Just bought 500 C/M with A12 -- worth buying A24 etc?

[vince-p]

<p>Hi. I'm new to MF -- I have a Mamiya 7 which I like for walking around and have just bought a Hasselblad C/M with which to get serious -- I'd love to learn good portraiture.<br>

I notice many A24 and A32 and other size backs for sale. I assume the A24 takes 220. My camera will come with an A12 back, which I assume takes 120. What are the other sizes for?<br>

Also, I intend to do almost all black and white, and process myself. I see there are no longer available any 220 b&W print films whatsoever (I read some of the MF Forum discussions from last year on this topic.) So really then I have no reason to own an A24 or larger back is that right?<br>

Are there polaroid backs for Hasselblads?<br>

For now, I gather it would be best to own and load two or three or four A12 backs for quick changes.... yes?<br>

Thanks for all advice to a newbie.<br>

Vince P</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There's also an A16 (645 for 120) and A32 (645 for 220). There are also a couple of Polaroid backs, but I haven't seen Polaroid film for several years now. If you want a test shot, use a DSLR. There are very few choices in 220 film these days. If you want another magazine, it doesn't hurt to have an extra A12 or two. I see little need for quick changes, unless you are shooting prom pictures. In that case, I'd rent a digital back. It is handy to have several backs for different film types, though.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Polaroid doesn't make instant film anymore, but Fuji does. So you can still load and use Polaroid backs. Not that i think it worth the bother (but better than using a DSLR for tests - changing to a completely different camera system will not show what - if anything - will go wrong using the camera you are going to take the photo with).<br><br>As you have noticed, 220 film is very rare. Only a few colour emulsions still (!) available.<br>So if you don't use any of those, you would indeed do better spending your money on a couple of extra A12 backs.<br><br>The back naming system is based on the number of frames a roll will hold: 12 6x6 for 120 film, 24 6x6 for 220 film, 16 6x4.5 on 120 film, 32 of the same on 220 film.<br>70 on 'regular', cassette loaded 70 mm film (the system isn't applied to some of the other 70 mm backs though). And so on.<br>The variation in backs extends beyond 220 and 120 and the A12, A24, A16 and A32: there was an A12V back (6x4.5 vertical on 120 film), an A16s back (4x4 "superslide" on 120 film), A70 backs in a number of versions (6x6 on 70 mm film, but also in a variant that does 6x4.5 on 70 mm film, and a version that doesn't use casettes and puts 100 to 200 frames - depending on how thick the film is - on a load), a huge A500 70 mm back that takes full 30ft rolls, an A3220 back (produces vertical 24x56 mm panoramas on 35 mm film). And of most versions without the "A"utomatic stop at frame 1, and some with electronic contacts that transmit ISO values (and some also Zone-setting values) to metering electronics in 200-series cameras.

[guy_e]

<p>With regard to a Polaroid back, as Q.G. said Fuji still makes instant film, FP-100C, FP-100B, and FP-3000B (available in the U.S.) I've also imported the Silk version of the 100 color (from the UK), as well as the 400 b&w (from Japan). I really really like the 400 - I wish they'd sell it domestically.</p>

<p>As far as using instant on a Hassy, I had a Polaroid back for my 501cm, and honestly, it just didn't have the level of quality I wanted. Images always came out too blurry / fuzzy, and the size was actually quite a bit smaller than I expected (it wasn't the full 60cm x 60cm). It was also off-center, which annoyed me a bit. I mainly use my RZ67 + Pola back to shoot instant, and get much sharper, fuller size (and centered) images. I would say if you can find a cheap enough back then it's worth it to play around with, but you may find the quality isn't on par with shooting film. (I tend to shoot instants as a final product, not as a way of metering, which was how most pros used them back in the day).</p>

[sallymack]

Hi,Vince, having an extra 120 back or two (or more) can be useful, as you mention, for quick changes, depending on the

type of shooting you do. I've been happy to have an extra loaded back when natural lighting has changed quickly. It's

extremely useful in the rain. --Sally

[q.g._de_bakker]

The Polaroid backs weren't really used instead of a meter. Would have been extremely expensive.<br>They were used to make sure that surprises that would show on film, when that came bac from the lab, would be caught before the image was recorded on film. Things like cables or other thingies cutting into the frame where they should not. Or indeed light: but not the level, but the way it fell on the scene, unwanted shadows, and such.<br>And to show art directors, clients and other people who demanded to, to see what the photographer was doing. A dubious thing: if they think they can judge an image better than the photographer, why don't they grab a camera and create it themselves?<br><br>But anyway: yes, an instant film image doesn't fill the entire instant film, but it does pretty well fill the entire '6x6' frame, Guy, which on film too isn't 60 mm (a 60 cm square camera would be something. ;-)) but only about 56 mm square. As full size as you can get on a '6x6' camera.

[sfcole]

<p>I'd say have an extra back because backs are not simple mechanisms and can fail or leak light. I've had at least one repaired.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>If you use C-41 colour negative film then a 220 back is useful. Kodak & Fuji still make it.</p>

<p> I used mine for 220 B&W TXP but it is now discontinued so I don't use my 220 back much at all. Fuji still makes 220 E6 film but I'd expect it to go away in the next couple of years.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

One thing to research before deciding to get an A24 back also is the cost of 220 film and having it processed.<br>What's keeping me from using it more is that from where i can get the film, one roll of 220 film costs more than two rolls of 120 film. And for processing one roll of 220, i'm charged exactly double the costs of processing one roll of 120.<br>So it's more expensive to use 220 film, and that means i only consider it for trips where reducing the amount of rolls in the bagage counts, and i don't get to process any of it until back home again anyway.

[sfcole]

<p><<I'm charged exactly double the costs of processing one roll of 120.>><br>

Same here. Isn't that frustrating? Seems to go against most other consumer items/services.<br>

220 would still be the way to go for weddings, though, regardless of processing cost.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes.<br>I could live with the same-per-frame processing costs. But that an economy size film costs more than the equivalent in small size films is why i tend to order 120, and why my 220 backs are mostly left unused.

[keith_pitman]

I don't use the single A-24 I own and would gladly sell it.

[vince-p]

<p>Keith<br>

That's nice but now I've learned that I should not buy it....</p>

<p>Vince</p>