Using grains focuser with or without paper on the easel

Bill Burk · Jun 24, 2021

Acid or water… No acid it will cause bubbles. Haa did you vacuum your camera that’s not bubbles it’s dust!

faberryman · Jun 24, 2021

ruilourosa said:
Did anyone here read ctein free post exposure?

The suspense is killing me. Does Ctein recommend putting a sheet of paper under your grain focuser?

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

faberryman said:
The suspense is killing me. Does Ctein recommend putting a sheet of paper under your grain focuser?

I own the book, before it went out of print and was provided free by Ctein as a courtesy.
Ctein does not at all mention the use of grain focuser on/off enlarging paper on the easel.
He only talks about the more reliable results with focusers that employ a groundglass target, and about the problems of focus shift when focusing with blue filter that some believed was better for B&W prints which primarily used blue part of the spectrum for the exposure.

Don_ih · Jun 24, 2021

"After roughly focusing the picture, place Focus Finder on baseboard directly below lens. Look through eyepiece at graticule and adjust enlarger. Focus until image grain and cross wires are seen sharp and clear. The enlarger is now focused with critical accuracy." from Paterson Micro Focus Finder instruction sheet.

So, that says nothing about a sheet of paper. But they only made it - they probably don't know how to use it.

cliveh · Jun 24, 2021

Did Ansel Adams or Walker Evans use a sheet of paper under their scope?

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

Greg Davis said:
I think I’ll cover a less controversial topic like “should you pre wet your film or not”.

How about 'How accurate is DOF Preview in the SLR? in the dSLR?"

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

cliveh said:
Did Ansel Adams or Walker Evans use a sheet of paper under their scope?

This post (#9) by someone who was influenced to begin putting focuser on enlarging paper, afterr reading Ansel Adams' book The Print :

https://www.largeformatphotography....g-the-Enlarger&p=562909&viewfull=1#post562909

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

Lens Notes summarizes about using focuser on top of enlarging paper:

"Paper under the base of the grain focuser?

In the end, it is a personal choice whether you do this or not. As always, it is best to do tests on your own configuration and decide for yourself. Even if it does nothing to improve print sharpness, this practice will certainly not hurt it. It’s simple enough to implement, so if it helps you feel better, it’s worth adding it in your workflow. If you use several paper stocks, you might find it useful to have squares cut up to size and labeled with the paper type next to the focus finder."

IOW, it is like religion, and few expect they can cause someone to change religion. It is best to simply acknowledge that different folks do it different than you, and in the end it probably does not really matter, other than that you are a good practicing (whatever).

DMJ · Jun 24, 2021

Greg Davis said:
I think I’ll cover a less controversial topic like “should you pre wet your film or not”.

Please don't change the content of your channel because of the comments on this forum!
Thank you for your videos, they really make a difference.

Doremus Scudder · Jun 24, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
But sometimes I use RC paper and other times I use double weight FB paper.

Easy: Two grain focusers with different thicknesses of paper glued to the bottom of each. If you use yet another thickness of paper, you'll have to spring for a third grain focuser.

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

michael_r said:
Yes. Earlier in the thread I posted a link to an old discussion with Ctein.

Although Michael's test was specific to finding what apparent focus shift due to blue at various contrast grades could do, his test methods very clearly show what changes in elevation to the easel would result in. Note the smallest elevation change was +-5mm. From his earlier post, his observation:

"Obviously focus degrades faster when moving closer to the lens so it makes sense I found in all cases sharpness fell off more noticeably in the upward direction. For grades 2.5 and 0, although it might not be that obvious in the scans, the prints were visibly sharpest at the plane of visual focus. With the easel at raised positions, the prints are noticeably soft. Sharpness is still pretty high when lowering the easel 5mm, but I see a small difference.

At grade 5, I see noticeable softening when moving the easel upward. However even with my face in the print I had a difficult time deciding between the prints at the plane of visual focus, -5mm and -10mm. All three look quite sharp. Depending on when I looked at them (I shuffled them for a more unbiased visual test), about half the time I picked -5mm as the sharpest and the other half I picked the print at the plane of visual focus. I'm really not sure and it's splitting hairs. For reference on this particular issue I've attached figure 4 which shows the three grade 5 prints in question, scanned at a higher resolution (not that it really helps siince everything looks pretty bad in the scans)."

So 5mm of error appears to be where the eye can detect that DOF is exceeded (although not always; not at higher contrast grades) at f/5.6
So the debate remains about whether to 'do the best' or 'get away with it' is what is acceptably good procedure. and that depends upon the individual, since 'best method' cannot be demonstrated readily.

"I am a Baptist"
"I am a Buddhist"
"I am Muslim"
"I am an orthodox Jew"
"I am a non-practicing agnostic".

Sirius Glass · Jun 24, 2021

Doremus Scudder said:
Easy: Two grain focusers with different thicknesses of paper glued to the bottom of each. If you use yet another thickness of paper, you'll have to spring for a third grain focuser.

No the Peak Grain Focusers are too expensive by multiple copies.

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
No the Peak Grain Focusers are too expensive by multiple copies.

...and in the dark (printing color), how do you identify which one to pick up?

Sirius Glass · Jun 24, 2021

wiltw said:
...and in the dark, how do you identify which one to pick up?

That too because they would be the same model.

DREW WILEY · Jun 24, 2021

Rebuttal to Don W on Tuesday : There's also such a thing as ruining an outstanding photograph by printing it poorly! You're only as good as your weakest link. Don't mistake sloppiness for creativity! Soft images have their place, but certainly aren't everyones' cup of tea. 100% of my time and effort is spent going all the way from the starting line to the finish line, and not laying down somewhere in between due to sheer laziness or substandard equipment.

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
That too because they would be the same model.

Might I suggest what just came to me? Put dots of Elmer's glue on each, and in the dark use Braille method to detect number of dots.

Sirius Glass · Jun 24, 2021

wiltw said:
Might I suggest what just came to me? Put dots of Elmer's glue on each, and in the dark use Braille method to detect number of dots.

I have multiple types of photographic paper available next to the enlarger. When I change paper, I change the paper for under the grain focuser.

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
I have multiple types of photographic paper available next to the enlarger. When I change paper, I change the paper for under the grain focuser.

I have wondered why 'glue a piece of enlarging paper on the bottom' was even suggested. I guess for those who never put paper in easel to compose framing, because the easel is yellow or white or grey in color.

Sirius Glass · Jun 24, 2021

wiltw said:
I have wondered why 'glue a piece of enlarging paper on the bottom' was even suggested. I guess for those who never put paper in easel to compose framing, because the easel is yellow or white or grey in color.

We could start another debate on which glue does not increase the height too much.

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
We could start another debate on which glue does not increase the height too much.

...but we already know, that does not matter.
But we could endlessly debate type of adhesive, removability, and a whole host of irrelevant considerations!, or dogma like affect on the ozone layer due to ingredients and propellants.

bdial · Jun 24, 2021

Given how far this thread has devolved into minutia;
Has everyone calibrated their grain focuser to determine that its focus point is actually even with the base, and not 0.000001 mm too high or too low? Is the base of the focuser actually flat and square? Is a $30 Patterson equal to a $100 peak in accuracy? Is there any debris trapped between the base of the focuser and the paper, or between the paper and the easel? Does one check this for every print? Do you place the focuser in exactly the same spot under the lens each time it's used?
If you focus and defocus, say, 5 times, do you get exactly the same lens extension each time. If not, then what is the variance? Is that variance larger or smaller than the thickness of a sheet of Multigrade?

mshchem · Jun 24, 2021

I skipped ahead. Has anyone challenged a fellow member to duel?

I knew a guy who glued a piece of paper to the bottom of his focuser

mshchem · Jun 24, 2021

mshchem said:
I skipped ahead. Has anyone challenged a fellow member to duel?

I knew a guy who glued a piece of paper to the bottom of his focuser

Oh I just now see the glue height, I should have read the whole thing

DREW WILEY · Jun 24, 2021

Glue uneveness, paper thickness swelling or contracting with humidity changes - if you're not going to do it right with something inert, why bother shimming the base at all? Of course, you might be shimming a magnifier that's off to begin with, compounding the issue.

Some of you have good arguments for asking why any of this needs to be so nitpicky. But I also happen to use my Peak Critical Magnifier for making very high quality enlarged duplicate transparencies and internegatives, where even a tiny amount of focal plane error would spoil the outcome. And when you work with 8x10 color sheet film, every botched sheet is like burning thirty dollar bills. And yes, in those cases I put a voided sheet of the same kind of film under the magnifier when focusing. Even the "easel" itself is precisely machined and pin-registered, and has vacuum draw flatness too.

wiltw · Jun 24, 2021

DREW WILEY said:
Glue uneveness, paper thickness swelling or contracting with humidity changes - if you're not going to do it right with something inert, why bother shimming the base at all? Of course, you might be shimming a magnifier that's off to begin with, compounding the issue.

Some of you have good arguments for asking why any of this needs to be so nitpicky. But I also happen to use my Peak Critical Magnifier for making very high quality enlarged duplicate transparencies and internegatives, where even a tiny amount of focal plane error would spoil the outcome. And when you work with 8x10 color sheet film, every botched sheet is like burning thirty dollar bills. And yes, in those cases I put a voided sheet of the same kind of film under the magnifier when focusing. Even the "easel" itself is precisely machined and pin-registered, and has vacuum draw flatness too.

Drew, if it does not really matter for 8x print, why would it matter for 8x transparency dup?

Using grains focuser with or without paper on the easel

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency