Grain focuser recommendation

[Emilro]

Hi guys, I need to get a grain focuser because I wear glasses and it is very difficult for me to focus with the naked eye. I am between a magnasight, a minisight or the little paterson focuser.

Which one do you recommend and why?

best regards

 

[ic-racer]

You really need to see the corners, to make sure they are sharp.

 

[Mick Fagan]

The best one is the one you can afford that works, they all work, but probably the cheapest and most common around the world is the Patterson.

It requires you to remove your glasses, then you focus on the wire strip, then lock that. Now it is ready to use. You take your glasses off to use it, I push my glasses onto my head, focus then lock the enlarger and you are away.

Probably the best focus aid is the one suggested by IC-RACER, even though he does not help without giving you what it is. It is called a Peak focus aid.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pea...99#imgrc=UFdQlmQaXzI66M&imgdii=i2KksDbwTMtU6M

It is extremely expensive and it is beautiful to use, but it is not needed; very nice to have though. I have the Patterson and the Peak.

Mick.

 

[ic-racer]

Sorry no link but they go under a lot of different names: Omega, Peak, Micromega, Z Koana System, etc. and are graded in price as to how big the mirror is, I, II, III, 2000, 2020, 2030.

 

[Emilro]

I had read a little about the omega peak focuser and everyone agrees that it is an amazing focuser but it is a bit expensive for me at the moment, I have the possibility to buy an almost unused bestwell minisight, an almost new parterson and a used magnasight, which do you think that would be the best option?

(by the way I don't see anything without my glasses)

 

[MattKing]

The Magnasight is an excellent complement to other grain focusers - it permits you to focus with your eyes a decent distance away from the focusing aid.
I mostly use a Bestwell Microsight, which is a taller version of the Bestwell Minisight. Mine works well and is well made - the Bestwell Minisight appears to be of similar good quality. For some negatives and some magnifications, it is helpful to use the Magnasight to get focus close, and then the Microsight to fine tune it.

 

[PFGS]

While we are on the topic - is it necessary to put a dummy piece of paper under the focuser? I always have, but wouldn't mind not bothering.

 

[Bill Burk]

While we are on the topic - is it necessary to put a dummy piece of paper under the focuser? I always have, but wouldn't mind not bothering.

No. Paper was recommended in many instructions sheets. But there’s some easy science you can do to test it. I have read the depth of field at paper plane is about a half inch (in common circumstances).

 

[MattKing]

For some easels, the paper is easier to focus and compose on than the easel surface, so it may be a good habit to have it there for that purpose.
In which case the question becomes: "is it necessary to remove that paper before adjusting focus?"
Same answer: No - just remove it before inserting the photographic paper you plan to expose.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

You really need to see the corners, to make sure they are sharp.

Cadillac of grain focusers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried server and I found the Peak were the best. Also the door covers the mirror when it is not being used which saves cleaning first surface mirrors.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I agree Magnasight is a worthy complement to the Peak/Omega or whichever brand you choose of the fancy. So if you get Magna now, it is low on price and likely useful as long as you do darkroom work. You can always get the best later, if you find Magna lacking (which you probably will if you get a chance to look through a Peak etc.).

Key is to make sure focuser is aligned with easel surface (actually paper top surface), so when see things sharp in it, they are also sharp on paper. But this is rather easy to check on print.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The Peak/Micromega one is the best. If your enlarger is aligned it won't matter though. I think the next best is the Microsight. I've probably used all of them in my life. That would be my recommendation.

By the way, the good ones have adjustment for your eye, so you can use them without your glasses.

 

[pentaxuser]

Emilro, key to this question you have asked at least in part is: what is your budget?. What you need to understand which Mick Fagan also explained is that (a) the Paterson grain finder will focus on the grain as well as any finder but its limitation is that it will only do this if it is placed in the centre area of the negative projection and will not show the corners. The Peak of course will do this but at a considerable extra cost.
To see the grain on which a grain finder focuses on you do not need your glasses as Mick said.

Grain focusing is not focusing on the print as such,it is focusing on the grain within the negative when projected onto the easel. The negative may be in or out of focus when the exposure was made. Hopefully it was in focus in which case the grain ensures that the print projection is as sharp as it can be. Unless a person's eyesight is very sharp then as long as the negative is in focus the grain finder will give you better sharpness than simply adjusting the focus until it appears sharp with the eye and that is true for people with normal eyesight.

pentaxuser

 

[jeffreyg]

I have the Omega and have used it for a very long time. Whichever you end up with, I would focus on a sheet of the paper you use and then fine focus with the grain finder. What you can do is to process a sheet of unexposed paper and keep that for composing and focusing.
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[DREW WILEY]

Trying to achieve precise focus on an uneven negative is dicey. That why I never use glassless carriers. And yes, your grain magnifier should always be atop a piece of paper the same thickness that you plan to actually use. I've seen some really miserable cheap magnifiers which were way off. Now I only use the Peak Critical magnifier. But the Bestwell ones have a good reputation too.

 

[wyofilm]

If you are going for large enlargements then spend the extra money on your focuser. If you are going to remain with small prints then buy what you feel comfortable purchasing.

Half the time I remember to insert a sheet under the focuser, the other half the time I forget.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Not to sound like I’m anti gear. But take care of the basics of critically aligning your enlarger first. When your enlarger is aligned properly, one could get by with a cheaper focuser. An expensive focuser sure nice though.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

No. Paper was recommended in many instructions sheets. But there’s some easy science you can do to test it. I have read the depth of field at paper plane is about a half inch (in common circumstances).

Do tell me more. I've been maintaining a pile of samples for each different paper I use because I always wanted to make sure that my focus was pin sharp. I relish the flavour of useless stuff being thrown...

 

[pentaxuser]

I had thought that all of this debate as to whether there was a need for a piece of paper the same thickness as the print paper had been settled on the basis that the DoF takes care of this and more. There has been at least one thread on this and quite a long one too from what I recall and essentially it was what Bill Burk has said

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

If you want to test whether or not you need to have a piece of paper there, insert a piece of paper, focus using as high a magnification grain focuser as you have, take the paper out replace the magnifier in the same position and see if you can see any difference whatsoever.
You won't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had thought that all of this debate as to whether there was a need for a piece of paper the same thickness as the print paper had been settled on the basis that the DoF takes care of this and more. There has been at least one thread on this and quite a long one too from what I recall and essentially it was what Bill Burk has said

pentaxuser

If you want to test whether or not you need to have a piece of paper there, insert a piece of paper, focus using as high a magnification grain focuser as you have, take the paper out replace the magnifier in the same position and see if you can see any difference whatsoever.
You won't.

I put paper underneath. I consider it good lab technique. I would rather do that than spend the next week and a half reading the thread and all its references again.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don't forget that you can speed up the whole procedure by using a strong pair of reading glasses for the initial focus, then check it with the grain magnifier.

 

[Bill Burk]

I put The Negative under my easel which raised one side by 0.875 inches. Across 16 inches.

Then I focused on a 35mm negative with an Omega Micromega focuser 50mm lens at f/5.6

I pushed a couple wooden blocks back and forth to mark where it looked sharply focused and found a wide movement was acceptably sharp.

I moved 1.8 inches across the incline. At that pitch the math works out to 0.098 inches of acceptable depth of field.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ansel Adams’ The Negative, a standard in every darkroom.