To loupe or not to loupe?

[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