Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxi!dsg
From: dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (GREEN)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: View area vs. film area
Message-ID: <312@mhuxi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 11:29:31 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxi.312
Posted: Fri Apr 19 11:29:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 06:12:11 EST
References: <2720026@acf4.UUCP> <1082@hound.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

[]
Less than 5% of all photofinishing is "chrome" or slides.  It would
make little sense for camera designers to engineer their product for
that small of a market segment.
The real reason why viewfinders show less than 100% percent of
the actual image is simply to compensate for all areas where
screw-ups may occur, in order of importance:
1.  Chopping off heads ( even with slrs it is quite common ),
2.  Poor placement of film in enlarger negative holders,
3.  Film shrinkage/expansion before, during and after processing,
4.  Poor manufacturing tolerances in the cameras themselves,
5.  Some ( not much ) consideration for slide users,
6.  The assumption that a real pro who is concerned about 1 or
    2% of the total image area would probably use a view
    camera anyway.

Just a side note - real photographers ( "pros" ) usually buy a few
expensive cameras and then worry about things like fickle models,
paying bills, getting assignments, image quality and deadlines.
Pros use Nikons and Hasselblads because they are reliable; not
for "fancy" features.  They also use custom labs for developing
because turnaround time and quality is critical.  The monthly
rent and model expenses ( and other overhead ) far outways the cost
of cameras and photofinishing.