kevin_wong7 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 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>;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polka Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ_britt3 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I also went hassey so I would not have to rotate the camera....fell in love with square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 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. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_palmer2 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 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 :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now