• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Using grains focuser with or without paper on the easel

wiltw said:
DOF at the subject (paper) is a mere 0.016mm in front of the subject and 0.017 behind the subject.
Click to expand...
Was this confirmed or found to be a mistake? If it was a mistake what was the DOF found to be?
 
Bill Burk said:
Was this confirmed or found to be a mistake? If it was a mistake what was the DOF found to be?
Click to expand...
Bill, the unit should have been 0.016 'meter', but I erroneously stated it as millimeters.
With correct units, it would be 16mm to one direction from plane of focus.
 
wiltw said:
Bill, the unit should have been 0.016 'meter', but I erroneously stated it as millimeters.
With correct units, it would be 16mm to one direction from plane of focus.
Click to expand...

Now that makes sense. And we know DOF assumes you are willing to compromise the image at a viewing distance. What kind of “quality” improvement do you get by aiming for tighter circle of confusion?

Suppose we are looking for “practically indistinguishable” when print is viewed at six inches?

This all assumes perfect enlarger parallelism as well, where 1mm error at the negative stage will use most of the paper plane tolerance.
 
wiltw's numbers relate to the "standard" circle of confusion, which I understand to be associated with 20/60 vision.
Using another calculator and the circle of confusion associated with 20/20 vision, I get DOF of 5mm each way.
In each case, that is in reference to an 8x10 print viewed at one foot.
But more importantly, because of issues of practicality, there really is no way to convert those results into something more demanding, because you aren't able to modify either your visual acuity or the magnification of the grain focuser in any way that will permit you to actually see a difference when you look into the grain focuser.
 
I started watching this video and lost the will to live.
 
Greg Davis said:
I made two claims in my video:
1- That the internet (ie, Photrio) makes this into a multi page argument
2- using paper doesn’t make a difference

Whether you agree with claim 2 or not, claim 1 has been proven true.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by multi page.
cliveh said:
I started watching this video and lost the will to live.
Click to expand...
Just close your eyes during the intro
 

Exactly. If you can see a difference (or even if you can't), and you want to do it, go right ahead. If you can't see a difference and/or just don't want to do it, then don't.

Personally, I can't see a difference either way, and I've looked. I don't do it because I don't need to put a sheet of paper down to compose, so putting a sheet of paper down to focus is extra effort for my particular setup. Extra effort for something that I can't see a difference with means I'm not doing it.
 
cliveh said:
I started watching this video and lost the will to live.
Click to expand...

Me too. He started hawking that composition tool he sells and I was toast. But, I buckled down and watched the whole thing. It was excruciating. My takeaway is that he says he can’t see a difference. I give more credence to Matt’s mathematical approach. By the way, does he have any clothes on under that apron? If he does, why is he called The Naked Photographer? More importantly, why should I believe some naked guy on YouTube?
 
Greg Davis said:
I made two claims in my video:
1- That the internet (ie, Photrio) makes this into a multi page argument
2- using paper doesn’t make a difference
Click to expand...

Either my first or second comment was that this is not worth arguing about. There is not even the hint of visible difference looking through a focuser with or without paper under it, but people are going to do it anyway because the base of the focuser should sit at the paper emulsion plane. You cannot dissuade people of things they believe are rationally true. If experience won't do it, math sure won't.
 
Greg Davis said:
Thank you both for you rude comments about me as though I’m not right here. Very classy.
Click to expand...
Don’t take it personally. I would find it excruciating to listen to myself for 15 minutes. The problem with YouTube is that it takes about ten times longer to say something than it does to read the same information on the printed page, so I just don’t have the patience for it.

As to your first point about the internet making this a multi-page argument, it is still quicker to read all five pages of this thread than to listen to your video, and in addition to saving time, I get views from a lot of different people.
 
Last edited:
Youtube is for people to get subscribers, get views, make money. The more time passes, the less there is that isn't already beaten to death a hundred times. Most videos are about as informative as a laxative commercial.
 
Don Heisz said:
Youtube is for people to get subscribers, get views, make money. The more time passes, the less there is that isn't already beaten to death a hundred times. Most videos are about as informative as a laxative commercial.
Click to expand...
It's what you get out of 'em that the authors (or drug compnies) care about.
 
Don Heisz said:
That is, ... well, ... naive.
Click to expand...
If you come back to view another YouTube posting, they win. If not, no skin off their back.

When you get something out via laxative, you win.
 
Last edited:
Doremus Scudder said:
Heck, if you don't want to put a piece of paper in your easel to focus on, just glue a small piece onto the bottom of your grain focuser and be done with it forever; and be as precise as you possibly can be.

Doremus
Click to expand...

But sometimes I use RC paper and other times I use double weight FB paper.
 
Greg's collection of YouTube videos are excellent. They cover a really wide variety of subjects, and they show people things that they have only read about somewhere, because they have no direct source of in-person experience.
Here is a link to all the links he has posted as Resources here on Photrio (click on the Resources tab):
https://www.photrio.com/forum/members/greg-davis.1392/
If someone asks you for a video reference on a photographic topic, there is a good chance you will find a useful reference among Greg's work.
For those of us who have worked for a significant period of time in a variety of different darkroom situations, the subject of this video may seem boring. Those of us who have a breadth and depth of experience aren't Greg's main intended audience.
But if the only things you know about using a darkroom comes from the internet, then you are bound to run into internet arguments about just this subject. So Greg decided to illustrate the answer to the question.
In an incredible feat of naiveté, I tried to add to the value here by addressing the "why", as well as the importance of understanding the limits of the tools we use, rather than just the simple answer itself. I clearly need to be punished for that sin!
 
good man because, that actually makes a difference.
 
Greg! I love your videos. The paper under grain focuser deserves a sequel based on everything new that’s been brought up in this thread.

Ralph! Of course look at things that actually make a difference. Like stopping down “as mentioned in the video”.
 
Greg Davis said:
I think I’ll cover a less controversial topic like “should you pre wet your film or not”.
Click to expand...

Do a video on tonality. Just tonality, nothing else.

Or maybe compare Ilfords new multigrade RC deluxe (V) to fiber paper ..

Also video of "is photography art"?
 
Greg Davis said:
Thank you both for you rude comments about me as though I’m not right here. Very classy.
Click to expand...
I like yr videos. Well presented and informative.

Photrio peanut gallery can suck it
 
Craig75, +1
 
Greg Davis said:
I think I’ll cover a less controversial topic like “should you pre wet your film or not”.
Click to expand...


Or, the age-old should I use water or acid stop bath with my film?

FWIW, I thought your test and presentation was excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register