Aurora
Member
I always and maybe it´s my ignorance that what you see in a rangefinder with a 50mm lens is what is on the negative, but my pictures seem cropped.
How much in the viewfinder does it crop, I read somewhere that there is more than what you see, but my judgment says it´s the opposite.
I am using a Jupiter 8 and a Industar-10 lens.
How much in the viewfinder does it crop, I read somewhere that there is more than what you see, but my judgment says it´s the opposite.
I am using a Jupiter 8 and a Industar-10 lens.
AndersG
Well-known
The framing is far from exact, in particular at close range where you lose the upper part of what you see.
Btw. did you judge the framing on the negatives or on prints? The good old consumer colour prints (mostly?) of days past often cropped a fair bit of what was on the negative.
Btw. did you judge the framing on the negatives or on prints? The good old consumer colour prints (mostly?) of days past often cropped a fair bit of what was on the negative.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Easy to judge this without film: take the back off and put some matt translucent tape over the filmgate: set shutter at B and open the shutter. Now look what you see on the tape (or 35mm ground glass if you have one) and compare with what you see in the viewfinder....
Aurora
Member
Thanks for that.
It is what is on the negative, or my own scan.
Will try the trick with tape.
I thought it always took everything you see, but it cropped people and I tend not to crop heads when I frame, unless I shook downwards
And then I did a test shooting.
But from what I read it frames more than you see, not less.
Just wondering if something is wrong with my camera.
But will try the tape trick and report back.
Just one question - what does the translucent tape do.
Is this
http://www.amazon.com/Scotch-Magic-...office-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1394229970&sr=1-3
Thanks.
It is what is on the negative, or my own scan.
Will try the trick with tape.
I thought it always took everything you see, but it cropped people and I tend not to crop heads when I frame, unless I shook downwards
And then I did a test shooting.
But from what I read it frames more than you see, not less.
Just wondering if something is wrong with my camera.
But will try the tape trick and report back.
Just one question - what does the translucent tape do.
Is this
http://www.amazon.com/Scotch-Magic-...office-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1394229970&sr=1-3
Thanks.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The tape takes the place of the film and the image is projected on it by the lens and you can see it through the tape. Like a ground glass screen in a technical camera. Old fashioned greaseproof paper and that plastic tracing paper draughtsmen use act the same way. In all cases it needs to be where the film was and pulled flat.
BTW, few view-finders show the whole picture. Leica, I think, said that the percentage it showed in their SLR's was the same as a slide when mounted. Either way, you usually get less in the VF than on the negative.
BTW (2), only 4" x 6" has the same aspect ratio as 35mm film, 5x7 should be half an inch longer and 8x10 ought to be 8 x 12 and so on. Luckily on digital 3:2 is pretty near to the ISO A sized printing papers (and some say 4x6 is A6 but it ain't).
Regards, David
The tape takes the place of the film and the image is projected on it by the lens and you can see it through the tape. Like a ground glass screen in a technical camera. Old fashioned greaseproof paper and that plastic tracing paper draughtsmen use act the same way. In all cases it needs to be where the film was and pulled flat.
BTW, few view-finders show the whole picture. Leica, I think, said that the percentage it showed in their SLR's was the same as a slide when mounted. Either way, you usually get less in the VF than on the negative.
BTW (2), only 4" x 6" has the same aspect ratio as 35mm film, 5x7 should be half an inch longer and 8x10 ought to be 8 x 12 and so on. Luckily on digital 3:2 is pretty near to the ISO A sized printing papers (and some say 4x6 is A6 but it ain't).
Regards, David
AndersG
Well-known
I thought it always took everything you see, but it cropped people and I tend not to crop heads when I frame, unless I shook downwards
Ah, I think you have been hit by the lack of parallax correction - since you don't see through the lens there is a difference in view point and it matters most for subjects near the camera. RF cameras with more sophisticated viewfinders have corrections for this, e.g. moving frame lines.
Failing to compensate for the parallax error may give framing like this:
(In this case the turret finder actually has a correction for parallax error, but, alas, I didn't remember to use it.)