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 digital....but 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/ >
