The first part is a correct description of what I've been posting about throughout this thread.If I try to paraphrase what I think you're asking, "If you put the grain focuser on the top layer, as you removed each of the layers of double-weight paper, would you be able to detect increase/decrease in focus accuracy as you passed thru the ideal focus plane?" (finding out if the 25X grain focuser would reveal what the naked eye would be fooled as 'in focus')
Matt,The first part is a correct description of what I've been posting about throughout this thread.
The part in parentheses assumes that we can use magnification to correct the deficiencies of the naked eye. I'm not convinced of that, but it may be true. It also may be true that the entire system would need to be able to resolve to a much greater extent than it does (and in particular, a much greater extent than photographic paper can) before we could "see" a one paper sheet difference at the easel.
Is single-weight even available any more?Well perhaps Bill should test using single weight paper?
I'm just saying that it isn't only the naked eye that provides a limitation. It is the entire optical system, including the eye, the grain focuser and the enlarging lens.Matt,
We have to remember the limitation of human visual acuity, or about one-half second of arc. Where resolution of the photo exceeds the ability to detect the detail, mangnification blows up everything, perhaps to a point the eye CAN begin to detect what it could not previously!
At a viewing distance of 10", the eye detects down to 0.00145". Under an 8x loupe (area magnification) the eye only needs to see 0.0058" (linear magnification)
Is single-weight even available any more?
Medium weight is probably a better description.Are all papers now double weight?
Ilford describes the fiber-based MG as double weight. RC seems a bi thinner, but not single-weight.Are all papers now double weight? What is Ilford multigrade? Single or double?
Medium weight is probably a better description.
Was this intended as a pun?This thread is really devolving into serious hair-splitting.
Was this intended as a pun?
But that is what it is about!I'd agree. Single weight is much thinner than modern rc paper. Fibre paper is pretty much double weight and also thicker than modern rc paper.
This thread is really devolving into serious hair-splitting.
At least you got that out of the Youtube...I watched it three times, and all I got from it was,Bill, that video reminded me of A Clockwork Orange.
Actually you saw all there is to see. Prints are 7cm square. In a quarter inch of range there is no discernible difference. I can’t see it under a microscope either.At least you got that out of the Youtube...I watched it three times, and all I got from it was,
"I see see a series of 19 images which are 14cm x 14cm on my monitor, so smaller than they were printed and occupying only 39% of the vertical pixels of the monitor, amd therefore it is impossible for me to conclude anything from seeing any of the images at smaller than lifesize, and at about 560 x 560 monitor pixels each pixel is 0.5mm real size on the print but my vision is better than that."...I guess I have gotten stupid as the years advance. At least it did not start an epileptic seizure.
Actually you saw all there is to see. Prints are 7cm square. In a quarter inch of range there is no discernible difference. I can’t see it under a microscope either.
Consider that my confirmation of the OPLOL see post #1 of this thread
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?