----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian McKee" <photo...@earthlink.net> > > Hi ! > I'm Ian McKee and I've been following the discussion on focus of pinhole > images and I think some of you are getting more complicated than necessary.
I think you are mistaken, no one is getting or trying to get complicated in the actual practice of pinhole imaging, all the thread was to answer Lisa's inquiry about what diffraction was. We all know any hole would produce an image. I actually have made demonstrations to show workshop participants that pinhole is not an "esoteric" or difficult practice. I just take a nail, litterally stab a cardboard board with the nail and w/o cleaning the hole make a pinhole image. Some of us just need sometimes to understand what is happening and why is happening. Some others are just interested in the results alone. Nothing wrong with any ot the 2 groups, IMO. > Calumet sells a set of twelve pinholes ranging from .0059" to .032". I have > mounted these on a 4" x 5" camera and shot the whole series at an > arbitrarily selected bellows extension=focal length of 210 mm. With each > pinhole I get the same image and the same degree of sharpness. > ....rest of message was snipped I could explain you that what you have observed, contradicts proven laws of physic, and that if you are correct, there is a nobel prize winner that literaly wasted 10 years of his life studying pinholes and related matters, all in vain. Guillermo (who likes the science surrounding pinhole, but leave it home when he goes out to make images)
