I cut off my daughter's feet with my Fed2!

M

matti

Established
Local time
12:50 AM
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
181
I didn't think the parallax error would actually mean something in the real world. So, I have to give a bit more space when framing stuff with my Fed 2. I haven't really tested the parallax but I suppose I can blame it for this? Do you try to compensate for this?
The picture is taken with an Industar 61/ld, by the way. I like the contrast with this lens.

/matti
 
Look at it from the bright side: You didn't cut off her head!

Besides, who says you need toes? They are so far away down at the end of us and always prone to getting "stubbed"! :)

BTW: nice shot - what film?
 
Parallax error does mean something in the real word. That's why Fed isn't Leica :) I do try to compensate for this error with my Kiev 4, but not always successfully. Though for portrait orientation my parallax error has different sign, probably I hold camera other way around.
Nice photo. I hope you enjoy your Fed.
Eduard.
 
copake_ham said:
Look at it from the bright side: You didn't cut off her head!

Besides, who says you need toes? They are so far away down at the end of us and always prone to getting "stubbed"! :)

BTW: nice shot - what film?
Click to expand...

:)

It was plain Tri-x at 400, developed by a lab, probably in t-max developer.
/matti
 
ed1k said:
Parallax error does mean something in the real word. That's why Fed isn't Leica :) I do try to compensate for this error with my Kiev 4, but not always successfully. Though for portrait orientation my parallax error has different sign, probably I hold camera other way around.
Nice photo. I hope you enjoy your Fed.
Eduard.
Click to expand...

I allso thought it was backwards, and that the parallax error would be in the other end of the picture. I probably sqated down and rested my elbow on my knee and turned the camera.
Actually the shutter doesn't do well on the Fed2, especially in the cold. I will probably post another tread with scanned pictures of the problem later to see if anyone have an idea. So I'll have to resort to my M6 for now :)

/matti
 
matti said:
I didn't think the parallax error would actually mean something in the real world. So, I have to give a bit more space when framing stuff with my Fed 2. I haven't really tested the parallax but I suppose I can blame it for this? Do you try to compensate for this?
The picture is taken with an Industar 61/ld, by the way. I like the contrast with this lens.

/matti
Click to expand...

How does it look on the negative? Is this the print from the lab? Lab prints are usually about 90% of the image.
 
Nice tones, great pic, Matti.

eric said:
Lab prints are usually about 90% of the image.
Click to expand...

Good point. Some lab prints/lab operators could care less about full-frame printing. Check your negative, chances are that the feet are intact.
 
eric said:
How does it look on the negative? Is this the print from the lab? Lab prints are usually about 90% of the image.
Click to expand...

No, the lab actually only developed the film. I scanned the negative in my Canon flatbed scanner. So either it is a parallax-bug or some other problem with the viewfinder. It is actually quite hard to get a reliable edge in the Fed2 viewfinder, as there are no framelines. I sometimes feel it is possible to to see more in it if you press your eye to it a bit more.

/Matti
 
It is actually quite hard to get a reliable edge in the Fed2 viewfinder, as there are no framelines. I sometimes feel it is possible to to see more in it if you press your eye to it a bit more.

Now that you are aware of this issue, you can compensate for it while photographing with this camera by backing off a bit to get everything in.
 
I wouldn't worry about it. Somehow, as amateurs, we are convinced it's a capital offense to "cut off the feet." But I see professionals do this all the time. I was just reading the February Pop Photo, and there is an article "Robin Bowman Tracks Amish Teens with a Modernized Polaroid Press Camera". 5 shots in the article, 4 of them have the feet cut from the subjects. It's just one of those "rules" that we're told is sacrosanct, and as we all know, nothing is sacrosanct.
 
I have read this guideline about where to cut off limbs if you are not going to include all of them: It looks better not to cut off limbs at the joints, but between joints. eg. between the knee and ankle, rather than at the knee or ankle.
 
Exactly, there are times to worry about accurate framing, but snaps of the kids are usually not 1 of them (unless the feet are an important part of the shot)!

Krasnaya_Zvezda said:
I wouldn't worry about it. Somehow, as amateurs, we are convinced it's a capital offense to "cut off the feet." But I see professionals do this all the time. I was just reading the February Pop Photo, and there is an article "Robin Bowman Tracks Amish Teens with a Modernized Polaroid Press Camera". 5 shots in the article, 4 of them have the feet cut from the subjects. It's just one of those "rules" that we're told is sacrosanct, and as we all know, nothing is sacrosanct.
Click to expand...
 
Since you're looking for how to fix or compensate... my 2 cents is that like your FED, Zorki VFs just aren't defined perfectly either. And as Frank said, I just tried to nail down how much I needed to back off or allow to make sure I get all of what I want framed.

Very nice tones and detail in the photo, but I gotta tell ya, that is one adorable shot. Feet or no feet, that should go in a frame.
 
Krasnaya_Zvezda said:
I wouldn't worry about it. Somehow, as amateurs, we are convinced it's a capital offense to "cut off the feet." But I see professionals do this all the time. I was just reading the February Pop Photo, and there is an article "Robin Bowman Tracks Amish Teens with a Modernized Polaroid Press Camera". 5 shots in the article, 4 of them have the feet cut from the subjects. It's just one of those "rules" that we're told is sacrosanct, and as we all know, nothing is sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

I saw that article too.

Hey here's a thought, why not send it into Debbie Grossman, the PS guru at Pop Photo and she if she can "clone in" some feet? In the Feb. '06 issue she cloned in some arm muscles!
 
Cutting off the legs or a head (or having too much space) is the rangefinder style of photography it seems---until you get very familar with your rangefinder---but even then---. :cool:
 
I was going to say something cleer about how sharp the camera must be to do such damage-

That isn't parallax error. That would put her at the top of the frame.
 
The same problem to me

The same problem to me

I cannt see where the edge of frame at Zorky 4 Its too big if I put my eye too close to the viewfinder.But in manual it is said "put your eye to set the yellow spot in the middle" so Im trying :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom