To loupe or not to loupe?

[kev curry]

Can anyone explain what the fuss is with selecting a loupe - what brand, what X magnification or why use one at all? I learned how to focus the view camera after reading
Ken Rockwells site where he explains how to make a little paper dial that goes around the focusing knob of my Tachihara - the dial calculates the distance between the near/far objects in the scene that are to be in focus, then the dial is used to find the midway point between the two objects and hey presto the optimum fstop is selected from the dial for shotting the scene - beautifully simple and can be done easily by eye in 30sec's!
I have never had to use my home made loupe, even when shotting close-ups I find I get sharp pictures - 'things dont seem to be so critical to use a loupe'! I must be missing something here but what?
Thanks
kev

[David A. Goldfarb]

I remember attending an exhibition of an architectural photographer who never used a loupe, and you could tell from the prints. Usually people shoot LF because they want more control over the process, and using a loupe is one way, whether your goal is for everything to be sharp or for most everything to be unsharp. If you use very narrow selective focus, it's even more important to use a loupe so you don't miss the target.

As for the debate about which loupe and how much magnification--well, too much magnification and the fresnel and the glass get in the way of seeing the projected image. Too much distortion and you invite eye fatigue. Some loupes are better in the corners and some are better with wide lenses.

Try focusing without a loupe, and then checking with a loupe, and see if you choose a different focus point with the loupe. If you do, then it will make a difference. If you don't, then maybe it doesn't matter for the kind of subjects you shoot.

[Nick_3536]

The smaller the format the more I find I need something. Loupe,line tester something. With 8x10 it's less of an issue for me. But that's my eye sight at the moment.

I tend to do most of the focussing without then I fine focus with.

How much added weight/hassle is using one? It's not like you are hauling an ultra light setup to begin with. It's also not like you're rapid firing the camera either.

[Walter Calahan]

Whatever works for you.

With my eyes, I always use a loupe, even on 8x10.

All depends on how good your ground glass is, and how bright your lens is, I guess.

My camera bag is so heavy, I won't notice if the loupe was removed. Grin.

[BradS]

I've never really allowed myself the luxury of a real loupe. I started out using an orphaned 45mm lens from a long gone minolta slr. Moved from that to the viewing lens from a broken Ciro-flex (tlr) rigged into a short piece of tubing....I've settled on a pair of +3.25 reading glasses on a leash. I don't know if it shows in my prints...and I guess I don't really care.

[Ernest Purdum]

I suppose the need for a loupe (or not) has a lot to do with the type of subjects concerned. For scenics taken at small apertures amd minimal movements the method Kev Curry describes should work quite well. For other subjects and techniques a loupe should reduce the chance of error and assist in viewing the effects of movements.

[Brian Ellis]

Many people use the same system you use, with or without the little gadget you got from Ken Rockwell. In fact there's an excellent discussion of that system in an article written by QT and posted in this forum under the title "Focusing the View Camera" or something like that.

I've been using the system for many years myself after first learning about it from two articles in Photo Techniques magazine written in the mid-1990s. However - and this is a big however, at least for me - I use a loupe for the final focus and often find that there's a very small tweak to be made to get the object on which I'm focusing into "perfect" focus. So I find a loupe invaluable. A lot depends on the size of your prints (as well as the obvious things such as your eye-sight). If you're making 8x10s from a 4x5 negative you might never notice that your focus is just the tiniest bit off. But if you're making 16x20s or larger you might. OTOH, maybe your focus is perfect without a loupe and if so that's fine for you. But I certainly find mine very useful.

As for making a fuss over loupes, I don't know that there's a lot of that. Certainly an expensive loupe isn't needed just for use on a ground glass. Many people find reading glasses to work fine, others use an old 50mm lens from a 35mm camera, others probably use other things. A few people probably buy an expensive loupe because they think it will be better if it costs more. But the expensive loupes are made for viewing and evaluating slides on a light table and need to have quality optics that are irrelevant when the loupe is being used only to magnify an image on a LF camera's viewing screen.

While the cost isn't critical, the mag factor is of some importance and so there's often a good bit of discussion about that. Different people prefer different factors. I've always liked 4x myself, 8x magnifies too many of the Fresnel lines or ground glass artifacts for me and actually interferes with focusing rather than helping. It's all a matter of personal preference.

[Leonard Evens]

I seldom use a loupe. I use the near-far method you describe, and in most circumstances a loupe is not necessary. But there are circumstances where it can be helpful. When you determine the positions on the focusing knob corresponding to the near and far points, you are bound to make some errors. If the two points are uncertain, so will the point halfway in between. If these errors are small compared to the total focus spread, that uncertianty won't matter. But in some circumstances, this relative error is not small. This can occur if you are doing something like a facade of a buliding and near and far points are basially the same. Or it can happen with short foca length lenses no matter where in the scene the near and far points are. This will be particularly egregious if your focusing error is consistently in the same direction.

You should try focusing on the same point several times and see how much the variation there is.
Without a loupe, the variation along the rail could be a mm or more. That gets magnified on the focusing knob, but how much depends on the gearing.

I had an optician make for me a pair of near vision glasses which lets me focus from about 6-7 inches. This has the advantage of providing the equivalent of about a 2 X loupe. More important, it places my eye relative to the 4 x 5 gg image which corresponds to its position when looking at an 8 x 10 print viewed from about 12 inches (or a larger print viewed from proportionately further away). So I am better able to judge how the scene wil turn out after enlarging.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I never use a loupe. I use an Optivisor. I now have both hands free to operate the camera. What a pleasure.

[davidb]

So you've just spent all this money buying the camera and the film. Then you spend more money on gas to get to where you want to shoot. Then you spend more TIME shooting this thing you want to shoot and you don't have a $44 Toyo-View 3.6x Loupe (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61094-REG/Toyo_View_180301_3_6x_Groundglass_Focusing_Aid.html) with you?

[walter23]

Can anyone explain what the fuss is with selecting a loupe - what brand, what X magnification or why use one at all? I learned how to focus the view camera after reading
Ken Rockwells site where he explains how to make a little paper dial that goes around the focusing knob of my Tachihara - the dial calculates the distance between the near/far objects in the scene that are to be in focus, then the dial is used to find the midway point between the two objects and hey presto the optimum fstop is selected from the dial for shotting the scene - beautifully simple and can be done easily by eye in 30sec's!
I have never had to use my home made loupe, even when shotting close-ups I find I get sharp pictures - 'things dont seem to be so critical to use a loupe'! I must be missing something here but what?
Thanks
kev

I use a loupe if I'm shooting something with a narrow DOF or careful selective focus with tilts. Otherwise I do use it to confirm optimum focus before stopping down, but I know it's really not necessary and I forego it if I'm in a hurry.

This is with 4x5. It probably gets more important in the bigger formats.

As far as selection goes, I picked the toyo because it's small, cheap, and has a neck strap built in.

[Walter Calahan]

No, I have a Schneider loupe. Grin.

[Vaughn]

I don't use a loupe...one of the few advantages of being very near-sighted. I can get my eyes about 4" from the ground glass for great focusing.

I do have a loupe somewhere -- I'll have to find it to help with my occasional use of the long element of my Turner-Reich (28 or 29"), as it seems to shift focus as I stop down.

Vaughn

[Ted Harris]

I remember attending an exhibition of an architectural photographer who never used a loupe, and you could tell from the prints.

Well said. I look at a lot of negatives and transprencies shot by others; look at them and scan them with a high end scanner. More frequently than I would have imagined 10 years ago whne I look at a highresolution scan I am looking at a not quite focused image or at best not perfectly focused image .... an image that just will not hold up to printing any larger than 8x10 or 11x14 and even then the lack of focus is sometimes noticible. This even applies to some very well known photographers. In fact, I was working with some 35mm slides from a very very well known National Geographic photorapher the other day and was amazed at the number of them that were not critically focused. With regard to LF the whole point is that I am certain taht most if not all of those not-quite-focused images I look at were produced without using a loupe and it really doesn't matter if you have perfect eyesight, are near sighted, etc. ... your focus will improve when you use some sort of magnifyng device.

Since the human eye is the weakesr link in the focusing system why not give it some help?

[Donald Qualls]

I'm nearsighted enough that I can see the ground glass about as well with my naked eye (looking over my glasses) as I can with my glasses and 8x loupe. Part of the problem is that my loupe (a very inexpensive one) isn't designed to compensate for the thickness of the glass, so it doesn't focus perfectly on the ground surface when in contact with the smooth side. The other problem is there's so much distortion from the simple monocle lens that only the very center is in focus even when the image is in focus; it's actually easier to use reversed, with the cup surrounding my eye, but that's really only practical for inspecting negatives, because of the need for a free hand to hold the loupe (it's a little large to capture with my facial muscles as a jeweler would do when examining a diamond).

Some time I hope to get a better loupe -- preferable one that will either clip to my glasses or that I can hold with my brow and cheek -- and a Satin Snow ground glass; the combination should improve my focusing a bit...

[Dan V]

Interesting substitute for a loupe; I'll have to try it.


I never use a loupe. I use an Optivisor. I now have both hands free to operate the camera. What a pleasure.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I use also only very seldom a loupe I prefer reading glasses with + 3 diopters and only in very trycky situatiion I use the loup!
Its much easier with reading glasses then with a loup especially with a fresnell!

More light and a Satin Snow groundglass to all of you!

[Eric Woodbury]

Now I use either a loupe or strong reading glasses. Until I was 40, I didn't use a loupe.

[Jon Shiu]

I never use a loupe, but am near-sighted and focus without my glasses on. I look for bright edge or object in the image and focus by the change in contrast of that as I rack focus back and forth on Tachihara w/fresnel. Using a loupe does not improve focus for my type of landscape photography. My eyes are somewhat more sensitive to contrast than most people. I do have some problem using this method when the camera is racked out with a 300mm lens, because the extension bed jerks and I can't so easily see it snap into focus. I tried using a loupe in difficult focusing situations, like in a dark forest or of soft clouds, but it didn't help.

Jon

[Vaughn]

<snip> it really doesn't matter if you have perfect eyesight, are near sighted, etc. ... your focus will improve when you use some sort of magnifyng device.

Since the human eye is the weakesr link in the focusing system why not give it some help?

Unless you are very near-sighted yourself, you have no idea of how us near-sighted people see close-up w/o our glasses. You are just guessing...you have no idea of what it is like looking at something, in focus and sharp, at 3 to 4 inches from your eyes.

To use a loupe, I am using two seperate optical systems -- my glasses and the loupe...and there is a good chance that the loupe is not designed to give maximum performance with glasses (placement of the loupe relative to the eye is much different, for example). The focus with a loupe w/ glasses could easily be inferior compared to not using it (for near-sighted people w/o glasses).

Vaughn

[Colin Robertson]

When starting off I assumed the 'loupe cult' to be BS. Then I noticed that at 20x16 some prints weren't criticaly sharp. So, I bought a cheap loupe to test . . .
First I would focus naked eye, til I was SURE I had nailed focus. Then I'd loupe it. 50% of the time I had to make some minor tweak. Shocking. So now I carry a Silvestri 6X (I think) loupe. It is fabulously clear and sharp. If I shoot chrome, it costs £2.20 a sheet, plus £2.50 to process- that's a total of £4.70 (or nearly 10 US dollars) every time I click the shutter. Why risk that shot to save 30 seconds??
OKay- 90mm lens, f22, you'll have lots of dof, and it'll probably save your ass. But 360mm lens, f5.5, at 10 feet? There's NO dof. Why guess focus? Use a loupe.

PS No. I'm not a loupe salesman

[Baxter Bradford]

I have been amazed and saddened by this thread.

Isn't this the same brand of machismo and folly which has 35mm people claiming they can hand hold shutter speed much longer than the 1/(focal length) rule of thumb?

In terms of both expense of film/processing, underutilisation of true resolution capability of LF lenses and time to set up the shot+shoot - correct use of the simple loupe offers a huge boost in performance for relatively little cost, time or effort and negligible weight in the bag.

I hope that the non-loupe users refrain from posting about resolving powers of different LF lenses and edge effects of different developers.

[kev curry]

[QUOTE=Leonard Evens;251656]I seldom use a loupe. I use the near-far method you describe, and in most circumstances a loupe is not necessary. But there are circumstances where it can be helpful. When you determine the positions on the focusing knob corresponding to the near and far points, you are bound to make some errors. If the two points are uncertain, so will the point halfway in between. If these errors are small compared to the total focus spread, that uncertianty won't matter. But in some circumstances, this relative error is not small. This can occur if you are doing something like a facade of a buliding and near and far points are basially the same. Or it can happen with short foca length lenses no matter where in the scene the near and far points are. This will be particularly egregious if your focusing error is consistently in the same direction.

You should try focusing on the same point several times and see how much the variation there is.
Without a loupe, the variation along the rail could be a mm or more. That gets magnified on the focusing knob, but how much depends on the gearing.


-"When starting off I assumed the 'loupe cult' to be BS".-

I was on that road already but thanks to all I'm back on track and really getting the picture!


When I printed 35mm I wanted big prints! With 5x4 Ive strangely not felt the need ''as yet'' to print bigger than 11x14 -the real test as said, for my loupless focussing!
I'll also bare in mind the advice given for using the loupe in shoots with narrow DOF and selective focus, which Ive yet to do!
I inherited an old beat up Paterson grain focus finder. I removed the lens housing and
popped it-into a neat little plumbers fitting. After a little tweeking for focus I got it to suit my eye! Dont know its magnification? Or how that would compare with a proper loupe? But I'll 'see' how I get on! Any further advise welcome!

As soon as the rain stops -here in the west of Scotland and the blanket of grey cloud lifts- the 5x4s in the bag and were off to have a fresh look at the world through a loupe! Thanks to all of you for all the great advice its been a real pleasure browsing through the posts.
Best regards
kev

[kev curry]

Can I please be clear about something!
I had already started writing my last post -im very slow today- before I had read the post by Baxter. I in know way Quoted Leonards post to make any sort of point! I quoted
Leonard because it resonated with me. O dear maybe I'm being paraniod:(
Regards
kev

[Colin Robertson]

Hey Kevin. Sun's out in the Hebrides (for once). Kinda windy though, which is more usual.

[RDKirk]

Unless you are very near-sighted yourself, you have no idea of how us near-sighted people see close-up w/o our glasses. You are just guessing...you have no idea of what it is like looking at something, in focus and sharp, at 3 to 4 inches from your eyes.

LOLBWYNAY

A loupe does the same thing for a normal eye's lens that a "close-up filter" does for a normal camera lens. But the myopic eye is like a normal lens with an extension tube, so what he sees through a loupe is exactly what we hyper-myopic folk see "normally."

If a person with normal vision can focus as close as 10 inches, a 2x loupe gets him optically as close as 5 inches. What he sees is exactly the same as a myopic person who can see without glasses down to 5 inches.

Personally, my own hypermyopia gets me down to 3 inches. But to use a loupe, I have to use my glases--in fact, the lower portion of my bifocals--to first correct my vision to "normal" then the loupe allows me to focus to the same magnification that I could have seen without any external lenses at all.

Optical principles are optical principles.

[Brian Ellis]

I have been amazed and saddened by this thread.

Isn't this the same brand of machismo and folly which has 35mm people claiming they can hand hold shutter speed much longer than the 1/(focal length) rule of thumb?

In terms of both expense of film/processing, underutilisation of true resolution capability of LF lenses and time to set up the shot+shoot - correct use of the simple loupe offers a huge boost in performance for relatively little cost, time or effort and negligible weight in the bag.

I hope that the non-loupe users refrain from posting about resolving powers of different LF lenses and edge effects of different developers.

The point made in the last sentence is very good. It's a point that's made over and over again by John Sexton in his workshops. If you don't have the basics right (such as focus in the case of this thread) then don't worry about the minutiae of cameras, lenses, tripods, etc. that are discussed so often in this forum, they're totally irrelevant to you.

[kev curry]

Colin Im glad your weathers good! Im sitting waiting to see if theres going to be a little weather window tonight for a shot Im trying to get of Lock Arklet with Ben Ime and Ben Vorlich as the back drop! I went the other night just before dusk and the light was extraordinary! I managed to set up and compose two shots, inspite of being eaten alive by 'the midges' but something wasnt right the shutter speed was to high, something was nagging me all the way home, but I new I had metered correctly! As I later discovered, during the horror of being eaten I some how managed to set the ISO of the meter to 3200 instead of 320......think that places the shadows on zone0! Bummer.
Once I get a van on the road and make my much awaited trip to Skye for an extended break I can easily take a Calmac -criminally expensive ferry- from Uig and discover your beautiful Island with rock shoes and a 5x4!

cheers
kev

[kev curry]

The point made in the last sentence is very good. It's a point that's made over and over again by John Sexton in his workshops. If you don't have the basics right (such as focus in the case of this thread) then don't worry about the minutiae of cameras, lenses, tripods, etc. that are discussed so often in this forum, they're totally irrelevant to you.

I really do take this on board!
Ps: I really admire the work of John Sexton!
Cheers
kev

[Joseph O'Neil]

Eleven or twelve years ago when I first moved in 4x5 (up from 35mm and 120) I never used a loupe. Now I always use one. Kinda a sad testament to getting older I suppose. :(

I use two, well three loupes actually. First one was/is a Nikon loupe, also sold by Peak I think,with black tape wrapped around the bottom clear part (a tip I picked up off this forum). It's okay if on a budget.

The second loupe I use, mostly for my mono-rail is a large Pentax loupe made for examining 120 negatives. It is about 2.25 to 2.5 inches in diameter (I do not have it sitting in front of me, so not exactly sure), and is very easey to use and look through. However it does not have a neck string, and I find it a bit too large for backpacking.

The last loupe I use is one I bought used from the buy-sell forum off this site - a Schneider loupe. 6X? Anyhow, it is wonderful, small, and lives full time in my backpack with my Tachihara.

Another reason why I personally use a loupe all the time is because I've changed my shooting. A couple years ago going through some old family portraits, I was looking at how - oh about 100 years ago or so - the old, bit portraits would have just the eyes and immediate area of the face near the eyes in focus. Now I know this was done becasue of the physical limitations of lenses, lighting, film speed, etc, etc, but it's a neat effect/technique.

One thing I notice today, especially with digital imaging, is almost all photos anymore, everything is in focus. It's almost an unspoken rule in some quarters that everything in you image has to be focus, and you need depth of field a a mile deep.

I find, depending on your shot, that sometimes deliberately having only the subject of your photograph in focus and everything else just slightly out of focus cane be quite effective. It's not quite shooting completely wide open (as seen in another thread on this forum) but rather only stopping down one or two stops - depending on your lens of course. To achieve this effect on my 90 or 105mm needs often just one stop down, while my 270mm sometimes 3-4 stops. Your mileage may vary.

Anyhow, the point being, if you are not basing every shot on F22 or more, you really need a loupe for certain. I often wonder too if some focusing errors are easily overlooked if you make an issue of stopping down small on every shot. But I would reccommend both the use of a loupe -even an inexpensive one - and trying some shots with a very narrow depth of field. This is one neat effect that I find is hard to reproduce with digital cameras.

joe

[Robert Hughes]

I use the wife's old scratched up Nikkormat 50mm lens, works great.

[seawolf66]

When you to have my eyes you need all the help you can get. I got a wista 6x loupe
and I am glad, my reading glass'es run about 2-3/4+ but even under dark cloth I still need that loupe to be sharp: each of us have different reasons for the use of loupe's

[Alan Davenport]

Can anyone explain what the fuss is with selecting a loupe...

It's exactly the same as using a grain focusing magnifier with an enlarger. More precise control, and more exacting standards. If you're happy with what you get by not using a loupe, then by all means continue without.

Then there are those among us who can't see much closer than arm's length without assistance. I use one pair of glasses for distance vision, to evaluate a scene. I take them off and set up the camera with no glasses. For composition and rough focusing I use a pair of 2 or 3 diopter reading glasses. Then for final focus I use a 4X loupe.

To each his own...

[Shadow54]

If you care enough to be shooting LF why wouldn't you care about fine focus. A loupe every time thankyou.

[big_ben_blue]

I have always used a loupe as a matter of principle (that was the way we got drilled at college). Why bothering with large format (and the associated advantage of capturing more detail) in the first place when being sloppy with critical focussing and forgoing that advantage?
At work (freelancing for commercial studio) we use a Rodenstock (looks like it went trough a war zone, but works like a charm). For my own personal use, I have a Mamiya/Cabin 5x. It really pays getting a high quality loupe instead of the cheap plastic rubbish (been there, done that, got the t-shirt).

[knjkrock]

Resurrecting one of these old loupe threads, hoping for some advice. I have had cataract surgery and I am corrected for close up. Still can’t get close enough for fine work. Seems like I see best 14-16 inches. The other issue is a lot of the preferred solutions are no longer readily available. Reading glasses may be an option and frees up a hand? Is the translucent base acceptable, especially since working under a dark cloth?
The big camera stores don’t have much specific to this application. Any other resources?

Be kind, please

Ken

[John Kasaian]

When I got my camera, I took a shot without using a loupe, then I took an identical shot using a loupe.
The print with the loupe was much better.
If you need convincing I suggest doing your own experiment.

More expensive loupes I find aren't so much better (this from a hobbyist, mind you) but more desireable because they are easier to use(non-scratch opaque base, maybe tilting focus, neck cord, eye relief, etc...)
My two cents anyway.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, Not possible to assess critical focus on the GG without a loupe.

Basic mandatory view camera item.


Bernice

[John Kasaian]

Resurrecting one of these old loupe threads, hoping for some advice. I have had cataract surgery and I am corrected for close up. Still can’t get close enough for fine work. Seems like I see best 14-16 inches. The other issue is a lot of the preferred solutions are no longer readily available. Reading glasses may be an option and frees up a hand? Is the translucent base acceptable, especially since working under a dark cloth?
The big camera stores don’t have much specific to this application. Any other resources?

Be kind, please

Ken

Have you looked at this one from Edmund?
https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/opaque-base-magnifier/11954/

[cowanw]

Interesting to hear from someone who opted for close up cataract replacement. I presume you need glasses for far away. Has this been a good choice for you?
One thing you might consider is a +4 power monocle, which will let you see about 4 inches away. Something like this
https://www.nearsights.com/collections/reading-monocles/products/classic-monocle-black-matte

[Tin Can]

My cataract lens replacements are one far, one near

I use the Edmond 6X and drilled a hole for a neck string

Like it's adjustability


Have you looked at this one from Edmund?
https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/opaque-base-magnifier/11954/

[Bob Salomon]

Check the Eschnbach web site to see viewing aids and loupes/magnifiers.

[Doremus Scudder]

Resurrecting one of these old loupe threads, hoping for some advice. I have had cataract surgery and I am corrected for close up. Still can’t get close enough for fine work. Seems like I see best 14-16 inches. The other issue is a lot of the preferred solutions are no longer readily available. Reading glasses may be an option and frees up a hand? Is the translucent base acceptable, especially since working under a dark cloth?
The big camera stores don’t have much specific to this application. Any other resources?

Be kind, please

Ken

After cataract surgery, you have one focus distance uncorrected - period. For anything else you need correction. For closer than your 14-16 inches, you'll likely need a combination of reading glasses and a loupe to get you close enough to fine focus. If you can compose and focus roughly without readers you may be able to get away with just the loupe (I can't - I compose with 3-4 diopter readers). However, you may find that a pair of readers gets you to a more comfortable working distance (closer) from the ground glass

As for a loupe, you need to try out different strengths and find what works best for you. Many like the lower 4x power, many like up to 10x. I've used all of them and am now using loupes in the 5x - 8x range.

There's also the choice to be made between a loupe with adjustable skirt and optics and a free-floating magnifier. Once you get a skirted loupe set up (adjusted for your vision and focused on the frosted side of the ground glass) they are quick and reliable to use. The downside to skirted loupes is that you can't see into the corners of the ground glass easily (if at all) and it's often difficult to find the "hot spot" off-center when using short focal-length lenses. I like a free-floating "loupe." I use stamp magnifiers and a retractable 6x aspheric hand magnifier; some use thread-counting magnifiers. With a free-floating magnifier, you have to find the right distance from the ground glass every time by moving the loupe and your head. The advantage is that you can look at the ground glass from any angle, making it easy to see into the corners and to find the hot spot. Another possibility along these lines is to use a loupe with a short skirt, like those intended for negative/slide viewing (usually 8x-10x) and turn it backwards (eye looking through the skirt) when needed for corner viewing, etc.

Another consideration is price. There are lots of great, really expensive multi-element loupes out there and they are worth the price. A cheap loupe that is only sharp in the center is more than a PITA to use. That said, I have a single-element aspheric acrylic magnifier that works superbly and didn't cost an arm and a leg (it's this one: https://www.amazon.com/Folding-Pocket-Magnifier-magnification-Biconvex/dp/B004KNS2BW ).

Keep in mind, that you can use a loupe and a pair of glasses in combination. I do it all the time: 3 diopter readers and then my 5x loupe.

Hope all this helps,

Doremus

[Maris Rusis]

There is an old rule with a bit of truth to it: confirm focus using a loupe that has more power than the intended enlargement ratio. Two times enlargement - use a 4x loupe. Four times enlargement - use a 6x loupe ... and so on.

[Bob Salomon]

There is an old rule with a bit of truth to it: confirm focus using a loupe that has more power than the intended enlargement ratio. Two times enlargement - use a 4x loupe. Four times enlargement - use a 6x loupe ... and so on.

But at some point the mag. Is so great the gg grain becomes a problem.

[knjkrock]

Interesting to hear from someone who opted for close up cataract replacement. I presume you need glasses for far away. Has this been a good choice for you?
One thing you might consider is a +4 power monocle, which will let you see about 4 inches away. Something like this
https://www.nearsights.com/collections/reading-monocles/products/classic-monocle-black-matte

Regarding close-up correction-I was previously nearsighted and as I became presbyopic I would get to work, take my glasses off, and perform my duties. That involves screen time, paperwork, and other tasks performed at close distance. Didn’t see much reason to change what I had been doing for 50 years and has worked out well. Still get magnifiers out for close work.
The monocle looks small and light weight.

Ken

[cowanw]

When i had my cataracts done I had infinity focus as a replacement (like most) despite having spent my lifetime in your situation. I had and still have a rotten time close up and still use the glasses for infinity as I have astigmatism as well. I often wonder as I try to fix plumbing from below without plumbers glasses why did I not do as you did. :confused:
In any case the 4X monocle works well and I find both for enlarging and large format being in best focus is in focus, same as for medium format screens and 35mm. Loupes not necessarily required but sometines useful

[Jim Noel]

Doesn't anyone focus on the aerial image any longer? Or don't those with cameras today even know what it is? It has always been the easiest method of producing the sharpest image.

[Bob Salomon]

Doesn't anyone focus on the aerial image any longer? Or don't those with cameras today even know what it is? It has always been the easiest method of producing the sharpest image.

If it was maybe all of the camera manufacturers of all formats would supply their cameras for aerial imaging today.

[Drew Wiley]

That Edmunds magnifier is wonderful for a light box, and if it's the one with one side cut out, it's meant for spotting use too. I was using mine this morning. But it's much too big to be practical for groundglass focus. My favorite is the Peak/Horseman/Nikon 7x model, variously branded.

[Jim Noel]

If it was maybe all of the camera manufacturers of all formats would supply their cameras for aerial imaging today.

The only reason it is not the easiest is that the method of such viewing takes sustained practice. A task that too many are unwilling to undertake. I learned the procedure in the 1930's and continue to use it.

[Bob Salomon]

The only reason it is not the easiest is that the method of such viewing takes sustained practice. A task that too many are unwilling to undertake. I learned the procedure in the 1930's and continue to use it.

How well can you use an extinction light meter?

[John Kasaian]

The only reason it is not the easiest is that the method of such viewing takes sustained practice. A task that too many are unwilling to undertake. I learned the procedure in the 1930's and continue to use it.
Tell us more, please!

[John Kasaian]

How well can you use an extinction light meter?

I thought those were extinct?

[RLangham]

I've never really allowed myself the luxury of a real loupe. I started out using an orphaned 45mm lens from a long gone minolta slr. Moved from that to the viewing lens from a broken Ciro-flex (tlr) rigged into a short piece of tubing....I've settled on a pair of +3.25 reading glasses on a leash. I don't know if it shows in my prints...and I guess I don't really care.

I bet I use the same lens as my loupe! MC Rokkor X 45/2?

[Jim Noel]

How well can you use an extinction light meter?

I had a lot of practice with them and became very efficient. I still have one in my closet along with several range finders, straight threaded cable releases and other
useful tools from the past.

[Alan Klein]

Have you looked at this one from Edmund?
https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/opaque-base-magnifier/11954/

Does this loupe come with something i can hang it from my neck.

What is it's length? Are there different magnifications and focusing?

[Alan Klein]

I just got a new 4x5 with GG and fresnel. Are there considerations with focusing due to the fresnel?

[Bernice Loui]

The optical grooves on any Fresnel lens affect the ability to use any magnifier. This and a long list of reasons is why any Fresnel "brightness" improver can work against the photographer.

Stopped using any fresnel decades ago for that long list of reasons. IMO, best is very fine grade ground glass precisely matched to the film holder's film location.


Bernice


I just got a new 4x5 with GG and fresnel. Are there considerations with focusing due to the fresnel?

[Bernice Loui]

Have the Horseman versus of this 7x loupe, been using this same loupe on the GG for decades. It's quite beat up and well used now, still works fine and remains the preferred GG loupe to this day.


Bernice




My favorite is the Peak/Horseman/Nikon 7x model, variously branded.

[Bob Salomon]

I just got a new 4x5 with GG and fresnel. Are there considerations with focusing due to the fresnel?

Not really, your loupe should first be focused on the grain side of the gg. Then the grooves in a fresnel are not a problem. Also on fresnel mounted to the top of the gg the fresnel can usually be removed, if necessary.

If you use a viewing or focusing aid like a reflex viewer or a focus/metering bellows a fresnel is required.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't have problem with any of my GG grain even at 10X loupe magnification. I find around 7X ideal for both 4x5 and 8x10 usage. But even 2X would be annoying if a fresnel was present.

[C. D. Keth]

Not really, your loupe should first be focused on the grain side of the gg. Then the grooves in a fresnel are not a problem. Also on fresnel mounted to the top of the gg the fresnel can usually be removed, if necessary.

If you use a viewing or focusing aid like a reflex viewer or a focus/metering bellows a fresnel is required.

I don’t think you’re going to talk anybody who doesn’t like them into a fresnel. Are you selling them or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Salomon]

I don’t think you’re going to talk anybody who doesn’t like them into a fresnel. Are you selling them or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. I use them and like them. Ever since I used my first SLR that didn’t have one.

The only things that I sell now are Billingham bags from the UK and only in GA, AL and TN.

[Drew Wiley]

Here we go loop de loop, just like stunt pilots. If all goes wrong, tighten your flying goggles, hope you can see through them (preferably without a fresnel attatched), jump, and hope your chute opens. Aim your landing atop the nearest person under a darkcloth in the meadow below.

[Drew Bedo]

Why loupe? What loupe? How . . .?

I use a loup because my best corrected vision is something like 20/150 in one eye. The other eye has no useful vision at all. An assistive appliance of some sort is a necessity for me.

In the past, I have used a pair of very strong, prescription reading glasses . . . .think Mr. McGoo. Another option has been a jeweler's or watchmaker's "MagniVisor" headset. Both work but are cumbersome in practical use. I now use a premium brand loupe on a neck cord. Seems to work best for me.

In use, the loupe hangs from my neck and is always there when needed. For focusing it is used in the conventional way. When manipulating the shutter controls it is reversed to be a close up magnifier.

That is the how, what and why of using a loupe in my work.

[knjkrock]

Have picked up a couple of loupes to learn with. Both have a a pair of posts or lugs on the barrel to secure a cord for around the neck. Cord is gone. Any suggestions for a replacement material? I was a lousy boy scout so would appreciate knot suggestions too.

Thanks,

Ken

[Bob Salomon]

Have picked up a couple of loupes to learn with. Both have a a pair of posts or lugs on the barrel to secure a cord for around the neck. Cord is gone. Any suggestions for a replacement material? I was a lousy boy scout so would appreciate knot suggestions too.

Thanks,

A hobby shop for material, square knot to join then ends together.

Ken

[Drew Bedo]

Leather boot lace

Nice round shoe lace

"550 Paracord"

Knots and how to tie them are easy to find on YouTube and Wikipedia.

[Greg]

Have picked up a couple of loupes to learn with. Both have a a pair of posts or lugs on the barrel to secure a cord for around the neck. Cord is gone. Any suggestions for a replacement material? I was a lousy boy scout so would appreciate knot suggestions too.

Thanks,

Ken

Rock climbing cord 2mm or wider
https://www.edelrid.com/us/sports/accessory-cords/multicord-sp-2-0mm.html
is an example. Will never break or wear out for sure. Best thing is that it comes in really bright colors, so you're not about to leave your loupe behind.

[PatrickMarq]

I always use a loupe, with my sight it’s nessesary. Last year I went to the north of France ( 3 hour drive) and after the second picture, I saw that I have lost my loupe. Never found it back, but because we where with 2 photographers I thought we both check the ground glass.
Surprise that all the images where not sharp :-(