Are all grain focusing tools created equal?

[aaziz58601]

Are all grain focusing tools created equal?
I am looking to buy one for my setup and wondering if there is much difference between them.

[jose angel]

Well, no, there are different designs. Some are better than others, price accordingly (usually).
But in my experience, even cheapest ones work right. You don`t need the best or most expensive one to work. I have been using for decades both one of the cheapest (plastic Paterson short model) and the most renowned one (bigger mirror Peak, -amongst others-), without any major issue.

[Jac@stafford.net]

No, they are not equal. I have a few, but the best for two reasons is the Peak focuser with the long mirror (model 1). Reason one: it works very well, reaches around the easel nicely with a wide view and two: the mirror is easily replaced and reasonably priced.

[Bernice Loui]

They are not created equal, The Peak with long mirror and swiveling eyepiece works good (IMO, the only one to own-use). There is also a color filter that can be added to focusing.


Bernice

[djdister]

I've used the Magnasight, Microsight, and even the Bausch & Lomb pea-green monster (see photo). I liked the Microsight best, but the Peak looks very good, wish I had been able to try it back in the day...
169391

[jp]

The peak long mirror one is best.
The fixed big round mirror Magnasight is also great.
The little ones that look like they came from a toy telescope eyepiece are unnecessary.

[Ted R]

The Paterson products are all you need for much work and inexpensive. They (and all of their twins) have the same significant limitation, they only work in the middle region of the projected image. For a lot of work, and for most 35mm work, this is not too serious. However it is possible to also be able to view the corners of the image and this is achieved with the "long mirror" designs already mentioned. They were made by PEAK and change hands on ebay for $150 to $250 depending on condition. There was also an OMEGA copy of the PEAK that often goes for less money which is identical in all respects except for the name, when I had both in my possession it appeared that both the PEAK and OMEGA models were made by PEAK from exactly the same parts.

[Jac@stafford.net]

To answer whether the focus scopes are useful, consider that with an adequate one you can see the grain with the enlarger lenses at widest aperture, then while still looking stop down the lens until you find diffraction (or unlikely focus shift), then back off.

[Erik Larsen]

I prefer a scoponet 20x grain focuser to the peak for 8x10 negatives. I have a hard enough time seeing the grain from an 8x10 negative with the scoponet, the peak just doesn't have the magnification my eyes require. For smaller formats the peak works great for me.

[Greg]

Over the years have probably used at one time or another most of them that were out there. In the end the MICROMEGA CRITICAL FOCUSER (built with heavy cast? metal and a front surface mirror) was clearly my final choice... still use my circa 1980s one today.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck no. I've seen some of the cheaper ones even shimmed for height using circular cardboard cutouts under the base, which change thickness with humidity. The Peak Critical Focus magnifier is the one to get. If you can't afford one, at least try to borrow one to check lesser models. The tilting mirror serves a valuable secondary function: you can see the corners of your projected image to verify enlarger alignment or lens performance.

[xkaes]

The tilting mirror serves a valuable secondary function: you can see the corners of your projected image to verify enlarger alignment or lens performance.

I'm a MICROMEGA CRITICAL FOCUSER user myself and it's GREAT. It has a long mirror with a flip up cover because it is a front-surface mirror and easy to scratch. I believe they made two versions. The important thing is to get a magnifier with a long OR tilting mirror for the reasons mentioned. The brand name is not important -- compare the features that you need. For example, I also have a Paterson TALL (abouit 18") focuser for when I make large prints and can't put my eye on the MICROMEGA CRITICAL FOCUSER and reach the enlarger focusing ring at the same time!

[Corran]

Two things that really helped me get better prints: A Peak / Omega grain focuser that seems to have better eye relief and overall quality, and the (recent) discovery that looking into the focuser "sideways" with the angled finder looking left/right on the baseboard enables me to look at focus at all 4 corners of the print. I don't know why, but aiming it toward me made it much harder to see into the focuser and also blacked out on the far edges. No one ever told me this and since I've never had formal printing education I guess I just didn't know, or it's a quirk of my setup/eyes. I wear glasses but I tend to focus without them on (I have very bad nearsightedness).

[Drew Wiley]

Peak made things under numerous private labels. My favorite Peak loupe has been also marketed under Horseman, Nikon, and Wista labels. Micromega was another private-label for certain Peak items. The also had a non-tilting version of the same grain magnifier, at about half the price. But I'd rather use a strong pair of reading glasses than a cheap grain magnifier. The Peak optical elements are very well corrected for color fringing and not just grain, which can sometimes be yet another benefit. A lesser lens might focus different wavelengths at different points. Since I have made numerous critically enlarged dupes and internets, this is a valuable feature. Another characteristic of a good magnifier is a front-surface mirror having no secondary reflection or distortion. But just be awfully careful cleaning these babies, or checking the mirror condition of a used unit.

[bob carnie]

I use the Peak for the last 20 years but I used many others in labs I worked at and I never saw a difference.

[jose angel]

Agree with Bob in the sense that one doesn`t need a Peak to be happy... I currently work with a large mirror Peak and a Microsight. Over the table also a short Paterson and another Peak (two darkrooms). Used several others, LPL, Scoponet, Laik, tall Paterson, etc.

In fact, I like the Paterson a lot because is extremely light and small. Very confortable. The Peak is great, no doubt on it, but heavy, delicate (as mentioned above, check for mirror cleaning marks) and somewhat clumsier to use... and I`d say with a inherent tendency to be dropped on the concrete. The blue filter is absolutely useless to me, the corner checking ability is nice but fix nothing (much better to have a good alignment device). The Microsight is also good, but most times I don`t want such magnification (25X).

For a first buy, something like the Paterson can be had for a song and works (there are many other cheap ones that works equally good). Check and adjust if needed. Save your money for other stuff (alignment device, easel, guillotine, dry press or so, sink, more safelights, paper, chemicals... ).

[bob carnie]

for years 76-80 I did thousands of colour enlargements the focusing device was very tall with a mirror about halfway up that you could eyeball from a standing position.. made of plastic ... no complaints about sharpness.. I have not seen this unit again on the market...

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]Another characteristic of a good magnifier is a front-surface mirror having no secondary reflection or distortion. But just be awfully careful cleaning these babies, or checking the mirror condition of a used unit.

While Peak's focuser might be discontinued, their long mirror is still available at a very reasonable price (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=CategoryDarkroom+Enlargers+%26+Accessories&sts=ma&ci=15293%2b565&Ntt=peak&). I replaced one just last year.

It is a surface mirror. B&H's photo shows it flipped upside-down.

[Corran]

Since we are discussing grain focusers - they work by focusing on an aerial image, right? What is the generally accepted way of ensuring the grain focuser is focusing on the right point in space? This has been nagging me for a while during print sessions.

[Ted R]

It is made to focus on an image at the same distance as the plane of the base, this is fixed by design. What IS adjustable is the eyepiece focusing, both the Patersons and the PEAK (and MICROMEGA) include adjustable eye focus for the target (crosshair or graticule line).

[Jac@stafford.net]

It is made to focus on an image at the same distance as the plane of the base, this is fixed by design. What IS adjustable is the eyepiece focusing, both the Patersons and the PEAK (and MICROMEGA) include adjustable eye focus for the target.

Yes, by the easel's base - with a sacrificial piece of printing paper on the easel. The Peak/Micromega eyepiece focuses, and also swivels vertically.

Corran, once you use the focuser it won't matter how it works. It just works. Focus upon the grain and be happy. An interesting application is to get the grain in focus, then stop down the lens to watch for focus shift (should not happen), and see when the grains mushes out due to diffraction.

[Corran]

Fair enough - if I don't have to worry about it, that's fine. I noticed that when moving the focus on the eyepiece the aerial image defocused...and then I could "refocus" the image. Hence my question.

I will leave it at it's default setting. Seems to work fine anyway (prints are sharp enough).

[xkaes]

What is the generally accepted way of ensuring the grain focuser is focusing on the right point in space? This has been nagging me for a while during print sessions.

There is a mark of some sort in the viewfinder. On my Micromega, it is two, pale gray, concentric circles. You adjust the eye piece (diopter) until the mark(s) is as sharp as it can be -- with or without glasses. Just make sure when you use it, you use it the same way -- with or without glasses. Micromega, and I assume Peak, made long-mirror, grain focusers -- with and without the tilting eyepiece. The one with the tilt runs about twice as much. I have the model without the tilt and have no complaints -- it reads WAY off-center if I want.

[Corran]

Thanks, I feel dumb. The two concentric circles in the center of the field I never even thought about. Now I know.

[Dan O'Farrell]

Thanks, I feel dumb. The two concentric circles in the center of the field I never even thought about. Now I know.

Lord T'und'rin Jaysus laddie, don't you dare say you feel dumb !!
You're a model for us all to follow...
None of us reads this forum, but to learn !

And, watching your posts and pictures, we've all learned from you.

[Corran]

Lol! Thanks. Always more to learn!

[xkaes]

Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education. ~ Bertrand Russell

[Ted R]

Yes, by the easel's base - with a sacrificial piece of printing paper on the easel.

In tests I was unable to demonstrate loss of sharpness due to paper thickness effect. Some calculations made about a year ago for depth of field at the negative stage strongly suggest depth of focus at the paper easel is by comparison much larger and much greater than the thickness of a piece of paper. This allows the easel to be tilted for perspective adjustment without significant loss of sharpness.

[Bob Salomon]

In tests I was unable to demonstrate loss of sharpness due to paper thickness effect. Some calculations made about a year ago for depth of field at the negative stage strongly suggest depth of focus at the paper easel is by comparison much larger and much greater than the thickness of a piece of paper. This allows the easel to be tilted for perspective adjustment without significant loss of sharpness.

Depth of field is the area in front of the lens. Depth of focus is behind the lens.

[Ted R]

Thank you, however I beg to differ, my understanding is that the illuminated negative is the object, located in front of the lens, and the projection onto the paper is the image, located behind the lens. Thus depth of focus applies to the projected image.

[tonyowen]

for years 76-80 I did thousands of colour enlargements the focusing device was very tall with a mirror about halfway up that you could eyeball from a standing position.. made of plastic ... no complaints about sharpness.. I have not seen this unit again on the market...

169564
I think this is what you refer to. It a Paterson Major Focus finder
I have a major problem finding the grain in 4x5, 6x9 or 35mm film. But as I have virtually no sight in my left eye I'm sure it is me and not any of the finders I've tried..
regards
Tony

[bob carnie]

169564
I think this is what you refer to. It a Paterson Major Focus finder
I have a major problem finding the grain in 4x5, 6x9 or 35mm film. But as I have virtually no sight in my left eye I'm sure it is me and not any of the finders I've tried..
regards
Tony

Hi Tony

No this is not it , one would actually look at the mirror to focus , no need to bring your eye to the unit.

Bob

[Bob Salomon]

Thank you, however I beg to differ, my understanding is that the illuminated negative is the object, located in front of the lens, and the projection onto the paper is the image, located behind the lens. Thus depth of focus applies to the projected image.

Normal practice is too focus wide open and, after focusing, stop the lens down to optimal aperture.
This would change the depth of field in front of the lens as you stop down but you could not focus critically wide open if you were changing the depth of focus. The film must lie within the depth of focus.

[Jon Shiu]

For focusers with adjustable eyepiece and line, circle or other reference, your eye must be the same distance from the eyepiece when focusing as when you calibrated it. I guess that's obvious, though.

For the ground glass type of focuser your eye can be whatever is comfortable distance and it doesn't matter.

[Ted R]

Normal practice is too focus wide open and, after focusing, stop the lens down to optimal aperture.
This would change the depth of field in front of the lens as you stop down but you could not focus critically wide open if you were changing the depth of focus. The film must lie within the depth of focus.

No, the film lies within the depth of field not the depth of focus. The negative is the object and depth of field applies to the object space not the image space.

[Jac@stafford.net]

No, the film lies within the depth of field not the depth of focus. The negative is the object and depth of field applies to the object space not the image space.

Cat fight!

[tonyowen]

Does the efficiency of a grain focussing device depend upon the viewer’s eyesight?
I’m sure that ‘years ago’ I was able to use grain focusers. But It seems I cannot longer ‘see the grain’ on any negative although I can determine if the image is sharp on the enlarger’s baseboard.
I’ve recently tried three different Paterson focus finders using 4x5, 6x9, 6x6 and 35mm roll and sheet negative film [B&W and colour] and two different enlarger lenses – all trials of which failed to show any grain or even light/dark ‘shadows/shades’ from the negatives.
All finders were focused to my eye and the finders were situated in line with the enlarger’s optical axes.
I’ve almost no sight in one eye [but have full peripheral vision], I’m 77, and normally wear glasses.
Regards
Tony

[LabRat]

for years 76-80 I did thousands of colour enlargements the focusing device was very tall with a mirror about halfway up that you could eyeball from a standing position.. made of plastic ... no complaints about sharpness.. I have not seen this unit again on the market...

I'm thinking you are remembering the Mitchell... Tall, almost flesh colored, no base, but with a point that touches the image plane, and and the viewing lens almost looks like it came out of a 35mm slide viewer???

I have one somewhere that I use for poster sized prints...

Steve K

[xkaes]

It was also sold by UNICOLOR.

[Ulophot]

Unless I missed something, no one has mentioned one other worthy device, albeit not as able to use corner-to-corner as the ones with the big, rectangular mirrors. It is the Bestwell Microsight, which I have used for decades and, just discovered, is still being made. I contacted them two days ago, after having acquired another. sheerly by chance, in perfect shape other than a very dusty mirror. I contacted the company about cleaning it, and was surprised at the reply: "a bit of glass cleaner and a lens cloth"! I tried it with a microfiber cloth, extremely gently -- it worked, so I even did it on my veteran one, which has always been capped when not in use, but over 40+years, it gained a little dust.
I can't recommend this same treatment for every product; the Bestwell uses what they call a microdot mirror. It certainly appears to be a front-surface mirror. Anyway, I just thought I'd pass it on.