Hasselblad A12V Back

[Sirius Glass]

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?

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.

 

[Luckless]

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.

Well that's kind of my point - If it was just a standard 6x6 back masked to 645, then why market it as a whole new back? Logistically and marketability it feels like a designing it as a swapable functionality as part of a refresh of the standard back would be more appealing, even if you had to buy the mask as an additional optional accessory.

A slightly larger horizontal feed 645 back sounds more appealing if I had a really pressing desire for portrait 645 frames out of a hasselblad while not wanting to rotate the camera. Even if it meant buying an additional grip add-on to maintain halfway comfortable handheld use... [Never found a hasselblad to be the most comfortable to handhold in general, but at least they aren't the worst I've ever held.]

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[mshchem]

Who am I to judge the rationale of wanting weird backs. Not once but twice I owned the Bronica 135W backs, one for the ETRSi, and on another occasion for a SQAi. Why I didn't just mask or crop? Who knows. When I didn't have money, equipment was expensive, and I had to make house payments, I was more disciplined. Now that the market for professional analog equipment has bottomed out,........Time to go Nuts!

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

True I have always use a prism finder.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[mshchem]

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. .

 

[Sirius Glass]

I got rid of my Bronicas so I could concentrate on my Hasselblad collection. .

The smartest post I have seen on this thread.

 

[mshchem]

The smartest post I have seen on this thread.

"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. . And Zeiss makes the best lenses on the planet.

 

[guangong]

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.

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.

 

[mshchem]

I have a couple RZ 67II cameras and almost all the lenses. The camera wasn't so big 20 years aqo . I still love the Mamiyas. I have a couple Hasselblad cameras as well, these cameras are so nice. The Acute-Matte screens are amazing, the optics are just astounding, period. With modern film, I can do anything I need to do. The design is perfect, like a Porsche 911, it just doesn't get any better for my taste.

I have 3 Fuji 6x9 rangefinders too. The cameras I'm most likely to grab and go.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

Funny yet common how we all, with varying frequency, go hyperbolic, making statements that in reality hold no water.

There is no perfect format. No matter how many paintings one studies, their format was a result of either whatever canvas they had on hand, or whatever shape fit their vision. In the end they fit the work to the canvas they started on. There is no metric consistency in the shapes used, let alone historical use of them having any bearing on what is or isn't visually correct. We could start the same argument about say so-called Rembrandt lighting or perhaps more importantly, the golden ratio.

Also, to state that square provides most freedom with, better yet, most economical use of film, I have no idea what that means. What freedom and what economy are we trying to prove by saying so? Both are purely subjective but not lonely attributes to making a negative format choice, When film on hand is at premium (sticking to MF) 645 becomes far more economic. If enlargements are part of the decision making and best detail is needed, 69 or wider format might be at the front. Then work with format to fill the frame as best possible with the composition.

If that purported freedom of square is to mean freedom of cropping afterwards ... any format can be cropped to any other, so in that sense it's moot at best. although one might argue rectangle gives far more post session cropping freedom.

I agree with Serius though that square does not prevent making a great composition within it, with no plans to change it later into a different shape. It still might happen, but there are tons of square compositions with high visual impact that completely defy the argument of format in itself being limiting.

Add to that the subjectivity of what is or isn't visually striking to any observer and/or critic, and you have a barrel full of personal opinions, most similarly valid as they are invalid.

 

[guangong]

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.

 

[John Galt]

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.

^^What SG said^^
I do this often, a little awkward at first but comes easily with a bit of experience . . plus you get 16 images instead of only 8
However, a prism finder is a must if you go this route.

 

[John Galt]

The smartest post I have seen on this thread.

Har!!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

You may have missed the point that for decades Hasselblad advertised that "Square is the perfect format."

 

[abruzzi]

Hmmm, don’t really remember seeing many square paintings in the Uffizi or the Hermitage...

 

[MattKing]

Hmmm, don’t really remember seeing many square paintings in the Uffizi or the Hermitage...

Whereas the in the Record stores and CD stores (you remember those, don't you), the square format was everywhere.
The format that works for you is the one that fits best into your workflow and the intended use for the results.
In the days when customers wanted 8x10 or a 5x7, and labs needed help when you needed to have the negative cropped to the aspect ratio needed, a different aspect ratio negative was really handy.
I never worried about wasted film real estate when I cropped negatives to the aspect ratio needed. Film is cheap and accessible, at least compared to the time and effort needed to move from the negative to the final result.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

You may have missed the point that for decades Hasselblad advertised that "Square is the perfect format."

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.

And then there are even more in all other formats and in between.

I like square just like any other format, because I enjoy what I see within them not around them.

All of it proves only one thing - it is the vision and pointed composition that makes an image not the format it was shot in.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

 

[abruzzi]

Sorry, and that proves what exactly? Nothing wrong with emulating some great work, eventually that may lead to some individuality.

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

When shooting a standard 645 back in the vertical position, which viewfinder would be best? Perhaps a 90-degree prism?

 

[mgb74]

(snip) Was there ever a 15 or 16 exposure Hasselblad 6x4.5 back?

There was a C16, and later an A16, that gave 16 6x4.5 exposures in a horizontal perspective. It came with (or they were available separately) a clear acetate "mask" cut out for the 6x4.5 frame; it was mounted on top of the focus screen. While clear, the mask was visible enough to aid in composition.

There was also a 16S back that gave 16 4.5x4.5 exposures. I believe intended for "superslides".

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

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.

Can't crack a joke at VH stuff, afer all it was devised and produced in the same country that awards that N prize to some strange people.