Hahaha, just realised I've been overcomplicating my printing process for over 3 decades, lol. Thanks for busting the myth! I got told to use paper during my first darkroom course, and never questioned it.
My thoughts: The smaller the enlargement, the closer the lens is to the paper, and the closer the lens is to the paper, the more the thickness of the paper will affect the sharpness. Will it matter? Probably not.
When I started printing in the late 1980´s, my physical education teacher (who was a photo hobbyist and ran the school darkroom) was very clear that paper had to be used. I got interested in printing color, and the color papers have a strong color in their emulsions. Old Kodak EP-2 paper was green, Konica was magenta, and Agfa blue (same color as Fuji RA-4 papers are today). Ilford´s Cibachrome (later Ilfochrome) was dark brown. First I used a paper turned upside down, but I soon realized that the paper makes no difference at all. Since then, I have not used paper under a grain focuser - no matter if color or b&w. For color, it might be necessary to have a black & white negative in your darkroom for focusing. I can´t often see any grain in color negatives - especially on slower Kodak films such as Portra 160 or Ektar 100. I have an old, grainy and contrasty b&w negative of a brick wall for this purpose.
Heh, I've always focused on paper just because it seemed logical to do so, not because I read that you had to anywhere. But you're right, it doesn't seem to make a different, except the zoomed in comparison at 5:38 seems to be ever so slightly sharper with paper, not that your eye would pick that up.
I love these type of experiments. Keep it up. Personally, I use a paper, but that's because my easel is from a wood and I need some white paper to actually focus on, not because of the thickness difference.
One of those myths that everybody repeat with voice of a master without real knowledge about what they are saying. As always, great job! Thanks from Spain.
great stuff, now I can forget about shuffling different types of paper for focusing. The aid of a white background for composing and rough focusing is still valid. Thanks Man!
To my eye, on my screen, with the video at full screen, the 1:1 view at f/5.6, even at the smaller magnification, was discernibly sharper with the paper under the grain focuser. Was it enough to matter? Not in the least. However: If you're making very large prints (the 10x or larger you mentioned) from large format negatives, you'll be using (most likely) a 135 mm lens on 4x5 (maybe 150 mm on your enlarger, you aren't limited by ceiling height like I am), or a 250-300 mm from 8x10 -- and the longer focal length reduces DOF even though you'll probably stop down another stop or two (because there's no way you'd have a 250 mm f/2.8 enlarging lens). No, not asking you to make another series of tests with a tiny crop from an 8x10 negative to prove or disprove this -- because if you have someone making nose prints on your 40x50 prints from 4x5 to decide if they're printed sharply enough, you need to talk to the gallery personnel about velvet ropes. As you said, other factors are much more important. I've never worried about having the best quality lens, or even one optimized for enlarging (my 80 mm, used for printing 6x6 cm negatives, is an Anastar from a Kodak Reflex II camera, for instance -- a very good camera lens, but not optimized for distances inside about six feet); my negatives aren't that perfect, and I don't generally need more than 10x enlargement unless I'm printing from 16 mm film (and in that case, it's probably microfilm that has grain so fine you can't see it in the grain focuser).
Just discovered your channel and WOW, when I'm eventually able to do darkroom work again I need not go anywhere else for guidance! You seem to have pretty much covered it all.
Even if it makes no difference for focusing, I still find that the white paper does make it easier to actually compose the image. Its surface looks a lot better than the surface of a bare easel, and I often put margin marks on the edges of my "focusing papers" to also help make sure my easel is correctly aligned for the print borders.
I was going to say the same. Hard to see the image on the yellow metal easel surface itself, the even white paper surface is much easier to focus on. Nice to have empirical verification though!
I'am surprised, tbh. Since I started printing I always used a piece of cardboard for focussing propuses taking for granted that I would lose sharpness if I did not. But hey, we always learn a new thing! (And no, I never encountered that argument in internet, it was just my logic).
Because sadly, I think possibly most people are not darkroom users. They shoot, send the film off to be developed and scanned and they can’t be bothered with darkroom technique. I absolutely need to get back in the darkroom and stir the chemicals. I even have a place for it. Every video is a treasure. Maybe, I should support his channel. :)
It's like building a house. if you have one single thing that's off a little bit in level it may not affect the rest of the building that much, but if you have many things that are off level they start to add up and cause a problem.
The first lab I worked at in the 80’s did black and white develop and print 4x6’s in an enlarger, with an 80mm lens to have some space between the enlarger and easel and wide open to minimize print times. A focus sheet mattered in this case but absolutely wouldn’t make a difference with bigger prints, stopped down and a more appropriate focal length.
Although I routinely use a focusing sheet as a matter of course, I would expect depth of field would cover any focus difference in the 11x14 inch print size I commonly use. My easel base is not white, so the focus sheet also helps frame the print.
Great work. If there was a difference you would see it through the magnifier. What would be interesting is how thick the paper or board needs to be before you do see a difference in sharpness!
Yes but I see a different between them. I think it is away how good is your personal sight. And I am missing an Autofocus grain focuser without looking just adjusting on a zero.
One factor I've never seen addressed is the accuracy of the focus finder. I have a tall one on a column and wonder about the height above the easel of its mirror.
Great video thank you. I’ve just finished building my darkroom and after a 40 year break I’m very much looking forward to printing again. Things have changed a bit since then. I have two questions. The first is when you are stopping down is that to give a greater depth of field or is it something to do with the actual physical make up of the lens? Second question is how important is it to have the negative kept flat? For instance using a regular negative carrier versus a glass negative carrier - Okay that’s three questions😊 many thanks again.
Paper! Focus on paper! :) Giggle... that is my habit. But mostly because the paper is white, the easels I use are yellow so its easier to see things when focusing.
Maybe with a thicker paper? Since all the grain focusers I've seen can be adjusted to compensate, I've never really understood what the hubhub is about.
You can clearly see that on every sample a difference on the 1-1 magnification. Will anyone notice it? No, but that does not mean that there is no difference.
Thank you for this short wast of time. It is very interesting how long this mith has existed. Now I am wondering where it originated. Thanks for the mith busting.
P. S. Thank you for organising the print share among the other youtubers. I think I have watched all of there responses so far, great concept. Thank you. Phillip.
Ah. For the 4x5 format, the window is 2 inches x 2.25 inches, so half the size of a 4x5 negative. Hold the frame 75mm from your eye for the same perspective as a 150mm lens.
Frankly, I don't think it really matters but I think there is the slightest of difference. An even better test would be to set up a flicker test like they do in astrophotography where the images flicker back and forth but in the same visual alignment. The other variable is the macro lens you used for photographing the prints. Either autofocus or manual focus can have small variations.
Thanks very much for doing this experiment! Ansel Adams says in his book "The Print": "Place a piece of white paper in the easel for focusing; the back of a discarded print of the same weight as you are now using will serve". Nice to know that this is not required :-) I have a related question: Should I adjust my grain focuser in any way, e.g. to adapt it to my eyesight? Also, what is the purpose of the wire in the grain focuser?
Yes you should focus the eye piece for your vision. The wire is for that purpose. Focus the eye piece until the wire is sharpest and you should be set.
I'm looking for a little help with setting up my grain focuser. I have the same MicroSight as demonstrated in this video, and I've successfully used other focusers, but I cannot see the grain at all when using this one. Is it because I now need to wear my glasses? Is my initial calibration of the upper eyepiece incorrect? All advice is welcomed! Thanks.
@@TheNakedPhotographer, Thanks. I understand the instructions, but don't have experience with focusing that line. What does it look like when unfocused? Does it appear like two lines that should converge when in focus? I know this sounds like I don't know what I'm doing, but I do. I just can't seem to get it right. Why was this not a factory calibration, if all you need to do is set the focal distance ONCE? That's what makes me think that the designers were trying to account for users' sight variables (like eye glasses).
Yes, it’s an eye sight correction. You just want your eyepiece to focus the wire as sharp as possible. If it is one you bought used, make sure the wire is connected to the barrel on both ends of the wire. If it’s loose it will be in the wrong place to get correct grain focus
The paper side was clearly sharper. I was disappointed though because you said you were also going to do 8x10 and then even larger prints and you did not...... that would have helped you see the difference. But yes, using the paper definitely gave sharper results.
I magnified the print area to an 8x10 and again to 20x24, but the section I printed was a 4x5 slice from the center. There is no need to expose a 20x24 inch piece of paper to examine the center area when a smaller portion will do the same job.
Great, now what are we suppose to argue about without evidence? People like you should just keep ot to yourselves. Empirical evidence with repeatability. Way to ruin the hobby. Could you do an episode on how to get that chrome skin look in prints? I've shot pan and orthochromatic film and can't quite get it, -1 to +1. I've seen prints done with original Tri-X, high content silver?
Hahaha, just realised I've been overcomplicating my printing process for over 3 decades, lol. Thanks for busting the myth! I got told to use paper during my first darkroom course, and never questioned it.
My thoughts: The smaller the enlargement, the closer the lens is to the paper, and the closer the lens is to the paper, the more the thickness of the paper will affect the sharpness. Will it matter? Probably not.
When I started printing in the late 1980´s, my physical education teacher (who was a photo hobbyist and ran the school darkroom) was very clear that paper had to be used. I got interested in printing color, and the color papers have a strong color in their emulsions. Old Kodak EP-2 paper was green, Konica was magenta, and Agfa blue (same color as Fuji RA-4 papers are today). Ilford´s Cibachrome (later Ilfochrome) was dark brown. First I used a paper turned upside down, but I soon realized that the paper makes no difference at all. Since then, I have not used paper under a grain focuser - no matter if color or b&w.
For color, it might be necessary to have a black & white negative in your darkroom for focusing. I can´t often see any grain in color negatives - especially on slower Kodak films such as Portra 160 or Ektar 100. I have an old, grainy and contrasty b&w negative of a brick wall for this purpose.
That's a good idea about using b&w film for focusing. I'm going to try that next time.
Heh, I've always focused on paper just because it seemed logical to do so, not because I read that you had to anywhere. But you're right, it doesn't seem to make a different, except the zoomed in comparison at 5:38 seems to be ever so slightly sharper with paper, not that your eye would pick that up.
I love these type of experiments. Keep it up.
Personally, I use a paper, but that's because my easel is from a wood and I need some white paper to actually focus on, not because of the thickness difference.
exactly, it's easier to compose on the white paper. or if you dont have a grain focuser, it'll be easier to eyeball the focus.
One of those myths that everybody repeat with voice of a master without real knowledge about what they are saying.
As always, great job!
Thanks from Spain.
great stuff, now I can forget about shuffling different types of paper for focusing. The aid of a white background for composing and rough focusing is still valid. Thanks Man!
To my eye, on my screen, with the video at full screen, the 1:1 view at f/5.6, even at the smaller magnification, was discernibly sharper with the paper under the grain focuser. Was it enough to matter? Not in the least.
However: If you're making very large prints (the 10x or larger you mentioned) from large format negatives, you'll be using (most likely) a 135 mm lens on 4x5 (maybe 150 mm on your enlarger, you aren't limited by ceiling height like I am), or a 250-300 mm from 8x10 -- and the longer focal length reduces DOF even though you'll probably stop down another stop or two (because there's no way you'd have a 250 mm f/2.8 enlarging lens). No, not asking you to make another series of tests with a tiny crop from an 8x10 negative to prove or disprove this -- because if you have someone making nose prints on your 40x50 prints from 4x5 to decide if they're printed sharply enough, you need to talk to the gallery personnel about velvet ropes.
As you said, other factors are much more important. I've never worried about having the best quality lens, or even one optimized for enlarging (my 80 mm, used for printing 6x6 cm negatives, is an Anastar from a Kodak Reflex II camera, for instance -- a very good camera lens, but not optimized for distances inside about six feet); my negatives aren't that perfect, and I don't generally need more than 10x enlargement unless I'm printing from 16 mm film (and in that case, it's probably microfilm that has grain so fine you can't see it in the grain focuser).
I'd often wondered about this. Never tested it myself. Focusing without a piece of paper under the magnifier always seemed to work just fine.
3:31 music starts.... wait this isn't Azriel Knight's channel!
Just discovered your channel and WOW, when I'm eventually able to do darkroom work again I need not go anywhere else for guidance! You seem to have pretty much covered it all.
There’s still a lot to cover
Even if it makes no difference for focusing, I still find that the white paper does make it easier to actually compose the image. Its surface looks a lot better than the surface of a bare easel, and I often put margin marks on the edges of my "focusing papers" to also help make sure my easel is correctly aligned for the print borders.
I was going to say the same. Hard to see the image on the yellow metal easel surface itself, the even white paper surface is much easier to focus on. Nice to have empirical verification though!
Been pondering this same question for awhile now. The results are what I expected. I personally don’t use paper. Thanks for sharing :)
Probably one of the best produced "how to" or "let's find out" videos I've ever seen. Well done Naked Photographer!
Well done! Learned something new. I will stop wasting time by putting paper under the grain focus.
This is such a great question.
Interesting study - thanks.
Could you (or have you) ever addressed the issue of focusing on grain versus actual image edges?
I'am surprised, tbh. Since I started printing I always used a piece of cardboard for focussing propuses taking for granted that I would lose sharpness if I did not. But hey, we always learn a new thing! (And no, I never encountered that argument in internet, it was just my logic).
great video once again Naked! I don't know why your channel and videos do not have large numbers of engagement.
Because sadly, I think possibly most people are not darkroom users. They shoot, send the film off to be developed and scanned and they can’t be bothered with darkroom technique. I absolutely need to get back in the darkroom and stir the chemicals. I even have a place for it. Every video is a treasure. Maybe, I should support his channel. :)
Thanks a lot for busting this myth :-)
It's like building a house. if you have one single thing that's off a little bit in level it may not affect the rest of the building that much, but if you have many things that are off level they start to add up and cause a problem.
The first lab I worked at in the 80’s did black and white develop and print 4x6’s in an enlarger, with an 80mm lens to have some space between the enlarger and easel and wide open to minimize print times. A focus sheet mattered in this case but absolutely wouldn’t make a difference with bigger prints, stopped down and a more appropriate focal length.
Although I routinely use a focusing sheet as a matter of course, I would expect depth of field would cover any focus difference in the 11x14 inch print size I commonly use. My easel base is not white, so the focus sheet also helps frame the print.
Great work. If there was a difference you would see it through the magnifier. What would be interesting is how thick the paper or board needs to be before you do see a difference in sharpness!
I considered adding this, but the video was already getting too long
@@TheNakedPhotographer Thanks, I’m guessing around 2 maybe 3mm is all it would take
Yes but I see a different between them. I think it is away how good is your personal sight. And I am missing an Autofocus grain focuser without looking just adjusting on a zero.
One factor I've never seen addressed is the accuracy of the focus finder. I have a tall one on a column and wonder about the height above the easel of its mirror.
Ideally the mirror should be the same distance from the eyepiece as it is from the easel
First comment, long time watcher. Great channel; love your videos.
Thanks!
realy nice Video, great information value !
Great video thank you.
I’ve just finished building my darkroom and after a 40 year break I’m very much looking forward to printing again. Things have changed a bit since then. I have two questions.
The first is when you are stopping down is that to give a greater depth of field or is it something to do with the actual physical make up of the lens?
Second question is how important is it to have the negative kept flat? For instance using a regular negative carrier versus a glass negative carrier - Okay that’s three questions😊 many thanks again.
What a great idea for a video!
Now we know. Thank you.
thanks!!!
Paper! Focus on paper! :) Giggle... that is my habit. But mostly because the paper is white, the easels I use are yellow so its easier to see things when focusing.
I can finaly go to bed a sleep with a clear conscious! Thank you Gregory|
So I don’t know if anyone’s asked this but do you even need a grain focusser given the focus shift comparing with and without paper?
Maybe with a thicker paper? Since all the grain focusers I've seen can be adjusted to compensate, I've never really understood what the hubhub is about.
You can clearly see that on every sample a difference on the 1-1 magnification. Will anyone notice it? No, but that does not mean that there is no difference.
Thank you for this short wast of time. It is very interesting how long this mith has existed. Now I am wondering where it originated. Thanks for the mith busting.
P. S. Thank you for organising the print share among the other youtubers. I think I have watched all of there responses so far, great concept. Thank you. Phillip.
make a video of how to use your viewfinder, please. It is not clear how to position it for its focal length
Do you mean how to focus the grain finder lens?
@@TheNakedPhotographer No, I mean your advertised viewfinder frame
Ah. For the 4x5 format, the window is 2 inches x 2.25 inches, so half the size of a 4x5 negative. Hold the frame 75mm from your eye for the same perspective as a 150mm lens.
Frankly, I don't think it really matters but I think there is the slightest of difference. An even better test would be to set up a flicker test like they do in astrophotography where the images flicker back and forth but in the same visual alignment. The other variable is the macro lens you used for photographing the prints. Either autofocus or manual focus can have small variations.
In retrospect I should have used a grainier film to make it easier to see.
You just broke my heart xd
Thanks very much for doing this experiment! Ansel Adams says in his book "The Print": "Place a piece of white paper in the easel for focusing; the back of a discarded print of the same weight as you are now using will serve". Nice to know that this is not required :-) I have a related question: Should I adjust my grain focuser in any way, e.g. to adapt it to my eyesight? Also, what is the purpose of the wire in the grain focuser?
Yes you should focus the eye piece for your vision. The wire is for that purpose. Focus the eye piece until the wire is sharpest and you should be set.
Question: if you focus at wide open and focus, is this still valid when you step down?
Yes, stopping down increases the depth of field, making any differences even less.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Thanks!
nice one ^^
I'm looking for a little help with setting up my grain focuser. I have the same MicroSight as demonstrated in this video, and I've successfully used other focusers, but I cannot see the grain at all when using this one. Is it because I now need to wear my glasses? Is my initial calibration of the upper eyepiece incorrect? All advice is welcomed! Thanks.
You focus the eyepiece until the wire inside is sharp. Then is should be setup to see the reflected image properly.
@@TheNakedPhotographer, Thanks. I understand the instructions, but don't have experience with focusing that line. What does it look like when unfocused? Does it appear like two lines that should converge when in focus? I know this sounds like I don't know what I'm doing, but I do. I just can't seem to get it right.
Why was this not a factory calibration, if all you need to do is set the focal distance ONCE? That's what makes me think that the designers were trying to account for users' sight variables (like eye glasses).
Yes, it’s an eye sight correction. You just want your eyepiece to focus the wire as sharp as possible. If it is one you bought used, make sure the wire is connected to the barrel on both ends of the wire. If it’s loose it will be in the wrong place to get correct grain focus
Science! ❤️
The guys who wrote 'Beyond Monochrome' concluded the same. A sheet of paper is much too thin to make a difference to depth of field.
Good to know. I always waste paper
The paper side was clearly sharper. I was disappointed though because you said you were also going to do 8x10 and then even larger prints and you did not...... that would have helped you see the difference. But yes, using the paper definitely gave sharper results.
I magnified the print area to an 8x10 and again to 20x24, but the section I printed was a 4x5 slice from the center. There is no need to expose a 20x24 inch piece of paper to examine the center area when a smaller portion will do the same job.
30 years waisting valuable seconds puting the paper to focus..... XD
I’m sorry for your loss
Yes , focus with a sheet of paper you are printing on under your grain focuser .
Great, now what are we suppose to argue about without evidence? People like you should just keep ot to yourselves. Empirical evidence with repeatability. Way to ruin the hobby.
Could you do an episode on how to get that chrome skin look in prints? I've shot pan and orthochromatic film and can't quite get it, -1 to +1. I've seen prints done with original Tri-X, high content silver?
Can you point me to an example?