Hasselblad CFV ll 50c

[SrMphoto]

For those using LrC, it allows renaming at import, including inserting the model and make of the camera.

 

[mristuccia]

Question for you all (as well as the X1D owners).. Is there a way to change the file prefix from B000? I'm running into a situation where my X1D II and my CFV2 are starting to overlap in file numbers.. which causes an issue on export as I export to folders by format / resolution / quality, and I don't make any adjustments to the file names when I export.

With my workflow it's heavily directory structured, so I copy files from the SD card via finder, I don't do any special app import process that would append or prepend a new prefix/suffix..

I'm just kind of amazed if this is the case and Hasselblad has not yet allowed for changing the file naming format.. hopefully I'm missing something here.

Never tried myself, but I think you could also consider trying specialised ingestion utilities like Photo Mechanic (https://home.camerabits.com/tour-photo-mechanic/) which ingest the files from the SD into a disk folder by applying renaming rules and EXIF/IPTC data like author/copyright while importing.

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks, Vieri! I will look into that.. it sounds like our workflow may be somewhat similar.. I do not like for any program to "import" my photos, I manually copy them from SD card to a set of folders I create for each import. Thanks for the tip!!

Edit- WOW! This looks great, Vieri! Out of curiosity, would share your file naming standard? I see it can use EXIF data to build the file name which is perfect.. I'm wondering if including camera and lens information in the file name is too much..

If you're using Phocus or LR, I see little point to including camera and lens information in the file naming schema. It just complicates the file naming too much, and that information is all in the file metadata easily found by the apps.

I have three file naming schema I use for most stuff.

YYMMDD-{file number}
YYMMDD-{tag}-{file number}
YYMMDD-{tag}-{seq03}

The first is my standard ... I insert the capture date and use only the numeric portion of the original file name.
The second is for when I'm doing something that geared to a project or client where {tag} is the name of the endeavor.
The third is what I use for scanned film where {tag} is optional, but used similarly to above.

All other annotations happen in IPTC metadata.
For more general purpose Finder file renaming, I just use Automator to create customized workflows to do what I need.

G

 

[mristuccia]

I usually import with Phocus, which turns the 3FRs into FFFs. The FFF format is still raw and still not demosaiced, so it is as good as the original 3FR.

Besides the folder structure, which has a logic as well, the very file naming convention for me is:

<YYYYMMDD>_<LOCATION>_<SHORT-DESCRIPTION>_<ORIGINAL-RAW-SEQUENCE>.fff

Example:

20200818_BERLIN_BirthdayOfMarco_B0001234.fff

I have a custom import preset on Phocus to achieve this.

My CFV-50c Mk I is not able to automatically store any metadata into the image files, so I've developed my personal workarounds.
When in the field, I use an iPhone app developed by me to note down all the important metadata (shifts, shutter time, aperture, lens, camera, notes, GPS coordinates, etc..) for each image. Images are univocally identified by their raw sequence. My app is then able to export all those annotations into a csv file.
When I'm home, I launch a desktop application (developed by me as well) which takes the csv file and an image folder, and automatically writes down all metadata into each image contained in the folder, matching it by the raw sequence.

 

[nameBrandon]

Good stuff, all! Thanks for sharing the tips!

I create a set of 5 folders for every import from my SD card.

--\YYYY-MM-DD.LOCATION.DESCRIPTION
------\01. DESELECTS
------\02. SELECTS
------\03. RAW PROCESSING
-----------\EXPORTS (**symbolic link to ..\04. EXPORTS)
------\04. EXPORTS

I keep a template directory setup like that and just duplicate for each new import, then rename the top level folder. I copy directly to the deselects folder and use FastRawViewer to quickly cull, rate, flag, reject images. Sidecar XMP's are forced at this point to carry through metadata. Anything 1 star and above gets moved to folder 02. Then I'll review once more for sharpness, composition, similars, etc.. and move the next set to folder 03. Then I use Lightroom, C1, Phocus, and Photoshop with folder 3 and exports go to 04. I delete the files left in the first folder when done. The ability to do file management and not rely on a catalog or any single raw converter is why I call this my global workflow. FastRawViewer works with large sets of files very well and that's what I use if I need to scan for all of my 3 star images or all my 'yellow' images, etc.. No need for a catalog dependency.

Since I had done all my organization at the folder level, file names were relatively unimportant.. until they started collisions recently with same file names. I've looked at Vieri's suggestion and that should work well. I'll just run the droplet it created for me on all of the files just after copying from the SD card to the first folder.

 

[vieri]

Thanks, Vieri! I will look into that.. it sounds like our workflow may be somewhat similar.. I do not like for any program to "import" my photos, I manually copy them from SD card to a set of folders I create for each import. Thanks for the tip!!

Edit- WOW! This looks great, Vieri! Out of curiosity, would share your file naming standard? I see it can use EXIF data to build the file name which is perfect.. I'm wondering if including camera and lens information in the file name is too much..

Hello Brandon,

you are very welcome, always glad to help My naming standard is always, and it always has been, {camera name}_{xxxxx} for all my photographs taken with all my cameras. I.e., with my 2 X1D II bodies, is: X1DII1_00001, X1DII1_00002, etc for the one body and X1DII2_00001, X1DII2_00002 etc for the other. I limit the number part to 5 digits because for my landscape work I never shoot more than 99.999 images with any camera (plus, with ABFR I could batch rename everything adding one digit to all images, if need be). This way, I never ever have any instance of two images with the same name - that is simply impossible - plus, I know at a glance which camera I took which image with just by looking at filenames, which is very useful for me since I use my images for reviews, sale, ads etc (but might be of no use to you, of course)

Hope this helps! Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Godfrey]

AS always, there are a few dozen different, useful ways to manage file names and directory structures. All of them are good, all of them address different kinds of workflow needs and organizational concepts, and they all depend to a great degree on how you access and utilize the files.

Since I have been using LR since 2006, I leave the file system organization simple (year/date hierarchy two levels deep, minimal number of additional directories) and utilize the application's file management capabilities and EXIF/IPTC metadata capabilities rather than the file system for finding and identifying work. The EXIF/IPTC metadata travels well to other applications and image management software, the file system organizational methods are a bit more limited in how much data they can represent. But, like with so many of these things, whatever works for your needs is best!

G

 

[hsberlin]

Here are two photos of the new grip für the 907 se...
The grip is a perfect addition to the 907 setup ( in my eyes a must have...), nice handling , configurable buttons and an af-d button that i really missed .....

Best regards
Henning

 

[Frederic]

We all seem to have that Sioti lens hood on our 45P

 

[nameBrandon]

Here are two photos of the new grip für the 907 se...
The grip is a perfect addition to the 907 setup ( in my eyes a must have...), nice handling , configurable buttons and an af-d button that i really missed .....
View attachment 151010View attachment 151011
Best regards
Henning

Ahh! Jealous!

Would you mind measuring the new width of the camera with the grip attached? I'm curious just how transportable it will be in a bag with the grip attached.

 

[hsberlin]

Hi,
It‘s around 14,5 cm, but it‘s also no problem to detach the grip....
Best regards
Henning

Ahh! Jealous!

Would you mind measuring the new width of the camera with the grip attached? I'm curious just how transportable it will be in a bag with the grip attached.

 

[Godfrey]

Here are two photos of the new grip für the 907 se...
The grip is a perfect addition to the 907 setup ( in my eyes a must have...), nice handling , configurable buttons and an af-d button that i really missed .....

Looking forward to receiving mine!

We all seem to have that Sioti lens hood on our 45P

I went with the B+W Wide Metal Lens Hood in 67mm for the 45P:


907x + B+W Wide lens hood 1


907x + B+W Wide lens hood 2

This lens hood is styled to be almost an exact copy of the original Hasselblad hood for the Distagon C 50mm lens.

—
Oh yes, and for the Bag Folks, here are three shots of the Billingham L2 with 907x and two lens kit:


907x kit - L2 bag - loaded main compartment
21mm, camera fitted with 45P, Hood hat instead of lens cap


907x kit - L2 bag - main compartment
Everything above laid out on the table.


907x kit - L2 bag - front pocket
What's usually in the front pocket of the bag ... batteries, tripod plates, etc.

Ahh! Jealous!

Would you mind measuring the new width of the camera with the grip attached? I'm curious just how transportable it will be in a bag with the grip attached.

With respect to the L2 bag, I'd just lay it into the bag grip side up. There's enough height to handle that.

G

 

[elm]

Godfrey,

What is the size of the B+W hood--62mm or 67mm?

Like your new bag! Looks perfect for your kit!

Thank you.

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey,
What is the size of the B+W hood--62mm or 67mm?
Like your new bag! Looks perfect for your kit!
Thank you.

62mm filter thread on the 45P. I always get mixed up because the 21mm has a 67mm filter thread.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11196-REG/B_W_65069649_62mm_Screw_In_Metal_Wide.html

I've had this Billingham L2 since about 2006 ... a gift from my mom two years before she passed away! It's been all over the place and carried so much different gear, it's amazing. One of the most useful bags I've ever had. And obviously, it's held up beautifully over the past 14 years!

G

 

[nameBrandon]

Have you guys felt a need for a hood for image purposes, or just for general protection? I don't think I've run into a scenario yet where it's flared badly, or that I felt a hood was really necessary. I do have a B+W UV filter on there to protect the front element, but that's it.

 

[Godfrey]

Have you guys felt a need for a hood for image purposes, or just for general protection? I don't think I've run into a scenario yet where it's flared badly, or that I felt a hood was really necessary. I do have a B+W UV filter on there to protect the front element, but that's it.

I don't like using filters unless I am using them to filter light for a purpose. For me, a lens hood protects the front element of the lens and always provides a little additional protection from flare.

G

 

[Frederic]

As I live by the seaside I tend to rely on UV filters, they are usually way easier to clean than the lens front element. The downside is they can cause additional flare or reflections, hence the mandatory lens hood.

The B+W wasn't available when I got the lens, and some people mentioned vignetting issues when used with a filter. It looks good though !

 

[hsberlin]

I use a hood for both....
Best
Henning

Have you guys felt a need for a hood for image purposes, or just for general protection? I don't think I've run into a scenario yet where it's flared badly, or that I felt a hood was really necessary. I do have a B+W UV filter on there to protect the front element, but that's it.

 

[Godfrey]

As I live by the seaside I tend to rely on UV filters, they are usually way easier to clean than the lens front element. The downside is they can cause additional flare or reflections, hence the mandatory lens hood.

The B+W wasn't available when I got the lens, and some people mentioned vignetting issues when used with a filter. It looks good though !

Circumstances like that are a good reason for a protective filter ... I have some sizes in clear optical glass for that.

G

 

[SrMphoto]

As I live by the seaside I tend to rely on UV filters, they are usually way easier to clean than the lens front element. The downside is they can cause additional flare or reflections, hence the mandatory lens hood.

The B+W wasn't available when I got the lens, and some people mentioned vignetting issues when used with a filter. It looks good though !

I use hood instead of protective filters, except when I am close to dust, salt, or similar factors.

Roger Cicala (Lens Rentals) has tested various UV and clear filters in this post. I prefer Nikon clear filters.