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.
