Actually I prefer the tight viewfinder. Having had a looser one it is hard
to guess what may show up in the image off the edge that you're trying to
keep out! Most of us who shoot reversal have probably "been there, done
that" with the problem you cite. What I do with reversal is compose with a
bit more around the edge knowing it will disappear under the cardboard.
Lately I've had a problem with machine prints from negative being more than
slightly cropped on the 4x6 proofs! I look at the proof swearing it isn't
possible I could have composed it that way, then look at the negative to
discover the printer cropped 100f the frame out. To quote Paul:
"%$#$%&!" print processor.
-- John
At 23:46 4/28/00 , Paul Wallich wrote:
>Don't love the blue cast (partially my fault for a bright manhattan day).
>HATE the fact that the edges of my tight, clean (uh-huh) full-frame
>compositions are missing parts of the picture I know were there (and can
>see hiding under the cardboard).
>
>I think I may have ranted about this before, but what do the rest of you
>Zuiks do? Are there any NYC-area (or elsewhere) processors who use mounts
>that don't kill the edges of the frame? (preferably not for the $1-a-mount
>surcharge Modernage would sock me for) Should I just get the film back
>unmounted, and scan the pix or mount the ones I like? Does anyone mask off
>the famous 970lympus viewfinder so that it no longer shows 1030f the
>image you actually get?
>
>Suggestions?
>
>paul
>
>--
>Paul Wallich pw@xxxxxxxxx
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|