Hasselblad A12V Back

[Arthurwg]

Anyone have a Hasselblad A12V back? That's the one that shoots 645 vertical images, but only 12 to a roll. They seem to be quite rare. I want one.

 

[BrianShaw]

Me too. But in the rare situations where they become available I’m never willing to pay the price. I guess I don’t want one that much after all...

 

[mshchem]

These are very, very hard to find. The A16 backs are quite common. Good hunting!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why not just install a mask over a regular A12 back? Or, even easier and maybe better, install the mask on your viewing screen and crop in the finder, and then again on the negatives when printing or scanning.

 

[BrianShaw]

Why not just install a mask over a regular A12 back? Or, even easier and maybe better, install the mask on your viewing screen and crop in the finder, and then again on the negatives when printing or scanning.

All quite possible! But it’s also about possessing something that’s as rare as hen’s teeth.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why not crop after the film is developed? That will not change the amount of film used and you may change your mind on the composition later.

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, of course you can make a vertical image from a cropped square, but there's something about a vertical rectangle that seems desirable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, of course you can make a vertical image from a cropped square, but there's something about a vertical rectangle that seems desirable.

I cannot image what would be desirable about a vertical rectangle when we all know that square is the perfect format.

 

[mgb74]

I still can't see the practical value in this back. You can easily crop 6 by 6 2 or 6x45 vertical. And you don't get four extra exposure like you do with the 645 hasselblad back.

 

[Ariston]

I cannot image what would be desirable about a vertical rectangle when we all know that square is the perfect format.

I think you are forgetting about the circle.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

There is an original Hasselblad mask that can be installeren in the back of the body, from the 501 onwards, just like in the flexbody

 

[BrianShaw]

I still can't see the practical value in this back. You can easily crop 6 by 6 2 or 6x45 vertical. And you don't get four extra exposure like you do with the 645 hasselblad back.

Perhaps this is why they are so rare!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think you are forgetting about the circle.

Really?? How often do you see a circular frame? When was the last time?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Really?? How often do you see a circular frame? When was the last time?

When I mount a to ‘short’ focal or go to far in the mouvements on my optical bench camera...

 

[guangong]

Square may be a very good choice for MF image on film, but somewhat too balanced for dynamic composition. Square is essentially static. The square’s strength lies in the ability to crop in order to establish a stronger frame. There are times when square serves a purpose. Same can be said about circular and oval frames. In this respect, MF has advantage over smaller formats because more negative can be sacrificed and still retain a superior final photograph. 35mm requires greater attention to make whole negative count. Very little cropping possible with Minox.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Really?? How often do you see a circular frame? When was the last time?

Sirius, once in awhile I see a circle within a 35mm frame when someone used one of the older fisheye lenses. These may have been called circular fisheye lenses. I recall a Nikon 220 degree lens in the Ai era - staggeringly expensive. I am not sure how practical they were, but they existed.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I still can't see the practical value in this back. You can easily crop 6 by 6 2 or 6x45 vertical. And you don't get four extra exposure like you do with the 645 hasselblad back.

Well, you will have all that unexposed film space either side of the frame for notes and those whatifs: what if composed to the left a bit, what if composed to the right a bit ... etc.Mother nature talking to you through this set up, allowing to hope that image could have been better, just your framing wound up being a complete mess ... possibly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Square may be a very good choice for MF image on film, but somewhat too balanced for dynamic composition. Square is essentially static. The square’s strength lies in the ability to crop in order to establish a stronger frame. There are times when square serves a purpose. Same can be said about circular and oval frames. In this respect, MF has advantage over smaller formats because more negative can be sacrificed and still retain a superior final photograph. 35mm requires greater attention to make whole negative count. Very little cropping possible with Minox.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, once in awhile I see a circle within a 35mm frame when someone used one of the older fisheye lenses. These may have been called circular fisheye lenses. I recall a Nikon 220 degree lens in the Ai era - staggeringly expensive. I am not sure how practical they were, but they existed.

But those are not circular frames and besides someone offered the Hasselblad Fisheye to me at a price that I could not refuse. It is a fisheye in a square frame, the way a fisheye lens should be.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Square may be a very good choice for MF image on film, but somewhat too balanced for dynamic composition. Square is essentially static. The square’s strength lies in the ability to crop in order to establish a stronger frame. There are times when square serves a purpose. Same can be said about circular and oval frames. In this respect, MF has advantage over smaller formats because more negative can be sacrificed and still retain a superior final photograph. 35mm requires greater attention to make whole negative count. Very little cropping possible with Minox.

Sounds completely backwards. Square can have a lot of strengths and shooting it to crop is not ECO friendly either, all that silver dumped for nothing ... and likely not recovered.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

For those square challenged, I refer you to the Hasselblad Forum magazine. While Hass itself is not on my stop list any time soon, I do like good picture pubs, and this magazine went ... duh ... all square (and then some, after that other camera was marketed from Hasselblad).

But my curiosity has built since this thread started: 6x4.5 back with vertical aspect intent and loss of film in the process? I have one explanation: thinking film storage and normally going square, this thing will cut and store the same as square frames, just more blank unexposed real estate. Am I onto something here?

 

[MattKing]

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?

 

[Luckless]

I'm also curious what the typical use-case for such a back would be.

I can see value in a 'vertical 645' back that mounts such that it takes a vertical negative rather than landscape, but why design it for reduced exposure count?

 

[MattKing]

why design it for reduced exposure count?

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.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I'm also curious what the typical use-case for such a back would be.

I can see value in a 'vertical 645' back that mounts such that it takes a vertical negative rather than landscape, but why design it for reduced exposure count?

I don't think it was possible to take same length roll of film and increase shots with vertical being as wide as as square frame. Film still travels the same way.

Where is he who interviews those who know the answer behind this?