Is there value in getting a loupe to look carefully at negatives?

[rpavich]

Just wondering about what folks think about this. Is there value in getting a loupe to carefully examine negatives these days?

I'm just wondering because I am just barely realizing the importance of good negatives and I wanted to start visually correlating the proof sheet, and print, with what a negative looks like.

Do you look at your negatives on a light box or similar and why or why not?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

You bet! An 8x loupe with 4x5 negatives still doesn't tell the whole story but enables me to see focusing errors and other defects at a certain level so I don't waste time and paper enlarging to find out. A good grain focuser gives even more info. For roll-film negs I'd get a good-quality 10x loupe. Don't get a cheapie; they have curved fields of view that only let you see a small sharp circle in the center. Get a good loupe with a flat field.

FWIW I don't find a light table a necessity. I often just hold my negs up to a light source, an evenly-lit white wall, etc. Also, you should be able to judge some things, like basic density, under- overexposure and under- overdevelopment without a loupe.

Best,

Doremus

 

[rpavich]

You bet! An 8x loupe with 4x5 negatives still doesn't tell the whole story but enables me to see focusing errors and other defects at a certain level so I don't waste time and paper enlarging to find out. A good grain focuser gives even more info. For roll-film negs I'd get a good-quality 10x loupe. Don't get a cheapie; they have curved fields of view that only let you see a small sharp circle in the center. Get a good loupe with a flat field.

FWIW I don't find a light table a necessity. I often just hold my negs up to a light source, an evenly-lit white wall, etc. Also, you should be able to judge some things, like basic density, under- overexposure and under- overdevelopment without a loupe.

Best,

Doremus

Thanks!

That's what I was wanting it for...density, under or over developing or exposure.

 

[BetterSense]

I look at every negative i develop on a light box, if only for a few seconds. It is the fastest way to proof...far faster than scanning. Contact prints for proofing purposes are a waste because they only tell me some of the things I could learn by looking at the negative directly.

 

[BrianShaw]

I look at every negative i develop on a light box, if only for a few seconds. It is the fastest way to proof...far faster than scanning. Contact prints for proofing purposes are a waste because they only tell me some of the things I could learn by looking at the negative directly.

Agree. Contact prints are compositional tools for marking up with crop lines.

 

[rpavich]

Agree. Contact prints are compositional tools for marking up with crop lines.

Interesting

I look at every negative i develop on a light box, if only for a few seconds. It is the fastest way to proof...far faster than scanning. Contact prints for proofing purposes are a waste because they only tell me some of the things I could learn by looking at the negative directly.

Thanks for the reply, I'm hoping to learn to see directly what I can from my negs.

 

[GregW]

In the short term, grab a 50mm lens and open it wide and look at your negs from the front cell.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Yes I agree the Loupes are invaluable for checking negatives. but I love my large light boxes , this way I can lay out complete days of work and look at the negatives in large groups.

You bet! An 8x loupe with 4x5 negatives still doesn't tell the whole story but enables me to see focusing errors and other defects at a certain level so I don't waste time and paper enlarging to find out. A good grain focuser gives even more info. For roll-film negs I'd get a good-quality 10x loupe. Don't get a cheapie; they have curved fields of view that only let you see a small sharp circle in the center. Get a good loupe with a flat field.

FWIW I don't find a light table a necessity. I often just hold my negs up to a light source, an evenly-lit white wall, etc. Also, you should be able to judge some things, like basic density, under- overexposure and under- overdevelopment without a loupe.

Best,

Doremus

 

[rpavich]

In the short term, grab a 50mm lens and open it wide and look at your negs from the front cell.

Ahh..I have an extra lying around, I'll do that, thanks.

 

[calebarchie]

If you have to question it then it really may not be of any value to you after all.

 

[rpavich]

If you have to question it then it really may not be of any value to you after all.

Why?

Possibly I didn't phrase the question well enough. I might have said "Do folks use a loupe like in the distant past or is there some better way to evaluate negatives that I'm not aware of?"

Does that shed more light on what I'm asking?

I'm not asking if a loupe works...only if there is some alternative that everyone knows about that I'm not privy to.

 

[calebarchie]

You are right. Your question makes little sense.

Using a loupe and lightbox is just a means to evaluating your negs, but first you must learn how to read, understand and make use of what you are seeing.
Scanning is not the best indicator of what you are looking for regardless..

 

[rpavich]

You are right. Your question makes little sense.

Using a loupe and lightbox is just a means to evaluating your negs, but first you must learn how to read, understand and make use of what you are seeing.
Scanning is not the best indicator of what you are looking for regardless..

Wouldn't the first step to learning to read and understand my negatives is the ability to actually see them?
That's why I'm asking...I want to see them in detail and I'm wondering if there has been an improvement in how folks look at them or is a loupe still the way to do it.

In any case..I got my answer and I'm not in the mood to argue about it or defend the idea that I want to learn about my negs...life is too short.

 

[calebarchie]

You have eyes do you not?
Yes, there are other ways like a densitometer... but indeed, life is too short for that.

 

[Alan Johnson]

If you shoot a test ( it helps to always use the same subject and lighting conditions) of nominally 100 ISO film in a reliable camera at EI=40, 50, 64,80,100,125 it is possible to determine the "best" EI for that film/developer combination.

It helps greatly to have a loupe for examining shadow detail on the differently exposed negatives.

 

[rpavich]

You have eyes do you not?
Yes, there are other ways like a densitometer... but indeed, life is too short for that.

Sigh...yes of course I have eyes.

You win, I lose...no need to keep this part of the conversation going.

 

[rpavich]

If you shoot a test ( it helps to always use the same subject and lighting conditions) of nominally 100 ISO film in a reliable camera at EI=40, 50, 64,80,100,125 it is possible to determine the "best" EI for that film/developer combination.

It helps greatly to have a loupe for examining shadow detail on the differently exposed negatives.

Thank you...that's my plan.

Even using the 50mm lens as suggest above (until I get a loupe) worked great.

 

[ic-racer]

Same value a focusing the camera. May or may not be important, but to each his own.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have used a loupe for virtually my entire career in photography spanning over 50 years. And, of course I have several with different focal lengths. I use them on a light table, and do exactly what you are planning to do. I also use a densitometer.

Don't fail to get one. A very useful and wise investment for the serious photographer.

PE

 

[Vaughn]

Ah, the advantage of being very near-sighted...I can focus without glasses at about 4 or 5 inches. But I can 'waste' a lot of time over my light box with a loupe, also (I can get a couple 11x14 negs on the light box). I have a loupe that can cover a full 6x6 (120 film) negative, which is nice to use...a 3x or a 4x, I believe.

But I contact print, so if I need a loupe to find mistakes/errors, so will the person seeing the prints!

 

[rpavich]

Thanks so much for everyone who chimed in with good suggestions and insight.

I ended up ordering a Peak 8x loupe (the rectangular one) from B&H so if I don't like it I can send it back.

 

[BrianShaw]

Good choice. If you don't like that, don't return it but buy another - 4X. You'll find both are useful. Peak loupes may not be the best available but the are both affordable and adequate for the task.

 

[MattKing]

Ah, the advantage of being very near-sighted...I can focus without glasses at about 4 or 5 inches. But I can 'waste' a lot of time over my light box with a loupe, also (I can get a couple 11x14 negs on the light box). I have a loupe that can cover a full 6x6 (120 film) negative, which is nice to use...a 3x or a 4x, I believe.

But I contact print, so if I need a loupe to find mistakes/errors, so will the person seeing the prints!

My eyes must have improved over night. Vaughn's avatar is suddenly sharper, clearer and way more colourful!

Still like using a magnifier of some sort though.

The cheap reading glasses can assist, in a pinch.

 

[StephenT]

I also use a loupe on a lightbox, as well as a chimney finder from an RB. I find it very valuable.

If I hadn't already been using one, certainly after PE's post I would go get one. Maybe two.

 

[randyB]

Thanks so much for everyone who chimed in with good suggestions and insight.

I ended up ordering a Peak 8x loupe (the rectangular one) from B&H so if I don't like it I can send it back.

You have chosen......wisely