The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

[Guy Mancuso]

This thread, to me, resembles what I read so often on DPReview or sometimes on the LUF.

Please guys, we have something special here. let's not turn it into a look alike of all those other threads most of us abandoned when GetDPI became available.

JMHO

Woody

Agree Woody it's beyond me i am reading this here. Go figure, I thought we are above this. With that I will not make any further comments. Name calling, whining and all that is something personally i have no interest in . Rather work through the issues and get people shooting and getting the most out of there gear and what's between our two ears. I say this not as part owner and admin of this site but as a forum member. This is not what GetDPI is about and never was.

 

[Dale Allyn]

I took some pictures yesterday and my client is thrilled. They don't know what brand my cameras are.

 

[stephengilbert]

Thank you, Woody.

 

[carstenw]

I totally agree, Woody.

 

[KeithL]

I took some pictures yesterday and my client is thrilled. They don't know what brand my cameras are.

Indeed.

Over the years I've supplied files ranging in size from thumbnails to 84" wide, to agencies, agents, magazine publishers, book publishers, camera manufactures, Uncle Tom Cobley and all...and not one client has asked me what format I use, let alone what camera I use*.

Frankly, this thread is a nonsense.

*I lie, a camera manufacturer asked me to confirm that I used their camera.

 

[eleanorbrown]

A photographer/artist in Colorado who is in the process of opening a new art/gallery center was reviewing a lot of my fine art prints.....16X16, 16x20, and some smaller. He came to a few black and white prints and he stopped and said something to this effect....wow, what did you shoot this with?" (it was one of children's old clothes hanging on a line, South Park City series)..... It actually was shot with my first digital back, a Phase P25, but it had that "something extra" one can see in medium format digital...kind of a liquid smooth tonal feel to it. So yes I have been asked. Eleanor

Indeed.

Over the years I've supplied files ranging in size from thumbnails to 84" wide, to agencies, agents, magazine publishers, book publishers, camera manufactures, Uncle Tom Cobley and all...and not one client has asked me what format I use, let alone what camera I use*.

Frankly, this thread is a nonsense.

*I lie, a camera manufacturer asked me to confirm that I used their camera.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

And the P25 delivers . I had a P25 Plus and there is just something about those 9 micron sensors. Actually Eleanor jack started a thread on this awhile back if interested

 

[Dale Allyn]

And to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that nobody ever asks about one's gear, especially gallery folks. My comment was simply intended as a mini-distraction from the tone that the thread had taken. I was hoping to suggest that taking photos and sharing positive, constructive ideas among friends is more important that bickering about camera companies, etc. And let's not forget the value of the image content over the equipment used to make it.

 

[eleanorbrown]

Dale..and others, I guess the point I was trying to make and maybe didn't say it clearly, was that medium format in general, (for those of us who shoot both 35mm and medium format digital) has a certain "look" to it if you know what to look for...whether it's a Hasselblad back, a Phase back, Sinar or whatever. I used a print from my P25 as an example and the reaction of an educated viewer to that print).

I don't think there are any bad digital backs...Personally I prefer the Phase backs but with a Hasselblad camera and lenses. Others prefer a different choice. Eleanor

And to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that nobody ever asks about one's gear, especially gallery folks. My comment was simply intended as a mini-distraction from the tone that the thread had taken. I was hoping to suggest that taking photos and sharing positive, constructive ideas among friends is more important that bickering about camera companies, etc. And let's not forget the value of the image content over the equipment used to make it.

 

[Dale Allyn]

Dale..and others, I guess the point I was trying to make and maybe didn't say it clearly, was that medium format in general, (for those of us who shoot both 35mm and medium format digital) has a certain "look" to it if you know what to look for...whether it's a Hasselblad back, a Phase back, Sinar or whatever. I used a print from my P25 as an example and the reaction of an educated viewer to that print).

I don't think there are any bad digital backs...Personally I prefer the Phase backs but with a Hasselblad camera and lenses. Others prefer a different choice. Eleanor

Agreed, Eleanor (and that's how I took your post).

Cheers...

 

[ptomsu]

This thread, to me, resembles what I read so often on DPReview or sometimes on the LUF.

Please guys, we have something special here. let's not turn it into a look alike of all those other threads most of us abandoned when GetDPI became available.

JMHO

Woody

I fully back this!

 

[PeterA]

And to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that nobody ever asks about one's gear, especially gallery folks. My comment was simply intended as a mini-distraction from the tone that the thread had taken. I was hoping to suggest that taking photos and sharing positive, constructive ideas among friends is more important that bickering about camera companies, etc. And let's not forget the value of the image content over the equipment used to make it.

Absolutely spot on!

 

[carstenw]

Over the years I've supplied files ranging in size from thumbnails to 84" wide, to agencies, agents, magazine publishers, book publishers, camera manufactures, Uncle Tom Cobley and all...and not one client has asked me what format I use, let alone what camera I use*.

Frankly, this thread is a nonsense.

Keith, you missed the point of the thread, which is not IQ or which manufacturer's cameras are better. This thread is about how reliable the MF manufacturers, their announcements and promises, are for us photographers (in this case Hasselblad, but the general question is equally good).

 

[KeithL]

Keith, you missed the point of the thread, which is not IQ or which manufacturer's cameras are better. This thread is about how reliable the MF manufacturers, their announcements and promises, are for us photographers (in this case Hasselblad, but the general question is equally good).

Carsten, I apologise. I was simply trying to put things into perspective.

My concern is that the endless whining and negativity about this manufacture or that is in danger of driving a wedge between the folk on this forum and devalue it as has happened elsewhere.

Keith

 

[Woody Campbell]

This thread has gotten a little off track. But here's my philosophical 2 cents anyway:

I have an H3d(not II) 39 and related gear. I generally don't care what Hasselblad's strategy is or what announcements they make because I don't plan on upgrading - at least to any of their current or projected offerings. What I like about Hasselblad is the ability to use the brilliant legacy Zeiss glass, and the gigantic, deep, flexible files that the back produces. I don't need more resolution - my current printer setup maxes out at 24"x36" and the 39 meg back covers that area at native resolution. (If you're printing full size on a 44" printer there's a good case that you need a 60 meg back.) On the rare occasions when I need bigger files I can stitch. I've also found that Hasselblad's service is excellent - keep the original box, send whatever has a problem to them, and it comes back fixed in about a week.

So that's what I like about Hasselblad. What i don't like is the ergonomics - I probably wouldn't like the Phase either - the only MF cameras that I've ever owned that I actually liked in this respect were the twin lens Rollei 2.8F and the Mamiya 7. I realize that I'm peculiar in this respect. And I really don't like traveling with the Hasseblad because of its size and weight. No new offering from Hasselblad is likely change in these respects so I have no compelling reason to upgrade.

What Hasselblad can do for me is keep working on Phocus. It does a terrific job of producing conversions, but in terms of user interface and features its in about the same place the C1 was with v. 1.0. Hasselblad has done a good job of supporting legacy gear with firmware updates - I appreciate this and hope they continue to do so.

 

[ptomsu]

This thread has gotten a little off track. But here's my philosophical 2 cents anyway:

I have an H3d(not II) 39 and related gear. I generally don't care what Hasselblad's strategy is or what announcements they make because I don't plan on upgrading - at least to any of their current or projected offerings. What I like about Hasselblad is the ability to use the brilliant legacy Zeiss glass, and the gigantic, deep, flexible files that the back produces. I don't need more resolution - my current printer setup maxes out at 24"x36" and the 39 meg back covers that area at native resolution. (If you're printing full size on a 44" printer there's a good case that you need a 60 meg back.) On the rare occasions when I need bigger files I can stitch. I've also found that Hasselblad's service is excellent - keep the original box, send whatever has a problem to them, and it comes back fixed in about a week.

So that's what I like about Hasselblad. What i don't like is the ergonomics - I probably wouldn't like the Phase either - the only MF cameras that I've ever owned that I actually liked in this respect were the twin lens Rollei 2.8F and the Mamiya 7. I realize that I'm peculiar in this respect. And I really don't like traveling with the Hasseblad because of its size and weight. No new offering from Hasselblad is likely change in these respects so I have no compelling reason to upgrade.

What Hasselblad can do for me is keep working on Phocus. It does a terrific job of producing conversions, but in terms of user interface and features its in about the same place the C1 was with v. 1.0. Hasselblad has done a good job of supporting legacy gear with firmware updates - I appreciate this and hope they continue to do so.

The ergonomics of the H cameras is also one issue I cannot become friend with. And another issue is Phocus in its current incarnation and I fear that also the new release 2.0 will not come close to the capabilities of C1. Having said that I also do not like the ergonomics of the Phase camera, although they fit my working style a bit better, but far from great or even perfect. I am sure that the S2 would win here.

What I like about HB is their representation in Austria (VERY friendly) and their service and their competence - much better I would rate than Phase (although I do not want to blame this on single people, but the whole org of the representations).

WRT print size I can tell you that I did excellent prints from 40MP up to 60" so you actually do not need 50 or 60MP for this size, although it will be of course a benefit.

For me buying into one system or the other will be based on a great offer - either refurbished H3D2 with 39MP or Phase with P45+. If this is not coming available, then I most probably will go with the H4D50, as it has the most attractive price and will give me the resolutions I need for the next years, plus it allows me to use the most mature lens lineup with some of the lenses best fitting my needs (like 35-90, 28, 110 etc.)

Time will tell

 

[stevenkania]

Hi Woody/Peter,

I have been using the C1 and Phocus since their early versions until the present editions. I like both software.

For me the difference is that C1 can process a lot of different camera files, while Phocus works with only Hasselblad files.

Other than that, I think Phocus has become very stable, and dependable in the last few upgrades. And works wonders with the HB files. I have not seen any capability issues or user interface problems, except that the places for various sliders may be different. It's a matter of getting used to, as in all software. That's why I have written, because your generalized comments sound as if there is an already agreed verdict.

As a user, I wonder where you have problems related to Phocus. HB has asked users for ideas in their forum, and some people have reported sort of a wish list. I'm sure HB will listen to these as well as your comments, if any.

Have a good day

 

[Woody Campbell]

Hi Woody/Peter,

I have been using the C1 and Phocus since their early versions until the present editions. I like both software.

For me the difference is that C1 can process a lot of different camera files, while Phocus works with only Hasselblad files.

Other than that, I think Phocus has become very stable, and dependable in the last few upgrades. And works wonders with the HB files. I have not seen any capability issues or user interface problems, except that the places for various sliders may be different. It's a matter of getting used to, as in all software. That's why I have written, because your generalized comments sound as if there is an already agreed verdict.

As a user, I wonder where you have problems related to Phocus. HB has asked users for ideas in their forum, and some people have reported sort of a wish list. I'm sure HB will listen to these as well as your comments, if any.

Have a good day

Steven - I agree with you. I've said elsewhere that Phocus does an outstanding job on conversions; it's stable; it does an excellent job of noise reduction and sharpening; the lens corrections work as advertised (and I greatly appreciate the fact that Hasselblad has added pre-H lenses); the moire elimination is excellent - particularly because it permits you to export it as a layer in a PS file; and the color is terrific out of the box. My comments on interface and features relate to the need to import and convert to fff before you process (C1 used to require a similar step - which it accomplished in the background) and C1 has more tools (like the mis-named skin tone tool) available in the user interface, and great flexibility to customize the interface. Whether the added Phase features are all useful or important could be debated, but C1 is ahead in this respect.

 

[Nick-T]

HB has asked users for ideas in their forum, and some people have reported sort of a wish list. I'm sure HB will listen to these as well as your comments, if any.

Have a good day

I was just in Orlando with all the Hasselblad guys (moon landing anniversary) and took a print out of the wish list with me to show the software team. Pretty much all the most requested features went into Phocus 2 (now in alpha) so I'll need a new list
Nick-T

 

[fotografz]

Steven - I agree with you. I've said elsewhere that Phocus does an outstanding job on conversions; it's stable; it does an excellent job of noise reduction and sharpening; the lens corrections work as advertised (and I greatly appreciate the fact that Hasselblad has added pre-H lenses); the moire elimination is excellent - particularly because it permits you to export it as a layer in a PS file; and the color is terrific out of the box. My comments on interface and features relate to the need to import and convert to fff before you process (C1 used to require a similar step - which it accomplished in the background) and C1 has more tools (like the mis-named skin tone tool) available in the user interface, and great flexibility to customize the interface. Whether the added Phase features are all useful or important could be debated, but C1 is ahead in this respect.

Woody, from what I understand we will be able to customize Phocus tool pallets in the next version which is due very soon.

The more Hasselblad develops Phocus the more it bears a resemblance to Light Room in work flow ... which is great IMO.

My one and only wish is that corrections including DAC could migrate when converting to DNGs for cataloging and non-destructive work in LR.

-Marc