Edge to edge focuser

[Don_ih]

Yet, if the lens you have is not an Apo lens, you will have to make do. I find it's more realistic to worry about the genuine practical requirements for getting something done rather than dwelling on whatever would be idea. Chances are, the corners of the negative are somewhat lackluster for most people making enlargement, anyway.

It's practical to maintain a distinction between the needs of the commercial printer and that of the enthusiast.

 

[Pieter12]

Yet, if the lens you have is not an Apo lens, you will have to make do. I find it's more realistic to worry about the genuine practical requirements for getting something done rather than dwelling on whatever would be idea. Chances are, the corners of the negative are somewhat lackluster for most people making enlargement, anyway.

It's practical to maintain a distinction between the needs of the commercial printer and that of the enthusiast.

APO does not necessarily guarantee edge-to edge sharpness, at least not for black and white work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Apo lenses for graphics work need to be more highly corrected than ordinary enlarging lenses, even those with their own "apo" designation. That's why they're seldom found in apertures wider than f/9 (the exception being the especially expensive Apo El Nikkor line at f/5.6). And these graphics lenses are generally available only as short as 180mm, so not candidates for small negatives. Better sharpness edge to edge, better rectilinearity, more even field illumination, and so forth.

And if all the primary wavelengths coincide better, which apochromatic correction implies, so will black and white focus be overall improved, just like with taking lenses. But there are numerous factors at play in practical enlargement, each of which has to be ironed out for best performance.

How much all of this matters all depends. For some, tight edge to edge to edge performance is important, to others, not so much.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I’d recommend a laser alignment tool before a fancy grain focuser If you already have a good grain focuser. You really don’t need to see in the corners if your enlarger is aligned. I have a Micromega and rarely ever do.

 

[Don_ih]

APO does not necessarily guarantee edge-to edge sharpness, at least not for black and white work.

I was responding to a comment made by Drew, not making any assumptions about Apo lenses. The point was, if you find your lens isn't perfect but you don't have a better one, that knowledge on its own isn't going to make the print better. You make the best print with what you have. If you find you need to get something more technically precise, get it and make the best print you can. Or don't get it and be pleased with what you can do. Chances are, for the majority of people, whatever enlarger and lenses they have exceeds their requirements, anyway.

 

[GregY]

I’d recommend a laser alignment tool before a fancy grain focuser If you already have a good grain focuser. You really don’t need to see in the corners if your enlarger is aligned. I have a Micromega and rarely ever do.

Good point PRJ...although not all enlargers require a pricey tool to check the alignment....

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This is probably a daft question, but I take it you are using the focus finder with the enlarger lens at full aperture and with no filtration.

That'sthe way to do it ful aperture to get the brightest image an when stopped down to working aperture, focus ca only improve. Focusing is also always done with unfiltered light as color-filtered light can throw off focus.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Don't buy into the "you have to have an APO lens" stuff. It doesn't really matter much. Maybe if you are doing large color prints, but for black and white just use a good lens. Or even a not so good lens if that is what you like. I have one of the best enlarging lenses ever made (better than the common APOs) but rarely ever use it. It doesn't jive with my Focomat since it is a 60mm so I have to use it on my big Saunders which I never use for 35mm. The 50s I use on the Focomat work fine. I even use a - gasp! - Elmar from time to time on the Focomat. With portraits, that lens is really sweet. If your goal is to make sharp prints then any 6 element lens will do for you.

 

[Bill Burk]

I’m focusing with the lens at working aperture and a neutral density 0.60 filter in the image path.

I’ve got a dial caliper and I mentally note the reading when it gets sharp coming down and then going up. Then I split the difference.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't know but if anyone can give instructions as to what you do with the Paterson to get beyond a fairly restricted view of the centre of the negative projection then let him speak, No-one has spoken in my nearly 20 years here

pentaxuser

You don’t. Paterson micro really needs to be in the center. Soon as you move off-center the cat eye appears and you can’t use it.

Though I malign this tool all the time, it is a usable instrument. You don’t need to see the whites of their eyes to focus. You focus on the grain. And there is normally grain everywhere in the negative.

For that, you might listen to others and open the lens to focus then stop down to print.

My practice is a little weird but I have had trouble stopping down consistently. So I like to leave the lens alone once I focus.

 

[Pieter12]

I focus wide open, no filters. Then I stop down to the working aperture (2 or 3 stops) and check the focus again.

 

[Hilo]

Don't buy into the "you have to have an APO lens" stuff. It doesn't really matter much. Maybe if you are doing large color prints, but for black and white just use a good lens. Or even a not so good lens if that is what you like. I have one of the best enlarging lenses ever made (better than the common APOs) but rarely ever use it. It doesn't jive with my Focomat since it is a 60mm so I have to use it on my big Saunders which I never use for 35mm. The 50s I use on the Focomat work fine. I even use a - gasp! - Elmar from time to time on the Focomat. With portraits, that lens is really sweet. If your goal is to make sharp prints then any 6 element lens will do for you.

Your use of the Elmar - more subject related - I find such a welcome possibility. I am in the same boat with the Focomat Ic. Let's say I seldom change from using the Focotar-2. Now and then, when I feel I am not getting there, I will change to a Meopta Meogon 50/5,6 which gives me the same sharp grain all over the image, but with a different contrast. Not as exotic or rich as the Focotar-2 and more silent. I imagine your Elmar does something like that.

Then, when not getting what I want, I switch to the non automatic focusing Valoy II and use the same Meopta lens, or the 60mm variant. There is always a small difference, sometimes precisely what I want.
When I print large (50x60cm / 20x24in.) I may change to a 250w bulb to shorten the exposure. Opening and closing these Meogons is a different story from most other enlarging lenses: they come with a large metal zebra barrel which operates the apertures. Very easy to use when the lens is way up there.

I am sure Apo lenses are fine, I just do not feel the need to get them and prefer spending that kind of money on paper and chemicals. Or an expensive grain focuser.

 

[snusmumriken]

I’m a pragmatist. Unless you intend your photos to be viewed through a scope, focussing by eye at close range is plenty good enough. Methinks @DREW WILEY makes everything over-complicated and rather elitist.

 

[MattKing]

I'm going to differ a bit with @snusmumriken about focusing by eye at close range - but then I use a fair bit of T-Max 400 and, in particular, T-Max 100 in medium format, and at least some of that is/was exposed in a pinhole camera!
When the film grain is very fine, I need some magnification to help me confirm whether the focus on the enlarger is at optimum - particularly when the image includes a lot of blur or other low acutance information.

 

[Pieter12]

I’m a pragmatist. Unless you intend your photos to be viewed through a scope, focussing by eye at close range is plenty good enough. Methinks @DREW WILEY makes everything over-complicated and rather elitist.

The little bit of time and expense of a decent (does not have to be a Peak/Micromega) grain focuser makes a huge difference in the final print. It is not complicated nor elitist. Do you skip making a well-exposed print, too? A soft, grainless (because of lack of focus) print just looks slapdash and amateurish. If you care enough about your images to properly compose the image, focus the camera and process the film, why not go the small extra step to get the focus right under the enlarger?

 

[Hassasin]

Does Omega have the same magnification as Peak? I’m asking because I’m in the market for one, but I hadn’t considered the magnification factor.

They are exactly same build.

 

[Carnie Bob]

This works for most of my needs.
The Mitchell focus scope.

Unicolor Mitchell Focus finder Grain focuser focusing scope | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Unicolor Mitchell Focus finder Grain focuser focusing scope at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.ca

Corner to corner focusing but not highly magnified.

I used this exact model for three years when I was a custom printer at a Wedding Lab here in Toronto , great device.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm going to differ a bit with @snusmumriken about focusing by eye at close range - but then I use a fair bit of T-Max 400 and, in particular, T-Max 100 in medium format, and at least some of that is/was exposed in a pinhole camera!
When the film grain is very fine, I need some magnification to help me confirm whether the focus on the enlarger is at optimum - particularly when the image includes a lot of blur or other low acutance information.

And the much maligned Paterson micro is just fine for the job. I just always wanted to check focus on other parts of the image and it’s “dead center only”. It is fun though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My first magnifier was a Thomas Scoponet. It's performance varied wildly for a simple but overlooked reason. The base was padded by a cardboard height shim which changed thickness with humidity variations. I regret that the Peak Model 1 was not my first choice to begin with. Ordinary reading glasses would do a better job than some of the easel magnifiers I have tried.

There is nothing "elitist" about any of this. Nor does working with good tools complicate anything. It's the other way around - a bit of level error or lack of flatness in the neg carrier or paper position, sloppy focus, etc - it can all add up to something unnecessarily disappointing. My pre-retirement career involved distribution of a great quantity of high end tools to contractors, cabinet shops, and artisans. In many of those scenarios, real pragmatism and sheer efficiency demanded that they buy the best. And in my case, what sense would it make to be shooting 8x10 film with expensive lenses, intended for printing on a top-end commercial enlarger, onto color paper cut from a roll costing almost a thousand dollars, if all that were combined with a toy easel magnifier?

I even have an unusual "close focusing telescope" attached to the negative stage position of my tallest enlarger, because it's operated from a rolling steel platform ladder.

And for the record - yes, people do come right up to my prints, even big 30X40 inch ones, because the detail is there. I not only like the composition to work overall from a greater viewing distance, but to continue to reward the viewer time and again by discovering new details and nuances. Sharpness itself is strategized, just like depth of field, when taking the shot, pertaining to where I want the eye led within the composition.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My Peak focuser works edge to edge, although I have not needed to use it that way most of the time.

 

[snusmumriken]

The little bit of time and expense of a decent (does not have to be a Peak/Micromega) grain focuser makes a huge difference in the final print. It is not complicated nor elitist. Do you skip making a well-exposed print, too? A soft, grainless (because of lack of focus) print just looks slapdash and amateurish. If you care enough about your images to properly compose the image, focus the camera and process the film, why not go the small extra step to get the focus right under the enlarger?

I do go that small extra step, and you can (if you want to) see the grain in my prints, centre and edge. All I’m saying is that you don’t have to own a mass spectrometer to make such a print. The idea of a nice Peak focusser appeals even to me, but in my humble level of the craft it isn’t actually essential. I’m not making murals. Hell, maybe I just have really good eyesight…

 

[Vaughn]

...

And for the record - yes, people do come right up to my prints, even big 30X40 inch ones, because the detail is there. I not only like the composition to work overall from a greater viewing distance, but to continue to reward the viewer time and again by discovering new details and nuances. Sharpness itself is strategized, just like depth of field, when taking the shot, pertaining to where I want the eye led within the composition.

Agreed. Too many prints, especially many digital prints, fall apart when viewed closely. Limiting the viewing distance of the image can (but not always) limit the power of the image.

 

[snusmumriken]

Agreed. Too many prints, especially many digital prints, fall apart when viewed closely. Limiting the viewing distance of the image can (but not always) limit the power of the image.

Yes, although maybe the required detail isn’t present in the negative either.

I understand the wish to allow viewing at various distances, especially for landscapes. But can you explain how it is possible to see something in a print with the naked eye that is imperceptible without a magnifier in the (same sized) projected image?

Perhaps there’s a difference here for those of you who are working with large column heights, long print exposures and dim projected images? I don’t know, I’m just a bit baffled.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I do my initial focusing wearing a relatively strong pair of reading glasses. But I'm often amazed just how much I'm off once I introduce the Peak magnifier.

The advice to just stop the lens down more, for sake of more depth of field, doesn't always work ideally. Sometimes I want a shallow depth of field, especially when printing stacked negatives, for example, the primary negative plus registered film masks. A shallow depth of field pertaining to the neg carrier means that secondary dust, film grain, Newton rings, or minor flaws in the carrier glass and less likely to be reproduced in the print.

I'll let Vaughn answer S. in his own manner, since he often contact prints. I can just state that there truly are subtle differences which normal vision can pick up when an image is optimized and worthy of close inspection. There's a feel to it. It's much like how, even in say, my 16X20 prints, although the ones enlarged respectively from 6X9, 4X5, and 8X10 negatives might all have the same amount of sharpness, detail, and even contrast, they still feel different to me.

Logistical concerns might dictate which equipment is best in the field, but even there I find myself strategizing the formats somewhat differently. There are certain intangibles difficult to quantify, which still register with a sensitive viewer. And those aspects we might classify as microtonality and subtle edge effect comes across best when the enlarger focus is spot on.

 

[Vaughn]

...

I understand the wish to allow viewing at various distances, especially for landscapes. But can you explain how it is possible to see something in a print with the naked eye that is imperceptible without a magnifier in the (same sized) projected image?

...

Could you rephrase that question? One does not need a magnifier to see sufficient detail in an image, so I am not quite sure what you are asking.

I agree with Drew that the degree of sharpness is an image quality that can be felt, as well as seen. It is an element of image design that can be used in creating an image (not the same activity as making a print).