My understanding is that the Peak is no better at focusíng on grain than the Paterson ie its magnification is no better. Where it scores more highly is in being able to edge focus which the Paterson cannot do
pentaxuser
Wait there’s a fallacy: Paterson continues to make System 4 tanks
"not just a tool to whack things with." Nicely put Vaughn.
Yes, and it is still a
bourgeois concept
anyway.
That may have been true in the past but modern sensors far surpass film in resolving power and have pushed lens makers to new levels of sharpness. Even the best older glass doesn't stand up to what lens makers are producing now.
My Epson printer is 4800 DPI and my 24x36mm sensor can provide 300 ppi on a 28 inch print. Basically 4x5 quality from a 35mm camera. Medium format will soon eclipse 8x10. A far cry from the 64K $36,000 Kodak/Nikon, my first digital experience.
That said I recently acquired a Peak Type 1 and really like it. I can see the grain in a 4x5 negative with it. I used a lesser quality magnifier early on that may have been dropped early on and never trusted them. You would have to put the Peak in a hydraulic press to change it's dimensions. None the less I ran tests on the Peak before putting it in service.
Although I paid $160 for mine but I've seen Peak Type 1s sell for $100 on ebay, you just have to hunt.
That's so '70s. Beatnik, Bohemian or Hippie?Yes, and it is still a
bourgeois concept
anyway.
Dots Per Inch and Pixels Per Inch can be the same thing depending on context.Now you are at it, could you please elaborate clearly and not to mis understood the difference between "DPI" (in capitals) and ppi (in minuskel)?
I heard/read so many different and sometimes contradicting discours on it that things got 'unsharp'...
Dots Per Inch and Pixels Per Inch can be the same thing depending on context.
That said I love analogue and will continue with it as long as I can.
Not that long ago, I went to an exhibition of Rock'n'Roll photos that included some that were in the 48-60" range, with crisp grain that practically poked your eye if you got close. These were 35mm photos taken form the stage during performances and rehearsals with pushed film and just the stage lighting. The grittiness and contrast gave them an energy that really delivered some of the concert experience. If the grain were too fine or soft, I don't think they would have that impact.
If I were setting up a darkroom for a newcomer, or even a second darkroom for myself at a cabin in the woods, I’d get a Paterson micro focus finder. It’s a good value and I could make it work.
I just want to have a good time in the darkroom. To that end I am frustrated by my lack of a good negative checking and carrier loading station.
Here’s what’s bugging me. I need something like a podium. I don’t think a music stand would work but it would be an improvement.
I end up checking negative quality at the easel, so the Micromega (like Peak long mirror) does make me happier than the Paterson did.
View attachment 377009View attachment 377010View attachment 377011View attachment 377012
I place a light panel on the enlarger easel for examining negs and loading the carrier. Works fine, goes back in the drawer or on top of a cabinet when not in use.If I were setting up a darkroom for a newcomer, or even a second darkroom for myself at a cabin in the woods, I’d get a Paterson micro focus finder. It’s a good value and I could make it work.
I just want to have a good time in the darkroom. To that end I am frustrated by my lack of a good negative checking and carrier loading station.
Here’s what’s bugging me. I need something like a podium. I don’t think a music stand would work but it would be an improvement.
I end up checking negative quality at the easel, so the Micromega (like Peak long mirror) does make me happier than the Paterson did.
View attachment 377009View attachment 377010View attachment 377011View attachment 377012
If I were setting up a darkroom for a newcomer, or even a second darkroom for myself at a cabin in the woods, I’d get a Paterson micro focus finder. It’s a good value and I could make it work.
I just want to have a good time in the darkroom. To that end I am frustrated by my lack of a good negative checking and carrier loading station.
Here’s what’s bugging me. I need something like a podium. I don’t think a music stand would work but it would be an improvement.
I end up checking negative quality at the easel, so the Micromega (like Peak long mirror) does make me happier than the Paterson did.
View attachment 377009View attachment 377010View attachment 377011View attachment 377012
20 years ago I was hoping we could have both digital sensors and large format. It's hard to beat real estate when capturing photons but scanning backs was all there ever was for 4x5 and up. Cambo made some nice medium format view cameras and the new sensors with more resolution than film put our best lenses out to pasture. Lens makers came up with expensive Super XL lenses to match but it was a very small market as small sensors reduced depth of field issues. Things have advanced so much that Nikon doesn't make any PC tilt and shift lenses for the new mirrorless cameras. They probably figure slap a 14mm on a full frame, align with the building, crop to your hearts content and still have more image than you ever got with the PCs. The new lenses have been described as so fully corrected as to have no character what so ever.I'm having a problem with Mal's computation of area and dots or pixels per square in. You've only got one and a half square inches of capture with 35mm, and are trying to put it in a contest with something with nearly 20 square inches? That means the resolution of the lens would have to be superior on an order of 13 times just to catch up with 4X5 surface area, whereas at the most it might have only twice the resolution. If a 35mm digi camera and its lens can provide 4x5 quality, that must have been one helluva lousy 4x5 with an even worse lens, and a pretty darn primitive film. In the real world, Godzilla stomps Bambi every time. I guess dots are OK if your name is Damien Hirst. But I prefer the more seamless look of real film and real darkroom prints. At least if grain can sometimes resemble dots, they are often so ridiculously small that you need a grain magnifier to even seem them.
Got my negative station sorted. Citywide garage sale opened so many possibilities.
It’s wide enough for the awkward tasks. And there’s no shelves so it’ll remain portable (I can still hang negatives to dry in this space).
View attachment 377106
Elegant! I have Costco NSF Restaurant shelves in mine.Got my negative station sorted. Citywide garage sale opened so many possibilities.
It’s wide enough for the awkward tasks. And there’s no shelves so it’ll remain portable (I can still hang negatives to dry in this space).
View attachment 377106
If you haven’t already got one, the LED light panels are excellent and can be stored in the negative file.
There's 6 inches in front of my Beseler 45 on the Beseler stand so I work off the side. No problem as the shelves in front are useful and I can reach everything. Some day those shelves will go away so I can do horizontal projection, if I can afford mural paper then.Thanks. The “Cabin” panel might be fluorescent but it’s really thin. Still, putting it in to look at a page and pulling it out to change the page has always been kind of awkward. Mostly I open the book clasps and take pages out to drop on the light panel. So I could use any of my light boxes.
The table is six inches to a foot wider than I want, but it’s the right depth. I might make do or I might take a saw to it. Or I could replace the enlarger table. Nothing like a tight squeeze.
Si coloca el enfocador Paterson en el borde de la imagen, ¿por qué no puede verlo?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?