Good suggestions, I'm sure most people feel the same way. The html point has been brought up many many times, but few people ever seem to change it.
> (Almost) lastly, so my message has some pinhole-related content, I am > reading pinhole theory and looking at different camera results in > anticipation of converting an old Kodak SLR with a very slow shutter by > replacing the lens with a pinhole. While this may seem like the easiest method, you probably won't be very satisfied with it (imho). Making optimal pinholes for such a short focal length is difficult, and the 35mm format is just too small for pinhole. Yes, some have great success with it, but the results will be much better on 120 or larger film. > Lastly, at last, what is meant by 'optimal' hole pinhole diameter? What > happens when one strays from 'optimal'? When the hole is too big, the image is fuzzy because each point of light ends up with a larger spot on the film than it should. When the hole is too small, defraction occurs. When you look at the edge of a shadow, it is fuzzy. That is defraction. The edges of a shadow *should* be sharp, when you think about it, but in reality they're not. When the pinhole is too small, the image becomes less sharp because of defraction. John
