Harrigan said:Serious loop action. I suspect being near sighted you can see more cleary close up than most people. Do you have problems with the naked eye close up on the gg? I'm dreadfully near sighted and I don't use a loop because thats where my vision sings!
Ryan McIntosh said:My goodness! I've never seen anyone take focusing loupes so seriously! HAHA!
Personally, I've never seen the purpose of using one because I see just look at the ground glass and see if its in focus or not. If its a hair off, I always stop down the lens so its never a problem.
Maybe I will try using one the next time in the field, see if my prints come out sharper or if it helps. I just really dont want to carry extra crap in the field with me.
Ryan McIntosh said:I'm actually going to be shooting some 4x5 on my upcoming trip to Iceland with the intentions of enlarging them to 16x20. I have not shot 4x5 for many years, so it's become somewhat difficult to view such a tiny image on a tiny ground glass. The idea of using a loupe might be a good idea, since I want very sharp negatives for enlarging (ACK!).
I'm not sure what a decent loupe costs, so any suggestions for a very basic one that just "does the job", so to say?
Mike Kovacs said:I like the Cabin (Mamiya in the USA) 4x loupe. Cheap price as the Cabin ($$$ as Mamiya, same thing!), comes with clear and dark skirts. Metal construction. I think you have to go outside the USA to buy it in the Cabin brand. I compared it side by side with the Schneider and didn't hesitate a moment to forget about the plasticky Schneider.
I find if I go past 4x that I just get grain from the ground glass interfering with my focus judgement.
Ryan McIntosh said:My goodness! I've never seen anyone take focusing loupes so seriously! HAHA!
Personally, I've never seen the purpose of using one because I see just look at the ground glass and see if its in focus or not. If its a hair off, I always stop down the lens so its never a problem.
Maybe I will try using one the next time in the field, see if my prints come out sharper or if it helps. I just really dont want to carry extra crap in the field with me.
Ryan McIntosh said:I'm actually going to be shooting some 4x5 on my upcoming trip to Iceland with the intentions of enlarging them to 16x20. I have not shot 4x5 for many years, so it's become somewhat difficult to view such a tiny image on a tiny ground glass. The idea of using a loupe might be a good idea, since I want very sharp negatives for enlarging (ACK!).
I'm not sure what a decent loupe costs, so any suggestions for a very basic one that just "does the job", so to say?
TomWB said:My Agfa 4x loupe that I got before you were born might have cost me $5. It works when I use it, I don't always use one, like you. If I lose it in the field or step on it, no big deal. I read a post here or photonet a while back where someone suggested using the cheapo magnifying eye glasses at drug store....lots of options if you need one. I believe the Agfa is no longer made, but there are copies around ive seen at BH and Freestyle
Price some of the loupes, incredible, i'd rather spend the money on lenses or film. But the way some of these guys talk, they must get boners when looking through the loupes, perhaps I should take an expensive one for a test drive...
Campbell said:I'm surprised that Ansel hasn't smote (smighted? smitten?) you down from afar for this practice. First, depth of field doesn't automatically fix all focusing errors. For depth of field to "work" something has to be in focus. How do you know anything is in focus? Or even if something is, how do you know it's what you wanted to be in focus? Second, you'd be surprised (I think) to see the difference between getting something in focus with just your eyes and getting it in focus with a loupe. I use magnifying glasses to rough focus and then fine focus with a loupe. It's rare that I don't make some slight change from what appeared to be in focus with the glasses and what is in focus with the loupe. Granted, my vision is no doubt not as good as others but it isn't bad either, especially for close ups with magnfiying glasses. Third, you don't want to carry extra "crap" in the field? In mentally going through the "crap" that's in my pack I can't offhand think of anything smaller and lighter than my loupe except maybe the pencil I use to make notes.
naturephoto1 said:Mike,
For some applications, size, weight and expense are a contributing factor. That is/has been part of my reason for this search.
Rich
Ryan McIntosh said:I'm actually going to be shooting some 4x5 on my upcoming trip to Iceland with the intentions of enlarging them to 16x20. I have not shot 4x5 for many years, so it's become somewhat difficult to view such a tiny image on a tiny ground glass. The idea of using a loupe might be a good idea, since I want very sharp negatives for enlarging (ACK!).
roteague said:It might be a tiny format and a tiny screen, but I'm willing to bet that I make much bigger prints with my tiny camera than you do with your big one. 16x20 - what a tiny print.
roteague said:It might be a tiny format and a tiny screen, but I'm willing to bet that I make much bigger prints with my tiny camera than you do with your big one. 16x20 - what a tiny print.
photobum said:After reading the hit on the Agfa loupe I had to write. I have an el-cheapo plastic Agfa loupe that was a give-a-way because of all the film I bought at my supplier. I also have a lecia loupe that cost as much as a good used car and a Toyo 3.6 that's in between. For focussing a GG the plastic works as well as the Leica and I don't have to worry about lost, drop or theft. The el-cheapo goes everywere the Toyo near the van and the Leica lives in the darkroom.
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?