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 'diff
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
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 fil
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"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wonde
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 pinh
First off
In the alt-photo process world digital is an interesting paradox.
Many people use digitial photography to produce the enlarged negatives and
alter the contrast and other characteristics of negatives so that they can
produce digital negatives in order to make really good prints using
pro
: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Gerber"
>
> Seriously, I spent almost every waking hour of my 4 years of college in
the
> darkroom, and yet now, when I own a home with a lovely space for a
darkroom,
> and all of the equipment I need(x
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Gerber"
>
> Seriously, I spent almost every waking hour of my 4 years of college in
the
> darkroom, and yet now, when I own a home with a lovely space for a
darkroom,
> and all of the equipment I need(x2!) I don't have a darkroom! Why? Because
I
> don't need
Hi Traci,
They were taken with beer cans. I used b&w paper negatives and before I
purchased the scanner I used to contact print them.
After working in a professional print processing lab for a while I was quite
pleased to get rid of my darkroom.
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Traci
well the best way to get the old e-mail account full is start a discussion
about digital vs film.
film as we know it is a replacement from the original process they used back in
the talbot days.
one day they will be saying how muck better the new laser cameras are then the
"old digital models" i
--- jaugu...@adelphia.net wrote:
> Oh my, she's got a split personality!
>
> Bad Lisa:
>
> > Lisa "the photographer" spends her weekends in a
..snip..
> Good Lisa:
>
> > Lisa "the employee" spends her workdays in front
> of a computer
..snip..
Nah, nah, it's "real Lisa" and "work Lisa" -- leav
--- jaugu...@adelphia.net wrote:
> I've arrived at the conclusion that *any*
> photographic technique can be
> duped digitally and don't understand why some people
> are hesitant to make
> the switch.
..snip..
Well, I have to admit, I don't *LIKE* the way my
images look when they're digitally shar
Steven,
I enjoyed your photos on your web site. What type of pinhole camera are you
using for the panoramic shots that have a fish-eye look to them?
I also process my own 120 b/w film, then scan it on my scanner. When I shoot
color, I have the local lab process only and I scan. Otherwise it's too
I think most of us who do pinhole and "traditional wet" photography get the
satisfaction and enjoyment from an all manual, hands-on process. That
process is imprecise, and depending on film and exposure and processing and
printing, that "imprecision" yields beauty through grain, tonality, bokeh,
di
min@p at ???]On Behalf Of Lisa Reddig
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:34 AM
To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
All I can say is HUH???
I don't get it. Maybe that's why I make sure to keep my photographs and my
computers very far aw
well,
I mean that we can't say that a chemical + otical + physical process is
the same as a physical + electronical one.
I live among both universes, and I am very happy mixing them. My paper
boxes and my scanner (which has a CCD), my monitor and printer, as I
believe most of the digital fol
All I can say is HUH???
I don't get it. Maybe that's why I make sure to keep my photographs and my
computers very far away from each other.
Are you saying that digital folk are just as obsessed with CCD's and KPT's
as I am with aluminum foil, black tape boxes and plastic chemical containers
of a
computers are "almost occult medium" to many people at my workplace-
otherwise I wouldn't have a job as a computer technician.
When you take the romanticism and emotion out of it, film and computers
are just two different technologies. On the face of it, neither one can
claim to be more "pure" or
I must desagree with you, Lisa. the digital darkroom is a totally
different experience. Let's try to take a look at this subject from a
perspective of ten years in the future. Photoshop and similars were
first invented from the reference in the material world of silver plate
behaviours, etc., b
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? well said Jean.
Oh my, she's got a split personality!
Bad Lisa:
> Lisa "the photographer" spends her weekends in a
> darkroom, with chemicals on her hands and old mixed tapes playing on the
old
> tape player.
Good Lisa:
> Lisa "the employee" spends her workdays in front of a computer
> screen sizing images fo
OK, I'm gonna be the PHOTOSHOP BAD person.
I don't understand why so many people think working on a computer is easier
than working in the darkroom. They will spend hours and hours dodging and
burning and sharpening in front of a monitor, while complaining about how
hard it is to do it in the dar
I've arrived at the conclusion that *any* photographic technique can be
duped digitally and don't understand why some people are hesitant to make
the switch.
Just remember to use your best lense and take the *sharpest* photo you can.
Everything else is keyboard-frierndly.
regards,
joseph
> >wond
probably came up when Muddy Waters started
playing the blues on an electric guitar.
Nick
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:53:08 -0800
From: Jean Hanson
To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???"
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at
sion-request@p at ???"
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
> 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
soft but others need a greater resolution.
- Original Message -
From: "Jean Hanson"
To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???"
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:53 AM
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
> About the message two days ago; a member took a pi
;
To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???"
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
> 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
> won
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 p
28 matches
Mail list logo
