Sharp-eyed Q. G. de Bakker's Shocking Discovery - Are Bronica Ads are Shot with Hasselblad Cameras?
Tell-tale Hasselblad Back "Vees" on left center of image - Oops!
Many people look at those great photos in the ads in the photo magazines
and think:
"If only I had an XYZ camera or lens, I could take great photos like the
ones in these ads..."
Hah! You probably believe that the photos were actually taken with the
lens or camera as advertised. In at least some, and probably many cases,
they weren't. Surprise!
How can I say this? Every once in a while, the magazines and advertisers
screw up. For example, a recent issue of Outdoor Photographer ran
two ads for lenses in which the marketing agencies used the same exciting
photo to sell lenses made by two different companies. Oops! Which lens took the
photo - the Nikon or the Sigma? How about neither, maybe it was a Minolta, or even
a Hasselblad lens and camera?
Stated another way, those ads are put together by marketing types, not photographers. They select photographs from stock photo agencies, just like they do for other ads. Those stock photos are probably not even listed in the stock company's database with the type of lens or camera that took the photo, let alone the settings. So even if they wanted to, the stock companies can't provide a photo of a given subject by the lens or camera or film that took the photo. And why should the marketing types care, since they think you can't tell anyway, right?
|
Sharp-eyed Q. G. de Bakker's Shocking Discovery - Are Bronica Ads are Shot with Hasselblad Cameras? |
|
|
|
The "Vees" refer to a set of small triangular or "vee" shaped
notches cut in the edge of Hasselblad backs. Some folks claim they are
there to celebrate Victor Hasselblad, the founder of VHB Hasselblad
and designer of the original Hasselblad camera series. But I think the real reason
those "Vees" are there is to enable art directors to tell whether or not you used a
professional model Hasselblad
camera and Zeiss lenses to take your photos. So the art director doesn't
have to worry whether they are paying $250 each for photos which you took with a
$49.95 Lubitel TLR.
Now when Q.G. de Bakker was looking at the edges of the photo examples showing in a Bronica ad, guess what he saw? That's right, those tell-tale Hasselblad "Vees". And needless to say, Bronica doesn't put those "vees" in its camera backs, nor does anybody else when making their backs. So you can be rather certain that the photo in the Bronica ad were taken with a Hasselblad back. Since the Hasselblad backs aren't compatible with a Bronica body and Bronica lens, you can be pretty sure the photo was taken with a Hasselblad body, lens, and back. So we have ads for Bronica which use photo(s) taken with a competitor's camera and lens(es) [i.e., Hasselblad]. Surprise!
So keep your eyes peeled. My Bronica backs also have a distinctive corner notching which makes them easy to pick out in ads too. Koni-Omega Rapid 200 models have notches you can adjust to let you identify which body or back took any given roll of film, making it easy to locate problems with light leaks without further testing too. In fact, I find it much easier to identify which camera took a given slide in my collection from these distinctive markings around the edges of the film, than I do from the quality differences in the photos themselves.
Of course, that is not at all what they imply in these ads! ;-) They suggest and imply that you can only take such photos with their fine lenses and cameras. If you want to take photos like this, you need to have our XYZ camera or lens. Right?!!
But in reality, our cameras or light meters would just adjust the aperture or shutter speed selections to provide the right amount of light for the slower speed film. Even if the print film were under-exposed by one stop in a meterless camera, the minilab color printer would just automatically compensate in exposing and making the print. So most photographers upon reflection would probably conclude that the ad makers must have fiddled with the final prints to make such a dramatic difference so readily visible.
I also believe that these kinds of magazine ads help foster the view
that the cameras, the film, the flashes, and the brand name film
processors are all perfect. So any problems with the final prints must be
the fault of the consumer, right? If your photos are too dark, it isn't
because your peanut sized flash is way under-powered, or the processing
machine was setup wrong, but because you must have picked the wrong film.
A followup poster cited another Kodak ad which showed plainly better grain and image sharpness using the Kodak film against competitor's films. But the ad didn't specify if the competitor's film was the same film speed, or subject to identical processing or whatever. If you actually compare and select films of the same speed and type (e.g., ISO 100 daylight C41 print films), you can't fail to be impressed by how competitive modern films really are. Yes, you will see subtle differences in color renditions and shadow details. Grain may be slightly different, but it usually takes my 15X or stronger loupe to begin to see these differences.
Forget about
seeing such subtle differences in films with a side by side small size print comparison in a magazine
ad reproduction. Any competent printer can fiddle with the magazine printing
process to trash the quality of one print against another. So such
comparisons are questionable unless you have the actual prints in hand.
Which raises the question: How can the Kodak films be so superior, and we users are only just seeing it now in these ads? ;-) I use a lot of Kodak print film, and even more film from their competitors. How come I haven't seen such an obvious difference in my photos?
The answer may be that the ads are biased outrageously in favor of the promoted film product(s). The failure to specify the film types used in comparison are just one tell-tale signal of such biases. If they stated they were comparing their ISO 100 film against Konica's ISO 1,000 film, they and the photo magazine would get letters complaining about the idiocy of such a comparison. Similarly, if they claimed the competing film was say Fuji ISO 100 film, the magazines would get letters complaining about the botched processing self-evident in these biased ads. So they just don't tell, and hope we will be fooled into thinking the ads are telling the truth. Duh!?
Classic 1970's Bronica Ads - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly |
||
The Good |
The Bad |
The Ugly |
Consider the psychological impact of reading these quotes from the
later Bronica EC ads:
Most 2 1/4 SLR systems haven't kept up with the needs and demands of
today's photographers. And the pros have just had to learn to live with
it....
Does that make you wonder why you are considering buying a 2 1/4 SLR or
what? How about this line?:
Before you sink a lot of money into a 2 1/4 SLR system that was
designed 17 years ago, try the modern one. The Bronica EC. Also, check
out the famous Bronica S2a. Rugged, reliable, and versatile, it accepts
the same great lenses as the EC....
Okay, now which one do you want - the newer design electronic Bronica EC,
or the older and "famous" Bronica S2A - you know, the rugged, reliable and
versatile Bronica model. If the Bronica S2A is the rugged, reliable and
versatile model, doesn't that make the newer Bronica EC the less rugged,
less reliable, and less versatile model in the back of your mind?
The next Bronica EC ad starts with a large type headline that
reads:
The 2 1/4 SLR. Why some people "play it safe" and get Stuck.
So, if you're planning to invest in one, you'll probably ask around and
rely heavily upon the recommendations of other
photographers. Which might lock you into a situation you can't afford to
be in!
Once you're committed to a fine 2 1/4 SLR system, you can't afford to
compare it with any newer, more advanced
systems. You'd lose too much in a trade.
Seems to me I would be worried about getting into a 2 1/4 SLR and a
locked into a situation you can't afford to be in where I might
lose too much of my investment. I sure wouldn't want to
get stuck with a 2 1/4 SLR after reading this ad! I think I will
play it safe and stick with my 35mm SLR.
As bad as these later Bronica EC ads were, my favorite "bad" ad was the later
Bronica S2A fishmarket ad. The ad starts out:
I got up at 3:30 a.m. to get down to the fish market in time to set up,
and look around before shooting. When the editor assigns
you a spread on a fish market, you keep fishermen's hours.
Wow, doesn't that make you want to drop out of photography altogether? The
rest of the ad was worse. Dull photos of guys moving boxes of fish around.
The worst photo of all was the glassy eyed dead fish staring up at you
from a bed of ice. Who wants to get out of bed at 3:30 AM to take photos
of dead fish?
At the same time, Hasselblad was running photos of glamorous female models
with long hair blowing in a breeze (in the studio?) getting their pictures
snapped by the handsome young male photographer. Now which scene do you
want to be in, the fish market and dead fish at 3:30 AM with your Bronica
or the pro studio with the slinky models and your Hasselblad? Duh?! ;-)
Hasselblad has always had a terrific marketing and advertising enterprise
as a key element to their success in the USA market. But I believe the
failure of the Bronica S2/EC line was due more to factors like marketing
and promotion than any intrinsic fault in the later S2A/EC Bronica camera design or
Nikkor lens lineups.
Not only were the Bronica ads less motivating than the competing
Hasselblad ads, but they ran much less often. If you only run a small
quarterly ad and a few full page ads every year, you aren't going to get
the same sales and promotion effects of a competitor who runs larger
monthly ads in the major publications. This shortfall was not the fault of
Bronica Japan so much as the limitations of its USA distributor's
resources. But the effect of less than thrilling ads run less often could
only be lower sales. In my view, these ads contributed to the end of the classic Bronica S/S2/EC
product line in the mid-1970s.
Bronica came out with the Bronica ETR, a leaf shuttered 6x4.5cm SLR, in
the late 1977 timeframe. The Bronica ETR avoided competing directly with
the Hasselblad or Rollei 6x6cm products, and opened up a new range of
modern 6x4.5cm SLR electronic cameras. Bronica leveraged this success into
its very popular Bronica SQ series of 6x6cm SLRs which had leaf shuttered
lenses, but at prices rather less than Zeiss optics for the Hasselblad
bodies. Bronica also created a leaf shutter 6x7cm SLR in their GS-1
series, again bracketing Hasselblad's expansion options in with lower cost
leaf shutter lensed SLRs both above and below the Hasselblad lineup. When
Hasselblad did choose to come up with a new format, they did so with a
35mm film Hasselbald Xpan camera.
Then Bronica abandoned the focal plane shutter 6x6cm SLR market and switched from its Bronica S2A/EC/ECTL models to the leaf shuttered Bronica ETR 645 and SQ 6x6cm SLRs in the late 1970s. So these ads were dropped.
Now it is Hasselblad that has jumped back into the focal plane
shutter 6x6cm SLR market with with its Hasselblad 2000 and 200 series cameras. Surprise!
Suddenly Hasselblad found lots of reasons to praise these focal plane camera body designs. After all, you could (or really, really should) buy all those new F series lenses they could now make one stop faster than the older leaf shutter lens designs. The new camera bodies with electronic focal plane shutters were more accurate and provided many useful features too. Wasn't it time for us Hasselblad owners to run out and buy all new focal plane bodies?
Some lens ads by Nikon would have you believe that part of the secret of
their lenses is that Nikon makes its own
glass in inert platinum crucibles. Only that way can they control the
quality of Nikon lenses. Wonder what they do with the Nikon lenses made by
other manufacturers like Tamron? In practice, most optical glasses are ordered
out of a stock catalog from optical glass suppliers like Hoya. The lens
manufacturers concentrate on value added lens crafting, rather than making
commodity materials like bulk glass (but there are a few specialty glass
exceptions for some expensive and specialized lenses still made by the lens
manufacturer(s)).
Recently, many diehard Nikon, Canon, and even Leica owners have had reason
to be aghast that their favorite camera's lenses were not being made by
the parent company at all. In some cases, such as Leica, the cooperation
between the Leica and Minolta was well known and not hidden. So many folks
know that their Leica CL series cameras may have been made in whole or part by
Minolta. But not all big name manufacturers are upfront about who is really
making their lenses and cameras being sold under their name.
So things get much more interesting when say Kyocera, a Japanese lens
maker (e.g., Yashica), makes zoom lenses for Leica. If these zoom lenses
were sold under the Kyocera or Yashica name, they would presumably fetch
lower prices than the same lenses under the high prestige Leica name. In fairness to
Leica, I presume that Leica is setting standards and performing additional
quality testing that help ensure that these lenses meet its high standards. And
it makes sense to me that they farm out these zoom lens construction
projects to companies like Kyocera that have much more experience and the
tooling and test gear needed to make zoom lenses. And while Leica may not
be heavily advertising these facts, they aren't hiding them either, and
you can find out with some research (e.g., at their website).
But many Leicaphiles who would normally sneer at a lens made by a third
party lens maker like Kyocera are surprised to find they are using a
Kyocera zoom lens on their Leica cameras. Similarly, folks who are using
the Leica 15mm f/2.8 wide angle lens are surprised to find out it is a
rebadged (relabeled) Zeiss lens. In the past, Sigma has made lenses which
were sold through Leica.
Don't feel too smug if you use other brands. Rollei had fixed and zoom
lenses under its label made by Sigma. Nikon has Tamron made zooms under
the Nikon label. Cosina makes versions of the same camera body which is
sold as Olympus OM2000, Nikon FM10, Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Vivitar V3000,
Ricoh KR5 Super II, and Canon T60 per posters. Electronic flashes are also
likely to be farmed out to electronic specialty makers too.
Medium format fan(atics) should also be wary of being too brand snobbish too.
Hasselblad has come out with a series of Hasselblad zoom lenses,
teleconverters, and lenses for its specialty cameras (including the
"Hasselblad" Xpan/Fuji and the Rodenstock lenses for the Hasselblad
arcbody cameras). The Hasselblad 2XE teleconverter is the one made with
Japanese optics which are assembled in Sweden. The older Zeiss 2X
teleconverter for Hasselblad was made by Zeiss in West Germany. Sigma is
again the rumored source for a Hasselblad zoom lens (along with
Schneider). Those nice Accu-matte bright screens in your new Hasselblad
are courtesy of Minolta. And some of those nice Schneider
lenses are being designed and made in the USA. Surprise!
However, you can be permitted a smile while reading those ads which praise
rebadged products as part of the heritage or lineage of the famous
big-name line. While some products may be co-developed, in many other
cases they are simply repackaged and rebadged without any design input
from the big-name firm's designers.
Digital ads are so arcane and misleading that they really are in a class
by themselves. You often find amazing claims for quality and
enlargeability for digital cameras which strain even the imagination. I am
not talking 8x10" or 11x14", I mean six feet by 2 feet poster prints from
1.3 megapixel cameras. The cameras and technology are sold as being
superior to film in quality, when the reality remains that film still has
a substantial lead in the quality department [see Film vs. Digital Quality].
Digital cameras are advertised as being much cheaper
than film based cameras, due to the savings on processing and film
purchases. But such economic analyses ignore the huge depreciation of
digital cameras in the first months and years of ownership. The ads also
assume you already have the required computer equipment, including color photo quality printers and interfaces and software. When you buy a digital
camera, you quickly discover that you really, really need the
latest Photoshop and 128 megabytes of memory with the latest and fastest
processor. Your 486SX may be fine for email, but just doesn't cut it as a
digital camera and photoshop platform! Soon you will be spending so much time
learning Photoshop and buying computer gear that you won't have time for
photography. Maybe those are the savings they are claiming you will get from
digital cameras? ;-)
So stay tuned, and start saving those outrageous digital camera ads for
future laughs.....
Date: Wed Jul 11 2001
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected]
Subject: Strange Kodak Ad in July, 2001 National Geographic magazine...
Near the beginning of the magazine is an ad for Kodak Max 400 film..it
shows a picture supposedly using 200 speed film compared to another picture
using the 400 speed film. The 200 speed film pic is darker than the 400
speed film pic.. the ad makes out though that the reason the 200 pic is
darker is because of the film speed. Now this could be true if the EV
range of the camera is depleted with the 200 speed film, but that usually
is not the case...it seems strange that a major principle of exposure is
so fouled up on a Kodak ad in National Geographic! In reality the light
meter would simply change the settings with the 200 sped film to make the
pic look like the 400 sped pic but with different settings...its almost
like an de-education attempt or something...just strange.
.... (above post quoted)
Kodak is desperate to push their films... Over here they run adds
comparing results of Kodak film and other non-disclosed film. No mention
of ISO ratings (so they suggest the same). Kodak film is shown as bright
colours and sharp, the other as way underexposed and moved.
Outright lies, of course...
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> on the other hand, even hasselblad has to put little vee marks on their > backs so art directors and buyers will be able to tell you used a > hasselblad and zeiss optics to make your photos; otherwise, the vast > majority wouldn't be able to tell, right? Else why the Vees ;-) ;-)? ;-)
Totally off-topic here, sorry, but how about those Vees?
On your truly excellent mega-site you have dedicated some space to
Bronica's
attempt to battle Hasselblad in their advertising. Very amusing.
But i haven't seen any mention yet of the fact that in Bronica promotional
material (well, in one proven case, at least (?)) they use pictures taken,
not with Bronica, but with Hasselblad equipment... ;-) ;-) ;-)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica
Tony Polson wrote:
> > But i haven't seen any mention yet of the fact that in Bronica promotional > > material (well, in one proven case, at least (?)) they use pictures taken, > > not with Bronica, but with Hasselblad equipment... ;-) ;-) ;-) > > Many ad agencies use stock photographs where there can be no guarantee > that they have been taken using the equipment being advertised.
Yes, i know.
But in this case they had a guarantee that the photo was taken using
another brand's equipment. And they made sure we can see it as well.
You would have thought someone down the line would have been smart enough
to remove those tell tale Vees Robert mentioned. Especially when this
company has been involved in a long running campaign extolling their own
brand's gear in a direct comparison to the one having the Vees. ;-)