In article <5g3145$523@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, romulan@u.washington.edu says...

>If the 4X loupes are so poor, why does John Shaw specifically mention that
>a 4X loupe is used by editors when examining submissions and that higher
>magnification loupes are unnecessary?

I suspect that a 4X is sufficient when reproductions are small (under 5X),
and for preliminary sorting and quick image evaluations, but it sure is an
easy standard to pass, and if editors were unwise enough to pass slides for large reproductions with only a 4X examination, I would quit worrying about lens quality and selection - almost any pop-bottle bottom lens would do for shooting...;-) Virtually every slide I shoot looks great under a 4X loupe
(so why bother looking, at least for sharpness evaluation), but under an
8-10X, the story can be quite different. It boils down to standards,
and sometimes others' standards are pretty low...
Hope This Helps