Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,263   Posts: 1,680,693   Online: 1018
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by markbau View Post
    Agree 100%. I messed around with cheapies and then took the plunge and purchased one and have never used anything else ever since. I particularly like the fact that you can move about the whole image area, even to the corners.
    Most of us have our enlargers on a bench, so you can see into the corners nearest you, but I haven't yet mastered the trick of seeing the far corners because my head gets in the way. How is it done?

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684

    How Much Magnification?

    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    I did regret spending so much on my Peak. It only has 10x
    magnification, which is not enough for my fine-grained Tmax
    at 11x14 from a 120 negative. My $60 Microsight with its 20x
    magnification works much better for me.
    You can see the grain with a 20 diameter magnifier and
    with what magnification of the negative on the easel? Lets
    say for example that the image on the easel is a 6 diameter
    enlargement of the negative. Peering through the magnifier
    you see the grain 120 diameters enlarged.

    You can tweak the focus until the image seen through
    the magnifier is sharp but you can't know if the image
    is so sharp on the paper. It would take an actual 120
    diameter enlargement showing sharp grain to prove
    the trueness of the focus.

    My point is what rational justifies going to such
    extremes in focusing? Like Mr. Lindan, I agree that
    when the image looks sharp upon the easel, without
    the aid of additional interfering optics, the image is
    sharp. And sharper still from stopping down. Most
    focus with lens wide open.

    Very trusting I'd say basing ones focus on a 120
    diameter enlargement as viewed through
    a complex of optics.

    Better in my mind to view the projected image with
    as little mechanical/optical interference as possible.
    Focus wide open then stop down. Depth of field is
    increased and lens aberrations are reduced. The
    stronger of two pair of reading glasses I use
    gives me about a 2 diameter view over the
    usual close viewing of a print. Dan

  3. #43
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,558
    Images
    15
    I went through this recently? after my old Prinz mirror started to flake off a bit. I bought a Peak and it's OK. then I had a chance to get a new Omega Micromega focuser on eBeg. It's much better than the Peak because the eye piece adjusts as the Peak and Prinz are fixed. As for the bottom line the Prinz, Peak, and Omega all focus the same. So it might come down to what is comfortable for you.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  4. #44
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,863
    The advantage (to me) of the Peak is the ability to see the edges.
    In terms of magnification, if there is not enough resolution to make out the grain, and there are no discrete objectes in the portion of the frame in question, you CAN'T focus. Therefore, as Ralph points out, a higher magnification may be required. Other options would be to choose another negative that has a discrete element on which to focus, ingnore any sense of focus for that print, focus on a portion of the print where there IS a discrete element (sort of like looking for a lost coin where the light is better) or give up.

  5. #45
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,420
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    The advantage (to me) of the Peak is the ability to see the edges.
    In terms of magnification, if there is not enough resolution to make out the grain, and there are no discrete objectes in the portion of the frame in question, you CAN'T focus. Therefore, as Ralph points out, a higher magnification may be required. Other options would be to choose another negative that has a discrete element on which to focus, ingnore any sense of focus for that print, focus on a portion of the print where there IS a discrete element (sort of like looking for a lost coin where the light is better) or give up.
    Seeing the edges is a theoretical advantage and thats why I bought the Peak, but it turned out that I rarely need it. My baseboard and negative plane are in parallel. So, when I focus in the middle of the print, all left-over out-of-focus is clearly with the depth of field.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #46
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,420
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    You can see the grain with a 20 diameter magnifier and
    with what magnification of the negative on the easel? Lets
    say for example that the image on the easel is a 6 diameter
    enlargement of the negative. Peering through the magnifier
    you see the grain 120 diameters enlarged.

    You can tweak the focus until the image seen through
    the magnifier is sharp but you can't know if the image
    is so sharp on the paper. It would take an actual 120
    diameter enlargement showing sharp grain to prove
    the trueness of the focus.

    My point is what rational justifies going to such
    extremes in focusing? Like Mr. Lindan, I agree that
    when the image looks sharp upon the easel, without
    the aid of additional interfering optics, the image is
    sharp. And sharper still from stopping down. Most
    focus with lens wide open.

    Very trusting I'd say basing ones focus on a 120
    diameter enlargement as viewed through
    a complex of optics.

    Better in my mind to view the projected image with
    as little mechanical/optical interference as possible.
    Focus wide open then stop down. Depth of field is
    increased and lens aberrations are reduced. The
    stronger of two pair of reading glasses I use
    gives me about a 2 diameter view over the
    usual close viewing of a print. Dan
    Dan

    I'm not familiar with the term 'diameter', but I assume it simply means 'times'? If so, my point is that 10 and 20x are both too much to focus on an image detail; all I see is specks of density or blank areas with grain, emulsion structure or whatever it is. As I said in another post, I focus on the center of the print, regardless of what is featured there. Sometimes it's an almost blank area, and then the Peak fails me, because its magnification does not show me the grain? as clearly as the 20x magnification of the Microsight from Bestwell. This makes it harder for me to focus. Is this focus accuracy necessary? Probably not, but that wasn't the point. I'm just comparing two focussing aids, I already own.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  7. #47
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,863
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    The advantage (to me) of the Peak is the ability to see the edges.
    The two case that come up most frequently for me are:
    1) Negative curvature. The peak allows one to get the focus spread on the baseboard, from center to edge. I always try to use a non-glass carrier if I can get away with it.
    2) Flatness of field. When using a glass carrier, you really can tell the magnification for which an enlarging lens is optimized by observing the focus spread from center-to-edge at various magnifications. For example my 300mm Rodenstock does not have (nor is claimed to have) a flat field at 1:1.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Dan I'm not familiar with the term 'diameter',
    but I assume it simply means 'times'?
    The diameter is the standard unit of measure
    when speaking of magnification. A four diameter
    enlargement is twice the size of a two diameter
    enlargement. All things being equal.

    An example; I've enlarged the negative by
    five diameters. Dan

  9. #49
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,420
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    The diameter is the standard unit of measure
    when speaking of magnification. A four diameter
    enlargement is twice the size of a two diameter
    enlargement. All things being equal.

    An example; I've enlarged the negative by
    five diameters. Dan
    I never heard of that, but thanks. I must get out of that darkroom more often! Last time I came out, they had invented color photography. What will they come up with next? Who knows, someone might try to get rid of film altogether.

    Of course you're right. I found it in the dictionary.


    diameter |dīˈamitər| (abbr.: diam.)
    noun
    1 a straight line passing from side to side through the center of a body or figure, esp. a circle or sphere.
    • the length of this line.
    • a transverse measurement of something; width or thickness.
    2 a unit of linear measurement of magnifying power.
    DERIVATIVES
    diametral |-trəl| |daɪˈømətrəl| adjective
    ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French diametre, via Latin from Greek diametros (grammē) ‘(line) measuring across,’ from dia ‘across’ + metron ‘measure.’
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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