No, never used a 16S or 16 back (yet) but occasionally think about getting one. Made a lot of superslides, though, using a Rollei TLR, a long time ago. Beautiful format in its day.
Composing in 4x4 or 645 is no different from composing in 6x6, really. If your eye is calibrated to the larger format in specific lenses you might need to take a step or two backwards to get the same image. No big deal. Adaptation happens quickly. Just like using both a 35mm camera and Hasselblad in the same session… not a whole lot of confusion results.
Which to get, though, requires thinking more about end goal than “wasting” film. 16S limits one to square format. A life sentence but not all that horrible… just smaller than a 12 back and “not worth it” if not making superslides. The 645 gives more format flexibility, and a bit of a chance of cropping in the long direction when cutting the superslide. I remember appreciating that advantage. (Rollei only has a 645 option).
For me the only advantage of 16S over a16 back, and not enough to incentivize me, is the lower price that seems common.
If I were to do superslide again, I’d make a viewfinder mask and crop a 6x6 rather than buy a separate back. Unless someone offered me a back for really inexpensive.
Wide superslide??? That sounds like a 645 transparency to me. It's completely do-able but how will you frame it? I used Gepe frames, mostly the ones with glass as the superslides pop quickly in a projector, and they came in many different formats. I'd bet that they had a frame for wide superslide. Not sure if htey are still in business, though... or that superslide frames of any kind are easily available.
EDIT: I'm incorrect about Gepe, it seems, they currently have a 645 slide frame; but their catalog once was much broader than now
OK...I thinkI understand you now. To me it's a good plan to shoot "wide" and cut to square superslide if that's the end product you want.
BTW, the Gepe page I linked may be an illlusion. I found it by searching "Gepe slide mount" but it does not link from their current main page. Seems like that product line is historical now. Being incorrect two times so quickly must meant hat I should step away from the computer!
Anybody know if the 4x4 image from an A16S has the two Hasselblad v-notches?
Configuration appears quite similar to other backs, so I would say it does. How does that matter is another discussion. Mounted it will still be hidden.I thought about getting one to use for cropping for distant subjects, and still have a "full-frame" image, but gave up on that idea a long time ago...
Anybody know if the 4x4 image from an A16S has the two Hasselblad v-notches?
The real advantage is the 16 and 16s allow for 16 frames of 4x4 CM and a mask will keep you at 12 frames spacing, wasting the savings in shootable film which is in many cases, simply foolish, if you can afford either 16 back.
IMO
I thought about getting one to use for cropping for distant subjects, and still have a "full-frame" image, but gave up on that idea a long time ago...
Anybody know if the 4x4 image from an A16S has the two Hasselblad v-notches?
Back to your post, as I have just realised something. It is now on my mind, but did you ask about the "v-notches" with intent to print these images "full frame" so the notches would show up in print? I'm intrigued by this idea.
The real advantage is the 16 and 16s allow for 16 frames of 4x4 CM and a mask will keep you at 12 frames spacing, wasting the savings in shootable film which is in many cases, simply foolish, if you can afford either 16 back.
IMO
Yes, that was my intent...to print full-frame with v-notches...distant subject with a 250mm lens, cropped in-camera.
You would get a unique large space on both sides of the frame, 6x6 gives you somewhat equal strip around.Which begs the question, why not just use the 6x6 format? There are slide machines that handle that size. Exactly why would someone want to waste film, especially after all the threads and posts complaining about the price of film and processing?
You would get a unique large space on both sides of the frame, 6x6 gives you somewhat equal strip around.
No question the back was meant for super slides, with still somewhat questionable logic, in times when film price was hardly a concern. I wish there was 127 in bulk, so this back would have made a lot more sense for playing around. But that would have required 127 film in bulk and at cost savings attractive enough to make sense of extra work involved in spooling own rolls. And this is not the case or will it ever be.
The reason for 4x4 is for supersides that can be shown on a 35mm slide projector, but it one has a Hasselblad and shoots slides, then a 6x6 aka 2 1/4" 2 1/4" slide project would be preferable.
Is there any superslide mounts anywhere at any price??
Is there any superslide mounts anywhere at any price??
The reason for 4x4 is for supersides that can be shown on a 35mm slide projector, but it one has a Hasselblad and shoots slides, then a 6x6 aka 2 1/4" 2 1/4" slide project would be preferable.
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?