Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,898   Posts: 1,521,069   Online: 946
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56
  1. #21
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,552
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by baachitraka View Post
    I do not know, scoponet might have built-in compensation for paper thickness.
    That's what I used to think and it's what I would do if I was making them but according to the manufacturers I contacted, this was not done.

    I think you might be fooling yourself into thinking that you get sharper prints without the paper just as others will swear that they get sharper prints with it. I think if you did a more scientific test with a decent batch of prints both with and without, the results would be inconclusive.


    Steve.

  2. #22
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,260
    True, there was nothing scientific about those test. But right now, I am comfortable to focus without paper atleast with the scoponet I have.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    72
    OK, I re-read Way Beyond Mono, and based on the sizes I normally enlarge/print 4x5 and 8x10 negatives, I guess the way bigger concern is flatness of the negative. With these size negs and not having gone beyond 16x20 prints, I still can't see the print or neg grain with or without my glasses, but it's something I won't worry about anymore. I actually found the Paterson easier to use. Now I'll test output with my Scoponet. I don't trust my glasses other than to get it close.

  4. #24
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,446
    Images
    74
    I think total enlarger alignment is a bigger factor in focus than with/without paper or method of focusing. If you're out of alignment, it's possible for the center to be in focus, but somewhere else on the image will be thrown way out.

  5. #25
    M Carter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    107
    Cheapest darkroom accessory: a pair of $15 reading glasses from the drug store. They're basically a magnifying glass that's hands free.

    Great for view camera work too, for checking negs and prints, spotting, for maintaining delicate gear, etc. I keep them all over the place. They come in a range of strengths - try a few on at the store and look at the fine print on a package and see if they work for you.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,482
    I would never assume that a grain focus device is correct, esp a cheap one. I use the finest Peak model
    they ever made, always with the correct thickness of film or paper in place, and nearly always just end
    up at the same spot my reading glasses said was correct.

  7. #27
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,097
    Images
    340
    Something that should be mentioned in this thread and I noticed someone mentioned full aperture (I do hope so). But for some of the newcomers to darkroom work, always focus at full aperture with the filtration switched off and with a darkroom illumination ratio to projection that allows you to see what you are doing.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,482
    Full aperture is fine for general focus, not for critical - some lenses have a bit of focus shift between
    the widest aperture and the next. Just depends what you are doing too. When I'm doing critical work
    like making precision internegs or interpositives with an enlarger, I use only apo process lenses and
    check focus with my best grain magnifier, with film in place on a vacuum filmholder. That is often overkill in ordinary black and white printing, but I still tend to do it anyway. My old Scoponet was way
    off for any critical work. You can't assume something is properly sized per focal distance just because it is new! Even the double-faced tape used to attach the mirror ruined any precision to the design. Was
    fine for casual work, but I'm glad I eventually dropped it on the floor!

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    124

    Focusing without a magnifing glass.

    It has been a long time since I last did any darkroom work but I read somewhere if you put a narrow piece of opaque tape across the front of the enlarging lens it would give you two images. When you focus the lens the two images will combine into one. At that point you will be in focus. I remember trying this and it worked.
    The hassel was attaching the tape on and off.
    I hope this is not my mind p[laying tricks on me but I vividly remember this working. I read through all 3 pages of this thread and am surprised no one else mentioned it.

    Francis in VT

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,867
    A new one on me. I wonder how this one works? Anyone care to explain in simple optical terms?

    pentaxuser

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin