Using grains focuser with or without paper on the easel

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,931
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
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 detect 0.0041" (2.8X linear magnification)
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,931
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

cliveh

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,524
Format
35mm RF

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,931
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,741
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
Medium weight is probably a better description.

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.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,931
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,741
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
Was this intended as a pun?

Sort of. I was going to mention that you brought up a good point - that moving the lens has a much greater impact than moving the easel - but I guess people would argue about that, too - since, if you agree, you also agree that having or not having paper under the focuser probably has no impact.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,934
Format
8x10 Format
You just place the thicker paper into a sweat chamber and starve it for a week before the matchup. Or else you swell the thin paper in fatty grease just like a Sumo wrestler, and then have them both compete in the thicker division. There's an answer to everything. Just don't place bets on any of this, however.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
I don't think anyone disputes that vertical movement of easel is less impactful than a change of distance between lens node and negative. Anyone who has tried to reduce convergence during shot by easel angle during enlargement is aware of the tolerance of easel tilt.

The point of Bill's test, IMHO, was to try to quantify the claims about easel/paper height, so that the amount of 'height makes no difference' subjective statement could be objectively quanitifed (or not), when lens is wide open.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,934
Format
8x10 Format
As far as grain "snapping into place" when at precisely the correct focus, it's easier to do with certain kinds of film-developer combinations than others, being easier with more conspicuous grain shape. And in fact you arrive at a more precise position than focussing on very fine grain. For those of you with Durst commercial enlargers, accessories like the Nega 138 carrier come with a precisely adjustable focus target made from such a film. Once the film crosshair of this is calibrated to the exact height of the inner surface of the bottom carrier glass itself, then you can use this target in advance, and every negative used at that same spacing afterwards, easel to baseboard, will be in correct focus. This is particularly useful when needing to bring into precise focus harder to see fine detail, like the dye clouds in low-contrast orange-masked color neg film.

Those of us who know what these special enlarger features were designed to do in the first place, and appreciate that kind of precision, naturally trend toward different opinions that those who place their easel atop a decaying hay bale and use an empty Coke bottle for the enlarging lens. To each his own.
 
Last edited:

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,934
Format
8x10 Format
Michael - It doesn't sound like you've ever even seen one of these Durst carriers, or else you sure as heck don't know how to use one. You bring into focus an actual film crosshair target factory-mounted toward the front of the carrier. There are two different registered positions where the carrier locks into the head. Halfway-in, the crosshair lies directly over the center position of the baseboard (everything is fine-tunable). Pushed all the way in, your own film image (up to 5X7 format) is centered over the baseboard on axis. Therefore if you just focus on the film crosshair (much like a reticle), you attain the same focus usable for your sheet of film sandwiched in the carrier. Film plane A (crosshair) and Film B (you negative) are exactly the same distance from the easel, centered on exactly the same spot. In both instances, you are focusing on the respective EMULSION GRAIN ITSELF. Get it?

Junk?... Damn expensive "junk". Yes, they made even more expensive carriers; I have some of them, as well as their 8x10 enlarger equivalents. No one can afford that kind of true machinist quality production or die-casting for an enlarger model anymore. Every recent enlarger model is aluminum extrusion, CNC shaping, plastic parts etc. But you must think a Ferrari is junk too. Unless they're old and all beat up, or you are exceptionally lucky (it happens), these particular carriers by themselves often cost more on the used market than nearly all complete production 4X5 enlargers from other manufacturers, even brand new.

What kind of enlarger do you use? - a VW van with one of the headlamps inverted through the top as the enlarging light source, and the amount of pressure in the rear tire constituting the focus mechanism? Something you learned from the hippies who fled to Canada in the 70's? Either way, keep it - tie-dyed enlarger curtains will soon be back in fashion.
 
Last edited:

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,308
Format
4x5 Format
I’ve got a machine shop at my disposal, all I have to do is ask. But whenever I go there, my stepfather and I just talk about the old days.

He works in tolerances of millionths and likes to talk about his two hundred year old grinding wheel that doesn’t have tolerances because it’s perfect.

That is kind of what got us here. If you can get perfect focus by dropping a piece of paper on the easel why not? The answer “because it doesn’t matter” holds true by theory and experiment for certain applications.

I focused my attention on an application which has great tolerance at the paper plane; 35mm enlargements about 10 diameters. I chose f/2.8, although most people stop down a bit.

Here is the video, enjoy:

https://youtube.com/shorts/VfFs6YqKwU8?feature=share
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,934
Format
8x10 Format
Of course I understood what you were up to all along, Michael. But what fun would it be if I didn't respond as you hoped? And it did give the opportunity to explain this in a little more detail for sake of others. But otherwise, no ... you wouldn't need different kinds of crosshairs on different kinds of film. Just the emulsion plane itself is involved, regardless. I almost never use that crosshair device personally, except for precise centering purposes. For example, my excellent projection densitometer correctly reads only on-axis.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
Bill, that video reminded me of A Clockwork Orange.
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.
 
Last edited:

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,308
Format
4x5 Format
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.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
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.

And that is the key summary statement, to answer the issue of detectability under magnification vs. by naked eye! Thx for advising there was not much to be gained in seeing the Youtube segment. I was starting to think my IQ had dropped over the years, undetected until now.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,934
Format
8x10 Format
Hi, Michael. Well, given that this is all about grain-magnifier levels of hypothetical resolution, and not about what can be achieved by slicing off sub-micron layers using some kind of super-microtome for sake of electron microscope viewing, once again for all PRACTICAL PURPOSES, discernible grain simply lies on the surface of the emulsion side. But anything like a quarter inch of range is like a football field of distance in comparison. I don't buy into that either.
 

Danner

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Messages
182
Location
Fort Worth
Format
Medium Format
On YouTube, The Naked Photographer recently posted a video testing whether a sheet of paper under the grain focuser made any difference in print sharpness.

It didn't.

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…