Let's hope they don't.
Does paper thickness change the critical focus?
-
A
- Thread starter Andrey
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Fujica Super Fujica-6 folder, 6x6
- Started by Dan Daniel
-
Want to Buy WTB: "As Maine Goes" by John McKee
- Started by TheTrailTog
-
For Sale Zenza Bronica S2 Outfit - S2 Body, 75mm lens, 135mm lens, 120 film back
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 C Outfit - Body, 3 Finders, A24 Film Back, More!
- Started by indy_kid
Forum statistics
Let's hope they don't.
It won't hurt, but the human focus error is likely to be more than the paper thickness anyway. Depth of field is several mm, apiece of paper is much less.
That's my understanding too.
No, you don't!
Photographic paper is quite different in thickness, and what thickness do you want them to anticipate? Also, many printers like to have a sheet of paper on the easel to see and focus on. If the grain focuser assumes paper, it would double up on the paper thickness correction. What a mess!
You are better off without the paper assumption, which is likely to be wrong anyway, and add YOUR paper where needed. However, in practise, the paper thickness is only a minute part of the depth of field, and hence, this all makes no difference whatsoever.
IC - who uses f/16? Wouldn't f/8 be more realistic?
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.
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.
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.
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!
RalphLambrecht;789553Picker and Nocon said:
Same as now. Use a scrap piece of paper for easy focus (not because f the thickness) and leave the grain focuser paperless.
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.
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 a moderator:
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
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 a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |