hasselblad Sat, 15 Nov 1997 Volume 1 : Number 10 In this issue: Re: Interested in trading A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? CONTAX USER GROUP? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS & Cropping Masks Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Re: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Wind Indicators Re: Black frame & notches Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:18:57 -0400 From: camera@isn.net (Lionel F. Stevenson) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Interested in trading Message-ID: If I had one, I'd trade it in a minute. What is it anyway? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:29:21 -0400 From: camera@isn.net (Lionel F. Stevenson) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is there a downside to using them? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:31:16 -0400 From: camera@isn.net (Lionel F. Stevenson) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: CONTAX USER GROUP? Message-ID: I'm looking for a Contax G2 user group. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:00:48 -0500 From: Dan Cardish To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971114090048.00898a80@pop.microtec.net> At 09:29 AM 14-11-97 -0400, you wrote: >Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 >pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is there a >downside to using them? > My main problem with using a 16 exp back is that unless you have the proper veiwfinder, it is very inconvenient to use the camera in portrait mode, and this is probably how I would wish to use the camera in about 80% of my pictures. Dan C. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:07:30 +0100 From: Robert Claeson To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <346C5B22.A8A2249C@rc-produktion.se> Dan Cardish wrote: > My main problem with using a 16 exp back is that unless you have the proper > veiwfinder, it is very inconvenient to use the camera in portrait mode, and > this is probably how I would wish to use the camera in about 80% of my > pictures. True. I tried one but bought the new E-24 back instead. The 16 exp backs are really only usable with the PM-90 viewfinder and the new winder with the shutter release button on the 503CX/CW cameras. Unfortunately, I have the PME-51 (considering selling it), the 203FE body and the winder without a shutter release button... Robert ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:23:54 -0500 (EST) From: cmiller@berkshire.net (Curt Miller) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <199711141423.JAA18902@loomis.berkshire.net> >Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 >pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is there a >downside to using them? Well, it all depends. A 90 finder is almost a necessity. When I tried a 16 with a 45 finder, attempts at portrait orientation faieled dismally - you just can't seen to get vertical. It is nigh on to impossible to compose in portrait orientation with a waist level finder! You might consider getting a masking set that prints 4.5X6cm images on the film. You still only get 12 images but film is very cheap, all things considered. This is my method since it helps me when I'm not thinking square. While I know lots of folks can previsualize their cropping right on the square screen, I must admit I'm not that good. Curt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:03:56 -0700 From: genef@strauss.co.symbios.com (Gene Fusco) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <199711141503.IAA11634@exocet.> > Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 > pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is there a > downside to using them? I have 2 A16 backs and one A12 back. I like the 6x4.5 format since most of my subjects tend to fit the "horizontal" aspect better than square or vertical. The extra four exposures per roll is a nice thing, but not the driving factor. The drawback to the A16 magazine is attempting to compose vertically. Very difficult without a non-inverting finder. If I find myself thinking of a vertical composition, I grab the A12 magazine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Fusco | (970) 223-5100 x9404 Gene.Fusco@Symbios.com KB0ZMZ | S/W Development | Why do I take pictures of trains? Symbios Logic | Because they're too big to take home. Fort Collins CO. | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:51:05 -0500 From: Ed Berger To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971114115103.006e6eb0@his.com> At 09:29 AM 11/14/97 -0400, you wrote: >Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 >pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is there a >downside to using them? > Got some and hate them 'cause I cant get used to 1) flipping the camera for verticals and 2) think the cropping guide a bit imprecise...... the less conscious thinking I have to do while shooting the better the seeing. Anyway I finally broke down and got some A24's last week. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:53:48 -0500 From: Ed Berger To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971114115347.006e6864@his.com> > You might consider getting >a masking set that prints 4.5X6cm images on the film. You still only get 12 >images but film is very cheap, all things considered. This is my method >since it helps me when I'm not thinking square. While I know lots of folks >can previsualize their cropping right on the square screen, I must admit I'm >not that good. > > Hasselblad makes a transparent cropping guide showing vertical and horiz 6.45 (8x10) aspect ratio - runs about $15.00 used - just drop it in on top of the screen. I use them all the time to see 8x10 when shooting neg film. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:30:25 -0500 (EST) From: cmiller@berkshire.net (Curt Miller) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS & Cropping Masks Message-ID: <199711141730.MAA01278@loomis.berkshire.net> >Got some and hate them 'cause I cant get used to 1) flipping the camera for >verticals and 2) think the cropping guide a bit imprecise...... the less >conscious thinking I have to do while shooting the better the seeing. >Anyway I finally broke down and got some A24's last week. There is a solution to the inadequacies of viewfinder masks for 4.5X6 and 27mm X54mm (the panoramic mask set) masks: get some of the Dymo brand label tape (black preferably) and apply it to both sides (and top and bottom of the horizontal mask) in the proper position. You effectively create a perfect mask and the Dymo tape, unlike electrical tape, is very rigid and precise. Curt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:41:32 +0100 From: Håkan Gunnarsson To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <346C8D4C.3038@mailer.student.gu.se> Curt Miller wrote: >=20 > >Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 > >pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is ther= e a > >downside to using them? >=20 > Well, it all depends. A 90 finder is almost a necessity. When I tried= a 16 > with a 45 finder, attempts at portrait orientation faieled dismally - y= ou > just can't seen to get vertical. It is nigh on to impossible to compos= e in > portrait orientation with a waist level finder! You might consider get= ting > a masking set that prints 4.5X6cm images on the film. You still only g= et 12 > images but film is very cheap, all things considered.=20 (snip) ... or get the A12V; it was discontinued in the late 80's - I can indeed imagine why ... not a very bright idea in the first place ... Anyone using it?? H=E5kan Gunnarsson G=F6teborg, Sweden. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:29:37 -0500 (EST) From: cmiller@berkshire.net (Curt Miller) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <199711141929.OAA09233@loomis.berkshire.net> >... or get the A12V; it was discontinued in the late 80's - I can indeed >imagine why ... not a very bright idea in the first place ... Anyone >using it?? > >H=E5kan Gunnarsson >G=F6teborg, Sweden. Hi Hakan & group - I used to think the same thing about the 12V. However, consider use of the Hasselblad in the studio for rectangular portraits. These mask sets for the film gate we have available today didn't always exist. Most photographers ship their film out for processing to a photofinisher who has no idea of the photographer's original intentions for cropping. If instead the photographer uses the 12V (with either waistlevel or prism finder!) he can compose the portrait full frame in the studio and not worry about future cropping. Also, it isn't for us to say that the square is best - that is a personal choice. Lots of (very good) photographers prefer the rectangle. Most images are rectangular and I can't hate anyone for choosing to shoot portraits in the rectangle. This way they get to shoot 4.5X6 and still have the quality of Hasselblad! I can understand why Hasselblad would choose not to manufacture 4.5X6 and 6X7 cameras ala Bronica, Mamiya and Pentax. I don't, however, think it was such a bad idea to offer V12 (or A16) backs for photographers. I do understand that if the market chooses not to buy the V12 why Hasselblad would discontinue it. Regards, Curt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:59:59 -0600 From: "Les Alvis" To: Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <199711142012.OAA04172@eightof.tsixroads.com> Like most things Hasselblad, the A16 back is a component for a specific purpose. If you know that you're going to print horizontal images, it almost silly not to use the A16. You get an extra 4 exposures out of the roll. That's what the A16 is for. I like mine. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:05:01 +0100 From: Håkan Gunnarsson To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: cmiller@berkshire.net Subject: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Message-ID: <346CBCFD.34CF@mailer.student.gu.se> Curt Miller wrote: >=20 > >... or get the A12V; it was discontinued in the late 80's - I can inde= ed > >imagine why ... not a very bright idea in the first place ... Anyone > >using it?? > > > >H=E5kan Gunnarsson > >G=F6teborg, Sweden. >=20 > Hi Hakan & group - >=20 > I used to think the same thing about the 12V. However, consider use of= the > Hasselblad in the studio for rectangular portraits. These mask sets fo= r the > film gate we have available today didn't always exist. Most photograph= ers > ship their film out for processing to a photofinisher who has no idea o= f the > photographer's original intentions for cropping. If instead the > photographer uses the 12V (with either waistlevel or prism finder!) he = can > compose the portrait full frame in the studio and not worry about futur= e > cropping. I didn't think of that :-) I won't argue with you on this one as I lack the "pro-experience". > Also, it isn't for us to say that the square is best - that is a person= al > choice. Lots of (very good) photographers prefer the rectangle. Most > images are rectangular and I can't hate anyone for choosing to shoot > portraits in the rectangle. This way they get to shoot 4.5X6 and still= have > the quality of Hasselblad! I can understand why Hasselblad would choos= e not > to manufacture 4.5X6 and 6X7 cameras ala Bronica, Mamiya and Pentax. I > don't, however, think it was such a bad idea to offer V12 (or A16) back= s for > photographers. I do understand that if the market chooses not to buy t= he > V12 why Hasselblad would discontinue it. I've noticed that the square (mostly B&W) pictures you see in foto magazines very often have a black frame and those two little notches...; or rather - if a square picture is printed with a black frame, you'll find two notches (=3D"I can afford a Hasselblad"). But I've never seen a rectangular picture printed with black frame and notches. Anyone recalls the Hasselblad full page ad's in international magazines some ten years ago? a square B&W picture with black frame, notches and the text: "photographer xx used a Hasselblad to take this picture of yy" (or something like that). In H'blad publications you see the square everywhere, and the rectangular only when crooping was necessary due to the layout (as it seems).=20 All in all it seems that the H'blad users and indeed the company itself have a special preference for the square. H=E5kan Gunnarsson G=F6teborg, Sweden ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:59:10 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Armstrong To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: They are especially appropriate for use with the 40mm lens/FlexBody combo, as this lens/body combination forces the use of a 4cmx5cm mask -- fits perfectly into the space allocated per image by a 16 back. -eric On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Lionel F. Stevenson wrote: > Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 > pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is there a > downside to using them? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Armstrong e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:07:10 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Armstrong To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: a previous post mentioned: > since it helps me when I'm not thinking square. While I know lots of folks > can previsualize their cropping right on the square screen, I must admit I'm > not that good. it may be obvious, but one can get assistance in pre-visualizing the cropping by using a grid screen. The grids divide the exposure area into exactly the region defined by 6x4.5 (or 4.5x4.5 for that matter) Before I invested in a grid screen, I drew up a grid on my computer in some cheap graphics program, and laser printed to acetate. Then laid that over my plain focusing screen. problem is, acetate isn't exactly clear -- it degrades the image a bit. Also, even the finest hairline output of a laserprinter still looks rather thick and fuzzy when viewing through a prism finder or even with the little magnifier on the w/l finder. ...just some thoughts.... -Eric ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Armstrong e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:37:45 -0500 (EST) From: SPYDERS@aol.com To: hagu0009@student.gu.se, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Message-ID: <971114183744_2026615875@mrin58.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 11/14/97 4:57:39 PM, you wrote: >I've noticed that the square (mostly B&W) pictures you see in foto > >magazines very often have a black frame and those two little notches...; > >or rather - if a square picture is printed with a black frame, you'll > >find two notches (="I can afford a Hasselblad"). But I've never seen a > >rectangular picture printed with black frame and notches. Anyone recalls > >the Hasselblad full page ad's in international magazines some ten years > >ago? a square B&W picture with black frame, notches and the text: > >"photographer xx used a Hasselblad to take this picture of yy" (or > >something like that). In H'blad publications you see the square > >everywhere, and the rectangular only when crooping was necessary due to > >the layout (as it seems). > > > >All in all it seems that the H'blad users and indeed the company itself > >have a special preference for the square. I will agree with you on the two notches business (Hasselblad says they've been there since the beginning to identify negatives made with 'blad stuff), I'd like to add that I've seen backs with four and five notches. Five was the most I've seen They weren't all exactly the same size, but they were spaced evenly along the edge. Anyone know the what/when/why of their use? I've seen some Hasselblad Forum Magazines and everything in them was with a (too) heavy border with the notches, it looked kinda fake to me, like the border was stripped in during layout. Also, I suspected them of cropping the image and then placing the border around it. It is just a personal thing with me, if you crop then you give up the "two notches" deal, but for the company magazine to deceive... If anyone has back issues and cares to see what I'm talking about, I'll dig up the magazine. pat ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:49:08 -0500 (EST) From: SPYDERS@aol.com To: hagu0009@student.gu.se, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Message-ID: <971114184907_2104875962@mrin44.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 11/14/97 4:57:39 PM, you wrote: >I've noticed that the square (mostly B&W) pictures you see in foto > >magazines very often have a black frame and those two little notches...; > >or rather - if a square picture is printed with a black frame, you'll > >find two notches (="I can afford a Hasselblad"). But I've never seen a > >rectangular picture printed with black frame and notches. Oh, I forgot to add to my posting, I have some A16 backs that have the two notches, so you *would* see rectangular photos with the two notches if someone chose to print the 6x4.5 negative full frame. (The A16 backs are brand new and have never been used. I got them during the buy-a-lens-get-a-back-free rebate program. I don't think I will ever use them so now I'm thinking of what I need from B&H before I trade them in. As an aside, they came with a plastic viewfinder mask that I found terrible.) --pat. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:56:20 -0500 (EST) From: SPYDERS@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <971114185620_1962871218@mrin43.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 11/14/97 1:32:38 PM, you wrote: > Hasselblad makes a transparent cropping guide showing vertical and horiz >6.45 (8x10) aspect ratio - runs about $15.00 used - just drop it in on top >of the screen. I use them all the time to see 8x10 when shooting neg film That plastic thing also costs $700ish, but you do get a free A16 back ;-). Unfortunately, there's nothing to lock it into place, so it moves a bit, and can fall out. --pat. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:58:07 -0800 From: Rick Campbell To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Message-ID: <346CE58F.72CD@marylhurst.edu> > > I will agree with you on the two notches business (Hasselblad says they've > been there since the beginning to identify negatives made with 'blad stuff), > I'd like to add that I've seen backs with four and five notches. Five was the > most I've seen They weren't all exactly the same size, but they were spaced > evenly along the edge. Anyone know the what/when/why of their use? > > I've seen some Hasselblad Forum Magazines and everything in them was with a > (too) heavy border with the notches, it looked kinda fake to me, like the > border was stripped in during layout. Also, I suspected them of cropping the > image and then placing the border around it. It is just a personal thing with > me, if you crop then you give up the "two notches" deal, but for the company > magazine to deceive... > > If anyone has back issues and cares to see what I'm talking about, I'll dig > up the magazine. > > pat People put extra notches in their magazines to identify their work and help to maintain copyright when agencies lose their stuff or flat out steal it. All it takes is a little triangular file and you too can have notches all over the place. Another reason is to identify which piece of film came from which back so that if a light leak developments you can find the guilty back. People do this with 4x5 film holders for the same reason. Some 4x5 film holders even come with a little number dial to identify the back. I remember seeing adds for a company that would machine your film back and put in almost a microdot to imprint your name and copyright notice on the edge of every frame. Years ago the Hasselblad magazine (paper kind, not the ones with notches) claimed it was illegal in Sweden to crop a photograph without the photographers permission. So they might add the notches in post production but I doubt they crop much image to do it. One handy feature of the notches is you can tell if the photograph was reversed in production. The notches should be on the left. -- Rick Campbell ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:28:17 -0500 From: Dan Cardish To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971114192817.0088ed60@pop.microtec.net> At 06:37 PM 14-11-97 -0500, Pat wrote: [snip] >I will agree with you on the two notches business (Hasselblad says they've >been there since the beginning to identify negatives made with 'blad stuff), >I'd like to add that I've seen backs with four and five notches. Five was the >most I've seen They weren't all exactly the same size, but they were spaced >evenly along the edge. Anyone know the what/when/why of their use? > >I've seen some Hasselblad Forum Magazines and everything in them was with a >(too) heavy border with the notches, it looked kinda fake to me, like the >border was stripped in during layout. Also, I suspected them of cropping the >image and then placing the border around it. It is just a personal thing with >me, if you crop then you give up the "two notches" deal, but for the company >magazine to deceive... [snip] I've heard of photographers putting their own notches in the backs to help identify which back was used with which film (as I'm typing this, I can't imagine why they would want to do this!). As far as faked pictures go, if you look at the corners of the frame, a "real" full frame photo will usually have a slightly messy corner; it won't be absolutely square. I have Forums going back about 15 years, I'll check to see. Dan C. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:33:23 -0500 From: bfranson@greennet.net (Bill Franson) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches (Re: V12 BACKS: IS IT WISE?) Message-ID: <19971115003322651.AAA210@LOCALNAME> >I'd like to add that I've seen backs with four and five notches. Five was the >most I've seen They weren't all exactly the same size, but they were spaced >evenly along the edge. Anyone know the what/when/why of their use? > Adding notches helps to keep track of what negative came from which back. When problems arise you will know which back needs attention. Bill Franson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:40:21 GMT From: obryk@ix.netcom.com (Oliver Bryk) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <346dee58.1134750@smtp.ix.netcom.com> On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:29:21 -0400, you wrote: >Do you use A16 backs? What is your experience? It seems to me that 16 >pix/roll is better, since I'm mostly cropping the 6 x 6 frame. Is there = a >downside to using them? > > In my landscape work with the Superwide I sometimes plan to crop the bottom, i.e., foreground, for a horizontal composition. The 4.5x6 mask would require tilting the camera from horizontal, not a good thing to do with the Superwide. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 20:19:53 -0600 From: "Warren Sunkel" To: "Hasselblad List" Subject: Wind Indicators Dannyg1 wrote: I'm sorry that I can't give a definitive answer. The wind indicator has bee= n disppearing = from newer H'blad's at an alarming rate and I don't understand why, but the= final = answer is one only H'blad itself can give. I'll write an email to H'blad and see what I can find out. Regards, Danny Gonzalez - - - - - - - - - - - - To which Warren replies: I have a relatively new 201F. There is no way to defeat the instant return mirror, as there is on my 2000FC/M. Also the 201F has no wind indicator, althought the red dot on the film mag should tell me something. I have missed several "grab" shots because my 201F was not wound. The blame is entirely upon me, the photographer, but if the viewfinder were black, at least I would have had a hint. Warren Sunkel Shawnee, KS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 23:25:40 -0500 From: Carl Socolow To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Black frame & notches Message-ID: <346D2443.BBC1C236@microserve.net> Dan Cardish wrote: > > At 06:37 PM 14-11-97 -0500, Pat wrote: > [snip] > >I will agree with you on the two notches business (Hasselblad says they've > >been there since the beginning to identify negatives made with 'blad stuff), > >I'd like to add that I've seen backs with four and five notches. Five was the > >most I've seen They weren't all exactly the same size, but they were spaced > >evenly along the edge. Anyone know the what/when/why of their use? > > > >I've seen some Hasselblad Forum Magazines and everything in them was with a > >(too) heavy border with the notches, it looked kinda fake to me, like the > >border was stripped in during layout. Also, I suspected them of cropping the > >image and then placing the border around it. It is just a personal thing with > >me, if you crop then you give up the "two notches" deal, but for the company > >magazine to deceive... > [snip] > > I've heard of photographers putting their own notches in the backs to help > identify which back was used with which film (as I'm typing this, I can't > imagine why they would want to do this!). As far as faked pictures go, if > you look at the corners of the frame, a "real" full frame photo will > usually have a slightly messy corner; it won't be absolutely square. I > have Forums going back about 15 years, I'll check to see. > > Dan C. I have each of my backs distinctly notched in case there are problems. That way I can identify which of my four backs has uneven spacing or any problems that may (knock on wood) result. Hope this helps solve the mystery. Carl S. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 00:46:34 -0600 From: "Phillip M. James" To: Subject: Re: A16 BACKS: IS IT WISE? Message-ID: <199711151505.KAA01764@relay02.equinox.net> I have a A16 back for my SWCM and I do not have to tilt the camera the frame is centered and you can obtain a 16 mask that fits over the viewfinder so you know your frame lines. ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #10 ************************