Pinhole size and "focal length' are very forgiving. Just go ahead and try it. As a card carrying pinhole 'technonerd" who is attempting to reform, I can tell you that you don't need to be so concerned about precision. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Healy" <mjhe...@kcnet.com> To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:08 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] pinhole size
> I bought the 12-"lens" set from Pinhole Resourses, and I've been using the > .0102"/.259mm pinhole on my 4x5. This one's claimed optimal focal length is > supposed to be 48mm. I am using it with a recessed lensboard to a length of > about 50mm. That's the closest I can get even w/ a bag bellows. > > The results are fantastic. I love the focal length. Unfortunately, its > fall-off is quite noticable. No vignetting, but the fall-off is about 1.5-2 > stops from center to edge. So I think I have to try the next one of the > bunch, the one whose optimal focal length is reported to be 73mm. That seems > like quite a jump, though. > > Before I try this at a shorter bellows length than 73mm, has anybody done > this? Will I have problems just shooting this at, say, my 50mm (w/ bellows > compensation)? Does their "optimal" mean "longest"? That's what the 48mm > seems to mean, that if you go even to 50mm, you'll have fall-off. Anybody w/ > experience of this? If this works, should I consider ordering a 50-55mm > pinhole to fit my 4x5? I really like the weird, extreme result from the > short one -- it's just that the light fall-off makes cyanotypes very > difficult to print. I'm anticipating that albumen won't work much better. > > Thoughts? > > Mike Healy > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ >
