On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 20:06:49 +0000 "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
BTDT so many times I can't count. I don't even imagine that what I get on
a print will match what's on the negative unless I do it myself (and that's
been a while).
But I found a solution that should work for me for the indefinite future:
Trekked up to B&H and got some cotton gloves, a box of Pakon mounts
for the stuff that's only too close on one or two edges, and a box of
Weiss Full
Frame mounts for those few frames that need (hah!) to be seen in all their
glory.
(ObOly: I also wandered down to Wall St Camera, who didn't have the 85/2
listed in their web inventory, but did have a nice 35-70/3.6 that I played
with for a while before deciding that a) I didn't really need it, b) the
zoom ring was a bit funky at one end and c) if this was the one people thought
was too big, I really wanted to see the 3.5-4.5)
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 >
|