Hasselblad A12V Back

[AnselMortensen]

Score!

 

[Hassasin]

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

True they are rare, because nobody wanted them. And just like Rolleiflex had its own for the SL66, strange things are made by otherwise smart engineers

 

[AnselMortensen]

True they are rare, because nobody wanted them.

They weren't very forward-looking...
WE want them!

I found a workaround by using A16 and A32 backs with an eye-level finder...with the camera on its side.

 

[etn]

True they are rare, because nobody wanted them. And just like Rolleiflex had its own for the SL66, strange things are made by otherwise smart engineers

Given that an A12V just crops the film but does not save any, as has been amply discussed at the beginning of this thread 5 years ago, I can understand why nobody wanted them back then. This was before the collector hype...

 

[Hassasin]

Given that an A12V just crops the film but does not save any, as has been amply discussed at the beginning of this thread 5 years ago, I can understand why nobody wanted them back then. This was before the collector hype...

Whoever made a call to produce them had some serious brain disorder.

 

[MattKing]

Whoever made a call to produce them had some serious brain disorder.

They were probably designed to fit well into a specialized production setup for high quantities of portrait or other fixed aspect ratio photography.
Something like ID photos using a motorized body with a WLF, where the resulting negatives were printed quickly by a highly automated printer.

 

[Hassasin]

They were probably designed to fit well into a specialized production setup for high quantities of portrait or other fixed aspect ratio photography.
Something like ID photos using a motorized body with a WLF, where the resulting negatives were printed quickly by a highly automated printer.

That's possibly one option, still, every one I have come across (three) for sale was virtually unused.

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, this one is virtually unused. Too bad they didn't make one for 220 film. And I'm still hoping for that...

 

[MattKing]

That's possibly one option, still, every one I have come across (three) for sale was virtually unused.

Probably because the ones that were used, were used to death!
The years I spent working in retail included some experience with a few specialized accessories that sat on the shelf or in the stock room for ever! The ones you encountered were probably of that nature.

 

[Arthurwg]

Somehow I like the idea of shooting the proper format rather than cropping. And the 645 horizontal back shot vertically would require a 90 degree prism finder.

 

[MattKing]

Back in the day, the pro lab I dealt with would have had to make a decision on where to crop if I requested 4x5 proofs from 6x6 negatives - most likely they would have given me just the centre 80%.
If I had been shooting in volume, with a power winder incorporated Hasselblad with a WLF, I would have preferred to only give them negatives that they didn't need to make that choice.

 

[BrianShaw]

Back in the day, the pro lab I dealt with would have had to make a decision on where to crop if I requested 4x5 proofs from 6x6 negatives - most likely they would have given me just the centre 80%.

In my day, my lab would return a 4x4 proof on a 4x5 paper unless otherwise specified. I generally used aperture cards when I needed specific cropping. I would have stopped using your lab...

 

[MattKing]

Their standard was 5x5 proofs - which I was entirely happy with!
The 4x5 proof from 6x6 option was for studios that had a big stock of 4x5 proof books for clients, and didn't want the clients to receive the little 4x4 images.

 

[BrianShaw]

Their standard was 5x5 proofs - which I was entirely happy with!
The 4x5 proof from 6x6 option was for studios that had a big stock of 4x5 proof books for clients, and didn't want the clients to receive the little 4x4 images.

I understand the type of lab you used. The lab I used most often was a "wedding lab" but they wouldn't make cropping decisions when a proof was requested. They insisted on negs mounted on aperture cards for both cropped "proofs" and final prints. They distinguished between photographer proofs, full frame, and cropped proofs that the photographer would provide to their customer. I never met a professional photographer that would turn over such decisions to their lab, even though I'm sure that the lab I used would have make decent cropping decisions. But all that is in the distant past...

 

[Don_ih]

I don't know of any 645 enlarger negative holder in that orientation. You'd need to mask a 6x6 holder or make one.

While Matt's idea that it would be used for high-volume portraits that get machine printed is possible, the exact same thing could be done with a regular 6x6 back.

I used a Hasselblad and a 645 back for portraits - camera on its side, used a chimney finder. It was a horrible experience.

Perhaps the Hasselblad commanders said to the Hasselblad corps of engineers, "People want a 645 back. We need to make a 645 back." And that's what the hapless fellows made. Later, the commander came back and slapped each of them on the back of the head.

 

[BrianShaw]

...high-volume portraits that get machine printed...

Crop/Negative cards?

Where can I find some? (in 35mm) Surely somebody still makes them. Google was no help on this one!

www.photrio.com

 

[BrianShaw]

Somehow I like the idea of shooting the proper format rather than cropping.

You are not alone in that preference. One "rumor" I've read is that the A12V was intended as a convenience for shooting photos intended/formatted for magazine covers.

 

[MattKing]

While Matt's idea that it would be used for high-volume portraits that get machine printed is possible, the exact same thing could be done with a regular 6x6 back.

From the photographer's perspective - yes.
But the lab equipment used back then would be prone to skewing the auto exposure/colour balance results if there was a bunch of extraneous, outside the desired image area negative space. Which in turn would lead to a lot of manual interventions and needed re-prints.
This was an ecosystem that was volume and speed oriented - and minimizing costs while giving high quality, repeatable results was important. A definite niche.

 

[Don_ih]

But the lab equipment used back then would be prone to skewing the auto exposure/colour balance results if there was a bunch of extraneous, outside the desired image area negative space.

So you're saying it would work better if there was 7.5mm of transparent film on either side instead?

 

[MattKing]

So you're saying it would work better if there was 7.5mm of transparent film on either side instead?

Only because they would be using it with the 6x4.5 masks on the machine printer, which in turn would have been set to advance the film by the standard distance for 6x6. Those high volume proofing machines were pretty fancy!

 

[AnselMortensen]

As someone who shoots and prints full-frame with borders, having the 2 notches would be kinda cool.

 

[Don_ih]

Only because they would be using it with the 6x4.5 masks on the machine printer

So, in other words, they could just use the regular 6x6 back.

 

[MattKing]

So, in other words, they could just use the regular 6x6 back.

If the specially setup proofers were designed that way - but they weren't.
Remember which way the 6x4.5 proofer masks were normally oriented in the printer, and which way 5" paper would have run through them. Now consider that they would have had to use different 6x4.5 masks and 4" paper instead, because of the orientation of the image on the film. The blank parts aren't between the frames, they are beside the film rebates.

 

[Don_ih]

Yes, in other words, if they wanted the 6x4.5 strip in the centre of the 6x6 frame (whether it was banded on the sides by unexposed or exposed film), they'd need to use the exact same masks. So, it wouldn't matter if they used this bizarre 12V back or the regular 12 back to take the photos.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, in other words, if they wanted the 6x4.5 strip in the centre of the 6x6 frame (whether it was banded on the sides by unexposed or exposed film), they'd need to use the exact same masks. So, it wouldn't matter if they used this bizarre 12V back or the regular 12 back to take the photos.

If they used the bizarre one, and they wanted something in portrait orientation, the camera would be upright, and therefore usable with the WLF.
Even the 45 degree prism finders favor that approach, for those users who wanted the camera directly on top of the tripod or other support.
All of these concerns being considerably more appropriate for something like a department store portrait chain with tethered processing then for most people on Photrio.