RE: [pinhole-discussion] pinholga IR tech details
ColdMarblePhoto coldmar...@dgbn.com wrote: on 12/11/02 7:48 AM, Steve Bell wrote: so now i have to ask, you said you used and opaque IR filter? did you mount it in front of the pinhole? or behind? i'm going to assume that you didn't move it about in front of the pinhole if you rated the film at 3? it must have been a lengthy exposure. please impart your knowledge. Camera: pinHolga with approx. 40mm focal length Pinhole: Lenox Laser 300 micron Film: MACO IR 820c Filter: Hoya R72 - taped in front of pinhole Exposure: approx. 10 seconds in full sunlight Development: Edwal FG 7 for 12 minutes @ 70 F This was one of only three frames which approached being printable because of my sloppy handling of the IR film. When they say load and unload the camera in complete darkness, they mean it. Lesson learned and I'm ready to try some more. Hope to see the results of your experimentation soon. John Bolgiano -- when I 1ststarted to use this film I was sure the company or web site said subdued light was ok .did anyone else find out the hard way that complete darkness was a must.2 out of 3 rools were fogged the asa starting point was way off so much that I had only 1 useable negative.was it me or did the macophoto people seem confused as to correct starting points.they did return all e-mails seem helpfull.I doubt that I would try it again[unless they wanted to send me a free roll]. chip renner ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/ __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] cheap 35mm camera
Any of the time-life series (and their various offspring) plastic cameras are great to convert, and some can be modified for a bulb setting - very time consuming and rewarding for such a goofy camera that makes great pictures. I just looked at mine, and it is labeled as a Nishiki Super II This is a great camera, because it has the thick metal plate in the base which has a tripod socket. A quick trip to your local Salvation Army should give you numerous examples. The lens/shutter mechanism is easily removed/replaced via 4 screws located behind the vinyl on the camera face around the lens. Lots of fun... Don --- Kawakami, Gregg gkawaka...@co.honolulu.hi.us wrote: What cheap 35mm camera would be ideal to convert into a pinhole camera? I figure something like the Holga but in a 35mm format would be good. What do you guys think? Gregg ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: [pinhole-discussion] What is Diffraction?
It's the bending of light. Just as a prism bends light, and then breaks it into different colors in a rainbow, the edge of a pinhole bends light and breaks it up. The rainbow from a prism is focused, white light that becomes a blurry colored light band because different wavelengths of light get bent differently, and travel at different speeds through a solid. (For the physicists out there, don't bother to email me back to correct this, I know I over-simplified it...in a way that will make it easy to use the idea. This is about photography, not optics.) Different colors of light focus in different ways - the perfect focus setting for pure red light is different than for pure blue, than for pure green. Lenses are basically a form of prism, and bend light (light gets bent at each materials interface it goes through) to get it to focus an image to a certain size at a certain location, and in camera lenses, some of the glass elements are bending the light to size the image and focus it in a certain way, other glass elements are there specifically to get the red, green, and blue light colors back in line with each other to reduce the impact on sharpness - manage the negative impacts of diffraction. Glass lenses bend the light, and then rebend it to try to get it lined up correctly. If it's not done perfectly, you'll see little 1960's colored psychedelic auras around the edges of things. It's called chromatic aberration. In black and white, it just looks unsharp. In a lens, despite all the hard work with the glass elements to get the light all lined up, stopping the lens down to a small aperture basically puts a pinhole (which diffracts light) in to the middle of a system of lenses designed to diffract light at some optimal aperture. All lenses have apertures where the lens produces the sharpest result. Those are the apertures where the designers optimized the glass design to work with the aperture size. Bigger apertures will have a little more blur because the glass won't focus all the colors as well; smaller ones will have a little more blur because the small aperture bends the colors of light more unevenly than the designer anticipated. Once you learn the characteristics of your lens, you try to shoot at the best apertures. A pinhole camera causes diffraction blur along the edges, but you can minimize its impact on your image a lot by 1) using a really big negative so that the ratio of light blur to size of image is small and seemingly not noticeable; 2) shooting in black and white. And once you learn the diffraction and chromatic aberration characteristics of your pinhole, you'll learn to use them artistically. So, the blurry fringe that you see along a well-defined edge, is the result of diffraction bending light, and then causing what looks like unsharpness along what you expect to be a sharp edge because it bent the colors unevenly and they hit the film at different focus points. The unsharp mask in Photoshop, or in the chemical photography world, is a way to make that blurriness go away a bit. CCDs in digital cameras use little tiny lenses over every color sensor, to intensify the light, and they are therefore often subject to diffraction color auras, or chromatic aberration, no matter how wonderful and expensive the lens on the camera itself. Ed Nazarko -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???] On Behalf Of Lisa Reddig Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 11:39 AM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: [pinhole-discussion] What is Diffraction? Ed Nazarko writes: Diffraction cannot be avoided, it's the way light behaves when going through any system. Every lens, telescope mirror and pinhole has diffraction. The best optics are said to be 'diffraction limited' which means that the optics are about as good as they can be because the other defects in the system have been reduced to below the level of the diffraction. I've been hunting on the web for a good description of diffraction, but it all talks about physics and x-rays. Could some one give a real simple, basic description of diffraction and how it shows itself in pinholes? I would appreciate no equations if possible. An example with a picture would be cool. Thanks Lisa ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] What is Diffraction?
a glass of water with a straw inside is a simple example. you see the straw bent but it is not. thats what happen with light when it changes the medium it is travelling (from air to water or through the glass, example). I am not sure about what happens with pinhole, once there is no medium change. anyone? I've been hunting on the web for a good description of diffraction, but it all talks about physics and x-rays. Could some one give a real simple, basic description of diffraction and how it shows itself in pinholes? I would appreciate no equations if possible. An example with a picture would be cool. Thanks Lisa ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] I am so not done wondering!!!!
Never, never, never, ever be a slave to technology. Talk 2 U L8R, Jasper Taylor --- andy schmitt aschm...@warwick.net wrote: Jasper, I was a slave to my chemicals last night as I developed some 4x5's in my darkroom. My master controls my weekends and some of my weekday evenings. But my work master pays me money so I can give it to my photo master so he can torture me some more. is not!! 8*D andy Andy Is!! Silver printed pinholes on the other hand are much harder to control. With silver if I want each final image to be of the same quality the setup and recording takes time and effort. It can take me a whole day to produce one print. With digital it can take me less than one hour (from a silver negative, that is) and I am assured that every subsequent print will be identical. If then I want to do some fancy work on the image with digital it is simple, with silver it is a challenge and time consuming. Alexis Alexis And there is another thing I try to avoid, editions. I know it's what photo sales are based on, but I feel even though you can reproduce the same image again and again, you don't have to. Each time I am in the darkroom I am in a different mood, so I am not going to print the same. I never write down the exposure time or the filter or the developing time or any of that stuff. I do what moves me at the time. But at the same time I don't limit myself to an edition of 25. I can print the same negative a thousand times in a thousand different ways to please myself. But I also have never been represented by a gallery or sold a print. Unless you consider the donation print I gave to Visual Aids that sold for $50. And I love time consuming. I have a fear of boredom. Bored is what I am all day at work, so I spend hours writing emails to discussion groups and surfing the web. Lisa
RE: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Ed Nazarko writes: And many lenses, even very good ones, have diffraction fringing at small apertures. ... Diffraction cannot be avoided, it's the way light behaves when going through any system. Every lens, telescope mirror and pinhole has diffraction. The best optics are said to be 'diffraction limited' which means that the optics are about as good as they can be because the other defects in the system have been reduced to below the level of the diffraction.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
erick...@hickorytech.net writes: It occurs to me that lack of sharpness in pinhole images is not inherent to the nature of diffraction photography. It is caused by lack of precision in matching the diameter of the pinhole to the distance to the film, or in less than perfect pinholes. Thus it could be said to be a lovable blemish attributable to the operator rather than an essential characteristic of the process to be defended against heresy. Or something like that. Lack of sharpness is directly caused by diffraction. The optimal pinhole for 100mm focal length can only resolve about 5 lines/mm. In addition, there are a number of things that can degrade performance even farther. Pinholes are computed for a specific wavelength, but when we use normal panchromatic film, the image is formed by a range of wavelengths. Most of the tables are computed for green light, but we are using everything from blue to red. And if you look in Eric Renners book, you see that there are various tables for pinhole size that are different because they are based on different theories. The point is that pinhole size is not that critical and we mostly don't use them in a way to create maximum sharpness.
RE: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
And many lenses, even very good ones, have diffraction fringing at small apertures. I'm starting pinhole photography specifically for the look and feel of diffraction for certain images I have in my head and want to create on film. It's only a flaw if unintended and ineffective. Or if it LOOKS unintended and ineffective. (Hey, I'll take a lucky accident as readily as the next guy...but as someone once said, the harder I work, the luckier I get.) After much digital labor, I don't believe that it can be done digitally as well as in creation of a first generation image. Also agree totally with the assertion that lack of sharpness may be due to imprecise matching of pinhole focal length and pinhole to film distance. The proliferation of commercial pinhole cameras is what convinced me of this. There seems to be a pretty consistent look to images produced by any one person's branded pinhole camera, but others get different amounts of sharpness in the images they produce using the same make (and theoretically, specification) camera and pinhole. Again, well known in lens world, normal manufacturing variability is by definition bounded by abnormal and therefore unacceptable results. Ed Nazarko -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???] On Behalf Of erick...@hickorytech.net Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:43 AM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering It occurs to me that lack of sharpness in pinhole images is not inherent to the nature of diffraction photography. It is caused by lack of precision in matching the diameter of the pinhole to the distance to the film, or in less than perfect pinholes. Thus it could be said to be a lovable blemish attributable to the operator rather than an essential characteristic of the process to be defended against heresy. Or something like that. - Original Message - From: Mike Vande Bunt mike.vandeb...@mixcom.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering I understand the sentiment expressed here, but the short answer is because you can't. There is no practical way to manipulate a lens photo to make it look like one shot with a pinhole. You can make it fizzy, but that's not the same thing. (If you stop a lens down to f/125 you can get a pinhol- like shot, but you can get the same shot by stopping the lens down to f/125 and removing all the glass elements from it...) I would say that 95% of the time, sharpening added added to a scanned pinhole shot is to correct for problems caused by the scanning process. The sharpening is not (usually) being added to make the pinhile shot look better, but to make it look more like the original. Mike Vande Bunt Jean Hanson wrote: About the message two days ago; a member took a pinhole image, sharpened it in Adobe or a digital method, and printed it out. I wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. What is it that we are doing? I love pinhole photography and am retired from traditional photo studio work. So my sister asked me recently, why are you and your friends intent on taking bad pictures? I have always felt we had a kind of philosophy...we were trying to see the world, or time, or light another way. And I am not down on digitalbut it is hard to explain to non- participants that we really are doing something, and something important. If we sharpen the images to look like better conventional photos, is something being lost? The mystery? The understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light is really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? What can I tell my sister? Jean ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/ ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/ ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: pinhole IR
--- ColdMarblePhoto coldmar...@dgbn.com wrote: http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=jhb_ir_c yano092902.jpg John - Thanks for sharing the picture (I oftentimes use the cyanotype process myself). Suggestion. As you can see, the long URL wrapped, which means that some people might have had problems finding it. You can also see the picture by going to http://tinyurl.com/3ffp - there, I'll bet that didn't wrap. g If anyone has a long URL that they are concerned will wrap, I would suggest going to http://tinyurl.com/. Very simply, you enter a long URL and receive a short one. Then you can include it in a message without worry about it wrapping. Of course, this is free. Cheers - george = Handmade Photographic Images - http://GLSmyth.com DRiP Investing - http://DRiPInvesting.org __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
It occurs to me that lack of sharpness in pinhole images is not inherent to the nature of diffraction photography. It is caused by lack of precision in matching the diameter of the pinhole to the distance to the film, or in less than perfect pinholes. Thus it could be said to be a lovable blemish attributable to the operator rather than an essential characteristic of the process to be defended against heresy. Or something like that. - Original Message - From: Mike Vande Bunt mike.vandeb...@mixcom.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering I understand the sentiment expressed here, but the short answer is because you can't. There is no practical way to manipulate a lens photo to make it look like one shot with a pinhole. You can make it fizzy, but that's not the same thing. (If you stop a lens down to f/125 you can get a pinhol- like shot, but you can get the same shot by stopping the lens down to f/125 and removing all the glass elements from it...) I would say that 95% of the time, sharpening added added to a scanned pinhole shot is to correct for problems caused by the scanning process. The sharpening is not (usually) being added to make the pinhile shot look better, but to make it look more like the original. Mike Vande Bunt Jean Hanson wrote: About the message two days ago; a member took a pinhole image, sharpened it in Adobe or a digital method, and printed it out. I wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. What is it that we are doing? I love pinhole photography and am retired from traditional photo studio work. So my sister asked me recently, why are you and your friends intent on taking bad pictures? I have always felt we had a kind of philosophy...we were trying to see the world, or time, or light another way. And I am not down on digitalbut it is hard to explain to non- participants that we really are doing something, and something important. If we sharpen the images to look like better conventional photos, is something being lost? The mystery? The understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light is really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? What can I tell my sister? Jean ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/ ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
We are discussing this via a digital medium. To a certain extent, that will force a certain amount of digital photography to be used. Specifically, if we want to share our images with the hundreds (how many current members are there? George?) of members of this list, the only practical method requires a digital version of the image. So some discussion of digital matters is a necessary evil. Over all, the digital discussions tend to be short lived. (The what kind of scanner should I get? and Does xyz ink process make good BW inkjet prints? threads don't last much more than a week, usually.) With proper subject lines they can be skipped by those not interested. I have no access to a darkroom. I wish I did. (I practically lived in the darkroom during college, in the mid 1970s...) As a result, the digital darkroom is my only alternative. I am not yet happy with my current scanning and printing hardware, so I don't use it for PRINTING my pinhole shots (which are mostly on Polaroid). I use scanning to share pinhole images, though. Mike Vande Bunt I Zarkov wrote: Lisa has expressed exactly my apprehensions about what I read here daily about the marriage of the digital with the pinhole. I began doing pinhole 12 years ago because I was already at that point disgusted with the critical discourse that was then emerging as to how digital imagery would replace film and what the inherent nature of the photographic art was, if indeed there is such a thing as an 'inherent' nature of this process of image making. There seem to be multiple issues implicit within this discussion: the nature of the recording matrix, film vs. hard drives memory sticks, the medium of display: paper vs. cathode ray tubes; the capture device: lenses vs pinhole; as well as ink vs light sensitive salts, photons vs 0's 1's, Pythagoreans vs Neo-Platonists [well, maybe] alchemists vs. positivists. While I understand entirely the allure that the digital choice offers, I've never been able to shake the feeling that the prime reason for my doing pinhole work was to restore the 'aura' to the photographic print that Walter Benjamin says was lost to photography in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction There is nothing about using digital media that reinvests the print with that sense of the unique that chemical image making allows, especially when one is involved with elaborate bleaching and toning 'post-processing' of the print. I feel that the fundamental difference between digital and wet photography has more to do with our understanding of and complicity with time in the art-making process more than the media of reproduction and that digital manipulation of images further subverts a correspondence relationship between an external world and what is presented as a photographic truth. The conundrum to all of this discussion is that this dialogue/disagreement would not be possible without our computers, networks, CRT's or plasma screens and software galore. It's too darn hard to throw a 'sabot' into the CD-ROM drive. Peter 'Down, Photoshop, down. BAD dogma!' _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
Ed, you might try the MACO 820IR film. It's sensitive to higher nanometers than the other spiked red films. It also comes in 120 and 4x5. I recently shot some in my Fuji 6x9, using an 87 IR filter. Long exposures, but very nice. And the film is pretty fine-grained in Rodinal. I haven't yet used any in my 4x5, but intend to very soon. I use a pinhole in a recessed lensboard, set for about 50mm. I think the MACO is going to do very nicely, even if it isn't HIE. Mike Healy - Original Message - From: Ed Nazarko enaza...@acumen-sciences.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:20 AM Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? Because most digital cameras are CCD, they have little lenses over the tops of each of the sensors, so are they authentically pinhole cameras? Guess it's a matter of theology. I've routinely shot several second exposures with digital cameras (not pinhole) without horrible noise problems, and you can remove a lot of noise in photoshop anyhow. Many of the infrared camera experiments in the digital world (you have to remove the infrared filter glass that sits on top of the CCD, replace it with other clear glass of exactly the same thickness) are many-second exposures. I've been craving pinhole with infrared imaging capability, difficult with Kodak now only producing 35mm infrared film. Perhaps pinhole digital is the way to go. -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???] On Behalf Of Tom Miller Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:50 AM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? Hi Robert, Look at: http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2002/index.php?id=370 There may be one or two other digital images in the gallery; but, this is the one that stuck in my mind. Tom - Original Message - From: Fox, Robert Subject: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? Has anyone tried to convert a digital camera to pinhole? I'm guessing that the results would be poor since digital ccds do not handle long exposures well at all, resulting in a lot of digital noise and artifacts. But who knows, it might look interesting.. I would enjoy tearing open a few of those consumer digital cameras though and installing a pinhole! Surely someone out there has already done this?? ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/ ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: pinhole IR
I have done IR with my 35mm and my digital camera. If you have 2 piece of unexposed E-6 film. Get them processed and sandwich them together, as a filter. They work exactly the same as the wratten filter. - Original Message - From: ColdMarblePhoto coldmar...@dgbn.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:15 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Re: pinhole IR on 12/10/02 , Ed Nazarko wrote: I've been craving pinhole with infrared imaging capability, difficult with Kodak now only producing 35mm infrared film. I've had fun with the Maco IR820 film which is available in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 (Yippee!) It's slow as my mind in the morning before coffee. I usually rate it about 3 (the film, not my mind) and you will need an opaque IR filter such as a Wratten 87 or a Hoya R72. I just uploaded a cyanotype IR pinhole made with a pinHolga to the gallery. http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=jhb_ir_c yano092902.jpg John Bolgiano -- ___ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
