Well put. I'll briefly share a similar experience.I had wondered what sort of images I might get with "spontaneous pinholes", naturally occuring small apertures. I took a cardboard box 20" long, taped 8x10 paper inside one end, cut an opening in the other and attached a Ritz soda cracker over the hole with peanut butter, light proofed it by putting the whole apparatus in a black plastic garbage bag with only the tiny hole in the cracker showing, and made my exposure. Wonderfully sharp and clear view of the houses across the street. I then proceeded to do a series of images of various vegetables and fruits with the same setup, "photographing food with food". The last image was of leeks, which I then cooked in a soup and ate. My dog licked the cracker off the end of the camera. True story. I posted a few of the images here a year or so ago. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Healy" <mjhe...@kcnet.com> To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 10:41 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Pinhole "vision"
> I've been meaning to post some thoughts in reply to Andy's email of a couple > weeks ago, but in the new year I've been dragging my rear end. Sorry. > > Andy, you posted your 12/30 suggestion in reply to my bemused wonderings > about how one goes about getting 25mm of bellows out of 4x5. Your suggestion > intrigued me. So last week I made a pinhole camera out of an empty 25-sheet > box of 4x5. I felt pretty excited at the prospects. It turned out to be an > adventure, though not along lines I'd **planned** it to be. > > I went out into the desert here, armed w/ my "camera", plus a clamp so I > could attach it to my tripod, and a #29 filter, and a changing bag, and some > additional film. But that was all. No bag of goodies. No Polaroid back. > Nothing. Strangely, I immediately felt naked, having no authentic EQUIPMENT > in hand, not even an actual camera. I felt child-like, too, having a FAKE > camera in hand. No, not a fake camera but a toy, something as much like a > true camera as a child's invisible teddy bear is like a real friend. Very > strange. It also made me appreciate that bona fide equipment pushes the > spectators aside, quiets them, impresses them or at least chases them away. > Suddenly all I was doing was playing Mr. McGoo: only I knew that what I was > doing was genuine. Or rather, only I hoped it was. Everyone else would have > thought I was a lunatic. > > The changing bag was practically a disaster. Squatting on the desert floor, > in the dust, fumbling for pieces of tape inside the bag, so I could make the > film hold to the camera back, failing to get the "lens cap" taped on > precisely -- all of it made me feel like a kid again. A stupid one. And I > didn't go there to feel like a kid, I went there to take great photos. I > went there to express my vision. Grrrr. > > After fixing them, I eagerly pulled the sheets out of the developing tank -- > and discovered that I could see straight through all four of them! They were > perfectly clear. I nearly threw them all away. Turned out that at 18mm, the > image circle is only about 50mm, which is not very much on a 4x5 sheet of > film. But they did turn out, all of them. And they are so very magical, too. > Two landscapes, an interior, and even a tabletop! Maybe good, maybe bad, I > don't know. Who cares. They were only an experiment. But I will say this: > the "eye" that recorded those images was not my eye. I have no idea whose > eye that was, or who could ever see like that. If today we lived in the > Middle Ages, perhaps I would believe that an angel (devil?) guided my > unknowing hand. > > Then something happened that was like an episode from a Jorges Luis Borges > story. For it was two days later that I received M. Jean Dabaus' delightful > and profoundly timely email about the "eye", in which he quoted Evgen > Bacvar's question. I am not a blind photographer, and I am not going to try > to sound as though I comprehend the concept. Of course I do not, I cannot. > Yet -- yet, I myself did stand out there naked to the world with this silly > little cardboard box of a camera. I had an idea, yes, but I had no idea what > that clumsy camera would see, what it even was capable of seeing. Truly > "shots in the dark", to borrow a phrase. So when I read Jean's words, I > thought to myself, how did he know?! Why, I recognize this problem. In a way > (respectfully), in a way I realized that when I was out there that day, I > was indeed a blind photographer. I had no idea what I was seeing. I had no > idea what image I would achieve, or even whether I would achieve any image > at all. All I was armed with was a vision (a cloudy one...), and a hope -- > or not even really a hope, but a wish -- that we (my silly camera and I) > would reach a kind of agreement. If not, then perhaps at least we would > produce a picture I could live with. But what would happen? I had no idea, > absolutely none. For me, after all these years of seeing the image follow so > closely on the heels of conceived idea, this was very, very uncomfortable. > Fun, but uncomfortable. > > Years ago when I was in high school, I had a curious experience with a > Jesuit. We did an exercise. This person blindfolded me, and then proceeded > to lead me down the street. It was about trust. I would only be safe, I > would only get where I needed to go, by clutching the hand of a person I'd > just met. Clutching a hand can be an extremely uncomfortable experience if > (1) we do not know the person attached to it, and (2) we are BLIND. The > uncertainty was terrifying. I have never forgotten just how deeply it > unsettled. Not so much the idea, but the chemistry of what followed when my > sort of person mixed with that idea. So much of what is revealed in an > episode, turns out to be about the person it reveals in us, RATHER THAN > about the nature of the episode itself. > > Following Andy's suggestion led me into an exciting -- and also a > troubling -- experience, AS A PHOTOGRAPHER. What was marvelous, was to > receive Jean's insight literally within hours. As though he'd been watching, > or worrying over me personally. Of course, Jean, you do not know me at all. > You were addressing a separate, apparently unrelated issue; or so you > supposed... But (also of course) we never know, do we?!, how fate or > coicidence may connect things that (to our own minds) possess no connection > at all. Thank you very much for taking the trouble to share your translation > of Evgen Bacvar's Question. I had never heard of Evgen Bacvar, and I > (truthfully) had never considered this question he raises. Because of your > note, Jean, I gained a far deeper understanding of this than I would have > otherwise. > > Regards, Mike Healy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean Daubas" <j.dau...@free.fr> > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:01 AM > Subject: Image & Vision was Re: [pinhole-discussion] eye camera > > Hello Pete, > > Believe it or not, I had the intuition 2 days ago, reading the "Human eye " > thread, that you, Pete, would post something about it and here it comes ! > Why did I think of the intervention of a blind photographer ? > > Just because the discussion was slowly but surely expanding from a question > about the "Image" to a question about the "Vision" , and when it comes to > "Vision" we all know that visually impaired and/or blind people have a lot > to say... > > While writing this , I just cannot prevent myself from quoting some lines of > the back cover of Evgen Bavcar' s book "Le voyeur absolu". Evgen Bavcar is a > Slovenian born (Vojke Flis, if you are still on this list, you probably know > him!) blind photographer living in France since the 70's; he is also a > universitary researcher in philosophy and aesthetics. Here is my translation > for the question he rises in his book : > This exceptional experience [a blind man taking photographs] leads to this > essential question : > Would not be - before any other thing - photography, a mental image of the > world, and only that ? An effect of sensuality, for which the print would > only constitute a secondary phenomenon ? > > Human eye ? Pinhole camera ? Image ? Vision ?... > 2003 begins with all these questions and, I'm sure, > 2003 will end with all these questions ;-) > > Let's share our Visions, let's share our Images > Cheers from France > Jean > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "pete eckert" <peteeck...@mindspring.com> > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:10 AM > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] eye camera > > > > Hello All, > > > > The discussion comparing the eye and camera has been interesting. Here is > a > > spin on it for you. There has been some projects going on to replace > > damaged retinas with implants. A few of these projects involve sending > > pictures to a receiver in the eye. The projects have the blind community > > very excited. I as a blind photographer may someday be able to see my own > > work. > > > > Pete > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andy Schmitt" <aschm...@warwick.net> > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:21 AM > Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] Still Life Compositions > > > Get a 25 sheet box of 4x5 film...mount a pinhole in it. Double sided tape a > sheet of paper/film inside... expose. It's really fun. I end up using a > .016" hole (I cheat..I drill & sand using a #80 drill from a good hobby > shop). > happy new year > andy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??????? > [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???????]On Behalf Of Michael Healy > Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:03 PM > To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??????? > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Still Life Compositions > > > Sounds fantastic! Yesterday I got an idea while I was experimenting w/ the > 360 mm pinhole on 4x5. If I held a polaroid at a certain distance that > reproduced the scale of the actual scene, then I figured I'd know how to > frame a shot w/o a polaroid. Next I tried it with a polaroid shot w/ the 50 > mm. I couldn't do it, though. As soon as I started holding it close enough, > my ^#%@ nose kept getting in the way. I wish I could get my camera could go > down to 25 mm. Mark, if you want to trade... Personally, I think tabletop > could get pretty interesting. What you want, though, is an empty airline > hangar for a backdrop... > > Mike > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <erick...@hickorytech.net> > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Still Life Compositions > > > I'll defend a 1" Fl on 4x5. The first camera I ever built had 0.75" Fl and > I've had great fun with it. It has a wonderfully wide acceptance angle and > makes a nice round image on 4x5 film. Placed 0.75 inches away from the > object it gives a life size image. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Healy" <mjhe...@kcnet.com> > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 10:23 PM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Still Life Compositions > > > > I need to ask you a dumb question. You are able to get 25 mm of focal > length > > on 4x5? What equipment are you employing, that you can do this? That's a > > separation of 1 lousy inch from pinhole to film plane, isn't it? I'd love > to > > try that myself. My monorail and bag bellows **AND** recessed lens board > > allow me a fat, gross, long-length 50 mm. What is your trick? > > > > Okay, another dumb question. With that kind of coverage on tabletop, it > kind > > of seems like you're going to get the doorway behind you in the image, > plus > > six miles down the length of the hallway, to say nothing of your own > entire > > carcass. So I'm kind of wondering, why are you working with 25 mm? That it > > distorts, would be one good reason. But you'll get distortion with 40-60 > mm, > > won't you? Do you have to stick to 25 mm? If I didn't like it that I was > > getting so much into the frame, that probably would be my first point of > > reassessment. Give yourself some bellows. I mean, unless you can position > > your camera so it's a quarter of an inch from your subject matter. I tried > > that recently w/ table top myself. The camera actually cast a shadow onto > my > > subject. Impossible. > > > > Mike Healy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark Andrews" <mandr...@dragonbones.com> > > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 6:47 PM > > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Still Life Compositions > > > > > > I am novice pinhole photographer looking for some advice regarding > shooting > > still life compositions with my 4X5 Pinhole Camera (25mm focal length). > > > > My issue is that I am trying to limit the elements in my composition, but > > tend to pick up a significant amount of the surrounding area no mater how > > close I am to the still life composition. Is it possible to limit the > > surrounding area? I've seen other pinhole still lifes with a limited > > composition--perhaps this was accomplished in the darkroom? > > > > Many thanks in advance for any advice you can offer. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ >
