Evaluating Photos

I've used the Schneider 4x loupe, the NPC 5.5x Prolupe, and the Rodenstock 4x loupe in direct comparisons on approximatley 1000 slides.

The Schneider 4x gave excellent color, excellent contrast, and uniform sharpness across the entire frame. It was possible to see the whole frame from one viewing spot, even with eyeglasses on. The only significant criticism of the Schneider is that it is made from light gage plastic, and fairly delicate.

The NPC also gave excellent color rendition and excellent contrast. It too was uniformly sharp over the entire frame. Because of the larger power of magnification, slightly more detail is discernable with the NPC than with the Schneider. The NPC is harder to view with eye glasses on. The NPC is very robust - it is made from aluminum and plastic and it weighs about twice as much as the Schneider.

I liked the Schneider and the NPC so well that I have kept them both. I see these as complimentary products.

The Rodenstock was less satisfying. The primary gripes are:

1) The skirt diameter is barely large enough to cover a 35mm frame, so placement of the loupe is more critical than it is for either the Schneider or the NPC.

2)My sample was not able to deliver a uniformly sharp image across the whole frame with a single focus setting. You could either have sharp corners or you could have a sharp central region. You could not have both simultaneously. This is in spite of the touted aspherical lens. Maybe other samples are better in this regard.

3)The Rodenstock didn't seem to present as bright an image when used to view prints as the Schneider or the NPC.

I sent the Rodenstock back to the vendor after a week of direct comparison with the other two loupes.

I have been using a Porta-Trace 1012-2 light table, and it is a very nice product. This unit can be purchased with two 5,000K lamps, and its surface is exactly the right size to view one archival slide storage page at a time. The cost was only $49.95 at B&H in fall of 1996, and there is also a carrying case available for less than $25 more, Two lamps used to cover a 10x12 surface provides very bright, even illumination.

If you buy one, they include a plastic strip that you can attach to the viewing surface to provide a "stop" to keep stuff from falling off the table when it is in the raised position. Don't put this strip where they tell you to put it. Install it between the screws at the bottom, instead of above the screws - that way you can rest your archival slide storage page on this strip and still illuminate the entire page.

I have to second Glen's comment on the Porta-Trace lightboxes. The 1618-3 is very nice for looking at two archival pages of slides (1 roll of 36 slides) at once and the three lights give a very uniform illumination without significant hotspots. Pearl Art Supply has a great deal on these every few months for $79.

Someone asked how to contact PortaTrace, but the question has been removed from the Q&A area.

PortaTrace can be contacted at

Gagne, Inc. 1080 Chenango St. Binghamton, NY (no zip given) 607-723-9550

If you want to buy one of their tables, check out your local camera stores, or call B&H.

Well, making a lightbox on your own can be a rewarding experience.

Bulbman (Reno, Nevada, 1-800-648-1163) sells 15" to 24" Colortone 50 and Phillips Ultralume color-corrected fluorescent bulbs (5000K, Color Rendition Index 90 -- normal household lightbulbs are usually 3500-4300K, CRI 60); they're around $14 each. Home Depot sells complete light fixtures for around $5 (made by Light of America), or you can assemble some yourself using end fixtures and ballasts for half the cost. Your local plastic/acrylic shop can sell you lightbox white, 1/4" acrylic cut-to-size. The base box, at least 8" deep to give even illumination to acrylic surface, can be made of assembled wood pieces, or even plastic storage boxes -- painted flat white.

It cost me around $85 to make a 24x20, 4 lamps, 60w lightbox. Bright, color-corrected, and comfortably fit four pages of slides.

I got the idea originally from a posting in a rec.photo newsgroup (don't have the poster's name and email address handy), btw.

In Tokyo I've been unable to find the brands mentioned (JUST, Acculight, Macbeth, etc.). Instead, the leading brands are Fuji and Hakuba, with a few models made by Cabin and one by Hama (German-made, I think). I ended up buying a new model by Hakuba called the 7000 Pro (about 17,500 yen) which looks just about as good as the Fuji pro models in terms of the eveness of the light, but are nearly half the price. It fits one page of 12 6x7 shots or four 4x5's, and is about 2cm thick.

The most expensive are the Hama (39,000 yen, but big) and two Fuji pro models, which differ from the normal Fuji models in that the light is very evenly distributed from edge to edge; one model is thinner and smaller than the other, but both are about 30,000 yen. Cabin makes a relatively thin model for about 25,000 yen, but I think the Fuji pro is better and not much more money. All the other models I looked at (under 10,000 yen) are aluminum box models about 7cm thick and have uneven light distribution; the light fades away and the edges, and you can see an outline of the bulbs inside.

I also have the schneider 6x6 3X loupe to view the slides shot w/ my Zeiss and Schneider lenses. Viewing with eyeglasses is no problem (the entire image is sharp without having to "look around" the eyepiece), and contrast/sharpness are excellent. I can even discern the subtle differences between shots taken with a Zeiss sonnar from shots taken from a Schneider tele-xenar.

If you're just starting out, you might find yourself unable to throw out a slide that looks decent, but is basically "not there." Or you don't have enough experience to figure out which of the three exposures you bracketed will be right for you.

If that's the case, do what I do. Buy two folders, and divide your slides into "cream of the crop", and "stuff I'm not sure is all that good but that I'm willing to keep." That'll make editing ruthlessly a lot easier, and then later on when you are older and wiser, really throw out the ones that aren't any good.

Just a follow up on the loupe comparison that I posted above. Recently I've had a chance to use several samples of the new Rodenstock 4x aspherical lupe, and they were great performers. They were able to hold sharpness at a single focus setting from corner to center. This suggests that the first one I got was a lemon, or that they've made some changes. In any event, the Rodenstock is definitely worth a look. It is ergonomically sound, well constructed, and the potential is there for excellent sharpness. Check your sample. If you've got a good one, keep it.

When editing slides, I prefer to project them first using a very good projector and a stack loader. My projector of choice is a now discontinued (darn!) Leica RT300, which takes the Kodak Carousel trays (and stack loader) and has a wonderful, sharp and neutral optical system as opposed to the standard coke bottle green glass.

First I used a Peak 8x loupe and I thought it was pretty good. Sure, you had to move around a bit in order to see the entire frame, but I liked it. Then I bought a real lightbox (Kaiser 2175) and a real loupe (Schneider 4x). What a difference! So yes, Peak's are cheap and they're definitely not very useful.

While evaluating my slides I notice that I don't have the faintest idea of how professionals evaluate, store, process theirs. What needs do magazines have? (I know they would gladly xerox a polaroid if it had Prince Charles in boxers)

I've used microfiche (rear-screen projection) viewers for checking slides and negatives, especially for sharpness. They're cheap on the 2nd-hand market (everything's computerized now, right?)

The film is held between glasses and can easily be moved to scan different areas. Some of them are available with dual mangification.

Defend yourself on color balance. Most are just a quartz-iodine lamp, perhaps with a heat filter.

Update on Loupes

I think Philip's advice on loupes needs updating. If there was a time when the automatic first choice in loupes was Schneider, that time is now past. Philip himself has subsequently written (in a Q&A response): "People rave about the Schneider [loupe] because it was the first expensive high-quality loupe that was generally available in the USA (for the 35mm frame). That doesn't mean it is better than a similarly-priced Rodenstock, just as a Schneider 210mm view camera lens would probably be very hard to distinguish from a Rodenstock view camera lens." Today, if you are looking for a top-quality loupe for examining your 35mm transparencies, your choices are broader (and are definitely worth the hassle of investigating): in order of increasing price, the Rodenstock 4x (B&H $100), the Schneider 4x (B&H $109), the Canon 4x (B&H $130), the Canon 8x (B&H $170), the Carl Zeiss/Contax 5x (B&H $180), and the Schneider Aspheric 6x (B&H $254). (The 6x and 8x loupes are not full-frame.) If you're looking for a top-quality loupe for examining your medium-format transparencies, the current king is probably the Rodenstock 6x6 Aspheric (B&H $230), a more recent design than the excellent Schneider 6x6 (B&H $224). Rebates are sometimes available. Cheap loupes are generally to be avoided.

My two cents worth: for 35mm transparencies, I like the Carl Zeiss/Contax 5x, or the Canon 4x and Canon 8x used together. (The Canon philosophy is that you need the 4x for full-frame viewing and sorting of slides, and the 8x for critical examination of detail, sharpness, and grain. These two Canon loupes, by the way, are part of Canon's "L" or "Luxury" line of premium optics and have the red ring of Canon's "L" lenses.) These Carl Zeiss/Contax and Canon loupes are of absolutely top optical quality, tack sharp from center to edge of frame, beautifully made, with smoothly adjustable focusing rings and interchangeable skirts (black for transparency viewing, translucent for print viewing). For medium-format transparencies, I like the Rodenstock 6x6 Aspheric, which has the same virtues but a reversible (instead of interchangeable) skirt.

I have to disagree with Philip on lightboxes. It's odd to me that Philip is pretty critical on most things, but not on these. He dismisses the subject pretty cavalierly in a sentence or two: after noting that there are expensive lightboxes available (Macbeth Prooflite, JUST, Kaiser), he says that he can't see anything wrong with the inexpensive Acculight, which he's been contentedly using for 10 years. Well, taking this advice (as well as some other favorable comment I'd received on the Acculight), I figured this was a good place to save some money, and I bought one. Unlike Philip, and unfortunately for me, I don't have any trouble seeing what's wrong with it Instead of saving money, I'm probably going to wind up spending more than if I'd just bought a high-quality lightbox in the first place, because I'm not happy with the Acculight and would like to replace it. Yes, it was cheap and no doubt I got my money's worth, but here's yet another example that in this world you get what you pay for.

I already had a small, portable, top-quality Mamiya Cabin lightpanel (CL-5000P, B&H $80), but it was too small for slide sorting, so I wanted a larger lightbox. I bought the Acculight Portable Viewer (outside dimensions 18x15, viewing surface 17.2x12.4; B&H $90). Setting them up side by side, it was immediately apparent, not at all subtle, and would leap out at virtually any viewer, that they didn't produce the same color or quality of light at all. The Mamiya Cabin's light was superbly EVEN; the Acculight was not at all, and it was easy to see just where the bulbs lay beneath the translucent panel, since the light was brighter there, and duller near the edges. Later I read, in a Q&A response by James Chow, describing his own lightbox comparisons: "The cheap light tables were inferior in light quality compared to the more expensive models. You could actually see the bulbs underneath, as light distribution wasn't uniform from edge to edge as in the more expensive boxes." Right on, James, and the same thing I was noticing in my Cabin vs. Acculight comparison. (And I see you say pretty much the same thing above.) Also, the color/quality of light was different in the two lightboxes. I have no way to test which one is "right," but my money would be on the Mamiya Cabin, and I certainly prefer examining my slides on it.

So if you're planning to buy a cheap lightbox, be aware that you're probably going to get what you pay for. Maybe I'm being too fussy, too critical, but if you are inclined that way too, you might like to make some careful comparisons of brightness, color/quality of light, and evenness of light distribution (especially near the edges). Take along a few slides of your own, and take your candidates for purchase for a test drive. Caveat emptor.

Over the holidays I had a chance to try out several of the 35mm loupes mentioned here side-by-side at B&H in NY. The loupes that most impressed me there were the Canon 4x and the NPC 5.5x.

The Canon 4x loupe is of the same basic design as the Schneider, but not as boxy in construction. To my eyes it was the clear winner in color transmission and lack of distortion among all the loupes I tried. It also allowed for plenty of extra room in viewing a 35mm slide, allowing for a less than perfect registration. I find this to be a useful consideration in viewing slides stored in printfile sheets, as the bumps and humps of the sheets can slow you down if you need perfect registration. The canon's *apparent* field of view seemed wider in this application than any of the other 4x loupes.

Likewise, I found the NPC to be the best in terms of distortion and color of the medium- magnification loupes, preferring it even to the contax. The NPC just covers a 35mm slide mount, so proper registration (and a closer eyepoint) is necessary to view slides, but the additional magnification (and thus, information) is well worth it. I find the higher magnification loupes to be good for checking sharpness, but strongly lacking in viewing area.

For reference, the other loupes I tried were: 4x: Schneider, Rodenstock, Iston, Peak, Kenko, Fuji 5.5-6x: Contax, Kenko

At $130 for the Canon and $120 for the NPC, I don't think you can go wrong with either.

The Contax/Carl Zeiss 5x loupe is amazing. I can't claim to have tried every loupe on the market, but fortunately I won't have to. This baby is cleanly engineered, extremely well constructed, and of unsurpassed optical quality. It is truly and elegant instrument and an absolute pleasure to use for work with 35mm transparencies.

I can also highly recommend the Porta-Trace line of light boxes. I have a 60 watt, 18x24" model that illuminates slides with a really nice, even light. The plexiglass editing surface and three 5000k lamps are encased in a well-machined stainless steel body; it is a very utilitarian piece of equipment.

I too think Phil's Loupe evaluation needs some updating. I was at B&H today, and I wasn't even shopping for a loupe. While I was browsing around waiting for my filters to come up, I casually checked out the images they had on their demo lightboxes. I tried out all the loupes... Canon, Kenko, Peake... ho hum. Then I saw they had a Schneider 4x, and got excited. Well, the excitement died down when I looked through it... not that much better than the other ones. Then I grabbed the last one... BAM! This one had high contrast, neutral color, razor sharpness corner to corner, without the need to shift my eyeball anywhere. The difference was absolutely amazing. I looked at the skirt of this fantastic loupe... Rodenstock Aspharische Lupe, 4x, Made in Germany. I turned around and told the guy to put one in my order! At this time of writing, it's 99.95, SKU# ROL4X. Get one!! Now, let me head over to rodenstock.com to see if they make 8x or 10x loupes....

Just to clarify: I was wearing glasses, and I did try all the loupes, including the NPC and Contax loupes (the latter of which was slightly better than most of the others), and I even had the new Leica 5x loupe called up (they didn't have one on display). Of all these, only the Leica came close to the Rodenstock. It seemed heavier and more solid than the Rodenstock, and it had the same optical characteristics, except for a noticeably warmish color cast... but it was twice as expensive (surprise, surprise).

I've read in both a John Shaw book and an Ernst Wildi book that you need something like 7x to 10x for critical evaluation of 35mm slides. Wildi said the higher magnification lupe can be a fairly inexpensive one since you're only evaluating a local area of the slide anyhow(so just accept the middle portion). I trust these two photographers' opinions, and wonder what others might think. (Shaw and Wildi aren't anti-4X-- I know Shaw recommends the Sneider 4X to see the whole image-- they're talking of "critical" evaluation, however this may be defined.)

I have found a very inexpensive oversize 7x loupe being advertised on Ebay in the medium format section. It goes for $20 and is comparable to loupes priced much higher. I like the large size and dual glass elements. Also neat is the added measuring scale that you can attach to the base for measuring subjects in the negatives. Great value! It can also be bought directly from the distributor, MPS. Their number is (870) 932-4454. I bought four of them.

After dropping and stepping on my two year old Schneider Loupe, I went down to B&H Photo one afternoon to pick up another one. Well, it turns out Schneider isn't the only game in town, and I came home with a Fuji Professional 4x Loupe after peering through the dozen they have on display. I don't think I saved any money, because Schneider had a rebate on theirs, but the Fuji is terrific, particularly if you wear glasses (I do).

I also picked up the smallest Cabin Light Panel (it was on sale), and I have to say that the quality of the light blows away my Porta Trace Lightbox. Next trip to B&H, I'll certainly be purchasing one of the large Cabin Light Panels that can handle a whole page of slides.

Just thought I'd post a reminder for an old trick. If you have a "normal" lens for your 35mm camera (50 to 55mm, f/1.8 or 1.4), it can be used as a loupe. Just pull it off the camera, hold in your hand, and look through the film side of the lens. The optical quality will probably be better than than dedicated slide viewing loupes. For heavy use a loupe may be more convenient - the normal lens has no skirt or stand, and protruding hardware on the back of the lens could damage your eyeglasses, or your eye.

The E-6 lab I use has Just Normlicht light tables available for their customers, so I decided to get a Just Normlicht for consistency and some confidence in knowing I had a table which meets ANSI and ISO standard viewing specifications.

When I was looking around for a table, *every* manufacturer says they use 5000K color corrected tubes. After putting the same transparencies on different 5000K tables it was obvious that there were sometimes HUGE differences. Even after you get past the 5000K issues, there are two other important specifications which rarely get mentioned: Luminance and Color Rendering Index (CRI). I believe the proper spec for luminance is about 1400 cd/m2 and the CRI should be greater than 90.

I purchased a mid-sized Cabin CL5000M in order to have a highly portable light table I could bring along when showing my portfolio to prospective clients. A 4x5 transparency I shot with a light blue background went significantly magenta when viewed on the Cabin. When this same transparency was viewed on a Just Normlicht and several other light tables, it was blue as expected. It was apparent the Cabin was *way* off the mark even though they spec color temp and luminance per the ANSI specification (they don't spec CRI). I returned the Cabin as I viewed it as unreliable for color evaluation. I have a small 4x5 Cabin, and the same color shift happens on that table so I don't believe I ran into a bad sample.

Others may also find interesting an info sheet (#CIS-152) published by Kodak titled, "Recommendations for Viewing Transparencies". I received it through the mail by calling Kodak.

I went down to ProPhoto to see what full frame 4x loupe was the best after reading all the other comments on loupes. I thought that the Rodenstock was to tight but good clarity. canon was bright. But the Scheider was the best of all! I looked at most of the other names but they are not worth it. Oh the Jobo was good for what you pay and I did not get to see the NPC 5.5x. I now have a Scheider.

I find the best & cheapest loupe to be a leftover 50mm lens, especially the Olympus 1.8

Now I'd like a clear plastic base that bayonets on!

I went to B&H to test out all the loupes and want to add the following opinions and conclusions to the above comments:

1) Quality of loupes has improved. The "made in Germany" and/or higher prices don't guarantee better quality or value. 2) There ARE alternatives to Schneider, Rodenstock, Contax, Leica, etc which are just as good. Seems like most of the above comments focus on premium (overpriced) loupes. Peak, Kenko, Fuji, Pentax, and NPC have some very competitive models at a fraction of the price. 3) I spent an hour comparing the Schneider 10x ($244) with the Peak 10x scale lupe ($59) using various slides. The Peak MATCHES the Schneider in image sharpness and color. I actually liked the Peak more, bought it, and saved $185! The Schneider seems a little more durable (all metal), while the Peak has a plastic focusing ring. The Peak optics are great (4 elements, 2 groups, coated). The Peak has a clear skirt; Schneider has black skirt. The Peak comes with a nice case and also a handy scale that is visible in the viewfinder. 4) I also bought a Pentax 5.5 lupe. It is sharp. It has a nice big image. It is GREAT for eyeglass wearers. My only gripe is that when I look too close into the finder, the edges of the 35mm image start to pin-cushion. I tried the Fuji Professional (4x) and the newer Kenko 4x (with the slide-able skirt a-la the Rodenstock). In my opinion, they match the Schneider 4x and Rodenstock 4x but at a slightly lower price. There is the excellent Canon 4x, but is pricey at $139. 5) In conclusion, do try out various loupes. There are some excellent Japanese-made models with optics that match German optics. However, I have seen some aweful samples of Peaks and Kenkos that were totally unacceptable (major distortion, horrible color transmission). My point is that there are alternatives. Go out there, test the loupes, and trust your eyes. A $244 Schneider is not necessarily better than a "cheap" $59 Peak.

I am very thankful for Phil's alway illuminating (my pun)comments since I have only recently begun shooting slides again and he has satisfied my initial curiosity regarding loupes and light tables. I guess I must be somewhat of a rube, though, since I have been strictly using a 2 x 2 viewer to look at my slides. Is the true advantage of quality loupes and light tables both color quality and sharpness? And wouldnt the value of the higher power loupe be in checking for sharpness if you wished to produce large prints? I won't touch the issue of which brand is better since this seems to be very subjective and there are no shortage of strong opinions here. Or maybe the length of this thread is proving that what started as a short list of quality products has expanded rapidly in the last couple of years.

It is curious to note that there seems to be little said about the bulbs used in the light boxes. I know that for viewing my images and general lighing within the house) full-spectrum lighting makes a huge difference. Ottbiolight has a 48" bulb with a CRI of 98 (CRI stands for "color rendering index". CRI is a measurement of how much of the suns spectrum is replicated by the lightbulb. If the color frequencies are not in the light you are viewing with, they cannot be accuratly rendered) The bulb has a color temperature of 5000K (that's about the color of the light around noon on a clear summers day. 6000K is the color of an overcast day, I like working inside under about 5500K) Unfortunatly it is a 48" bulb. I know there are shorter bulbs out there with CRIs of 92 or so, but I would have to look through my papers...

Has anyone done research on the results of using different bulbs in their projectors?

I'd also like to add to the chorus of people who like the Cabin Lightpanels. They come in at least 3 sizes with the smallest one being portable and AA powered (it has a plug option as well.) The light from these Cabin Lightpanels is so even it's really amazing.

There's very little information on the web with respect to these units so please make an effort to search them out. They are really a cut above the rest. The even-ness of the light is truly amazing.

Mamiya is importing them into the US for Cabin, which is nice because I had an intermittent problem with my portable one (which does get a lot of use and abuse travelling with me) and they replaced it without a question.

When I first read the title of this section (Evaluating Photos), I thought that it would deal with the difficult subject of the quality of photographs; the issue of subjective / objective values; and questions like: What makes an image of photographers like Alfred Stieglitz, Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson great? Is it the emotions that they transmit, their social content, their opportunity, the beauty of the subjects, their graphic composition, or certain combination of these factors? I hope that this kind of questions will be addressed in this section (or perhaps another) of your excellent forum along with the reference to light boxes, slide-saver pages, loupes, projectors and contact sheets. Julio Garcia Coll, August 29, 1999

Just wondering why nobody mentioned the EMO Macromax 4x loupe. It is really sharp (tests in german photog magazines gave EMO and Schneider loups the same rating), and has a diopter correction. Price is about $100.

I live in Canada just north of Toronto. Finding a good loupe is a pain in the ass. Most good camera store have either a cheap plastic loupe or else they have the 8x maginifer by nikon ( not a really loupe) One day I was at Broadway camera in Toronto looking for a loupe. They had two Pentax, the 5.5x and the zoom. Nice and big, good quility but out of my price range. ($149.95CDN for the5.5x and $299.99CDN for the Zoom). I ask the saleman if he had any other loupe, he pulls these new loupe he just got from Cabin. It is a 4x loupe made in Japn and the casing was all metal. Now I do not know if the salesman was BS me but he said these were Schnieder loupe under different name. Who cares they were Excellent optically and only cost $80 CDN.

Loupes: I started out with a cheapo Nikon 8x loupe that is, I believe, a re-badged Peak made as a promotional giveaway. I covered the clear plastic base with black gaffer's tape. Eye centering is critical, but you can see an entire 35mm slide. Distortion is severe near the edges, but at the center its resolution is adequate. Keep in mind as you read this that I wear glasses and have a fairly strong prescription.

I later moved up to a Fuji 4x loupe, also a promotional giveaway, but a much better loupe. It is silver, has a sliding skirt, and is marked "Fujifilm" not "Fuji Professional" as some are. After several years of use, I can say that it is a very nice loupe, with much less distortion than the Nikon 8x.

4x, though, isn't enough to evaluate critical sharpness, so I bought a Schneider 8x loupe. I would say that 8x is a minimum to evaluate sharpness; 10x would be better. It resolves more and seems brighter than the cheap Nikon 8x, although it can only cover part of a 35mm transparency. Distortion is high unless your eye is perfectly centered, and the zone of sharpness is limited to the circle directly under your eye.

I tried a Schneider 6x loupe, but it offered neither the magnification of the 8x nor the convenience of the 4x, so I got rid of it.

The loupe I use for rough editing is the front end of a Kodak Ektagraphic 178mm f/3.5 FF projector lens. It gives very little magnification, perhaps about 2x. Its field of view covers an entire 2x2 mount, so centering is no problem, and is the flattest, edge-to-edge, of any loupe I've ever seen. I can float it above a bunch of spread-out slides, standing or sitting up straight with both eyes open, flicking rejects off the light table. I acquired this lens thinking it was a whole Carousel lens. Thankfully, before tossing it in the trash, I considered other uses for it.

Light Tables: For many years I examined my slides on an inexpensive Tundra portable light box with a 4x5" viewing area. It takes 4 AA batteries, and eats them voraciously. The box it came in said the light was color-corrected, but who knows what you get for $20. It is barely bright enough in the middle for critical sharpness evaluations, one slide at a time, and can hold four slides for rough editing.

I finally got fed up with this, and bought a Just-Normlicht Smart Light 5000 (model SL5/DL2). It has a 14 x 15" viewing area -- just enough to spread out 36 slides, making little groups as needed. I had considered getting a smaller box, thinking "hey, if it can hold a page of slides I'm OK," but I'm very, very happy that I went with the larger box. The extra working area makes editing and organizing just fly. The SL5/DL2 uses two 15W color-corrected fluorescent tubes. I was concerned that it wouldn't be bright enough compared spec-for-spec with the PortaTrace 1618-4C's four 15W tubes, but the Just-Normlicht is blazingly bright and even, with no hot spots or dimming anywhere on the viewing surface. My primary viewing area is on a credenza by a window -- unfortunate placement, but I can't re-arrange my office for a light table -- and the Just is bright enough to overpower the window light. Need I say that it is brighter and whiter than the little 4AA Tundra by a factor of 10 or so? Some published specs say the Smart Light uses bulbs with a CRI of 91+ or 92+; the literature that came with the box indicates a CRI of 98+, so perhaps Just has updated their bulbs. The Just-Normlicht Smart Light 5000 is $229 at Camera World of Oregon, with free shipping, but I bought mine during one of their "Buy $200, Get $50 Off" promotions, so I paid $179 shipped -- a few dollars more than the slightly larger Porta-Trace 1618-4C.

I was recently browsing the local photostore looking for a good 4x loupe (I was using the old 50mm lens for looking at my slides, but I still wanted a loupe). I was pretty sure that I will get either Schneider or Rodenstock based on what I read on the net. Then I noticed the Mamiya display with their new array of loupes. So I asked for a mighty Rodenstock 4x loupe and decided to evaluate it against the Mamiya 4x just for kicks. A brief look at the test slide convinced me that I probably drank too much the night before. The Mamiya was noticably brighter cleareer and even a tad sharper than the venerable Rodenstock. So I decided to ask for an independent opinion and invited the store clerks to test it out. Their conclusion was unanimous- the Mamiya was indeed better. It was a bit cheaper than Rodestock too and the construction seesm to be really good- all metal, smooth focusing ring etc. I bought the Mamiya. Apparently the Mamiya is a full multi-coated asperic lens system which is quite a bit newer than the Rodenstock design and that may be why it is superior. (Oh, yes, and it beats viewing through the old 50mm lens hands down. The iamge is brighter and sharper and you don't have to hold the lens at a certain distance.) The moral is that German glass is no longer the undisputed king of the hill. I'd recommend the Mamiya 4x loupe to anyone.

Not all lightboxes are equal. If you bracket it can be difficult to make a judgement on which slide has the best exposure if there is a wide variation of brightness due to the box. When I swiped a Porta-trace with a Gossen Luna-star f2 (dome removed), I saw a range of 2.5 fstops. With a Just Normlicht, it's only 1 fstop.

How about taking an old 50mm. lens, take out the front elemant and put it on top of a skirt (Maybe a skirt from an old loupe). The optical quality will be exellent, but can it be done? Can anyone tell me what magnification will this give me?

I appreciate the opinions expressed here and did look at a number of loupes mentioned - the Pentax, the Rodenstock, the Schneider, etc. Then I remembered a piece of information I sent away for some time ago on the Mamiya line of loupes. As I remembered, the specifications seemed of a high order so I looked around on the net to see who carried them and what the range of prices was. I found them at a number of online dealers and decided to order from ADORAMA at a price in the middle of the range I discovered. It took a week or so to arrive here in Canada, but I can tell you the wait was worth it. I purchased the Mamiya 5x apochromatic loupe - 3 elements in 3 groups. It comes supplied with a translucent and an opaque skirt and allows for diopter correction. It is an attractive shade of grey, much like titanium. The optics are fully corrected and give no distortion whatsoever, unlike the Pentax unit I saw that was tentamount to looking at prints through the bottom of a pop bottle it was so bad. I find it hard to imagine there is anything better than this and the price was certainly right. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone. HTH

I've had a Peak Anastigmat 4x loupe for a couple of years, and been happy with it (it cost ~$150). After reading the raves over the Schneider 4x, I decided to get one. I have to say that the Peak performs just as well as the Schneider, although it was more expensive. The Schneider comes with two skirts, opaque and translucent, while the Peak only has translucent. The Peak came with an eyepiece cap and element protector, and cleaning cloth that the Schneider didn't. Last, the Schneider came with a leash, which is nice, that the Schneider didn't. Anyway, the Peak is certainly not inferior to the Schneider. Maybe everyone here is generalizing on a cheaper Peak.

Just today I went down to the local photostore looking to get a lightbox. I originally went in to look at the Porta_Trace boxes that I've heard so many good things about. Well, they had one and it was ok, though priced $30 more then online ($79.99, not that it was to much to spend, just too much extra to spend to buy locally) so I thought I would wait. Then, after flipping the switch on the little 4x5 Cabin light panel I was really impressed. Excellent, even light that looked perfect and for the same price as online, $79.99. Well, after some serious thought I decided a smaller one would actually be better for me then the larger unit. I live in a small apartment while going to school so space is scarce, plus a nice portable unit will let me take it home on holidays and such. So, ready to buy the Cabin I saw a slightly larger, flat white lightpanel setting on the shelf. Turns out its a 5x7 Hakuba model. It offered the same quality of light as the cabin (compared side by side) but was just slightly larger, and had an AC adapter and protective pouch included for only $10. I ended up walking out the door with the Hakuba panel and am really happy with it. I just used my Minolta Spot F meter to check the brightness consistency and the variance was only +/- .1 stop.....not bad! I'm shooting both 4x5 and 35mm so I can fit about 6 35mm slides or one 4x5 on at once. Better then the little 4x5 Cabin, but still nice and portable. If your in the market for a small, portable lightpanel I would deffinetly recomend the Hakuba. Doesn't have the fancy name, but delivers the performance just as well.

I bought Porta Trace after reviewing this page's writtings but light box (10x12) is not that great, it is OK . It does not have even light. It is bright for sure but it seems to me that light should have been filtered. I also bought tundra 5x7, that is so much better.So to you all, don't blindly buy things from other people's opinion, evaluate things by yourselfe.

It seems that this article mostly covers color negatives and slides. Is it so important to have high quality lightboxes and loupes for B&W? The color of the lightbox certainly wouldn't matter and neither would the color transmission of the loupes.

Also, can anyone recommend a middle prices loupe? I want something more than the basic quality, yet I'm not willing to spend more than $65.

Thanks.

Can you get Porta-Trace in Canada? I searched online and can only find products on Ebay and Amazon. I’m thinking of getting some new equipment for my Victoria photography studio to help evaluate my shots. Thanks for this great article, Jason