us believe there is also pictorial info in places that are totally blank.
But hey, this can only be said on a digital MF forum without being flamed by film users :-))))

[fredjeang]

For years I had drum scans made from 6x6 Velvia & Provia V Series Hasselblad originals by one of the finest technicians in the UK. The resulting files were approximately 450 MB, 9,000 x 9,000 pixels.

A couple of years ago I switched to the Hasselblad H3D11-22. The resulting files are 127 MB, 4,080 x 5,440 pixels.

The Hasselblad H3D11-22 files are cleaner and show more detail even when interpolated to the size of the drum scans.

Not all pixels are equal.

BTW, I'd be really worried if my drum scans didn't resolve grain!

Hi Keith,

With what software do you interpoled to the drum scan size?

[fredjeang]

I still see quite a lot of drum scanned works in art galleries, and not really beginners but accomplished artists.
It might has a value in itself for the process involved and probably a sailable argument for the gallery.
From a pure perceptual point of view, I mean by that as a viewer, I generally find the drum scaned "better" (more plaisant) on very big enlargements while I prefer the digital when sizes are small. Don't really know why but I honestly feel it almost every time.

[Peter Devos]

I do not say there is nothing special or magical to using film. I have shot film, from 35mm up to 8/10 inch including Polaroid and self made glass negatives, and can confirm that there is something different in working on film. Maybe it is only the slow pace of working, the smell of pyro or the excitement after having fixed the negagtives. But from a pure megapixel oriented point of view: no film camera will beat digital in "real life".
"Real Life" is the most important set of words in this story: "in Theory" Homer Simpson would say, in theory film has almost unlimited information storage. However: " in real life" Peter says nobody will extract even close to what is possible out of a film file... and certainly not with a LS8000. ( i have owned one for 2 years, a good scanner but nothing special).

[fredjeang]

I would not drum scan anything now in MF.
It's true what Keith pointed and I've never been able to understand why the extra weight of drum scanned files is not repercuted in the render. Maybe you're right about "there are pixels and pixels".

On the other hand, the last drum scaned art works I saw was a Rio Branco exhibition, you know, his stuff from Cuba with the cars. Well, at 2meters enlargement approx it was stunning. Perfect.

I guess the last generation backs are capable of reaching LF.


Hasselblad digital files handle extremely well enlargements and post prod in general. It's amazing. I have no experience with Phase One at work so can not comment on Phase resampling.

I asked you the software Keith because before I was using Genuine Fractals and never ended to be completly satisfy and after awhile returned to PS as you do.

[jduncan]

This is my humble suggestion: If possible, rent.
Maybe you can find a place that will rent you a H4D-40. Together with the information of forums like this (I also suggest that you go to get dpi too) plus your own experience you will get  a good filling of how the work will go after (of if) you purchase.  Also you will be able to do specific questions and ask fro tips as you evaluate the hardware /software combination. I understand  that  In this exploratory phase asking is the best  option. Also if you buy, as time pass  you will find your self doing a better and better job with the new tool.

Best regards, and good look with  your decision.

[donaldt]

I think there are more than 1 aspect in going digital other than just quality
First I believe that digital has already surpassed film in resolution, if that is what you are after
Second the work flow in digital is better, faster, and easier than in film
Third film does accumulate to a high cost in the long run if you shoot enough of them (I think if you buy a used back, and sell it in a few years for whatever reason, the lost you take will be likely less than the cost of buying and developing films)

I dont see why not going to Digital, though I still have my CM and some expired films that I can go shoot some in case I miss films

[edober]

Thank you for your thoughts, gentlemen.
Film is in my blood and one way or another it will stay that way (for some projects).
That said one has to surrender to modernity, i.e.sell his soul for a comfortable and immediate reward!

I was lucky to have access to a H4D-50 and I must say that files are quite splendid (in a informal test yesterday).
The camera is not of a prompt and simple use right away like the CM is (it seems our life has to be managed by more and more menus) but I think I could get used to it with time.
More tests are underway.
Kind regards
E

[John R Smith]

Well, you could -

Get a CFV-50 digital back for your lovely old C/M and keep all your other kit intact. And still shoot film when you choose to. Those H-series things are really horrible, let's face it  

John

[edober]

Well, you could -

Get a CFV-50 digital back for your lovely old C/M and keep all your other kit intact. And still shoot film when you choose to. Those H-series things are really horrible, let's face it  

John

Hi John

indeed I noticed how "terrible" those clunkers are but we shan't forget that the main reason I would go digital with the HD is the Autofocus possibility, since with the CM I'm really having quite a lot of rejects due to the shallow DOF I usually work with for my portraits.

Thanks anyway.

E.

[donaldt]

if you want good AF though, you should go with Nikon D3
in low light situation I found myself MFing instead of letting the H3Dii trying to break the AF motor
its not reliable (good in normal light though)

[baudolino]

I wouldn't sell your manual Hasselblads right after you buy your H camera with a DB. I sold my Hassy 203FE which I used for many years, with all the lenses, to help finance a Hy6 with a Sinar back, 18 months ago. Great machine the Hy6, great image quality, even greater convenience  (scanning film was such a PITA for me....). BUT, looking back at the images I made with the 203FE, I kind of miss that "look" - even portraits that were just slightly out of focus or motion blurred usually looked great on film if the expression/emotion was there. In contrast, the digital files are cleaner and sharper, of course, but even with AF it is not so easy to nail focus precisely, all the time, and when the portraits are just very slightly OOF they are basically useless (because something that should be OOF inevitably ends up being so painfully sharp that it is obvious that the image is mis-focused). And when the images are in focus, they tend to be so sharp that you can count pores on a person's face but I am not sure that's what a great portrait is all about. Plus all the hassle of keeping the batteries charged, the handgrip that protrudes from the camera and makes it not fit in my camera bag with the 45 degree finder attached, the number of instances that I inadvertently changed the settings on the camera's countless dials etc... I now got the 6060 film back for the Hy6 and I am seriously thinking about leaving the digiback at home when going on a holiday in May. And I occasionally check ebay for second hand 203FEs and even 501 CMs... My conclusion - if you are a pro then moving to the digital platform is a no-brainer. If you are an amateur who can afford the switch, then by all means do it but give yourself a chance to see if the digital system produces a "look" that you like and think how much you value the compactness and simplicity/ergonomics of something like a 501CM. On balance, I love the Hy6 and what it can do but sometimes I just get tired of its complexity and the digital look and find some appeal in going back to basics and enjoying photography in the form that involves only setting aperture, shutter speed and focusing the lens by hand. And carrying the camera in a small bag. And shooting on full frame square format again, without a stupid mask in my viewfinder!!! Best of luck with your decision...

www.martindrazsky.com

[edober]

Hi baudolino
I'm totally with you!
Anyway, as it turns out, after all the tests I did (exausting task with all those menus to learn I purchased the H4D-50 I borrowed from a friend (who really wanted a Leica S2 instead).
It seemed to be a great occasion to jump into MFD at the right price:
the 6 months old Hassy comes with 1400 actuations, a 100/2.2mm, 3 battery handles, adapter for V lenses, plus other minutiaes AND a 35-90mm, which practically came for free.
The camera is mint and extremely well kept (the seller is an amateur who cares more for the object than taking pics).
BTW, my CM will stay close to me (very close, since I’m still working on a long project started early 2010 which will be exibited in November and needs to be finished on film).
Thanks to all for your suggestions.
Kind regards
E

[edober]

Gentlemen
FYI, if interested:
after 3 weeks with the H4D-50 I can conclude that the transition from the 500CM has been pretty easy.
The quality of the digital files is amazing, the 100mm and the 35-90 are spectacular,
automatic focusing (and True Focus) really work very well and are exactly what I needed.
Only problems are :
the weight of the zoom if&when I use it handheld (I need to exercise a bit),
the LCD screen is really nothing to write home about it, it’s just to see if there is a picture there,
the loss of the square format in framing (I pride myself in always framing exactly what I want on the picture, no cropping anywhere, it’s a zen thing chez moi).
That is a change I don’t like so much.
Also, I wish there was a 45 degrees viewfinder like there is for the CM,
BTW: Phocus is fine, I just have to learn it well in time.
In the end I’m very happy: great camera, great lenses, great system.
Kind regards
E
PS The 500CM is still in use for other projects.

[John R Smith]

Thanks for the update, E, it's always nice to know how people get on with things. The LCD screen on my CFV back is rubbish as well, I only ever use it to check the histogram - which is fine, because that's all I need.

John

[mikeber]

Thanks for the update, E, it's always nice to know how people get on with things. The LCD screen on my CFV back is rubbish as well, I only ever use it to check the histogram - which is fine, because that's all I need.

John

John, how do you explain that such camera (probably more expensive then any stills camera in history) comes equipped with less then stellar display? And why customers accept that?

[DeeJay]

The LCD Display on most digital cameras has not being fit for judging images. The reason being that the price of an outstanding display would make the price, well, outstanding.

I use my eye to judge the photo before/while it's taken, the image on the LCD to check the framing or make sure the flash fired etc and the histogram to judge exposure.