What do i need for 6x4.5 PORTRAIT with 503CX??

Hello, I use a Hasselblad 503cx with a 80mm and a 180mm. With the standard view finder. My work are

mainly portraits or Fashion shoot for magazine and catalogs, and often find the 6x6 images i submit being

crop to fit standard magazine page.

 

So my aim here is to shoot 6x4.5 image plus increase the number of frames to 16 per roll, to be more

cost effective of cause. So my questions are what Back do i need exactly? And is there any equipment i can

replace/cover my screen so to limit myself to the 6x4.5 image area?

 

Thanks, any information much appreciated.

Kevin,<br><br>You need an A16 back. It takes 16 frames (hence the name) of 6x4.5 format in horizontal orientation.<br><br>A16 backs originally came with transparant viewfinder masks that show the baoundaries of both 6x4,5 and 4x4 formats, and are put on top of the focussing screen. When you get an A16 used, chances are the mask is not supplied with it, but they are not too hard to find separately. <br>You could also use a Hasselblad focussing screen with grid lines, since the grid lines show the frame boundaries too.<br><br>To shoot vertical frames you will need a 90 degree prism finder too. Impossible to do without one.<br><br>There once briefly was an A12V back available, that took only 12 vertical 4.5x6 frames on a roll. But since it did not offer any economic gain (no increase of frames per roll), people rather continued to crop 6x6 if and when needed.<br><br>And that - cropping 6x6 - is still a good way to produce non-square rectangular frames. Never a need to turn the camera. Film is not that expensive. And you can provide crop instructions (or instructions not to crop) with your images. Or crop them yourself before you submit them (in digital form, i.e. scanned, anyway?).<br>;-)

Quote :

"And that - cropping 6x6 - is still a good way to produce non-square rectangular frames. Never a need to turn the camera. Film is not that expensive"

 

I totally agree with this and besides, even with a 90deg. prism, holding a "cube" tilted sideway is an ergonomic nightmare : nothing falls under your fingers.

 

Paul

I'm sure the magazines and catalogs appreciate the cropping flexibility of the square

format. That's what it's designed for, unless like me you really like the square format.

 

I can't imagine holding a hasselblad on its side to shoot, even with a 90-deg prism. For

me the reason to go to 'blad was for the square image, though I know not all publications

will want that. But by cropping the square you can have vertical or horizontal images in

whatever aspect ratio you want.

 

If you must have 6x45, I would switch to another system. But really the film savings aren't

that much, and my real suggestion would be to get some a24 backs. Can't imagine

shooting fashion with only 12 frames/roll when you have the option of 24.

I also went hassey so I would not have to rotate the camera....fell in love with square.

Re A24 backs: they are very cheap nowadays. And that is because 220 film is hard to find, and only available in two, or maybe three different emulsions. So the "option of 24" is not really an option anymore. :-(

I had an opportunity to step outside the usual bounds the other day, and lived to tell the

tale :-)

 

It turns out that a Hasselblad with 45 degree prism works just fine turned on its side if

you've got a grip like the Winder CW. It's a little odd for the first minute or two getting

used to looking in a different direction than you are pointing the camera, but no more so

than initially learning to track a moving subject with a waist-level finder. I had to shoot

over a fence which was too high for me to use the camera in the usual fashion (with the

camera over the fence, I wasn't tall enough to see through the viewfinder, but not an issue

with the camera on its side). I was able to track my subject matter (young animals

scampering about) with no appreciable difficulty and operationally it was just like shooting

an SLR - albeit one made out of cast iron instead of polycarbonate :-)