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!

Hasselblad to be sold to Phase One...?

Status
Not open for further replies.

T.Dascalos

Not Available
Tell that to Hasselblad not to mention Rolleiflex, Bronica, Sinar, and Leaf to name but a few who'd probably say differently judging by the state of their finances over history - "...because it delivers and saves money" is not universally accepted amongst most professionals. Studios with big budgets or in niche fields (repro) get to use the most expensive equipment because they can. Probably the type of work demands the extra 5-10% more clout MFD offers which their clients demand and ultimately but most importantly pay for. The remaining 80% of professional photographers are obviously not feeling restricted by other formats lack of quality and choose to vote with their wallet and why venture capital firms are now in control of all (?) MFD manufacturers.

No one is saying there is not a place for MFD but the market at least amongst professional photographers must now be tiny.
+1. Just to to add... I do art repro for a living, I used to use an Imacon 528c up until recently and replaced it with a Sinar 54H and Hasselblad CF-39MS (to have intermediate files, but to retain the self contained ability of the 528c too), ...replace them with what? ...and why? The only replacement that I can find is the Sinar eXact, but if I ever need (which I doubt) the 16x 196mp "true color" file why not just stitch two 88mp files at a ...still subject under controlled lighting?
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
I'm not so sure with the latest CMOS backs but there are differences between the formats. However, like any product at the top of its game you have to look closely for those difference (A/B comparison) to see MFD's supremacy and as most clients would never notice (or compare) why pay the price of entry? Will a bride see the extra 5% more detail in her wedding dress or a editor see a minuscule extra sharpness in the editorial shots for a lifestyle magazine? I think those questions have already been answered considering the MFD market today compared to 20 years ago.
No you don't (have to look closely to see the difference)... MF is better! But the question should rather be whether photo-graphy is improved or if the improvement is worth while... Another (very important) question is not if MF is better... but if the newer products are improving over the older products (which I'm sure they are not)... That is unless one considers as "improvement" the more pixels... :toocool:
 

Egor

Member
Who said that it isn't better? ...what I said is that it's not better than older MF (especially with view cameras) and that it doesn't improve ones photography than if using a DSLR (or older MF)... There is a proof for that... Show me a picture that one couldn't do 10 years ago with the equipment that existed at those days and I'll "eat my tongue"... As simple as that! :OT:
I'm not saying you in particular. Obviously by your own admission you use medium format for the advantages it gives you a professional.
In art repro, mfd saves even more time and money. You like Sinar, we like PhaseOne...whatever it's the same.
I do not care if I can take better pictures or not than some other way or compared to some older method. I am a professional photographer, I photographed products and art regr I photograph products and art repro for serious money, I have a business to run. What I am saying is that medium format is more efficient and less expensive in the long run.

I also do not care about the business finances and marketshare of corporations that produce cameras and camera related he I also do not care about the business finances and market share of corporations that produce cameras and camera related gear. Yes we professionals in the product And art repro business are hey small market compared to event Photography or perhaps landscape and sports etc. but that has always been the case

edit: Holy cr__! just read my own post...sorry about the typos and such...just dictated to SIRI while I was waiting for a client. Still a few bugs in the system I guess ;)
 
Last edited:

gazwas

Active member
No you don't (have to look closely to see the difference)... MF is better!
In particular areas of photography (as you work) that is correct but for the rest of us without such strict tolerances I'm unconvinced an untrained eye could tell the differences (or care) between formats when used in the hands of a skilled photographer.

But the question should rather be whether photo-graphy is improved or if the improvement is worth while... Another (very important) question is not if MF is better... but if the newer products are improving over the older products (which I'm sure they are not)... That is unless one considers as "improvement" the more pixels... :toocool:
Now I'm right with you on that one...... Over four generations of back, P65+ > IQ160 > IQ260 > IQ360 and have we really moved on in terms of IQ, the be all and end all of MFD???
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
....."In art repro, mfd saves even more time and money. You like Sinar, we like PhaseOne...whatever it's the same."....
What? ...NO it's not the same... for art repro, P1 profiles are totally inappropriate, they aim for "pleasing color" not for "accurate color"... Leaf is much better on this... But again, both don't use "true color" (tricolor) captures... and thus not nearly "up to the task" for the particular job... An IQ 380 would pale if compared for the job with a 22mp multishot old back... not that all single shot backs wouldn't... but P1 in particular is kind of "VW exaust"... Clearly they have in mind jobs that can be done with DSLRs, ...just shoot a macbeth card (or your color-checker passport) with a P1 back and a Sinarback (or Hasselblad/Imacon one) in single shot mode and open the files on a well calibrated monitor... you'll be surprised, ...I won't! :watch:
 

CSP

New member
What? ...NO it's not the same... for art repro, P1 profiles are totally inappropriate, they aim for "pleasing color" not for "accurate color"...
...and it is almost impossible to build high quality icc profiles for capture one too. i never shot art work for business but i have a friend who is an artist so i have done a lot of repro work for him over the years paintings, pastels, drawings.... even with a profiled mf camera (hassy single shot ) i had to adjust every single image individually to mach the real color appearance so where is the mf advantage ?
 

Egor

Member
What? ...NO it's not the same... for art repro, P1 profiles are totally inappropriate, they aim for "pleasing color" not for "accurate color"... Leaf is much better on this... But again, both don't use "true color" (tricolor) captures... and thus not nearly "up to the task" for the particular job... An IQ 380 would pale if compared for the job with a 22mp multishot old back... not that all single shot backs wouldn't... but P1 in particular is kind of "VW exaust"... Clearly they have in mind jobs that can be done with DSLRs, ...just shoot a macbeth card (or your color-checker passport) with a P1 back and a Sinarback (or Hasselblad/Imacon one) in single shot mode and open the files on a well calibrated monitor... you'll be surprised, ...I won't! :watch:
sigh... not going to get into that with you
We test these things regularly. We ARE able to achieve highly accurate color with PhaseOne gear and profiles.
We do this every day, all day, for some of the most demanding clients on the planet.
As soon as one of our clients with multimillion or billion dollar art collections tells us they are unsatisfied with our color accuracy...we will be sure to send them your way ;)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm not so sure with the latest CMOS backs but there are differences between the formats. However, like any product at the top of its game you have to look closely for those difference (A/B comparison) to see MFD's supremacy and as most clients would never notice (or compare) why pay the price of entry? Will a bride see the extra 5% more detail in her wedding dress or a editor see a minuscule extra sharpness in the editorial shots for a lifestyle magazine? I think those questions have already been answered considering the MFD market today compared to 20 years ago.
"Will a bride see" is hardly any measure of what is being discussed here. 35mm film DSLRs eclipsed the MF market long before 35mm DSLRs came on the scene … not due to discrimination on the part of the wedding/event cliental, but because the style of photography that clients were buying dramatically changed. I didn't even need a MF kit to get my candid wedding business up and running strong almost 20 years ago. Lifestyle work did something similar also …

What also dramatically changed with a lot of commercial photography was the advent of multi-purposing an image to fit the proliferation of communication media. Client applications often range from web presentation, print ads, collateral POP materials and posters … all the way up to murals and trade show presentations where the viewer in a client's booth is only 2 feet away … or could be severely cropped by an art director to show a product detail in subsequent communications.

The demand for MFD took a turn for the worse when the economic downturn hit most communication businesses hard, and studios closed in droves. Budgets became the arbitrator of taste, not taste itself. This created a rush to the bottom we are still feeling the effects of today.

One aspect not discussed here much is working with lighting (a mainstay of commercial work) … what small format system features an array of modern leaf-shutter lenses across focal lengths? Phase does, Hasselblad does, Leica does.

- Marc
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
...and it is almost impossible to build high quality icc profiles for capture one too. i never shot art work for business but i have a friend who is an artist so i have done a lot of repro work for him over the years paintings, pastels, drawings.... even with a profiled mf camera (hassy single shot ) i had to adjust every single image individually to mach the real color appearance so where is the mf advantage ?
That's right! One can't profile accurately color when it is processor depended... Single shot can only take pictures of art, for art reproduction there is only multishot (or scanning back)... but out of all single shot backs, P1 is the worst for the particular job... I do wonder, even if one is lucky and avoids artifacts, how does he copes with the different interpretation of color that each software update does with single shot? ...does he spends the hours that are needed to "adapt" the file to the new software update so that it is (to his opinion) "acceptable"? ...and how does he do this? Does he has the painting transfered back to this studio so that he tests with different materials and has multiple prints as to "correct" all differences that the monitor profiling may have? :banghead: It's amazing what one may read in forums sometimes!
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
"Will a bride see" is hardly any measure of what is being discussed here. 35mm film DSLRs eclipsed the MF market long before 35mm DSLRs came on the scene … not due to discrimination on the part of the wedding/event cliental, but because the style of photography that clients were buying dramatically changed. I didn't even need a MF kit to get my candid wedding business up and running strong almost 20 years ago. Lifestyle work did something similar also …

What also dramatically changed with a lot of commercial photography was the advent of multi-purposing an image to fit the proliferation of communication media. Client applications often range from web presentation, print ads, collateral POP materials and posters … all the way up to murals and trade show presentations where the viewer in a client's booth is only 2 feet away … or could be severely cropped by an art director to show a product detail in subsequent communications.

The demand for MFD took a turn for the worse when the economic downturn hit most communication businesses hard, and studios closed in droves. Budgets became the arbitrator of taste, not taste itself. This created a rush to the bottom we are still feeling the effects of today.

One aspect not discussed here much is working with lighting (a mainstay of commercial work) … what small format system features an array of modern leaf-shutter lenses across focal lengths? Phase does, Hasselblad does, Leica does.

- Marc
With sync speed up to 1/250. one hardly ever needs leaf shutter... it helps, but he doesn't need it.... As for weddings, the only reason for one to use an MF camera, is only to impress people and get more recommendations since "success" has nothing to do with the photographer's ability but only with "clever" public relations...

EDIT: Half the reason why Leica S007 is going to be a major success among the (considered) "better" wedding pros... The other half is that they use Contax 645 with film for the job and hence they have the lenses ready... not to mention that they can sell all their DSLR equipment (which they use in parallel to their Contax & film) altogether and use the "S 007" instead, thus financing the change...
 

gazwas

Active member
One aspect not discussed here much is working with lighting (a mainstay of commercial work) … what small format system features an array of modern leaf-shutter lenses across focal lengths? Phase does, Hasselblad does, Leica does.
Never been unable to make a picture due to not owning a leaf shutter lens with 35mm or Phase One gear prior to thier SK lens release so hardly of massive importance to capturing a "better" or "impossible" image.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
What? ...NO it's not the same... for art repro, P1 profiles are totally inappropriate, they aim for "pleasing color" not for "accurate color"... Leaf is much better on this... But again, both don't use "true color" (tricolor) captures... and thus not nearly "up to the task" for the particular job... An IQ 380 would pale if compared for the job with a 22mp multishot old back... not that all single shot backs wouldn't... but P1 in particular is kind of "VW exaust"... Clearly they have in mind jobs that can be done with DSLRs, ...just shoot a macbeth card (or your color-checker passport) with a P1 back and a Sinarback (or Hasselblad/Imacon one) in single shot mode and open the files on a well calibrated monitor... you'll be surprised, ...I won't! :watch:
The canned profiles in the general purpose commercial version of Capture One Pro are absolutely geared toward pleasing color (which is why so many people love Capture One Pro).

But the Bespoke Cultural Heritage Profiles included in Capture One Cultural Heritage Edition are made only for the exclusive purpose of accurate color repro. No need for in-situ profiling (which is a huge PITA, very error prone, and produces fragile profiles). The profiles included in C1CH provide excellent accuracy (low Delta E measurements against objective targets) right out of the box.
Capture One CH | DTDCH

Our clients for art repro and other forms of Cultural Heritage imaging include universities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Drexel, NYU etc, and museums/libraries such as Smithsonian, The Getty, Library of Congress, Folger Shakespeare Library, the New York Public Library. Do you think they have low standards?
Our Clients | DTDCH

Thankfully nobody needs to take my, or your, opinion. There are robust standards with objective criterium which can be evaluated. The two most common are FADGI and Metamoforze. FADGI and METAMORFOZE Image Performance Report | DTDCH

Have you had the chance to evaluate Capture One CH and a modern Phase One back?
 

CSP

New member
That's right! One can't profile accurately color when it is processor depended... Single shot can only take pictures of art, for art reproduction there is only multishot (or scanning back)... but out of all single shot backs, P1 is the worst for the particular job... I do wonder, even if one is lucky and avoids artifacts, how does he copes with the different interpretation of color that each software update does with single shot? ...does he spends the hours that are needed to "adapt" the file to the new software update so that it is (to his opinion) "acceptable"? ...and how does he do this? Does he has the painting transfered back to this studio so that he tests with different materials and has multiple prints as to "correct" all differences that the monitor profiling may have? :banghead: It's amazing what one may read in forums sometimes!

good points, we produce a large format high quality art calendar (offset) for my friend each year as a giveaway for collectors and friend and it takes more than 2 cycles of color adjustments to get an acceptable match on the press with many proofs between. i also have seen a lot of color cast problems with drawings on paper so a lcc shot with every image is mandatory. ....but maybe for others this common problems do not exist when they use this magic cameras.....
 

CSP

New member
The canned profiles in the general purpose commercial version of Capture One Pro are absolutely geared toward pleasing color (which is why so many people love Capture One Pro).

But the Bespoke Cultural Heritage Profiles included in Capture One Cultural Heritage Edition are made only for the exclusive purpose of accurate color repro. No need for in-situ profiling (which is a huge PITA, very error prone, and produces fragile profiles). The profiles included in C1CH provide excellent accuracy (low Delta E measurements against objective targets) right out of the box.
Capture One CH | DTDCH

Our clients for art repro and other forms of Cultural Heritage imaging include universities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Drexel, NYU etc, and museums/libraries such as Smithsonian, The Getty, Library of Congress, Folger Shakespeare Library, the New York Public Library. Do you think they have low standards?
Our Clients | DTDCH

Thankfully nobody needs to take my, or your, opinion. There are robust standards with objective criterium which can be evaluated. The two most common are FADGI and Metamoforze. FADGI and METAMORFOZE Image Performance Report | DTDCH

Have you had the chance to evaluate Capture One CH and a modern Phase One back?


...so and how much does it cost extra to simply get an accurate color profile ?
 

gazwas

Active member
"Will a bride see" is hardly any measure of what is being discussed here.
Many pros stopped buying MFD because their customers were unable to see or want to pay for that extra magical piece of IQ from MFD and the whole point why we are discussing Hasselblad and others being owned today by money men. Pro's didn't stop buying MFD because it was rubbish, just the difference is not justified financially.
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
Have you had the chance to evaluate Capture One CH and a modern Phase One back?
Doug, please don't post anymore "list of customers" as I'm sure they don't use your stuff only... I'm pretty sure that they also have stuff from the competition among the equipment they use... It's always (IMO) best for a business to care why some other (even more important) possible clients are missing from that list....

The latest I've ever tested from P1 was a P65+ on a Mamiya camera. A couple of years later, Yair massaged me "if I want to try a Leaf Aptus 12" as he was visiting my country and he could have one for Contax mount with him, for me to try... I replied to him that "I will be glad to try it", but... "It will have to be against my (at the days) 528c in multishot mode as to compare" and only if it proves better I would buy it... A week before Yair arrived, Mrs Kounio (your representative in my country) called me just to say that I would have to go in her premises and try the back in "general" shooting without being able to compare it with my 528c... Of course my reply was that "I'm not interested"... A year and a half later, I had the chance to try another Aptus 12 (on a P1 camera this time) borrowed from the man that purchased it, after the original owner past away at a very young age (Yair knows the story and the man that past away...)... ...and then I realized why Yair refused the comparison... Mind you that the pro photographer that past away, bought the Aptus only for single shot work... alongside it he also bought a 75H for repro work...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Never been unable to make a picture due to not owning a leaf shutter lens with 35mm or Phase One gear prior to thier SK lens release so hardly of massive importance to capturing a "better" or "impossible" image.
Perhaps a bit a dismissive tone there my friend? It seems your experiences are to be taken as the end-all in photographic knowledge?

I guess all I can say is that you and I must have different experiences solving some difficult photographic situations when they present themselves.

Personally, I've always found it much easier to balance subject to background lighting, or to control movement, when offered sync speeds above 1/250, (or in the case of 645 MF: 1/125). I've found 1/800, 1/1000 or 1/1600 sync VERY useful in making better images for my clients.

I was going to cite a number of situations where a high sync did solve a problem better than a more limited sync speed could have, but I fear It'd just lead to a peeing contest, which I have no interest in engaging with you.


Suffice it to say … HSS isn't the end-all reason for MF, just another difference that one can functionally and creatively use if it fits their needs … which in my case, I wouldn't be without.

- Marc
 

gazwas

Active member
It seems your experiences are to be taken as the end-all in photographic knowledge?
I find your comment quite insulting and don't appreciate you turning my comments into something personal.

With regards to my comment, leaf lenses for Phase is a relatively recent addition to the system and we shot for years with a sync speed of 1/125sec without too much problem and why I said its not a requirement for better pictures.

This topic is a open discussion why MFD could have got to the position it currently faces and not a comparison of spec sheets. If leaf lenses are so important to the survival of MFD, why are more people not buying them? Sorry if my reply causes you offence but I just don't think your comment is particularly relevant to the discussion and why I pointed this out.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
You know, after thinking about it, There is one aspect of using certain tools that goes missing in overly rational, "justify this or that", threads like this. Beyond whether a client can tell the difference. Beyond the state of the industry as a whole. Beyond pure financial considerations (with-in reason). Beyond all the PC comments.

It is just the simple love of using certain tools. Some sense of personal satisfaction that defies pure rationality. Certain tools invite use, make it a pleasure, have a feeling in hand, can be amazing, dare I say it even inspire involvement"! and become an extension of you IF you take the time to master it.

Personally, I loved the V system just for the mechanical/tactile sense of using one … what a rush every time I wound one onto the next frame. I came to love using the H system for it's incredibly well thought out controls … which, once mastered, allowed me to play the camera like a musical instrument without taking my eye from that huge bright viewfinder. So much so that I owned 9 itterations of the H before retiring: models ranging from a H2D/22 thru a H4D/60. Then there was the jaw dropping wizardry of watching a multi-shot back do its' thing … which still amazes me to this day. Absolutely fascinating. Not to mention that art buyers, production managers and retouchers LOVED the results from these cameras.

I've been building that sort of relationship with my current kit of the past 4 or 5 years … the Leica S system. Controls designed to make tasks simple and fast and thus disappear from mind. Versatility at a whim. Not to mention pure eye candy just to look at!

I admit not having an affinity for cameras like the Sony A series which remain a foreign experience despite using them for many years now. I do not like them. They may becoming today's work horses, but I never pictured myself as a plow jockey whipping a work-horse into submission.

Frankly, I need to like my tools not just tolerate them. My lack of rationality about this subject knows no bounds … when I repeatedly fail at some creative task I DO blame the tool and I get rid of it immediately. When I repeatedly succeed I give myself all the credit … but secretly do acknowledge that I do like the tools that I used, and designate them as keepers.:ROTFL:

I wish Hasselblad well. I hope Phase One continues on in good health. I dearly hope Leica continues improving the S kit. That Pentax keeps at it. Because these tools can be a joy to work with … if given a chance.

- Marc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top