Hasselblad A12V Back

[mgb74]

It seems almost all the non-photographic artwork I have in my home is rectangular, not square, format. I point that out because the artist certainly had the flexibility to paint in square or rectangular format - but they chose rectangular. Maybe they thought it suited their subject better; maybe they thought it would be more salable. I don't know.

I bet more 6x6 Hasselblad photos were cropped to rectangular format than left square. Just my guess. And yet, of the photos on my walls, just short of half are square format IF you exclude people photos.

But the whole square vs rectangular format is awfully pedantic unless you're talking about a specific image. Do what you're comfortable with. Or maybe do what you're uncomfortable with.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It seems almost all the non-photographic artwork I have in my home is rectangular, not square, format. I point that out because the artist certainly had the flexibility to paint in square or rectangular format - but they chose rectangular. Maybe they thought it suited their subject better; maybe they thought it would be more salable. I don't know.

I bet more 6x6 Hasselblad photos were cropped to rectangular format than left square. Just my guess. And yet, of the photos on my walls, just short of half are square format IF you exclude people photos.

But the whole square vs rectangular format is awfully pedantic unless you're talking about a specific image. Do what you're comfortable with. Or maybe do what you're uncomfortable with.

+ 1

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It seems almost all the non-photographic artwork I have in my home is rectangular, not square, format. I point that out because the artist certainly had the flexibility to paint in square or rectangular format - but they chose rectangular. Maybe they thought it suited their subject better; maybe they thought it would be more salable. I don't know.

...

To this one I'd say it is quite common to see square art work these days. Having gone to several galleries over the course of 2019, square was there and one did not have to look for it. Times change, Leonardo is long gone.

 

[Luckless]

At one point all art was scrawled across cave walls, and then we advanced to having our art neatly contained in some kind of framing.

Just because old art failed to make an advancement in the past does not mean more modern solutions aren't an improvement... It isn't their fault for not discovering the truth if it wasn't yet common knowledge...

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

I believe one of the focusing screens with a grid has lines both horizontal and vertical that define 645.

 

[Arthurwg]

I bet more 6x6 Hasselblad photos were cropped to rectangular format than left square. Just my guess. And yet, of the photos on my walls, just short of half are square format IF you exclude people photos.

Funny. I often crop my 6x7 and 6x9 images from other cameras into a square, selecting a composition that I like.

 

[guangong]

The frame was the great invention of Western art. A pictures dynamic composition depends upon how the content and elements of a pictures structure depend upon how they all relate to the frame. Drawing and painting have more control over the dynamic structure within a picture than photography (except for set up still life).So although snapping a shutter to capture an image requires less effort than using brush or pen, achieving a well composed final picture is much more difficult. G.B. Shaw remarked that the odds for a successful photograph are similar to salmon mating upstream, about 1 in a 1,000. His odds may be too good. Nonetheless, the pleasure of photography is the quest. Feinenger’s book Total Picture Control isn’t completely accurate since, excerpt for adjusting scene in viewfinder, we usually are unable to control the total scene.
This does not mean that all unsuccessful photographs are bad pictures. Like hunting and fishing, one doesn’t need to catch a trophy to have a pleasant day.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The frame was the great invention of Western art. A pictures dynamic composition depends upon how the content and elements of a pictures structure depend upon how they all relate to the frame. Drawing and painting have more control over the dynamic structure within a picture than photography (except for set up still life).So although snapping a shutter to capture an image requires less effort than using brush or pen, achieving a well composed final picture is much more difficult. G.B. Shaw remarked that the odds for a successful photograph are similar to salmon mating upstream, about 1 in a 1,000. His odds may be too good. Nonetheless, the pleasure of photography is the quest. Feinenger’s book Total Picture Control isn’t completely accurate since, excerpt for adjusting scene in viewfinder, we usually are unable to control the total scene.
This does not mean that all unsuccessful photographs are bad pictures. Like hunting and fishing, one doesn’t need to catch a trophy to have a pleasant day.

Of course by saying all this you are treading the oceans of personal preferences and subjectivity. What is awesome to one could as well be dumpster worth to one other. And I'm not sure what you mean by composition relating to the frame. Is that a frame in virtual sense, the outskirts of a composition, or a physical frame in which a piece of work is mounted? Lots of so-called frame-less paintings everywhere, so no defined perimeter to contain the image, yet nothing seems to be out of place, falling off the cliff ...

As for having or not full control in a medium of photography, and outside of staged scenes, we still have plenty of space to move around and relate compositional pieces to one another in a multitude of ways. Sure there is a difference from graphical arts etc. yet if one is after a specific perspective, dimensional relations within and so forth, a lot of times this can be controlled quite successfully.

 

[guangong]

The frame consists of the edges of the picture, thus containing all aspects of the picture and controls the dynamics of the picture. The principles of composition are not personal whims but well established principles. In the 1950s and artist took photographs of the scene for Cezanne’s landscape paintings. He discovered that in order to improve the dynamic composition, Cezanne moved mountains, streams, trees and whatever else he considered necessary. As photographers, unless doing still life and posed portraits, do not have this freedom, we must shoot what is there. Stepping a few yards one way or the other

As for having or not full control in a medium of photography, and outside of staged scenes, we still have plenty of space to move around and relate compositional pieces to one another in a multitude of ways. Sure there is a difference from graphical arts etc. yet if one is after a specific perspective, dimensional relations within and so forth, a lot of times this can be controlled quite successfully.[/QUOTE]

The frame consists of the edges of the picture, whether simply the rim of a canvas, lines drawn on paper or the blades of a darkroom easel. This frame controls the dynamics of composition. This is not subjective whim, but based upon well established principles. In mid 1950s an artist used his Hasselblad to photograph the scenes of Cezanne’s landscapes from where Cezanne stood to paint them. He discovered that Cezanne had no qualms about moving mountains, streams, trees, forests and whatever else necessary to strengthen his composition. The photographer does not have this ability and stepping a few yards one way or the other doesn’t cut it. Except for still life and posed portraits, as photographers we are dependent upon the scene as it is, whether street scene, wildlife or landscape. Color is even more difficult because there is no ability to control color harmony.
But photography does have something that other graphic arts lack, and that is the ability to capture the real world in a way that is unique to itself.
This whole discussion began with the assertion that square pictures are the most perfect, while I feel that generally speaking a square 66 negative permits greater freedom to determine a pictures final frame. And also, because all sides of a square are even, a dynamic composition is extremely difficult (but not impossible). The reason Rolleiflex and Hasselblad dominated fashion photography was because there was more negative to play with doing layouts. It’s an all round format. Recently for slides I tend to shoot 645 ot 67 (69 would be better still but a projector would be beyond my means).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The frame consists of the edges of the picture, thus containing all aspects of the picture and controls the dynamics of the picture. The principles of composition are not personal whims but well established principles. In the 1950s and artist took photographs of the scene for Cezanne’s landscape paintings. He discovered that in order to improve the dynamic composition, Cezanne moved mountains, streams, trees and whatever else he considered necessary. As photographers, unless doing still life and posed portraits, do not have this freedom, we must shoot what is there. Stepping a few yards one way or the other

As for having or not full control in a medium of photography, and outside of staged scenes, we still have plenty of space to move around and relate compositional pieces to one another in a multitude of ways. Sure there is a difference from graphical arts etc. yet if one is after a specific perspective, dimensional relations within and so forth, a lot of times this can be controlled quite successfully.

The frame consists of the edges of the picture, whether simply the rim of a canvas, lines drawn on paper or the blades of a darkroom easel. This frame controls the dynamics of composition. This is not subjective whim, but based upon well established principles. In mid 1950s an artist used his Hasselblad to photograph the scenes of Cezanne’s landscapes from where Cezanne stood to paint them. He discovered that Cezanne had no qualms about moving mountains, streams, trees, forests and whatever else necessary to strengthen his composition. The photographer does not have this ability and stepping a few yards one way or the other doesn’t cut it. Except for still life and posed portraits, as photographers we are dependent upon the scene as it is, whether street scene, wildlife or landscape. Color is even more difficult because there is no ability to control color harmony.
But photography does have something that other graphic arts lack, and that is the ability to capture the real world in a way that is unique to itself.
This whole discussion began with the assertion that square pictures are the most perfect, while I feel that generally speaking a square 66 negative permits greater freedom to determine a pictures final frame. And also, because all sides of a square are even, a dynamic composition is extremely difficult (but not impossible). The reason Rolleiflex and Hasselblad dominated fashion photography was because there was more negative to play with doing layouts. It’s an all round format. Recently for slides I tend to shoot 645 ot 67 (69 would be better still but a projector would be beyond my means).[/QUOTE]
The times when art was controlled by theories and ideoligies are long gone. Always good to study classic art and draw some influance from there. There was nothing petect back then, nor is it today. Art will remain subjective and victim of interpretation. We`re trying to prove our doctorate paper here, this is far looser in intent. What drives a viewr's mind wins, and then loses with another who became bored instead.

This thread did actually start with perect square, it kind of got thrown in there, which was expected given the Mr. Hasselblad was the virtuoso of photographic engineering from the start.

Freedom of composition is what one allows it to be. Breaking cliches, including in art, moves us forward, the photographer and the viewing public. I don't care much for art critics, they have their own agenda.

This kind of discussion belongs in a dedicated thread, we're stealing it from OP and expanding on topic that was not asked.

 

[etn]

But the whole square vs rectangular format is awfully pedantic

There's worse: film vs digital

 

[BrianShaw]

There's worse: film vs digital

And almost as bad: color vs B&W.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There's worse: film vs digital

Worse: Posts calling for the return of Kodachrome

 

[Arthurwg]

Just a reminder: Ansel used a Hasselblad almost exclusively for the last 20 years of his life, but you'll be hard pressed to find a square picture. Virtually all were cropped into a rectangle, including one of his most famous, the vertical shot "Moon and Half Dome." Oddly I did come across a few square Ansel pictures in his book on color photography.

 

[kahlheins]

Regarding the topic of this thread: I recently talked to a Hasselblad Technician who services cameras and scanners and has been doing his job for decades. He said the A12V is the only Hasselblad Item he had never seen, so I guess these are quite rare

 

[Richard Man]

I saw one for sale once, for $2000. That apparently is the going rate. So a collector item.

 

[Arthurwg]

I've only seen one on Ebay a few years ago. It was NOS, and the guy wanted $500. I thought that was too much at the time. Now I wish I had bought it.

 

[kahlheins]

I started digging a bit as well and saw one sell for €1500. Seems to be a fairly desirable collectors item.

 

[eli griggs]

|I believe I saw one of these listed at KEH.com for $1000 plus, though it might have been at MidWest Cameras.

Good luck.

 

[etn]

€1500 / $2000 ? that's crazy. I hope it comes with a matching focusing screen!

Come to think of it, give me the money - I'll send you one of my 6x6 backs with a pair of scissors (at this price, you'll even get my best looking A12N with box!)

 

[xmishx]

To the OP,

I found mine on eBay about 6 months ago. Turned out there was an issue internally, so I got 75% off after I got it. I am finally getting it repaired, full CLA and new light seals for $175. I totally get you in regards to having the A12V. Also, the v notches are where they are supposed to be.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Alright, so now that someone here has the completely useless A12V, has anyone here managed to nab the even more useless A32?

 

[bmw760]

hello
I have it.

I tried to swap it to a 6x6 frame , it cant be done.
The 6x45 frame plate is unremovable.

 

[polka]

One day, a long time ago, I found for a reasonable price a "Rolleikin" kit (which was complete, that's not frequent*).
This kit lets one use 35mm film in a Rolleiflex with "portrait" orientation, and as for 35mm the 75mm focal is a slight telelens, thus this kit seems ideal when you have to do a lot of portrait work. But for the moment I used it only once (for testing it). Besides, my rolleiflex is a "T" model, which lets install a 645 cache with landscape orientation and take 16 pictures instead of 12 on a 120 roll (this, I used a lot more - for color slides ; when you make a slide show, it is IMO better that all slides share the same orientation - and preferably landscape).

* complete is not frequent because these kits need to modify your camera (easy to do) but often when the cameras are resold, the modification remains on the camera and the rolleikin kit misses the modification piece of hardware : so, the camera has a modification that has no use, and the kit is unusable. So, when buying such a kit BEWARE !

POLKa