Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,556   Posts: 1,545,074   Online: 978
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    'dv' = millimeters of focal depth on the baseboard.

    'dv' = 2.56mm
    IC - who uses f/16? Wouldn't f/8 be more realistic?
    Kirk

    For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!

  2. #32
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,597
    Images
    122
    I'm sure this could be sorted out really easily. Does anyone have the instructions which came with their focusers?

    The problem is we have two respected printers, Fred Picker and Gene Nocon mentioned in this thread who's suggestions are complete opposites.

    One says use paper, the other says don't. I know the majority do and I don't. It is human nature to defend the way you do something as being right even if you have no proof so a bit of guidance from the focuser manufacturers would be really useful.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  3. #33
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,597
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by leicam5 View Post
    I thought that the distance neg. <—> lens and the distance lens <—> paper are 'reversed proportional' ( is this the right expression in English?) to each-other. So, when one of the two distances is wrong the other one is equaly wrong, or am I wrong?
    I was thinking about this whilst I was out on a walk yesterday (sad isn't it?!).

    Considering the enlarger as a camera, I came to these assumptions:

    For 1:1 reproduction, I agree with your 'reversed proportional' theory. i.e. distances and depth of field/depth of focus being equal.

    When focused at greater distances, a huge change in subject distance translates to a small change in lens to film distance. e.g. a change from infinity focus to ten feet may result in a lens position change of about 1" (thinking about a view camera here).

    My thinking then is that if you go in the opposite direction, e.g. the image on the film (or paper on the enlarger) is larger than the subject, then the reverse should be true. i.e. a small depth of field at the subject (negative) translates to a larger depth of focus at the paper.



    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  4. #34
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,541
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I'm sure this could be sorted out really easily. Does anyone have the instructions which came with their focusers?

    The problem is we have two respected printers, Fred Picker and Gene Nocon mentioned in this thread who's suggestions are complete opposites.

    One says use paper, the other says don't. I know the majority do and I don't. It is human nature to defend the way you do something as being right even if you have no proof so a bit of guidance from the focuser manufacturers would be really useful.


    Steve.
    Steve

    But we have proof. The mathematics of it tell us that it does not matter if you use paper or not. Picker and Nocon, both give good advise, because both approaches work.

    BTW, I checked my Peak instructions. It assumes no paper!
    Regards

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

  5. #35
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,597
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    BTW, I checked my Peak instructions. It assumes no paper!
    So what are you going to do in future?


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  6. #36
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,597
    Images
    122
    [QUOTE=RalphLambrecht;789553Picker and Nocon, both give good advise, because both approaches work.[/QUOTE]

    Yet they both suggest that the other's method is wrong! I think we need to stop worrying about it and do whatever works for us personally.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  7. #37
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,541
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    So what are you going to do in future?


    Steve.
    Same as now. Use a scrap piece of paper for easy focus (not because f the thickness) and leave the grain focuser paperless.
    Regards

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

  8. #38
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,541
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    Yet they both suggest that the other's method is wrong! I think we need to stop worrying about it and do whatever works for us personally.


    Steve.
    Exactly, that's what I keep saying. Using a piece of paper is theoretically more precise, but in practise, the error is so small that it disappears in the 'noise' of the focusing system.
    Regards

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

  9. #39
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes View Post
    IC - who uses f/16? Wouldn't f/8 be more realistic?
    Remember, that particular example was for an 8x10 negative, so that is an 300mm lens. f/16 and f/11 are the best apertures based on the MTF curves for that lens. I didn't want to get in to details, but that lens is not 'flat' at 1:1, so I use f/16. I have measured the focus spread for that lens at 1:1 from edge to center and it is curved to the extent of 2.5mm at the baseboard. So it is no coincidence that I use f/16 for my 1:1 prints with that lens. Again, no surprises here as the manufacturer does not list 1:1 in the recommended magnification range of that lens.

    A little OT, but to continue with these thoughts. If I were in a "Resolution Contest" with someone doing contact prints of 8x10, then my personal 0.15mm CoC may not be good enough. So a process lens (with a flat field) and good MFT curve at f5.6 may be needed. Again this is if the prints are going to being closely scrutinized side-by-side.

    Now, that first example I gave (9x enlargerment) was more typical of a 35mm enlargement. I used f2.8 in that example, but, as you suggest, using a more realistic f8 would increase the focus spread way beyond 2mm, further discounting the 'paper thickness' myth.
    Last edited by ic-racer; 04-27-2009 at 11:20 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #40
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,220
    One thing I would like to summarize is that when enlarging, understanding depth of field is just as important as when taking pictures. Every enlarging system suffers from the following things to some extent:

    1) Lack of parallelism
    2) Lack of field flatness due to the lens
    3) Curved or wavy negatives
    4) concave, convex or wavy paper easels

    The question of "how much to you need to stop down" to correct those things can be answered, to some extent, by the Peak magnifier. The main problem, is that things can look a little fuzzy under the Peak, and still be OK in a print viewed from a distance.

    Therefore, determining the acceptable F-Number from the focusing equation takes into account a personal "acceptable circle of confusion" for viewing a print from a distance, and can take some of the guesswork out of interpreting the image under the Peak.

    I have considered writing up an article on focusing the enlarger but,
    a) Jeff Conrad came up with the math that substantiates that equation,
    b) Jeff already has two good articles on focusing the view camera on the LF site,
    c) the math in those articles is difficult to follow,
    d) if you can follow the math for the view camera model, you don't need a separate article for the enlarger (its just a large format macro camera) and
    e) if you can't follow the math in the view camera focusing articles, you probably won't be able to follow it in an enlarger focusing article

    However, if there were interest I could try to come up with some kind of article like "The Basics of Optimum F-number Selection for Projection Printing Using Modular Transfer Function Criteria." Problem with that title is that no one will understand the title. If I called it "How to Focus the Enlarger" no one will read it
    Last edited by ic-racer; 04-27-2009 at 11:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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