sorry. fixed it now. ----- Original Message ----- From: "G.Penate" <pen...@home.com> To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:40 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 35mm pinhole - questions & observations
> PARDON MY "UPPERCASING" JOHN, BUT YOU ARE SENDING "HTML" MESSAGES, SO I AM > WRITTING IN UPPERCASE TO DIFFERENTIATE THE ANSWER FROM YOUR POSTING. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: john yeo > > A few days ago I made a pinhole body cap for my canon AE-1. I made the > pinhole as small as I could, it ended up .0065 +/- .0005" f/270. Would > using one of the formulas to determine the optimal size work better for such > a small focal length? Or does that only apply to longer focal lengths > > FORMULAS APPLY TO ANY FOCAL LENGTH. IMO, 0.0065 IS OPTIMUM FOR A MUCH > SMALLER FOCAL LENGTH SOMETHING LIKE 20mm. THE FORMULA I USE (D = 0.0073 > SQRT(F) inches) GIVES 0.0097" AS THE DIAMETER TO USE FOR A 45mm FOCAL LENGTH > (I think this is what you have), SO I'D USE A 0.009" PINHOLE FOR AN f/196 > (or f/180+1/4) AND I"D CONSIDER IT IS f/180+1/2 OR EVEN f/256 (pinhole > are more likely to be underexposed than over). > > I walked to the post office and took the camera with me. Just took pictures > of whatever. I even shot some cars moving at 45mph!!! All exposures except > for the first few were hand held. > > YOU REALLY HAVE STEADY HANDS, I HAVE TO HANDHOLD ANYTHING SLOWER THAN 1/125 > SECS!! > > here's a scan of the contact sheet: > low res 64kb http://holgamods.blinkk.net/images/ph35cs-lowres.jpg > high(er) res 192kb http://holgamods.blinkk.net/images/ph35cs-hires.jpg > > I"D BE NICE IF YOU CAN BLOW UP (8x10 perhaps) ONE OF THE FRAMES, SCAN IT AND > LET US SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, I'D CERTAINLY BE INTERESTED. > > Guillermo > > > _______________________________________________ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???????/discussion/ >
