Hasselblad SWC is cool

semrich said:
Raid, I've taken Delta 3200 in both 135 and 120 on many trips and rarely ask for hand inspection, the few times I've ever asked they wouldn't do it. Some of the trips they only go through carry on x-ray 4 times, others they have gone through 12 times and never any problems. I've shot Delta 3200 at 1600 and 3200 and I don't see much difference but usually stick to 1600. I've also just taken HP5 and pushed it being mindful to mark the rolls for what I shot it at.
Click to expand...

Richard,
I will then take along some film that is faster than my standard ISO 100. I may have some 3200 film.
Going through Xray with fast film seems to be like a gamble. Either your film stays OK or it does not. Do you use special pouches to shield the film or you just walk with the film through the Xray?

Could it be that not having any metal cartridges has some impact?
 
raid said:
Richard,
I will then take along some film that is faster than my standard ISO 100. I may have some 3200 film.
Going through Xray with fast film seems to be like a gamble. Either your film stays OK or it does not. Do you use special pouches to shield the film or you just walk with the film through the Xray?

Could it be that not having any metal cartridges has some impact?
Click to expand...

Raid, I put all my camera gear in my backpack or small wheeled carry on bag and just put it on the belt through the security x-ray entering the airport and again on the belt through the x-ray after customs. In order to save on weight my HP5 is out of the box, out of the plastic container in a clear plastic bag. My 120 film is also out of the box or its plastic wrap. I guess it is a gamble, I've just never had any problems and any stress about getting hand inspection.
 
Raid, I do the same as Richard. I put Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 in a plastic bag, store it with my liquids plastic bag, and pull it out for hand-check before I go through the scanner. I haven't had a problem with them being checked in the airports (5-6 U.S., Tokyo, Heathrow) I've been to.

Here's another one without a hood. When I had an RFMx to check on flare, I didn't see much benefit of the hood on the CF lens when the sun was in different locations outside the frame. But it may help, and is just not noticeable on the ground glass.
6342366535_8706034476.jpg
 
Very nice choice, I hope you enjoy it! If I could have only one camera, the SWC would be it. I use it for nearly all of my work. Sometimes I use other cameras for a while, but I always return.

The trick I found to avoid that wide angle distortion look (which some like, but it's not my taste) is to always keep the camera near level and shoot objects either straight on or at slight angles or at 45 degrees (steeper angles create extreme perspective and look less real to me). If it's straight on, it had best be exactly straight on or the slight perspective distortion will make the shot look crooked.

My favorite part about the SWC is I just set it to F/16 and focus to 6m and then I don't have to worry about anything except pressing the shutter.

I have the ground glass and reflex viewfinder for critical work and I like it. I use a spare Hasselblad body hanging around my neck to swap between the film back and the glass holder.

Here are some of my favorite shots I've made with the SWC:


























































 
Great stuff, Levi!

The wide field and square format together give these photo a wonderful feeling of space and staging.

G
 
Thank you for these images, Levi.
Next, I need to use the SWC more often and I need to post some results to get feedback.
 
Thanks everyone

raid said:
Thank you for these images, Levi.
Next, I need to use the SWC more often and I need to post some results to get feedback.
Click to expand...

I found the extreme wide angle a bit hard to work with at first, but it became easier with experience. Particularly working with the viewfinder and not seeing the lower third of the image while framing took some time for me (I habitually look down first, then up). I really like how the extreme wide angle renders scale in an exaggerated way and can be used to make unexpected kinds of compositions:



untitled 0351_12 by Levi Wedel, on Flickr



untitled 0267_03 by Levi Wedel, on Flickr



untitled 0404_10 by Levi Wedel, on Flickr



untitled 0189_08 by Levi Wedel, on Flickr



untitled 0391_09 by Levi Wedel, on Flickr



untitled 0168_05 by Levi Wedel, on Flickr
 
I just got back from using the SWC at a fish market type store. I may have misjudged the DOF and distance settings in some hots, but this is much of the photography enjoyment.
 
sc_rufctr said:
Some great images.

So what's the "modern" digital equivalent of the SWC?
Click to expand...

Mamiya 7II probably-- Medium Format in a relatively compact body with fantastic lenses.... then scan the negatives!

As far as I know there aren't any 'relatively compact' digital MF cameras. I've seen photos of a Frankenstein Mamiya 7II that had been given a digital back, but that's not mass produced.
 
sc_rufctr said:
Some great images.

So what's the "modern" digital equivalent of the SWC?
Click to expand...

There are no digital equivalents. The unique aspects of the SWC are its essentially zero distortion, giant DOF from the Biogon design, and massive field of view BOTH horizontally and vertically. As DSLRs and medium format digital are all rectangular or cropped, there are no lens/format combinations capable of this.

A digital back can be used, but there are problems with color casts, soft edges and focus issues, and I don't know of any full frame square digital backs that can be used. The problem is to duplicate the 38mm Biogon, the lens would have to sit mm from the sensor, and that means the angle of light at the edges becomes extreme and is difficult for a sensor to capture unless the sensor were customized with angled photosites.

It is much easier to just shoot a piece of film and scan it.
 
Levi Wedel said:
There are no digital equivalents. The unique aspects of the SWC are its essentially zero distortion, giant DOF from the Biogon design, and massive field of view BOTH horizontally and vertically. As DSLRs and medium format digital is all rectangular, there are no lens/format combinations capable of this.
...
Click to expand...

Yes.

The closest I've come is to fit a 15-18mm lens on the M9 and shoot for the center square of the frame, but the feel in use and the look of the images is very different. The SWC look and feel, the quality of the Biogon 38 on 6x6, is unique which is why I missed it so much.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top