Modern loupe / magnifier for 35mm contact prints and negs - view the whole frame!

[nmp]

The reading glasses do magnify for me - perhaps because they permit me to get closer and still see clearly and fill my field of vision with the slide.

Do they magnify?​

A common misconception about reading glasses is that they magnify small print. Actually, they make it easier to read small print by providing the correct diopter strength which usually begins at +0.75 all the way up to +4.00 (more on that later). As typically worn, that will crystalize near focus for reading and other close work tasks so that your eyes have an easier time to focus. Reading glasses will not discernibly enlarge the size of text or near objects compared with when they are removed, though the crystalizing effect can often feel that way.

How Our Lenses Work

Our reading glasses use magnification to make small text larger and easier to read. Learn more about how they work, and what pair is right for you.

www.readingglasses.com

 

[markjwyatt]

Does scanning really show how sharp the image is? Isn't a loupe better?

For sharpness, a loupe on the negative may be best, but for seeing how the shot turned out overall, a scan is good, and if the negative is sharp, a good scan should also be sharp.

 

[koraks]

Do they magnify?​

I'd say so. At least mine do:

 

[nmp]

I'd say so. At least mine do:
View attachment 320746

OP wants to inspect minute details of a 35mm negative or contact prints at 5x or 10x. This would hardly cut it. Sorry but it is not going to replace a loupe.

 

[koraks]

I didn't say it would, although it's useful for many things - which is why I have these around (I don't need them for reading yet). I was just surprised at your remark that they don't magnify at all.

 

[nmp]

I didn't say it would, although it's useful for many things - which is why I have these around (I don't need them for reading yet). I was just surprised at your remark that they don't magnify at all.

OK. It magnifies 1.25X. The key word in the link I provided was "discernible." I will leave at that. Way too far from what the OP asked originally. As usual, the discussion drifted far left field.

By the way, if you are using them for looking at something up close, you are already needing them. That's how it starts. Slowly distance gets bigger and bigger....

 

[Hilo]

I'm getting a little frustrated using the 10x loupe I've had for years when reviewing 35mm contact sheets and negatives.

The issue is I can't see the whole of a frame with it. I really need a 5x loop or equivalent.

There are loads of 10x loupe on Amazon and eBay for looking at circuit boards or material threads but they all tend to have field of view of a square inch maximum. Even the 5x ones do.

Can anyone suggest an affordable one that is available today that I can just plonk down on a contact sheet of strip of negs and view the whole of a frame with? (I know there is a Leica one out there and that doesn't count as affordable!)

Yes, it is about seeing the whole frame, of course. But it is also about something else because we tend to take quite a bit of time while looking at contacts. Because it is often about which image to chose between different possibilities. How we framed, where in the image is the focus, different lighting and, many times, the relationship between the images before and after.

I use a magnifier for 6x6 negatives for 135 film and contacts. Mostly for contacts. That way I not only see the image itself but also about one third of the previous and the following shots. I am hardly concerned about the focus, this can wait until I print them.

What is more important for me is that sometimes I am selecting for hours and I want to be comfortable while doing so. The small loupe tires me out very quickly.

I have had this black metal one for a long time, perhaps since the eighties. There's no brand name on it. And I have a plastic one still in the box, which just says Foldable Magnifier No. 5293. They show me about the same image with the same clarity. The metal one is more stable.

 

[BobUK]

When I learnt to spot prints, a book recommended using an old enlarger lens.
I forget which side you look through, but it is obvious when you give it a try.

 

[guangong]

Another option is to use a removable chimney style viewfinder for medium format cameras, e.g. Hasselblad. This is convenient especially if you already have a film camera that can use the viewfinder.

That’s what I have used since early 1980s. A Christmas present from my wife.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The new, cheap Kodak scanner would be worth considering....appears to be designed for easy film insertion/transport. I doubt its tiny, built-in digital monitor would be critically sharp but everybody has a computer and monitor for the purpose.

In order to check how well-focused the slide is to see if you want to print it or scan it, one normally uses a loupe. Using a scanner gives a soft result that you can sharpen during the scan. But that won't tell you accurately if the slide elements were actually in focus. If you scan without sharpening, the result is so soft, it's awfully hard to know if you have or have not reached critical focus in the original shot.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In order to check how well-focused the slide is to see if you want to print it or scan it, one normally uses a loupe. Using a scanner gives a soft result that you can sharpen during the scan. But that won't tell you accurately if the slide elements were actually in focus. If you scan without sharpening, the result is so soft, it's awfully hard to know if you have or have not reached critical focus in the original shot.

Here's an example of my point above. It shows a scan before and after sharpening. The slide was in focus in the camera. Scan done at 2400bpi. You can see how soft the scan is before sharpening. Once sharpened by the scanner or afterwards, how do you know the shot was in focus originally?

 

[jtk]

In order to check how well-focused the slide is to see if you want to print it or scan it, one normally uses a loupe. Using a scanner gives a soft result that you can sharpen during the scan. But that won't tell you accurately if the slide elements were actually in focus. If you scan without sharpening, the result is so soft, it's awfully hard to know if you have or have not reached critical focus in the original shot.

If 35mm you'll find Nikon Coolscan scanners (e.g. IV and V) are still much sharper-focused than Epson (don't require sharpening in post). Those Nikons use a pointer to localize focus anywhere on 35mm films, such as corners, center, edges etc. And Nikon's claimed resolution has regularly been compared favorably to that of drum scanners. In my experience the unfortunately badly engineered Minolta was faintly better than Nikon in that respect (but looking under the plastic shell it was easy to see why it had to be discontinued).

 

[jtk]

In order to check how well-focused the slide is to see if you want to print it or scan it, one normally uses a loupe. Using a scanner gives a soft result that you can sharpen during the scan. But that won't tell you accurately if the slide elements were actually in focus. If you scan without sharpening, the result is so soft, it's awfully hard to know if you have or have not reached critical focus in the original shot.

One might need to work like that with an Epson scan, but not with Nikon. It's the nature of flatbed scanners.

 

[George Collier]

Alan - I use a V850 for contact scans. Place the film in Printfile preservers emulsion down on the scanning bed with a piece of ANR glass on top, selecting transparent on the glass in Silverfast. I scan at 300 res, about 16x20 in size. After scanning to tiff (bit depth 8 is enough), I open in Raw, just to add a modest amount of sharpness.
Viewing in PShop allows enough zooming in to evaluate anything, much more than either a contact print or the neg with a magnifier. And - using adjustment layers, masked to individual frames, you can explore a lot about individual frame potential.
Probably the most important step here is to apply the best interpretation curve (in Silverfast for me) to the scan so that all detail high and low is captured.
Sounds like a lot, but it takes less time to do the scan than it did for me to type this.

 

[Pieter12]

I use a head-mounted jeweler's loupe for spotting prints. Only 3.5x maximum magnification, but it might work for you.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If 35mm you'll find Nikon Coolscan scanners (e.g. IV and V) are still much sharper-focused than Epson (don't require sharpening in post). Those Nikons use a pointer to localize focus anywhere on 35mm films, such as corners, center, edges etc. And Nikon's claimed resolution has regularly been compared favorably to that of drum scanners. In my experience the unfortunately badly engineered Minolta was faintly better than Nikon in that respect (but looking under the plastic shell it was easy to see why it had to be discontinued).

I don;t shoot 35mm often. The samples above are 120 6x7 Velvias film.

Here's are examples of 35mm Tmax 400 scanned with a V850. I don't know how it compares with the Nikon scanner.

Removing ground brush with fire - 35mm Tmax 400

New Jersey Forest Fire Department clears bush by burning. Near Craig House, Monmouth Battlefield.

www.flickr.com

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan - I use a V850 for contact scans. Place the film in Printfile preservers emulsion down on the scanning bed with a piece of ANR glass on top, selecting transparent on the glass in Silverfast. I scan at 300 res, about 16x20 in size. After scanning to tiff (bit depth 8 is enough), I open in Raw, just to add a modest amount of sharpness.
Viewing in PShop allows enough zooming in to evaluate anything, much more than either a contact print or the neg with a magnifier. And - using adjustment layers, masked to individual frames, you can explore a lot about individual frame potential.
Probably the most important step here is to apply the best interpretation curve (in Silverfast for me) to the scan so that all detail high and low is captured.
Sounds like a lot, but it takes less time to do the scan than it did for me to type this.

George, My examples above with the Velvia shots before and after don't seem to show good focusing until you sharpen the scan. So how can you determine if the original film is really sharp without using a loupe?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you want to go budget, the front group of an old 80-200 zoom usually works really well. The rear group is great for high magnification. At least i think I remember that being the case for the rear. You might be able to find a beater at a camera shop or on ebay for a few bucks. I wish I could be more specific but it has been a couple decades since I took apart a couple beater lenses for loupes.

 

[jtk]

George, My examples above with the Velvia shots before and after don't seem to show good focusing until you sharpen the scan. So how can you determine if the original film is really sharp without using a loupe?

1 Flatbeds benefit by sharpening in post.

2) Copy the film with a reasonably good dslr (there are many) and compare to flatbed scan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

1 Flatbeds benefit by sharpening in post.

2) Copy the film with a reasonably good dslr (there are many) and compare to flatbed scan.

1. But you may be sharpening a slightly unfocused photo and fool yourself by thinking it was sharp to begin with.

Then when you go to chemically print it, it's blurry.

 

[jtk]

The point is that with a best Epson you still need to sharpen but with in-scanner focusing of a Nikon IV or V you don't need to do that, since used-as-intend they are inherently sharp (blur enthusiasts complain about Nikon "grain"). Flatbeds are inherently unsharp.

 

[aparat]

Yes, it is about seeing the whole frame, of course. But it is also about something else because we tend to take quite a bit of time while looking at contacts. Because it is often about which image to chose between different possibilities. How we framed, where in the image is the focus, different lighting and, many times, the relationship between the images before and after.

I use a magnifier for 6x6 negatives for 135 film and contacts. Mostly for contacts. That way I not only see the image itself but also about one third of the previous and the following shots. I am hardly concerned about the focus, this can wait until I print them.

What is more important for me is that sometimes I am selecting for hours and I want to be comfortable while doing so. The small loupe tires me out very quickly.

I have had this black metal one for a long time, perhaps since the eighties. There's no brand name on it. And I have a plastic one still in the box, which just says Foldable Magnifier No. 5293. They show me about the same image with the same clarity. The metal one is more stable.

Gues who the photographer is?

 

[aparat]

Well, it's not easy to figure out who the photographer is in that picture, so I will just reveal that it is Ansel Adams himself, shown here using the very foldable magnifier recommended in this thread. This is a screen grab from a documentary showing Ansel Adams working in the field and in the darkroom.

 

[David Lingham]

To view negatives I use this folding glass, which here in the UK is called a linen tester. It doesn’t completely cover a full 35mm frame, but it’s good enough. I used this one throughout my career in the printing industry and was bought sometime the late 60’s.

 

[aparat]

To view negatives I use this folding glass, which here in the UK is called a linen tester. It doesn’t completely cover a full 35mm frame, but it’s good enough. I used this one throughout my career in the printing industry and was bought sometime the late 60’s.

Cool! If it's good for Ansel Adams, it should be good for most of us. I have one of those, too.