Parallax- is it really an issue?

[narsuitus]

All cameras that aren't SLRs will exhibit parallax.

My 4x5 inch view camera does not exhibit parallax.

 

[MattKing]

My 4x5 inch view camera does not exhibit parallax.

While not an SLR, it does offer through the lens viewing .
I had considered using SL instead of SLR, but then nobody would have had any idea what I was talking about.
And then I forgot about the problem.

 

[RLangham]

I think this is a question of the changing assumptions in photography. When the first rangefinder cameras were designed, closeouts were hardly a thing, and if you knew there was a small difference in framing between the viewfinder, you would either compensate directly, or give yourself enough leeway around the subject to crop a little.

What-you-see-is-what-you-get photography, as the ideal rather than a rarity, is relatively recent in the long lifespan of photographic science... and it's not something even the most advanced rangefinder will give you, since it's not gonna show you depth of field and out-of-focus areas in the viewfinder. Nor is it something you can get in most SLR'S besides the elite few with no viewfinder crop... shooting with a F2 and then looking at the negatives was a new feeling for me.

 

[Ai Print]

I only use rangefinders with Leica M cameras and I only use those for reportage type of images and let the foreground to background relationship chips fall where they may.

But for any kind of precise framing at any distance, I simply will not use them due to parallax. I often make complex imagery with foreground elements that I want very precisely placed, rangefinders are just not good for that in my experience.

 

[David Lyga]

It’s a problem

http://beefalobill.com/images/Scan-120708-0020.jpg

The easiest way, the non-intellectual way, to deal with this malady is to 1) recognize that it will increasingly become an issue the closer you get with your camera and 2) when this distance problem exists, begin to slightly adjust the camera in the direction of the lens (compared with the VF) so that you will be countering the misinformation that the VF is telling you. In summation, commonsense is almost as smart as Bill Burk is. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

For me the problem is not parallax, it is the size of the frame lines against portion what you get on the negative. For example 50mm lens on Leica M6 - lines on infinity shows you around 75-80% of what you will get on the negative (on close focus it is better). SLR that are not with 100% finder are also showing this, but not so extreme. That is why I like top line Nikon F/F2/F3... - they show you exactly what you will get, when printing full frame without a cropping, this is important.

On a good side - once when you get to know your camera - it is easier to guess what you will get. But it is still a guess.

OK, now for a very naive "David Lyga" question: Why don't ALL SLRs show you 100% of what you will get? - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

OK, now for a very naive "David Lyga" question: Why don't ALL SLRs show you 100% of what you will get? - David Lyga

At least partially because the early mass distribution SLRs were purchased by photographers who either:
1) used slide film, where the mounts on mounted slides almost always intruded slightly into the image area; or
2) used commercial labs who delivered machine prints, which were almost always slightly cropped.
A viewfinder that shows the entire image area will give you more than will be visible on the slide or the machine print.
And for those who print in the darkroom, one can always crop an image slightly, if necessary.
The fascination with printing the full frame is more an exception than the rule.

 

[David Lyga]

At least partially because the early mass distribution SLRs were purchased by photographers who either:
1) used slide film, where the mounts on mounted slides almost always intruded slightly into the image area; or
2) used commercial labs who delivered machine prints, which were almost always slightly cropped.
A viewfinder that shows the entire image area will give you more than will be visible on the slide or the machine print.
And for those who print in the darkroom, one can always crop an image slightly, if necessary.
The fascination with printing the full frame is more an exception than the rule.

That is precisely what I thought that one would say and, to my unending angst, I hate to agree with that response but I must, because it is truthful.

I guess I just don't understand why people cannot take those things into account and mentally provide for them. That would make the 'purists' out here, the ones who print full frame and grab every morsel of the negative that they can, the real winners.

People: If you know in advance that a photo finisher is going to sacrifice some image area with such intrusion, then mentally provide for that in advance. You ALREADY know that an embedded 2:3 aspect ratio is NOT going to be without such infringement when you opt to have a 8 X 10, or 4 X 5 print. This math is so simple. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

That is precisely what I thought that one would say and, to my unending angst, I hate to agree with that response but I must, because it is truthful.

I guess I just don't understand why people cannot take those things into account and mentally provide for them.

That’s exactly the only reason I ever heard... and opted for a F3 many moons ago because it didn’t “crop”. Not all consumer-grade users will understand or retain understanding of the impacts... so camera designers Attempted to minimize their errors. It’s a convenience.. just like adding auto exposure modes and power winding/rewind features. Most things automated can also be done manually but the conveniences are for improvements in operational speed and reliability.

 

[MattKing]

I would suggest that it was done to help the photofinishers and camera retailers more than the camera users.
It isn't fun to be standing behind a counter while a customer complains to you that the lab cut off the critical part of the photo that they took pains to include in the picture.

 

[BrianShaw]

Interesting perspective, Matt. I only know from one side of the counter.

 

[David Lyga]

That’s exactly the only reason I ever heard... and opted for a F3 many moons ago because it didn’t “crop”. Not all consumer-grade users will understand or retain understanding of the impacts... so camera designers Attempted to minimize their errors. It’s a convenience.. just like adding auto exposure modes and power winding/rewind features. Most things automated can also be done manually but the conveniences are for improvements in operational speed and reliability.

You see, Nikon, at least within the professional component, actually understands clear, clean thinking and does not have to burden the professional by taking him by the hand and teaching him not to think, but, rather, conform, dutifully. That is the reason why high end Nikons do this. And, to add to this: My Nikon N8008 (N801 elsewhere) does not have to advance four frames every time the back door is closed like my Canon T70 must, no matter what (although I learned how to override this!).

This sublime "Nikon" level of thinking conforms to David Lyga's way of reasoning: direct common sense. - David Lyga

 

[Oren Grad]

At least partially because the early mass distribution SLRs were purchased by photographers who either:
1) used slide film, where the mounts on mounted slides almost always intruded slightly into the image area; or
2) used commercial labs who delivered machine prints, which were almost always slightly cropped.
A viewfinder that shows the entire image area will give you more than will be visible on the slide or the machine print.
And for those who print in the darkroom, one can always crop an image slightly, if necessary.
The fascination with printing the full frame is more an exception than the rule.

I'll speculate about one more point: cropping a bit allows for more slop and thus reduced cost in manufacturing - reduced need for high-precision alignment of components. Norman Goldberg's SLR stripdown reports in Popular Photography many years ago used to include a graphic showing the size and alignment of the viewfinder image relative to what you'd get on film. It would be interesting to go back and see how the Nikon F and Canon F-1 series cameras fared in this respect compared to consumer-grade SLRs of the time.

 

[MattKing]

You see, Nikon, at least within the professional component, actually understands clear, clean thinking and does not have to burden the professional by taking him by the hand and teaching him not to think, but, rather, conform, dutifully.

If you have been around as many professional photographers as I used to be, you would have known that many/most? of them couldn't be told how to think or, in many cases, couldn't be told much at all - they had already made up their minds .
There is a streak of, shall we say, independence in a lot of pros.

 

[David Lyga]

If you have been around as many professional photographers as I used to be, you would have known that many/most? of them couldn't be told how to think or, in many cases, couldn't be told much at all - they had already made up their minds .
There is a streak of, shall we say, independence in a lot of pros.

Matthew, I lived in New York throughout the 70s and early 80s. If you are trying to inform me about the vitriol that went into the banter within the photo district stores, save your kind breath. I lived it.

(But I do LOVE your emojis, which are ALWAYS highly relevant to the topic at hand and the demeanor of the infidel.) - David Lyga

 

[darkosaric]

I remember exactly when and because of which picture I started to be a fan on 100% finder. It was 2007, and at the time I did not printed myself in the darkroom, and the picture that I got cropped from the lab was not what I have seen on the negative (and also lab print from Kodak CN 400 was greenish, not B&W, but that is not the point here). So friend printed full frame in the darkroom, and after that I knew what I need to do. Of course this is for me, other can have different preferences.

 

[BradS]

Yeah, it can be a problem...

 

[darkosaric]

Yeah, it can be a problem...

I would like to see the complete negative, if this is a lab print - then there is a possibility that on the negative you have whole head.

 

[BobD]

10 times the focal length of the lens is only about 20 inches for a 50mm lens. Is that right?

 

[BradS]

I would like to see the complete negative, if this is a lab print - then there is a possibility that on the negative you have whole head.

Interesting...but this is a straight negative scan that I made with the Canoscan 9950f. It is full frame with only very negligible crop to clean up the ragged edges.
The photo was taken about ten years ago. It is from the first roll I exposed in a new-to-me 6x9 Franka Rolfix.

 

[Stardelo]

As the viewfinder is often found above the lens of the camera, photos with parallax error are often slightly lower than intended, the classic example being the image of person with their head cropped off. ... Parallax is also an issue in image stitching, such as for panoramas.

 

[NB23]

By the time I develop and print, I totally forget how framed exactly. Was it an inch more up? Was I drunk and What was I thinking? Are the questions that I ask myself the most.

 

[MattKing]

10 times the focal length of the lens is only about 20 inches for a 50mm lens. Is that right?

Correct.
BradS' example is the result of the combination of parallax and a viewfinder that is either damaged or not set up very well for the camera

 

[Finn lyle]

I'll speculate about one more point: cropping a bit allows for more slop and thus reduced cost in manufacturing - reduced need for high-precision alignment of components. Norman Goldberg's SLR stripdown reports in Popular Photography many years ago used to include a graphic showing the size and alignment of the viewfinder image relative to what you'd get on film. It would be interesting to go back and see how the Nikon F and Canon F-1 series cameras fared in this respect compared to consumer-grade SLRs of the time.

Using less glass for prisms (marginal, but remember the square-cube rule) and screens would make a-lot of sense, though why sacrifice something there when tolerances were already so low and build quality so high in the early days of SLRS. My spotmatic's meter needle and associated niche occupies a decent amount of real estate, it makes sense to me at least that cropping the veiwfinder to allow a recessed +/- for the meter was a hell of a lot easier than expanding the viewfinder some 5% and keeping a 100% FOV. IIRC very old pre-spotmatic SLRs had a higher % viewfinder, and again after the implementation of LED (read-outside of the viewfinder image) metering. Of course that's just a theory.

 

[BradS]

Correct.
BradS' example is the result of the combination of parallax and a viewfinder that is either damaged or not set up very well for the camera

I attribute it mostly to user error.


Edit: The camera, an old 6x9 folder, has a 105mm lens and I may have been eight feet away...somewhere around twenty focal lengths.