ww12345

Woah!! Would he do it on an aftermarket plate or did you ask? Otherwise, who else comes close to replicating the look?

Ah, I knew there was a reason my gen gilt dials looked like they do... How much was your dial, and did he require a gen plate or would he do it on a rep base?

OK, I knew that was too good to be an off-the-shelf dial.

I wonder where BigDazza was getting his dials? Maybe now that he's out of the mod game he could tell us? His, while not perfect (like that beautiful cc33 dial) were still pretty good/close.

Hmmm... Well, depending on the text of the HR one, I'd maybe go with that. The problem that I see with most of the gilt dials is that the text doesn't look pad-printed, but instead looks like a gold-colored laserjet printing.

Ah, interesting. I may have to pick up a set (or two) of the TC hands then...

Ooh - what dial is that?

Cool! I'm kind of itching to start a 3,6,9 project of my own...

Beautiful! Isn't Whoopy's dial amazing? It just oozes gen, more than any other aftermarket dial... I've got to get mine lumed properly like yours... Also, why did you go with TC hands? Just curious - I went with Clarks but I know there are certain tells with each handset, and wondered what the pros/cons of the TC hands are.

Do you have pics of each dial? I'm not sure all the members here (myself included) know exactly which dials you're talking about...

Lol at the one-piece-at-a-time remark... That's actually a great list and falls pretty much in line with my values...

Well that's the squinky one... I wonder if he would tell us where he sources his? If so, maybe we could get a 20mm non spring from his supplier?

Ok, I'm going to look into it... If anyone else comes up with anything I hope you'll let us know...

Damn it. Now my insecundercovops (or whatever the stupid acronym Ipcress used was) secret identity is out... Hahaha

Ok, I know this is technically a Hasselblad 500C instead of an EL500, and a Distagon 50 instead of a Biogon 60, but it's one of the lenses I had with me on vacation (leaving the way more expensive 60 at home) and the general premise is the same. Hyperfocal focusing (those red tabs) tell you everything is in focus from 3ft to 10ft at f22: Stopped down to 5.6 everything from 4ft to 6ft is in focus: Still at f5.6 but now everything from 8ft to 30ft is in focus: And finally, at f16 (the highest probable setting they would have used) everything from 5.5ft to well past infinity is in focus:

I'd be down for a group buy, or trying to source them from the manufacturer.

Oh, that's right - unless you intend on going gen-like bezel assembly, don't mess with it. IIRC, I had to have JMB mill a new retaining ring that would work with the PT bezel and the case, because I thought a Clarks T39 would just plop right in... It doesn't without a little elbow grease and a new ring, just as an FYI. However, do put the gasket in underneath the existing ring if you plan on getting the watch wet at all. While it has all the proper ring spots, it doesn't include all the rings. :S

Well, I sent him a message: "Do you have this in 20mm? Also, do you have it without springs? Thanks!" and here's what he said: "no and no - thank you" So that sucks. :S I don't know if that means he's getting more in, or if he's done, or what...

I have a PT 1665 that I had modded. Overall, I was happy enough with it OOB, but there were some things (like the yellow markers) that drove me crazy. That's why I had the dial replaced with an InGod dial, and the crown changed to gen, but other than that it was a pretty good rep overall... Maybe an MBW would've been nicer, but the 1665 had all the gaskets in the right spot, so it tested waterproof for as far as my watchmaker's tester would go. I'd say go for it - it was a cheap rep and was pretty easily modded.

Well I call dibs on your next white 1016, JMB...

Yeah, plus the astronauts were using pretty narrow apertures (f5.6 up through like f11, which on MF cameras is similar to f8 through approx f22) so depth of field, combined with the lovely 60mm Zeiss Biogon (equivalent to about a 35mm or 40mm lens on small format 35mm cameras, so just slightly wide angle without any distortions like the 40mm or 50mm Biogon that Zeiss also made for Hasselblad) and there would have been no focus problems whatsoever. Actually, that's something I forgot to mention: you know the lovely "out of focus" or "bokeh" areas in most studio portraits, where the background becomes very painterly and "blurry"? Almost impossible with a wide or even semi-wide angle lens. The wider the lens, the more stuff is in focus. It's why I don't like using 35mm in street situations - everything is in pretty sharp focus without me even trying... So, when the astronauts were using their slightly wide lens, they would have had more difficulty getting things out of focus than they would have getting everything in focus.

It's kind of interesting, in a sick way, like watching a train wreck... You can't believe it will go any further and then it does...

Aargh... OK, just to clarify (again) about the Hassys used on the moon. You mentioned that they had no visual references for the cameras, and how they focused a MANUAL CAMERA to get sharp results. It may surprise you to know that many people, including myself, can manage to operate a camera without any kind of automated anything. Matter of fact, I don't own a camera with auto anything - my newest camera is a 1984 FM2n that has exposure guidance. Other than that, pure manual all the way. The Hassy they used was very much the same - no exposure control and as you pointed out, no focus aids. Here's the thing, though - most "true" photographers don't need any of that. As a matter of fact, it gets in the way. A lot. You wind up chimping to what the camera is telling you to do rather than focusing on composition. Also, a good portion of photographers (myself included) use the "no viewfinder 'zone focused'" camera when doing street photography. What one does, is through a series of pretty basic math calculations and the scale gauge on the lens, set it to include, for example, everything from 5 to 15 feet in focus, or everything from 10 feet to infinity in focus. After you've set the focus, you just hold the camera at approx. chest level, pretend like you're messing with settings, and snap away. That way, the people you're photographing have no idea, and you get genuine street scenes. This is how many photographers from the first half of the 20th century photographed - zone focusing - and that is how the astronauts photographed. It doesn't take skill, and actually can be done by pretty much anyone. Also, Hasselblads are pretty easy to focus, and they sold 2 or 3 different focus levers if you felt it was too difficult. However, the astronauts didn't even have to do that, as the Hassys they took were heavily modified to have 3 zone focus tabs that just clicked into position. Easy-peasy. Furthermore, yeah, the TV pictures sucked. The TV pictures sucked of the Beatles' first concerts too. I didn't once think the Beatles never toured... TV quality in the '60s was just not what it is today. HOWEVER, a Hasselblad and Ektachrome are still two of the highest quality photographic materials, and the original pictures (which you can view at full resolution at the LOC site) are definitely a testament to that. George and Victor definitely spent good money researching so that they could provide the best quality materials to the general public as well as professionals. Have you ever shot a camera? Like, any kind? (I mean manual, pre-1985 so you can see what the older cameras felt like to operate - definitely not hard, so I'm pretty sure even you could do it).

That's how I am. I was out of the thread for quite a while, then I thought, "What the heck - let's see what else the comedy show has to offer..."

Haha - I looked at that first link and they've clearly never shot a Hasselblad. I'm also an amateur/serious photographer, and I have the same model and lens as was used on the "Lunar" model (see, Ipcress, I even used quotes, just for you...). Anyway, That first picture is almost identical to a shot that I took of a female model one time - I made the mistake of shooting around noon or one o'clock and thought everything was good (as the Hassy viewer is not 100%, but more like 85-90%) and when I developed the negatives I got that funky flare look. True, the Hassy has a pentagonal shutter in that lens, but that's only when it's stopped down to maximum (IIRC f22 on that particular lens - the shutter is a part of the lens). If you shoot anywhere around f8 (which was standard for news and reporting agencies - the motto "f8 and be there") the lens does not make any kind of non-spherical flare pattern...