[Leica] Re: Leica-loupe

["TSL" <eno22@enter.net>]

.TSL wrote:

> Loupe, loupes and loupes.  I mostly use Rodenstock 4X asph and of
> course
> it's a good loupe.
> However, my R-prints are all too often out of focus.  That's no
> surprise,
> but  there I go and put it on paper.  I think I need an 8x.

From: Bernard

<< How can you see if your negative is sharp with an 8x
loupe when you're going to do a 15x enlargement (for example)? I have a
variety of loupes (not expensive ones), all the way up to 10x, and they
do nothing for me, because I enlarge my negative quite a bit more than
10x. If there's a flaw in my logic or in my usage of loupes, I'd be glad
to hear about it, because I've been wondering for quite a while why
people find their loupes so important.>>

Loupes!  Loupes are more important than film!  As for a flaw in your usage
of loupes, you have answered that yourself. You have a variety, but they
'don't do anything' because the negs are...tiny.
As for the flaw in your logic, why aren't there only 4Xloupes?  Who needs a
6X (full-frame 35mm)?  Why not, then just use the 22x and move around the
surface and check each part?  Or, perhaps we need a full-frame 20x loupe!
That would give us accurate views of what will be on a 16x20?  Or maybe it's
most accurate to use the 1x loupe.  I'm don't know too much about
exponential increases in this respect.  But within the 2x's and 10x's
there's  a large benefit in only a 2x increase (i.e. 4x - 6x) This
proportion has practical implications.  Speaking 'umathematically', what's
the difference?  It's as simple as reading glasses.  When I look through a
loupe, I'm not expecting to "know" or "see" what the slide will look like
when printed.  THAT is illogical.  My Intention is to JUDGE what they will
look like on paper, enlarged.  It's just the case that a 1.5x loupe will
yield less accuracy than a 4X in ----most----- of applicable cases.
But, I hate to argue because your point still has its practical logic,
otherwise my loupes would correct my judgment and the prints would be
great - the one's I chose to print.).  At least that one great shot (had one
last February, or was it March?...)  will be spotted.  Or a reliable
projector/viewer.
One other thing is that you do, I assume use yer loupes.  May not like 'em
but use them anyway.
A negative and a loupe and a (24x36) slide and a loupe (and some light) are
quite different.  Besides the scanner...Anyhow, seeing two times as far or
double that 4x as far is a leap.  Is 22x to 24x?  I'm not sure, but not to
me.