Many people look at those great photos in the ads in the photo magazines and think:

"If only I had an XYZ camera or lens, I could take great photos like the ones in these ads..."

Hah! You probably believe that the photos were actually taken with the lens or camera as advertised. In at least some, and probably many cases, they weren't. Surprise!

How can I say this? Every once in a while, the magazines and advertisers screw up. For example, a recent issue of Outdoor Photographer ran two ads for lenses in which the marketing agencies used the same exciting photo to sell lenses made by two different companies. Oops! Which lens took the photo - the Nikon or the Sigma? How about neither, maybe it was a Minolta, or even a Hasselblad lens and camera?

Stated another way, those ads are put together by marketing types, not photographers. They select photographs from stock photo agencies, just like they do for other ads. Those stock photos are probably not even listed in the stock company's database with the type of lens or camera that took the photo, let alone the settings. So even if they wanted to, the stock companies can't provide a photo of a given subject by the lens or camera or film that took the photo. And why should the marketing types care, since they think you can't tell anyway, right?

The "Vees" refer to a set of small triangular or "vee" shaped notches cut in the edge of Hasselblad backs. Some folks claim they are there to celebrate Victor Hasselblad, the founder of VHB Hasselblad and designer of the original Hasselblad camera series. But I think the real reason those "Vees" are there is to enable art directors to tell whether or not you used a professional model Hasselblad camera and Zeiss lenses to take your photos. So the art director doesn't have to worry whether they are paying $250 each for photos which you took with a $49.95 Lubitel TLR. 

Now when Q.G. de Bakker was looking at the edges of the photo examples showing in a Bronica ad, guess what he saw? That's right, those tell-tale Hasselblad "Vees". And needless to say, Bronica doesn't put those "vees" in its camera backs, nor does anybody else when making their backs. So you can be rather certain that the photo in the Bronica ad were taken with a Hasselblad back. Since the Hasselblad backs aren't compatible with a Bronica body and Bronica lens, you can be pretty sure the photo was taken with a Hasselblad body, lens, and back. So we have ads for Bronica which use photo(s) taken with a competitor's camera and lens(es) [i.e., Hasselblad]. Surprise!

So keep your eyes peeled. My Bronica backs also have a distinctive corner notching which makes them easy to pick out in ads too.  Koni-Omega Rapid 200 models have notches you can adjust to let you identify which body or back took any given roll of film, making it easy to locate problems with light leaks without further testing too. In fact, I find it much easier to identify which camera took a given slide in my collection from these distinctive markings around the edges of the film, than I do from the quality differences in the photos themselves. 

Ads Apologists

But in reality, our cameras or light meters would just adjust the aperture or shutter speed selections to provide the right amount of light for the slower speed film. Even if the print film were under-exposed by one stop in a meterless camera, the minilab color printer would just automatically compensate in exposing and making the print. So most photographers upon reflection would probably conclude that the ad makers must have fiddled with the final prints to make such a dramatic difference so readily visible.

I also believe that these kinds of magazine ads help foster the view that the cameras, the film, the flashes, and the brand name film processors are all perfect. So any problems with the final prints must be the fault of the consumer, right? If your photos are too dark, it isn't because your peanut sized flash is way under-powered, or the processing machine was setup wrong, but because you must have picked the wrong film.

A followup poster cited another Kodak ad which showed plainly better grain and image sharpness using the Kodak film against competitor's films. But the ad didn't specify if the competitor's film was the same film speed, or subject to identical processing or whatever. If you actually compare and select films of the same speed and type (e.g., ISO 100 daylight C41 print films), you can't fail to be impressed by how competitive modern films really are. Yes, you will see subtle differences in color renditions and shadow details. Grain may be slightly different, but it usually takes my 15X or stronger loupe to begin to see these differences. 

Forget about seeing such subtle differences in films with a side by side small size print comparison in a magazine ad reproduction. Any competent printer can fiddle with the magazine printing process to trash the quality of one print against another. So such comparisons are questionable unless you have the actual prints in hand. 

Which raises the question: How can the Kodak films be so superior, and we users are only just seeing it now in these ads? ;-) I use a lot of Kodak print film, and even more film from their competitors. How come I haven't seen such an obvious difference in my photos? 

The answer may be that the ads are biased outrageously in favor of the promoted film product(s). The failure to specify the film types used in comparison are just one tell-tale signal of such biases. If they stated they were comparing their ISO 100 film against Konica's ISO 1,000 film, they and the photo magazine would get letters complaining about the idiocy of such a comparison. Similarly, if they claimed the competing film was say Fuji ISO 100 film, the magazines would get letters complaining about the botched processing self-evident in these biased ads. So they just don't tell, and hope we will be fooled into thinking the ads are telling the truth. Duh!?

 

Classic 1970's Bronica Ads - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
The Good	The Bad	The Ugly

Ads so Bad They Killed the Product Line

Consider the psychological impact of reading these quotes from the later Bronica EC ads:

Most 2 1/4 SLR systems haven't kept up with the needs and demands of today's photographers. And the pros have just had to learn to live with it....

Does that make you wonder why you are considering buying a 2 1/4 SLR or what? How about this line?:

Before you sink a lot of money into a 2 1/4 SLR system that was designed 17 years ago, try the modern one. The Bronica EC. Also, check out the famous Bronica S2a. Rugged, reliable, and versatile, it accepts the same great lenses as the EC....

Okay, now which one do you want - the newer design electronic Bronica EC, or the older and "famous" Bronica S2A - you know, the rugged, reliable and versatile Bronica model. If the Bronica S2A is the rugged, reliable and versatile model, doesn't that make the newer Bronica EC the less rugged, less reliable, and less versatile model in the back of your mind?

The next Bronica EC ad starts with a large type headline that reads:

The 2 1/4 SLR. Why some people "play it safe" and get Stuck.

So, if you're planning to invest in one, you'll probably ask around and rely heavily upon the recommendations of other photographers. Which might lock you into a situation you can't afford to be in!

Once you're committed to a fine 2 1/4 SLR system, you can't afford to compare it with any newer, more advanced systems. You'd lose too much in a trade.

Seems to me I would be worried about getting into a 2 1/4 SLR and a locked into a situation you can't afford to be in where I might lose too much of my investment. I sure wouldn't want to get stuck with a 2 1/4 SLR after reading this ad! I think I will play it safe and stick with my 35mm SLR.

As bad as these later Bronica EC ads were, my favorite "bad" ad was the later Bronica S2A fishmarket ad. The ad starts out:

I got up at 3:30 a.m. to get down to the fish market in time to set up, and look around before shooting. When the editor assigns you a spread on a fish market, you keep fishermen's hours.

Wow, doesn't that make you want to drop out of photography altogether? The rest of the ad was worse. Dull photos of guys moving boxes of fish around. The worst photo of all was the glassy eyed dead fish staring up at you from a bed of ice. Who wants to get out of bed at 3:30 AM to take photos of dead fish?

At the same time, Hasselblad was running photos of glamorous female models with long hair blowing in a breeze (in the studio?) getting their pictures snapped by the handsome young male photographer. Now which scene do you want to be in, the fish market and dead fish at 3:30 AM with your Bronica or the pro studio with the slinky models and your Hasselblad? Duh?! ;-)

Hasselblad has always had a terrific marketing and advertising enterprise as a key element to their success in the USA market. But I believe the failure of the Bronica S2/EC line was due more to factors like marketing and promotion than any intrinsic fault in the later S2A/EC Bronica camera design or Nikkor lens lineups.

Not only were the Bronica ads less motivating than the competing Hasselblad ads, but they ran much less often. If you only run a small quarterly ad and a few full page ads every year, you aren't going to get the same sales and promotion effects of a competitor who runs larger monthly ads in the major publications. This shortfall was not the fault of Bronica Japan so much as the limitations of its USA distributor's resources. But the effect of less than thrilling ads run less often could only be lower sales. In my view, these ads contributed to the end of the classic Bronica S/S2/EC product line in the mid-1970s.

Bronica came out with the Bronica ETR, a leaf shuttered 6x4.5cm SLR, in the late 1977 timeframe. The Bronica ETR avoided competing directly with the Hasselblad or Rollei 6x6cm products, and opened up a new range of modern 6x4.5cm SLR electronic cameras. Bronica leveraged this success into its very popular Bronica SQ series of 6x6cm SLRs which had leaf shuttered lenses, but at prices rather less than Zeiss optics for the Hasselblad bodies. Bronica also created a leaf shutter 6x7cm SLR in their GS-1 series, again bracketing Hasselblad's expansion options in with lower cost leaf shutter lensed SLRs both above and below the Hasselblad lineup. When Hasselblad did choose to come up with a new format, they did so with a 35mm film Hasselbald Xpan camera. 

Forget All Those Bad Things We Said, Now That We Make 'Em Again, We Like 'Em Again

Then Bronica abandoned the focal plane shutter 6x6cm SLR market and switched from its Bronica S2A/EC/ECTL models to the leaf shuttered Bronica ETR 645 and SQ 6x6cm SLRs in the late 1970s. So these ads were dropped.

Now it is Hasselblad that has jumped back into the focal plane shutter 6x6cm SLR market with with its Hasselblad 2000 and 200 series cameras. Surprise!

Suddenly Hasselblad found lots of reasons to praise these focal plane camera body designs. After all, you could (or really, really should) buy all those new F series lenses they could now make one stop faster than the older leaf shutter lens designs. The new camera bodies with electronic focal plane shutters were more accurate and provided many useful features too.  Wasn't it time for us Hasselblad owners to run out and buy all new focal plane bodies? 

Stuff You Don't See In Japanese Camera Ads

Some lens ads by Nikon would have you believe that part of the secret of their lenses is that Nikon makes its own glass in inert platinum crucibles. Only that way can they control the quality of Nikon lenses. Wonder what they do with the Nikon lenses made by other manufacturers like Tamron? In practice, most optical glasses are ordered out of a stock catalog from optical glass suppliers like Hoya. The lens manufacturers concentrate on value added lens crafting, rather than making commodity materials like bulk glass (but there are a few specialty glass exceptions for some expensive and specialized lenses still made by the lens manufacturer(s)).

Recently, many diehard Nikon, Canon, and even Leica owners have had reason to be aghast that their favorite camera's lenses were not being made by the parent company at all. In some cases, such as Leica, the cooperation between the Leica and Minolta was well known and not hidden. So many folks know that their Leica CL series cameras may have been made in whole or part by Minolta. But not all big name manufacturers are upfront about who is really making their lenses and cameras being sold under their name. 

So things get much more interesting when say Kyocera, a Japanese lens maker (e.g., Yashica), makes zoom lenses for Leica. If these zoom lenses were sold under the Kyocera or Yashica name, they would presumably fetch lower prices than the same lenses under the high prestige Leica name. In fairness to Leica, I presume that Leica is setting standards and performing additional quality testing that help ensure that these lenses meet its high standards. And it makes sense to me that they farm out these zoom lens construction projects to companies like Kyocera that have much more experience and the tooling and test gear needed to make zoom lenses. And while Leica may not be heavily advertising these facts, they aren't hiding them either, and you can find out with some research (e.g., at their website).

But many Leicaphiles who would normally sneer at a lens made by a third party lens maker like Kyocera are surprised to find they are using a Kyocera zoom lens on their Leica cameras. Similarly, folks who are using the Leica 15mm f/2.8 wide angle lens are surprised to find out it is a rebadged (relabeled) Zeiss lens. In the past, Sigma has made lenses which were sold through Leica.

Don't feel too smug if you use other brands. Rollei had fixed and zoom lenses under its label made by Sigma. Nikon has Tamron made zooms under the Nikon label. Cosina makes versions of the same camera body which is sold as Olympus OM2000, Nikon FM10, Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Vivitar V3000, Ricoh KR5 Super II, and Canon T60 per posters. Electronic flashes are also likely to be farmed out to electronic specialty makers too.

Medium format fan(atics) should also be wary of being too brand snobbish too. Hasselblad has come out with a series of Hasselblad zoom lenses, teleconverters, and lenses for its specialty cameras (including the "Hasselblad" Xpan/Fuji and the Rodenstock lenses for the Hasselblad arcbody cameras). The Hasselblad 2XE teleconverter is the one made with Japanese optics which are assembled in Sweden. The older Zeiss 2X teleconverter for Hasselblad was made by Zeiss in West Germany. Sigma is again the rumored source for a Hasselblad zoom lens (along with Schneider). Those nice Accu-matte bright screens in your new Hasselblad are courtesy of Minolta. And some of those nice Schneider lenses are being designed and made in the USA. Surprise!

Rebadging

However, you can be permitted a smile while reading those ads which praise rebadged products as part of the heritage or lineage of the famous big-name line. While some products may be co-developed, in many other cases they are simply repackaged and rebadged without any design input from the big-name firm's designers.

Digital Ads

Digital ads are so arcane and misleading that they really are in a class by themselves. You often find amazing claims for quality and enlargeability for digital cameras which strain even the imagination. I am not talking 8x10" or 11x14", I mean six feet by 2 feet poster prints from 1.3 megapixel cameras. The cameras and technology are sold as being superior to film in quality, when the reality remains that film still has a substantial lead in the quality department [see Film vs. Digital Quality].

Digital cameras are advertised as being much cheaper than film based cameras, due to the savings on processing and film purchases. But such economic analyses ignore the huge depreciation of digital cameras in the first months and years of ownership. The ads also assume you already have the required computer equipment, including color photo quality printers and interfaces and software. When you buy a digital camera, you quickly discover that you really, really need the latest Photoshop and 128 megabytes of memory with the latest and fastest processor. Your 486SX may be fine for email, but just doesn't cut it as a digital camera and photoshop platform! Soon you will be spending so much time learning Photoshop and buying computer gear that you won't have time for photography. Maybe those are the savings they are claiming you will get from digital cameras? ;-)

So stay tuned, and start saving those outrageous digital camera ads for future laughs.....

Date: Wed Jul 11 2001
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: zeno333@mindspring.com
Subject: Strange Kodak Ad in July, 2001 National Geographic magazine...

Near the beginning of the magazine is an ad for Kodak Max 400 film..it shows a picture supposedly using 200 speed film compared to another picture using the 400 speed film. The 200 speed film pic is darker than the 400 speed film pic.. the ad makes out though that the reason the 200 pic is darker is because of the film speed. Now this could be true if the EV range of the camera is depleted with the 200 speed film, but that usually is not the case...it seems strange that a major principle of exposure is so fouled up on a Kodak ad in National Geographic! In reality the light meter would simply change the settings with the 200 sped film to make the pic look like the 400 sped pic but with different settings...its almost like an de-education attempt or something...just strange.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed Jul 11 2001
From: "J.T. Wenting" jwenting@hornet.demon.nl
Subject: Re: Strange Kodak Ad in July, 2001 National Geographic magazine...

.... (above post quoted)

Kodak is desperate to push their films... Over here they run adds comparing results of Kodak film and other non-disclosed film. No mention of ISO ratings (so they suggest the same). Kodak film is shown as bright colours and sharp, the other as way underexposed and moved.

Outright lies, of course...

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> on the other hand, even hasselblad has to put little vee marks on their
> backs so art directors and buyers will be able to tell you used a
> hasselblad and zeiss optics to make your photos; otherwise, the vast
> majority wouldn't be able to tell, right? Else why the Vees ;-) ;-)? ;-)

Totally off-topic here, sorry, but how about those Vees?

On your truly excellent mega-site you have dedicated some space to Bronica's attempt to battle Hasselblad in their advertising. Very amusing. But i haven't seen any mention yet of the fact that in Bronica promotional material (well, in one proven case, at least (?)) they use pictures taken, not with Bronica, but with Hasselblad equipment... ;-) ;-) ;-)

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica

Tony Polson wrote:

> > But i haven't seen any mention yet of the fact that in Bronica promotional
> > material (well, in one proven case, at least (?)) they use pictures taken,
> > not with Bronica, but with Hasselblad equipment... ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
> Many ad agencies use stock photographs where there can be no guarantee
> that they have been taken using the equipment being advertised.

Yes, i know.

But in this case they had a guarantee that the photo was taken using another brand's equipment. And they made sure we can see it as well.

You would have thought someone down the line would have been smart enough to remove those tell tale Vees Robert mentioned. Especially when this company has been involved in a long running campaign extolling their own brand's gear in a direct comparison to the one having the Vees. ;-)

From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Is Outdoor Photographer magazine pulling a scam? 
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 

This would not be the first time OP has done something like this. The last
time identical photos turned up in a review for Sigma lenses attributed to
one photographer AND in an article about another outdoor photographer who
uses Nikon gear exclusively. They printed an apology in the next issue.

"Oscar" captorb@hotmail.com> wrote..
> The Feb2002 issue of OP has a Canon scanner ad on pp. 10-11 showing a
> digitized picture of the Sierra Nevada. Page 67 of the same issue shows
> a picture of the same place that supposedly was submitted for critique
> by a reader. This appears to be the same photograph with image reversal
> and a cloud filter added by Canon. Any comments?
>
> Oscar
> I love animals too...they're delicious


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002


Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Stephe" ms_stephe@excite.com wrote 
>
>> Lets not forget the wavy edges of a kiev frame  8-)
>
> Really?

Yes really. I suppose they didn't feel having a perfectly flat edge on the
frame was a big concern.

> Anyone have examples of all these different frame shapes?

Many cameras have different "shapes", especially older ones. Also my fuji
rangefinder has a D shaped bump of the edge to show what camera was used.

--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 


> "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote in message
>
> > Does Hasselblad really put those little V-shaped notches in the side of
> > its images to make its cameras distinctive, or is that just an urban
> > legend?  In the former case, what prevents some other company from doing
> > it?  And in the latter case, what purpose do the notches serve?  Is
> > there a technical reason why they are there?  I notice indentations at
> > each corner of the image, too, but I guess those are present on all MF
> > cameras (?).

Mxsmanic's post did not appear (yet) on my newsserver, so i'll attach my
response here.

The two notches are indeed added on purpose to identify Hasselblad
photographs. A marketing thing (which works very well).

And that is precisely why they do not need protection by patent: any other
manufacturer copying them, in doing so, would show themselves wanting to
copy Hasselblad. And if you think and want to convince the general public,
that your product is better than that of any competitor, why copy? Bronica,
always targeting their add campaigns against Hasselblad, once made the
mistake to publish a photo in one of their brochures that show those two
distinct "V"-marks. The message this is sending is that Bronicas aren't good
enough to shoot Bronica brochure photos.

You can carve extra notches to identify individual backs. Can be useful when
problems occur.

The "indentation" is the corner are caused by the (end of the) rollers. They
are indeed present in all rollfilm cameras having a similar roller
arangement.


From: bobjames27@cs.com (Bob Gurfinkel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Mar 2002 
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s

...

At any rate, the real reson for those Vs is that Hasselblad used to run photo
contests

The pictures had to be taken with Hasselblad equipment and  the negatives
provided to confirm that the Vs were there

The grand prize was a Keystone Instamatic camera, as I recall

( just kidding! )

Bob G.


From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s
Date: 27 Mar 2002

brougham3@yahoo.com writes:
>"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> FWIW, Hasselblad answered my e-mail and confirmed that the
>> one and only purpose of the "V" marks in the frame is to
>> identify the resulting negatives as coming from a Hasselblad
>> camera.
>
> You should ask them what's to prevent a knockoff camera from
> doing the same. :)

  You don't even need a camera.  This was taken on the only known
roll of black-and-white Kodachrome 200 in 120 format:

        http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/renbint.jpg

        When I took that, I was inspired by a magazine I get (V†r Bostad,
for fellow residents of Sweden) whose picture editor is in love with
fake film markings and Hasselblad notches.  The magazine regularly has
black and white images with velvia edge codes and images with
Hasselblad 'V's and a full-frame black surround, but aspect ratios
like 6x7 or even 612.  My favorite issue contained an article with
about twelve images where - astonishingly - the photographer had taken
his or her best shots on frame 4 of twelve different rolls :-)

        I have had people tell me - based on the jpg - that the above shot
clearly demonstrated the superiority of Hasselblad equipment.  I smile
and feel good, but for baser reasons than they imagine.  As it happens
I do admire and lust after Hasselblad equipment, but not for the
notches.  Notches I can do myself.

Struan


Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s


FWIW, Hasselblad answered my e-mail and confirmed that the one and only
purpose of the "V" marks in the frame is to identify the resulting
negatives as coming from a Hasselblad camera.


"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote...
> Does Hasselblad really put those little V-shaped notches in the side of
> its images to make its cameras distinctive, or is that just an urban
> legend?  In the former case, what prevents some other company from doing
> it?  And in the latter case, what purpose do the notches serve?  Is
> there a technical reason why they are there?  I notice indentations at
> each corner of the image, too, but I guess those are present on all MF
> cameras (?).


Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
From: milburnedrysdale@aboy.com (Milburne Drysdale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s


For many years I shot with 6 identical (35mm) slr bodies.  I used a
triangular rat-tail file to notch each body's film window with a
unique combo of marks, so that I could tell which body had produced a
given negative.  Helped immensely when problems occurred (slowing
shutter, damaged curtain, or most usually a hair in the frame).

I'm guessing that Victor had filed identifying notches into the
original prototype backs he was testing.  The first prototype to pass
all tests happened to be the one with 2 notches.  Vic handed it to the
production staff, saying "Make 'em all exactly like this".

And they did.  Now it's too late to correct the mistake.

Good thing it wasn't prototype #17, eh?


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Panorama head question

you wrote:
>Hi!
>
>     I'm in favor of presenting the Rollei pano images printed each
>full frame and maybe tightly separated by a black line of a sixteenth
>of an inch or so.  The eye can see it but it's not a bother.  Trying to
>line up camera lens images in pano is pitb, been there.  Rich
>
>Richard Knoppow wrote:


  What I find fascinating are the panoramas in Rollei literature perporting
to illustrate the use of the panorama head. They are completely without any
distortion effects. Either Rollei had a very elaborate method of printing
or (as I strongly suspect) these images were produced with a rotating
panoramic camera, like a Cirkut camera, and not with a Rollei.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: [Leica] Suppressed Brochures

Tim Atherton wrote:
>> Original German-language Leicaflex SL-2 Brochure, the suppressed
>>      ?Nipple' version, Leitz Brochure 111-102, 9/74, E
>>      (have four copies)
>>        40.00
>
>Now Marc, you often seem to sell things that I have no idea what they do,
>but "suppressed nipple version" were words I never thought I would hear from
>Marc James Small...
>
>Is there a secret underground trade in Leico-erotic literature...?

This has been covered before but, yes, this IS a Leica-porn, in a manner of
speaking.  When Leitz introduced the SL-2, the German-language brochure
included a picture of a classical pianist, shot over her shoulder, and
showing her nipples because of the angle of the picture.  E Leitz simply
translated the brochure into English, printed up a slew, and mailed them
off to the New World, where the Ernst Leitz NY folks were MOST upset and
ordered the entire run destroyed.  Thus, these brochures are now rare and
make an interesting footnote to Leitz' marketing methods of the time.

These brochures, incidentally, come from the collection of the late, and
VERY much lamented Bob Schwalberg.

Marc
msmall@infi.net 


From: Niklas.Granhage@hasselblad.se (Niklas Granhage)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: H1 questions
Date: 3 Oct 2002


"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote
> Lassi Hippel„inen wrote:
>
> > ...and does the frame have the Two Notches, without which no Good
> > Photographs can be taken. It would be unpleasant to have one's images
> > rejected, since they have obviously been taken with a Mamiya 645J...
>
> Of course it does have the Notches!

Yes! Of course it does have the Notches!

/Niklas



Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 
From: aoldani@gmx.ch
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Where's the "V"?

Hi Steve,

> a hassy, you'd think I could, at least, get a "V" in my negatives!  :)

There is one, at least with my Xpan. It sits physically in the lover left
part and is only marking the
panoramic format. It is ONE V like dent and not very nicely done. It appears
in the neg/slide then in
the upper right part of it.


Sarcasm: Maybe it is the result of missunderstanding between HB and the Fuji
engineers or just one
of them forgetting optical rules??? Anybody owning the silver Fuji model of
the Xpan to countercheck
if this is only in the HB version or in both?

Best,
Andre


From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does the Fiji-Blad have notches?
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 

 John Stafford  wrote:

> Just curious - does the Fuji-Blad have the famous Hasselblad frame notches?

of course.
;-)

Lourens


From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best Medium Format under $1000
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003

Bob Monaghan wrote
> Oddly, the top rated lenses continue to be Kowa and
> bronica nikkors over rolleiflex and hasselblad zeiss optics ;-) Doesn't
> bother me, as I own all this stuff, so I can pick what I want ;-)

I've had fun with my new Hartblei that uses 'blad backs. When I show the
chromes to the guys at the camera store they look at them with a loupe and
proclaim "Yep I can always spot the quality in the blad lenses.." I haven't
the heart to explain they were shot with an Arsat or God forbid a Mir!
--
Stacey


End of Page