The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

CFV back

jlm

Workshop Member
jack: when i check CS3, it says my jpgs are 750 x750; the bumped ones show as 405kb and the message says the limit is 375kb
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
jack: when i check CS3, it says my jpgs are 750 x750; the bumped ones show as 405kb and the message says the limit is 375kb
Okay, understand now. Yes, we limit attachment image sizes to 389K to help keep the page loads fast. MF backs tend to put more detail in an image, even a downsized jpeg, and so sometimes you'll need to change the quality to an 8 or 9 to get it under that 398K limit. You'll see that option on the save dialog box that comes up for you to name the image, default is set to 10 and may ned to be dropped. If you want to permanently lower that value, open an image then double click on that step in the action, when the dialog pops up, any value you enter in the box becomes the new default for the action :)
 

jlm

Workshop Member
had a weird thing happen with the back: several shots (maybe ten) came in very magenta, as if the green channel was dead. interspersed with good ones when i was shooting a focus series. happened with the blad and the horse. then the problem went away.
when i went out a couple of hours later, the image preview was not working, though the screen indicated shots were being stored. i changed out the battery and all was well, including no more magenta shots.

also, how do you get the 205 body/CFV to mark the correct date in exif? It isn't still year 2000, is it?
 

jlm

Workshop Member
one more note, re my workflow, which might be useful and hopefully promote some other insights.
shots are at iso 100, aperture kept in the f8-f11 range, back set to daylight. i try to set the histogram so it doesn't clip at the top, but usually get better results if i underexpose one more stop.
as a habit, i try to frame close, none of the shots shown are cropped
i'm primarily using a pc and flexcolor, latest version. every shot comes in green and warm, so the first step is to set temp to about 4600-4750, tint to 33-43. then i go the histogram and move in the shadow slider to the edge of the graph, maybe move the highlight slider down to the graph, maybe shift the midtone around to taste. final check of overall exposure, maybe a tweak, and save as a tiff, 300 ppi, which gives a 13 x 13 print size.
load into CS3, check color sat, (maybe a small adjust), check brightness and contrast, spot heal any sensor blobs, save as a tiff, no unsharp mask used generally
if printing, let imageprint scale up from 13 x 13 to fit the 17 x17 page, use the ICC for harman gloss fb, printing on epson 4880
if for the web, run jack's action.

if running helicon, load 3-5 focus bracket tiff's and run, saving as a tiff. this was my first try at helicon. it doesn't like moving subjects, ha ha
 

atanabe

Member
had a weird thing happen with the back: several shots (maybe ten) came in very magenta, as if the green channel was dead. interspersed with good ones when i was shooting a focus series. happened with the blad and the horse. then the problem went away.
when i went out a couple of hours later, the image preview was not working, though the screen indicated shots were being stored. i changed out the battery and all was well, including no more magenta shots.

also, how do you get the 205 body/CFV to mark the correct date in exif? It isn't still year 2000, is it?
Regarding magenta cast images:
This is a sync problem with the back and shutter. On the CFV you have the option of setting the shutter acquisition time, <=1/8, 1/4. 1/2, 1 or longer. When your shutter opens before the back has had time to "wake up" a magenta cast image is produced. When using the CFV with a view camera, set the CFV to "Flash sync" and connect the cable to the flash connector on the lens and the other end to the CFV. If the 205TCC has been modified for the CFV then the back may have gone to sleep and did not have enough time to wake up, in this case if two shots were made sequentially, the first would have a magenta cast and the second correctly rendered.

Image preview is controlled by the "i" button it cycles through image preview, histogram and off. I have hit this button accidently many a time and wondered where my image preview has gone.

The date/time is controlled by a RECHARGEABLE battery on the main circuit board. You must plug in the firewire cable to the back and PC change the settings on the CFV to never turn off and with the PC on, let the back charge for 12 hours at first. The charge should hold for a few weeks, you must do this every couple of weeks, if the charge does not hold, then the main circuit board needs to be replaced. It seems that a lot of people have had this problem, myself included. The back must be sent to Sweden for the board change out.

Regards,
Al
 

jlm

Workshop Member
Al:
i hooked the back up to my macbook pro and it charged overnight and is now shoeing today's date thanks the PC firewire connection does not supply charging...i haven't yet tried to see if it works otherwise (only flex is available for the pc right now)
i was frantically hitting that i button, that was not the problem.

I have been selecting SWC mode for my back and cabling it into one of the flash syc ports on the back, on the side of the firewire port. maybe oi had the wrong socket, as i now see there is one on the other side (unlabeled)
 

atanabe

Member
Al:
i hooked the back up to my macbook pro and it charged overnight and is now shoeing today's date thanks the PC firewire connection does not supply charging...i haven't yet tried to see if it works otherwise (only flex is available for the pc right now)
i was frantically hitting that i button, that was not the problem.

I have been selecting SWC mode for my back and cabling it into one of the flash syc ports on the back, on the side of the firewire port. maybe oi had the wrong socket, as i now see there is one on the other side (unlabeled)
John,
Check to see if the battery holds the charge, the fault is with the main circuit board that provides the logic to the charging of the battery.

When using it with a view camera, set the CFV to flash sync, and cable it with the PC-Mini cable to the top socket on the left side of the back. The CFV flash sync is set for "X" sync, on some older view camera lenses, you have the option for "M" sync. With "M" sync the flash is triggered before the shutter is fully opened, "X" when the shutter is open to the widest point. This is enough to cause the magenta cast over the frame. The SWC setting on the CFV is meant to compensate for the standard mechanical triggering of the CFV via the film magazine arm. Attaching the sync cable to the CFV and setting it to SWC may have confused it.

Lots of different combinations to play with, I have tried a lot of different ones to make old cameras work with the digital age.

Regards,
Al
 

jlm

Workshop Member
found this nugget in the manual
"SWC
For use with 903 SWC and 905 SWC models.
• Make an SWC setting.
PLEASE NOTE: Due to the mechanical design of the SWC, pressing the exposure release button
too slowly may cause a faulty capture with a magenta cast. Either press the button much more
distinctly or alternatively change the setting from SWC to Flash sync and use the flash sync
cable to connect the lens to the CFV. "
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
Even when I set the CFV BACK to SWC and use the <1/8 setting , i get occasionally shots with a magenta cast . An exposure setting of longer than 1/8 helps , but I decided to use the flash sync setting and the flash sync cable , to be on the safe side .
No more problems since .

Regards Jürgen
 

atanabe

Member
did you see the note about quick pressing the shutter button?
The SWC has a longer throw of the actuating (Red dot actuator) arm than the 500C by about 1/8th of an inch. When you use the "old" habit of squeezing the shutter, the arm is extended and activates the CFV to wake up and start capturing a bit sooner. With a setting <1/8 you have short window for the exposure to take place. If you extend the capture time to 1 sec then you have a longer time to expose. Using the flash sync does cure the magenta problem but I don't like to walk around with a cable attached all of the time.

Hasselblad did a great job marrying the old mechanical system with the new digital age. The solution for the trigger is based on average time delay for full shutter exposure based on the type of camera used. As such, it is not as reliable as the flash sync. The other brands require the flash cable to trigger the back.

Even with the minor tweeks to the camera/back profile the combination is well worth the investment. When you consider that 1960's vintage cameras and lenses can be married to digital capture, it is the ultimate recycle story!

Regards,
Al
 

PSon

Active member
Al and Jim,
After I sold the CFV + 205TCC to Jim (I am glad to see Jim do so well with CFV/205TCC) and tried many other medium format systems and optics, I finally came back home to the old classic Hasselblad V system where I first begun my photography in 1999. I am glad to join with both of you in this beautiful and classical system. The 205TCC and 205FCC are among the few of my most favorite cameras of all time.

Best Regards,
-Son
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Al and Jim,
After I sold the CFV + 205TCC to Jim (I am glad to see Jim do so well with CFV/205TCC) and tried many other medium format systems and optics, I finally came back home to the old classic Hasselblad V system where I first begun my photography in 1999. I am glad to join with both of you in this beautiful and classical system. The 205TCC and 205FCC are among the few of my most favorite cameras of all time.

Best Regards,
-Son
And "Me" makes "Three."

Just sent my 203FE off for the conversion for the CFV, and will continue to use film or digital with this wonderful camera ... accompanied by it's little leaf shutter 645 brother the H2F :)
 
Last edited:

woodyspedden

New member
and my 203FE is also now off to Sweden for the mod to make it work with digital backs.

I will be ordering the CFV II back soon so that when the 203FE returns I will be all set. I sold the CWD in order to fund the intial purchase of the H3DII-39.

Woody
 

fotografz

Well-known member
and my 203FE is also now off to Sweden for the mod to make it work with digital backs.

I will be ordering the CFV II back soon so that when the 203FE returns I will be all set. I sold the CWD in order to fund the intial purchase of the H3DII-39.

Woody
The conversion is now done in the USA Woody. I spoke directly to service and they now have the kits to make the 200 series work with the CFVs.
 

PSon

Active member
Marc, how could I forget the Godfather of Hasselblad who sent us to hell to cure the 7 sins but only coming back for even more. I am glad to see you and Woody with the 40 CFE IF. You are the only other person that I know beside myself that own both the 40 CFE and the CFE IF. However, I own the CFE in the film day so I was not able to do a comparison. Based on your experience now with both lens and the existing sensor can you see the differences between the two lens?d

Woody, like Marc mentioned the conversion now can be done in the USA at Parsipany NJ. I simply do not have the heart to convert all of my 205 so I sent the 205TCC to get convert and keeping the 205FCC to shoot film and Sinar back. If Hasselblad make a full square sensor for the CFV III we all be extremely thankful for no more external cable.

-Son
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, how could I forget the Godfather of Hasselblad who sent us to hell to cure the 7 sins but only coming back for even more. I am glad to see you and Woody with the 40 CFE IF. You are the only other person that I know beside myself that own both the 40 CFE and the CFE IF. However, I own the CFE in the film day so I was not able to do a comparison. Based on your experience now with both lens and the existing sensor can you see the differences between the two lens?d

Woody, like Marc mentioned the conversion now can be done in the USA at Parsipany NJ. I simply do not have the heart to convert all of my 205 so I sent the 205TCC to get convert and keeping the 205FCC to shoot film and Sinar back. If Hasselblad make a full square sensor for the CFV III we all be extremely thankful for no more external cable.

-Son
Son, my 40CFE is gone. When I got the new 503CW/CFV & 40IF bundle I sold one of my other 503CWs and 40CFE. So I never had a chance to compare the two side-by-side. I did consider keeping the CFE because it is smaller than the 40IF ... but there is a limit to how much redundant gear I can warehouse :D

The comparison I am more interested in is between the HC 35 and 40IF. You may recall I did a bench comparison between the 40CFE and HC 35 using the H3D-II/39 that allows use of both lenses ... and the HC was sharper @ the edges. I want to see if the 40IF cures that. In effect, that will tell me what the differences are between the the two 40 mm lenses.

I agree wih you about yearning for a larger sensor CFV version. There is so much pent up demand for a larger sensor CFV back that I was surprised when the CFV-II was announced as a 16 meg. I had hoped for a 22 meg 645 senor ... but understand why is would be so hard to make that work for portrait orientation due to the camera's mechanical activation of the CFV.

Frankly, a 6X6 sensor in a CFV with 9X9 micron pixels ... and I'd be done for a long time to come. :clap:
 

PSon

Active member
Son, my 40CFE is gone. When I got the new 503CW/CFV & 40IF bundle I sold one of my other 503CWs and 40CFE. So I never had a chance to compare the two side-by-side. I did consider keeping the CFE because it is smaller than the 40IF ... but there is a limit to how much redundant gear I can warehouse :D

The comparison I am more interested in is between the HC 35 and 40IF. You may recall I did a bench comparison between the 40CFE and HC 35 using the H3D-II/39 that allows use of both lenses ... and the HC was sharper @ the edges. I want to see if the 40IF cures that. In effect, that will tell me what the differences are between the the two 40 mm lenses.

I agree wih you about yearning for a larger sensor CFV version. There is so much pent up demand for a larger sensor CFV back that I was surprised when the CFV-II was announced as a 16 meg. I had hoped for a 22 meg 645 senor ... but understand why is would be so hard to make that work for portrait orientation due to the camera's mechanical activation of the CFV.

Frankly, a 6X6 sensor in a CFV with 9X9 micron pixels ... and I'd be done for a long time to come. :clap:
Marc, I would join you with a 9 micron pixel size full square sensor on the CFV and I guess I have to plunge into the bank account again for the F-Distagon T* 3.5/40 CFi if that back exist.

Best Regards,
-Son
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I have this thing for the 9 micron sensor , reason I went with the P25 plus in the end over the P30 plus
 
Top