Edge to edge focuser

[GregY]

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

I didn't find it so. I have a Paterson in a drawer somewhere. The Peak is brighter, crisper, made of better materials... easier to use. That's pretty common between cheap items and those costing 10 x more. The replacement mirror alone, for the Peak is the same price as the Paterson.

 

[Bill Burk]

Wait there’s a fallacy: Paterson continues to make System 4 tanks

 

[MattKing]

Wait there’s a fallacy: Paterson continues to make System 4 tanks

I don't think so. They have been making their replacement, the Super System 4 tanks since the late 1980s.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

"not just a tool to whack things with." Nicely put Vaughn.

Yes, and it is still a
bourgeois concept
anyway.

 

[GregY]

Yes, and it is still a
bourgeois concept
anyway.

Absolutely

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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.

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'...

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

 

[Mal Paso]

Yes, and it is still a
bourgeois concept
anyway.

That's so '70s. Beatnik, Bohemian or Hippie?

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.

My point is Digital Photography is fully mature and the majority of fine art prints sold today are Digital. Even many photos originally captured on film. Most of the platinum prints are now made with digital negatives. Saying digital prints aren't sharp is trash talk by people who have already lost the argument.

That said I love analogue and will continue with it as long as I can.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Dots Per Inch and Pixels Per Inch can be the same thing depending on context.

There you have it: context!

That said I love analogue and will continue with it as long as I can.

I do hope and wish that you and the analogue will last very long time.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

A little late in responding, but this is what I was trying to refer to. The degree of sharpness affects the way the viewer will approach/appreciate the image.

If sharpness is a bourgeois concept, then Pictorialism must be a commie plot...

 

[snusmumriken]

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

Looks like you need a workbench. What’s the role of the banana?

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[GregY]

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

Bill, I'd give my Paterson to a darkroom newcomer... if i were building another darkroom (your cabin in the woods).... i'd sell one of the cameras we all have on the shelf. A Peak costs less than a box of paper.... it's not a big deal.

 

[Bill Burk]

Banana for scale: signature phrase of “Weird (and Wonderful) Secondhand Finds That Just Need To Be Shared” Facebook group.

I looked at garage sales and didn’t see anything that would do. One guy, Jim, had a fantastic benchtop that holds a set of saws. It had a saw vise mounted on the side. I asked him about the vise and told him I had one in the car, so I brought it out to show it off and we talked a while with another guy who was there. I might need to go back tomorrow to get one of those saws. They look well cared for.

Really missed an opportunity a few weeks ago when a florist closed and threw out flower stands. They had a Greek pillar that would really do the trick.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Mal Paso]

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.

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.

My digital cameras are 36 and 46 Megapixel and I print 17x22 with no visible grain. The Z7ii provides 375 PPI on a 22 inch print. The Seiko print heads produce 4600 DPI, 300 DPI was pretty much the limit for fine offset printing. Pixel is the basic unit of a digital image, Dot is when you put it on paper.

The majority of fine art prints sold today are digital. One Carmel Gallery has no analogue prints.

This Does Not invalidate film and analogue photography. The Roman Loranc exhibit a couple months ago sold very well but the percentage is getting smaller. I just added running water and drain to my darkroom, I'm not giving up but digital is not something to look down on anymore.

 

[Bill Burk]

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).

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

 

[Mal Paso]

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.

I also have an LED panel for negatives.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mal - I couldn't care less what the preponderance of galleries are now doing. I never have. I did care who represented me, and it was implicitly understood that my work was to be presented in my own manner.
Back in my own Carmel days, I never sold a single print to a tourist. Every single one of them went to serious collectors, including famous photographers. In fact, I've never sold a print to a tourist in my entire life. Carmel has always been noted for a handful of serious photo galleries, a lot of questionable painting galleries, some involved in art fraud, and quite a few predictable tourist trap photo decor galleries too, with their over-saturated kitchy inkjet fare.

And I recognize the logistical challenge to setting up serious darkroom spaces as real estate pricing in general has skyrocketed in the Bay Area. I meet all kinds of youngish techies making a lot of money who would like to get into darkroom work, but even with combined incomes, they can barely manage a two bedroom house. And it doesn't surprise me that some of those folks are digital imaging pros seeking a more tactile approach. They tell me so. Who wants the same recreational hobby as they are required to do all week long to make a living? But at least if they're out in the fresh air; and if they have to resort to inkjet printing to get from Point A to B, they're getting some kind of benefit from it.

I'm not looking down on digital imaging, nor am I the least bit ignorant of its present capacity. I have acquaintances with multimillion dollar digital labs, or really serious press capability way beyond what is possible with inkjet, as well as those who are A list names in digital printing. But it just ain't the same thing as a real optical print.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you haven’t already got one, the LED light panels are excellent and can be stored in the negative file.

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.

 

[Mal Paso]

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.

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.

 

[MAQ]

Si coloca el enfocador Paterson en el borde de la imagen, ¿por qué no puede verlo?

Intente, orientando el ocular del enfocador hacia el centro de la imgen.