Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Evaluating Photos
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.
-- Dave Kemp, November 27, 1998
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
http://www.photo.net/photo/evaluation (8 of 17)7/3/2005 2:19:24 AM