bkrystad
Established
I ran a second roll of HP5 through my Ensign Selfix 16-20 and was a little surprised at the framing results. This camera has the nice Albada viewfinder (not rangefinder) with the reflected white framelines that show up bright and clear.
However, I know on one shot that I carefully framed (infinity focus) to exclude a post to the right and the sky at top. But they showed up in the exposure. Given that the finder is directly above the lens, I didn't expect a side-to-side discrepancy. And on a long shot, I didn't expect any parallax artifacts.
Am I not understanding what to expect from the Albada viewfinder? Are there generally known approaches to interpret the framing? Ignore the white bright lines on long shots? Or do I need to simply rely on my own framing tests on this particular camera?
Any hints appreciated.
However, I know on one shot that I carefully framed (infinity focus) to exclude a post to the right and the sky at top. But they showed up in the exposure. Given that the finder is directly above the lens, I didn't expect a side-to-side discrepancy. And on a long shot, I didn't expect any parallax artifacts.
Am I not understanding what to expect from the Albada viewfinder? Are there generally known approaches to interpret the framing? Ignore the white bright lines on long shots? Or do I need to simply rely on my own framing tests on this particular camera?
Any hints appreciated.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Albada finders, at any rate of the light sheet metal fold-out kind, are rather vulnerable to bending and warping, and were often designed with quite a bit of margin to make up for future misalignments.
Besides, you'll often find rather generous frame lines on consumer cameras - typical buyers would rather have all of their family safe on image even if they failed to use the finder properly, than a tight exclusion of things outside the frame.
So yes, you'll have to work it out.
Sevo
Besides, you'll often find rather generous frame lines on consumer cameras - typical buyers would rather have all of their family safe on image even if they failed to use the finder properly, than a tight exclusion of things outside the frame.
So yes, you'll have to work it out.
Sevo
puderse
Established
finder
finder
At best it is a shotgun concept not a target rifle.
Set the camera on a tripod and line things up. Open the lens and back of the camera and tape or rubber band your film sized ground glass to the film plane. Make mental or written notes to tape to the back of the camera regarding the results. In a perfect world you will get a little fudge factor all the way around. If you can't live with that get yourself an old Nikon or way too expensive 120 film SLR.
finder
At best it is a shotgun concept not a target rifle.
Set the camera on a tripod and line things up. Open the lens and back of the camera and tape or rubber band your film sized ground glass to the film plane. Make mental or written notes to tape to the back of the camera regarding the results. In a perfect world you will get a little fudge factor all the way around. If you can't live with that get yourself an old Nikon or way too expensive 120 film SLR.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
What puderse gives is the scientific approach. I'd follow it, but I dare say that after a few rolls you'll get a fair idea anyway of the finder's inaccuracy on all sides and at different distances.
Windscale
Well-known
Yes, this is quite right.
The finder at infinity is probably designed for an eye to be placed very close of its rear element. Normally you won't be able to put your eye so close or your eye will be scratched. The eye to rear of finder distance is even further if you wore glasses (like yours truly). In this case, if you want to do more accurate framing you will have to peep to both sides behind the finder to see how much it covered. Some left-right peeping would still have to be done if you do not wear glasses. But less than for those with glasses. Shoot a few more rolls and I am sure you will have a good idea.
bkrystad
Established
Thanks for all the suggestions and confirming the less-than-laser-perfect expectations on these finders.
I don't have ground glass, but a small square of tracing paper taped across the film plane proved an adequate approximation. My suspicion that the reflected white rectangle was not covering the actual right and top framing was correct. Overall, the white rectangle is a fair deal smaller than the total image on the film plane, as well as being offset toward the left and bottom.
So some combination of wear over time as well as original specs mean I have to change my expectations to compensate. Should be easy enough. Fun pictures, though.
I don't have ground glass, but a small square of tracing paper taped across the film plane proved an adequate approximation. My suspicion that the reflected white rectangle was not covering the actual right and top framing was correct. Overall, the white rectangle is a fair deal smaller than the total image on the film plane, as well as being offset toward the left and bottom.
So some combination of wear over time as well as original specs mean I have to change my expectations to compensate. Should be easy enough. Fun pictures, though.
bkrystad
Established
Muggins
Junk magnet
You could always try shooting with an Argus C3, the Selfix will feel like a paragon of virtue when you pick it up next! When I took this I knew that the viewfinder was generous and jammed the Land Rover into the top right-hand corner of the frame... look where it ended up!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/2772574682_941763e9c3.jpg
Adrian
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/2772574682_941763e9c3.jpg
Adrian