The Hasselblad can be rotated 90 degrees easily, unlike some other MF SLRs, so there is really no need for the A12V, when the 645 back is used. So film is not wasted.
The only rationale I can think of for an A12V back would be for use in something like a department store portrait studio. By forcing the photographers - some of whom might have had relatively little training or experience - to fit the composition into the exact aspect ratio that the studio's systems required.
Was there ever a 15 or 16 exposure Hasselblad 6x4.5 back?
It may simply be because there is no need to change anything in a standard 6x6 back except the film gate and the label on the back - no difference in winding or in the frame counter.
It may have been used mostly with bodies that had a waist level finder - those bodies aren't as easy for most to use rotated.The Hasselblad can be rotated 90 degrees easily, unlike some other MF SLRs, so there is really no need for the A12V, when the 645 back is used. So film is not wasted.
It may have been used mostly with bodies that had a waist level finder - those bodies aren't as easy for most to use rotated.
I got rid of my Bronicas so I could concentrate on my Hasselblad collection.So it seems that only Arthur and I are interested. That’s great news. Thanks for not crowding the field when the next one pops up on eBay, ladies.
I got rid of my Bronicas so I could concentrate on my Hasselblad collection..
"The" smartest! That makes me a genius. Of course I started with Hasselblad, then went to Bronica for the TTL flash, then I was reminded how much I despise flash. And came back to the True Path.The smartest post I have seen on this thread.
I do not know what problems you have making dynamic compositions in a square frame. Many world renowned artists have done that for hundreds of years and I certainly do not have a problem doing it either. Perhaps you need to visit some art museums or take an art appreciation class or history of art class.
Funny yet common how we all, with varying frequency, go hyperbolic, making statements that in reality hold no water.While there are times when a square frame has been used, if you would actually take the time to actually look at paintings, etchings, etc when visiting museums rather than being dogmatic about the Square frame, you would discover that square makes up only a tiny minority of works. Are all of those other artists just ignorant because they didn’t use square canvases or square etching plates?
As for the square format of your and my favorite camera, if the square is perfect, it’s because it permits the greatest freedom with the most economical use of film. Although often a pleasure to use, I consider my 67 and 69 cameras to permit less flexibility than my Hassy or Rolleiflex.
^^What SG said^^The Hasselblad can be rotated 90 degrees easily, unlike some other MF SLRs, so there is really no need for the A12V, when the 645 back is used. So film is not wasted.
The smartest post I have seen on this thread.
I don't think we're on the same page. Format does not matter at all and there is no such things as perfect format, all I said. Just think about that PERFECT part, the evil of human imagination.While I pointed out that there are successful creative use of the square format, the vast majority of pictures hanging in museums are not square. With respect to photography, although a photographer may have one idea of how to frame a scene, whether square or some other proportions, there is enough room on 66 square negative to decide later that a different frame would work better than originally intended. This ability to adjust the frame thin one negative rather than using multiple shoos is what I meant by square being economical. Changing the proportions of a frame is not so unusual in the world of painting, and there are plenty of paintings hanging in museums where the artist later added canvas or cut picture down. Fashion photography was the heyday for both Rolleiflex and Hasselblad. Just how many square fashion illustrations have you seen?
35mm, 645, and 69 come closest to classic golden proportions for picture frames (but like all such frames, not pedantically followed by every artist), and I do shoot these formats also. Each has its strong points as well as weak points, but for myself, I tend to compose for full frame when using these formats. For scenic vistas, nothing beats 645 (20 pics to a roll), or 69 (big negative), Of course, everybody has their own preferences for how they work and what they shoot. Enjoy what you do.
I don't think we're on the same page. Format does not matter at all and there is no such things as perfect format, all I said. Just think about that PERFECT part, the evil of human imagination.
And most certainly there is no freedom or film economy in shooting square any more than there is in any other format. The intent at shooting stage brings on freedom and/or economy.
Whereas the in the Record stores and CD stores (you remember those, don't you), the square format was everywhere.Hmmm, don’t really remember seeing many square paintings in the Uffizi or the Hermitage...
Surely they did, how else would they promote their system. And in the process they present a lot of great squares. I have the Hasselblad Forum magazine, some 2 years worth, Andre Kertesz Polaroids is pretty much all square,there are other great square works.You may have missed the point that for decades Hasselblad advertised that "Square is the perfect format."
Sorry, and that proves what exactly? Nothing wrong with emulating some great work, eventually that may lead to some individuality.Hmmm, don’t really remember seeing many square paintings in the Uffizi or the Hermitage...
Sorry, and that proves what exactly? Nothing wrong with emulating some great work, eventually that may lead to some individuality.
(snip) Was there ever a 15 or 16 exposure Hasselblad 6x4.5 back?
To be clear here, personally i was coming from the square argument perspective as there are many cameras that do that not just Hasselblad. If you check out my comments on that H topic, you will see what I mean.it proves that very little art was created in the square format until the 20th century. (It was also a joke aimed at the Hasselblad self love that seems to be emulated by certain memebers of the forum, but clearly no one here has a sense of humor.). I’ll shut up and go back to my Bronica while all you folks on this thread argue home much it’s worth spending on a film back that wastes 30mm of film with each shot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?