kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Nice image, Kathy.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I have only 1 lens for the Hasse. The camera is the 500C, and it's an 80 lens. I asked my friend at TCR what other lens I might should think about. He said none - that what I would likely use the Hasse for, I had the perfect lens.

My scanner creates havoc in the dust department. Last year I scanned about a thousand actual pictures. You can't believe what it did to them!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I like it. Medium Format film is great. I wish I still a 120 film camera. I agree having to spot out lint from scanned film is a pain.

therwol Loc: USA

You're probably right. Removing dust spots can leave behind artifacts. I would want to be sure before buying a new scanner. You can take a negative that hasn't had contact with the scanner, preferrably with the sky in it, and look at it with a strong magnifier to see if there is anything on the film. This just doesn't seem normal and takes away from the beautiful picture.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

WOW! Kathy, I think you will be out enjoying that camera so much, you will be hard to find. That's gorgeous!!!

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Oh wow! Very, very nice. You should have a lot of fun with that. Hard to beat a Hasselblad. Thanks for sharing.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

I have a 500C that I loaned to a relative years back that I never got back. If he still has it, I am thinking of getting it back and getting a digital back. Have you considered this option?

Fredstersphotos Loc: Long Island NY

Nice image!

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

Very nice! Which Hasselblad did you use? My daughter wants one in the worst way. I've been keeping an eye out for a nice, low mileage 501cm. Is there another model she might be happier with. I just don't know, having been a Nikon shooter for many decades.

elee950021 Loc: New York, NY

[quote=AzPicLady]On Wednesday I took the new Hasselblad with a roll of Ektar 100 out to the river to see what the Hasse would do with my favorite local mountain. I got the roll developed that afternoon by TCR and came home with the negs to do the scanning. Ever since then I've been working to clean up the dust spots. (That's why I don't like scanning!) I found a spot where I could get some foreground interest in the frame for Cany143. The resulting TIFF is 201 mg. Sort of large, no?
I think this camera is a keeper. It's easy to use and gives pretty nice results. What do you think?[/quote

AzPicLady!

Just a couple of random thoughts. I have 2 Hasselblad 500c bodies and 80mm lenses as well as a 150mm. I have several 12-exposure backs and one 16-exposure back. Most 6x6 images get cropped, either horizontally or vertically. This is my favorite back and I find I don't need the full real estate of the full 6x6 frame when I convert to digital. If you intend to continue further with film and you can find one at a decent price I would recommend getting one. These days they are getting more expensive!

Generally, I also prefer using transparency film!

It would be helpful if you could post the same image but with the dust spots unretouched so we can see the extent of the artifacts and try to provide a solution. If you also hold the film negative up to an overhead light or a lightbox or even your cell phone with a white or slightly off-white screen, with a loupe, you can see how clean the original negative is.

It might behoove you to get relatively less expensive, "low-resolution" scans of a 120 roll of negatives when first getting the film developed to eliminate that possible source of the artifacts. Even low-resolution scans of medium format 6x6 negatives have decent workable file sizes. A 35mm image has 864 square millimeters while a 120 image has 3136 square millimeters in film area. A 120-image file is 3 1/2 times the size of a 35mm one when dpi remains the same. This would confirm that the film was truly clean when processed. Another idea is to use an anti-static brush and/or cloth as we did back in the day of wet labs while handling film negatives.

My guess is that the sealed inside side of the glass of your scanner on which you place the film negative is dirty, however lightly it may be. If it is, it might be a pain to get access.

Be well! Ed

eric from Maine now Washington State

20 years ago, I was using an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner to scan 120 negs and it also did a surprisingly good job on 35mm negatives and slides. As you have discovered, dust spots were a major problem, especially when there was low humidity as in cold weather. A utllity called Silverfast from Lasersoft easily and quickly fixed the problem (except with Kodachrome slides.) I checked, and it is still available at $49 with a free trial prior to purchase. It saved me hundreds of hours back in the day, and, in some cases, it will do repairs - such as scratches that you just can't do on your own.

LeRoy V. Loc: Oro Valley, Az

Great shot I would say Great camera 📸 but it's the person behind the camera that creates the results

Tonytee Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

Beautiful work here Kathy and looking forward to many more of your works of art. Many thanks for sharing.

Tony :))

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Nice, Kathy, nice!

levinton

So marvelous!
My blad story: was photographing annular eclipse with a 5” reflector with a focusing screen. Sun was perfect with solar rim. Squeezed the trigger…nothing. Again.. nothing. My 6 yr old says “dad”. Again nothing. “Dad!”. “Dad, pull the thing out!” Pulled out the protective slide..bingo. Perfect bw shot! “Thanks, Nathan!”