Hasselblad A16S - anybody still uses it?

[eli griggs]

Is there any superslide mounts anywhere at any price??

You might try experimenting with a Circuit Maker 3 (the strongest machine cutter in that line) and various card stocks, together with Scotch double stick tape.

I suspect these will be easy to make in larger sheets, as the machine can make perforated cuts, straight cuts, and use pressure stylist to emboss fold lines in each slide.

If I try this my self, I'll post my results.

 

[BrianShaw]

[regarding V notches on 16S back] From looking at pictures on ebay... no.

I seem to have not looked with a keen eye. It appears that the notches are on the 16S (4x4) back.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I seem to have not looked with a keen eye. It appears that the notches are on the 16S (4x4) back.

View attachment 336116

Thank you, Brian!
Mystery solved!

 

[MattKing]

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.

Just in case you weren't aware, 46mm film was available in long rolls - it was used in environments like high volume portrait studios, before 35mm took over that role.
It may very well be that that was the purpose of Hasselblad A16S backs - to allow those working with long roll 46mm film to shoot short rolls, for things like testing.

 

[eli griggs]

Just in case you weren't aware, 46mm film was available in long rolls - it was used in environments like high volume portrait studios, before 35mm took over that role.
It may very well be that that was the purpose of Hasselblad A16S backs - to allow those working with long roll 46mm film to shoot short rolls, for things like testing.

The A16 I have is a 4x4 cm image on 6x6 film, this gives 16@ 4x4 cm frames, no on 46mm film.

 

[MattKing]

The A16 I have is a 4x4 cm image on 6x6 film, this 16@ 4x4 cm frames, no on 64mm film.

Understood - but the rationale for the A16s may very well be that it permitted the creation of 4x4 images on short rolls for those who needed to test their setups - lighting, etc. - prior to loading a long roll into a camera designed to take hundreds of photos on 46mm film.

 

[eli griggs]

Understood - but the rationale for the A16s may very well be that it permitted the creation of 4x4 images on short rolls for those who needed to test their setups - lighting, etc. - prior to loading a long roll into a camera designed to take hundreds of photos on 46mm film.

Did Hasselblad ever make a long roll 46mm film back?

 

[MattKing]

Did Hasselblad ever make a long roll 46mm film back?

I don't know, but these backs could be used for this sort of testing whether or not the production camera involved anything Hasselblad.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’d be more inclined to take Hasselblad at face value that the intent of the 16S back was for superslide production on 120 film and the Hasselblad platform, not anything more. The usage for 16 smaller square images on 120 film using the Hasselblad platform is a reasonable usage for anyone wanting to do that. But other than that, it seems like just idle speculation without much supporting evidence.

 

[Hassasin]

I’d take Hasselblad at face value and bet that the intent of the 16S back was for superslide production, not to much more. The usage for smaller square images is a reasonable usage for anyone wanting to do tat. But other than that, it seems like just idle speculation without much supporting evidence.

Would agree there. It probably was (maybe still is) that if one intends to end up with 40x40 image, it ought to be framed in camera like that. With old good film pricing I would have zero reservations getting more serious with super slide the "proper" way, as image feel/quality from projector is quite different from 35mm frame. With enlargements I don't see a point vs. 6x4.5.

I now have one coming as price was attractive enough to play around with it, and indeed make some scans/prints edge to edge with that extra empty unexposed space.

 

[eli griggs]

What is being missed about the A16 series backs, is that the 127 film, format is, beside the ability to extend the 120 12 and 24 frame rolls by two-thirds, 33.3%, they give what was for a long time, the very popular choice of 4.5x6cm and 4x4cm framing of the 127 cameras that were so much more popular than 135mm for decades, which Hasselblad also made.

The fact that Hasselblad recognized the need for a 127 frame size., either for the pleasure of, savings or, business requirements of studios and clients, such as art directors, news papers, magazines, etc, simply shows that the market for such formatting was large enough and demanding enough, to justify the production of these popular backs.

If anyone whom dislikes or will no use their A16 back, I would be glad to receive it, and use it, as long already do with my own A16 4x4 CM back.

6x6 CM, aka, 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 inch's, are no the only useful, desirable, worthwhile medium format and this forum's pages are filled with the praise of those other choices.

Why should anyone have bought an other, format camera, just to use some of those alternatives to 6x6?

 

[MattKing]

A trip down the rabbit hole resulted in information about Hawk long roll 46mm motor drives for RB67s - but sadly no hints about there being such a thing for Hasselblads.

 

[itsdoable]

Rick Nordin's compendium does not list a 46mm film back, but it does list a 35mm panoramic film back that was based on the 70mm back.

The 16S backs were made for superslides, using chrome film for projecting. Superslides could be projected in a normal 35mm projector, and 6x6 projectors were pretty rare. If you had a project that required projection, superslide were a step up from 35mm slides. If you needed to give a presentation of your hasselblad images, the 16S back allowed you to make superslides of your work for projection at a better quality than 35mm (since your 6x6 images could only be reporduced at 24mmx24mm on 35mm film). Ofcourse you could just use your 645 back and cut and mount your slides, but mounting your own slides takes a lot of time (BTDT), so it's preferable that the lab who processes your film does it. By shooting it on the 16S, there is no question of what to cut and mount on the superslide.

 

[eli griggs]

A trip down the rabbit hole resulted in information about Hawk long roll 46mm motor drives for RB67s - but sadly no hints about there being such a thing for Hasselblads.

Perhaps a third party made such a back for group portraits, like sports teams, school photos, and similar.

 

[Hassasin]

Rick Nordin's compendium does not list a 46mm film back, but it does list a 35mm panoramic film back that was based on the 70mm back.

The 16S backs were made for superslides, using chrome film for projecting. Superslides could be projected in a normal 35mm projector, and 6x6 projectors were pretty rare. If you had a project that required projection, superslide were a step up from 35mm slides. If you needed to give a presentation of your hasselblad images, the 16S back allowed you to make superslides of your work for projection at a better quality than 35mm (since your 6x6 images could only be reporduced at 24mmx24mm on 35mm film). Ofcourse you could just use your 645 back and cut and mount your slides, but mounting your own slides takes a lot of time (BTDT), so it's preferable that the lab who processes your film does it. By shooting it on the 16S, there is no question of what to cut and mount on the superslide.

For sure there was never a 127 compatible back, and good point about using A16S when lab was doing processing/mounting.

I only wished for 127 film choice and adapting this back to shoot with it. Of course there were a few super nice 127 cameras that could use some too. But that is a wish that will not materialise.