Re: [pinhole-discussion] Pinholes for D100
Hello, This is Bill Erickson (erick...@hickorytech.com)'s son, David. I'm very sorry to have to let you know that William Erickson passed away early Saturday morning (March 8th), from complications due to pneumonia and a subsequent heart attack. Apparently he wasn't aware of how ill he really was, and despite urgings from his wife, Mary, was neglectful of his health until it was too late. We will miss him very much, as I'm sure will anyone who had the chance to get to know him. He is survived by wife Mary, daughter Lisa, sons David, Stephen, and Joseph. As he was very active in photography, art, psychiatry and other areas, and had many friends and contacts, we are still struggling with efforts to let everyone know the sad news. If you are part of a group of people that he corresponded with, please pass the information along. He was having computer problems lately, and I don't know that his email address book is complete, or what email has been left unanswered. There is no need for money here, only your best wishes, which we deeply appreciate. If you would like to make a donation in his name to a cause of your choice, we would be very pleased. Perhaps even more in rembrance of Bill, help others with their pursuits in photography and art. He was always happy to instruct and patiently guide people, even while he was learning new technologies and techniques himself. If would like to pass a message along to the family, or need information that perhaps can still be provided, please send your email to: b...@superok.com and we will respond as quickly as we can. Thank you for your support in this difficult time, David Erickson
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Using photo paper in film holders
I use paper in 8x10 filmholder. Some folks say it's snug. There have been a lot of different designs for holding the holder against the back of the camera. Cheapest, though least elegant, are thick rubber bands and a wooden presure plate. - Original Message - From: "Patrick Carroll" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:45 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Using photo paper in film holders > Greetings, > > This is my first post. Been following for a few months and getting > encouragment to continue my pinhole endeavors. I have a Besseler > cardboard 120 pinhole camera that I have used on and off, and am now > ready to venture into the world on homemade cameras. The Besseler takes > great shots, but is a little light in weight and hard to steady unless > left alone on the ground or strapped to a tripod. I have a Bender 4x5 > kit my brother gave me and I want to make an 8x10 and use film holders > for both. My question is can I use photo paper in a film holder? I'm > just getting into darkroom work and would like to start off slow by > using paper instead of film. I've never used a film holder and am > currently looking to get one to study it and take dimensions for > building the camera. > > Going to make the 8x10 from 1/4in ply. Working on a camlock system to > lock and seal the holder against the back of the camera. Saw the one > listed in a link either here or on the forum with the swing up door on > the back - that looks simple enough to make too. > > Any suggestions would be great. Also, I'm planning to use .001 brass > shim stock for the pinhole. Any disadvantages with oxidation of the > brass? I imagine stainless would be best, but the brass was easy to get > and cheap. Hopefully I'll have one of the cameras by April for the > Pinhole Day activities. > > Thanks, > Patrick > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] In Lieu of a Website
Looks great. Aslo unique in being slit work. Is there some place you could reference it? - Original Message - From: "Tom Miller" To: Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 11:08 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] In Lieu of a Website > Dear Gang, > > I've been working on a personal website about 2 hours a month for the > last year or two...probably won't be done any time soon. To plug the > gap, here is a link to a few images that I've created over the last > couple of years. > http://www.mnartists.org/work.do?action=list&rid=17229 > Comments and reactions are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Tom > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] F-stop question
F-stop questionCalculate the area of your aperture (pi x radius squared). Calculate the area of an f22 aperture at 50mm (50mm divided by 22 =diameter. Area =(1/2diameter)(1/2diameter) x pi. Divide the area of your aperture into the area of f22. The result equals 40. Multiply f22 metered exposure by 40 to get metered exposure, and then apply appropriate reciprocity failure multiplier. It's easier than it sounds. The basic notion is that the amount of light delivered is equal to the area of the aperture times the time. You calculate how may times the area of your aperture goes into the area of f22. This is your multiplier. I was puzzled by how hard this seems to be to explain until I once asked for a show of hands how many people could calulate the area of a circle. Three out of fifteen raised their hands. - Original Message - From: Jason Edleman To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:34 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] F-stop question All, I have a 50mm 4x5 pinhole camera with an f-stop of f/138 (perfect for focal length of 25mm). The appropriate f/stop for 50mm is f/176. Does anyone have a calculation for figuring out the exposure compensation? Thanks in advance - Jason :...: Jason :...:
Re: [pinhole-discussion] D'Arcy Power article on-line
Thanks. I remembered that once you mentioned it. Worked fine. - Original Message - From: "John Yeo" To: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] D'Arcy Power article on-line > Try going to http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/pinholephoto.htm and finding the > link there. Then right click on it, and click on "save target as." That > will save it to your hard drive, and you should be able to open it with > acrobat reader from there. > > John > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Bill Erickson" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:59 AM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] D'Arcy Power article on-line > > > > I can't get the document to open. > > - Original Message - > > From: "Nick Dvoracek" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:45 PM > > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] D'Arcy Power article on-line > > > > > > > A while ago there was a thread about an article by H. D'Arcy Power: > > > "Advanced Pinhole Photography" from The Photo Miniature from July 1905. > > > > > > I got a photocopy through interlibrary loan and created an Adobe > > > Acrobat document which I've posted on my website > > > http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/pinholephoto.htm > > > > > > I looked into the copyright issue and anything published before 1923 is > > > in the public domain (http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm) so I'm > > > pretty sure I'm not infringing anyone's copyright. > > > > > > I'm afraid it's kind of big, 3.6 MB, but that's not bad for a 46 page > > > article scanned at high resolution (text and line art at 300 dpi, > > > images, grey scale at 150 dpi). > > > > > > I've turned my interlibrary loan wizard loose on the citations he gives > > > to other works and maybe will get those posted also. > > > -- > > > Nick Dvoracek dvora...@uwosh.edu > > > Director of Media Services Voice: 920-424-7363 > > > University of Wisconsin OshkoshFax: 920-424-7324 > > > http://idea.uwosh.edu/media_services/home.html > > > http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/handouts.htm > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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/ > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Can't open D'Arcy Powers article
I have acrobat 5, but I know less about such things than I should. - Original Message - From: "Nick Dvoracek" To: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Can't open D'Arcy Powers article > The link is to a PDF file that your browser should download. Make sure > "source" or "portable document format" is chosen as the format instead > of text. > > You really need Acrobat reader 4.0. I think Acrobat reader 3.0 will > open it, but all the graphics (essentially everything) will display as > black squares. > > > I can't get the document to open. > -- > Nick Dvoracek dvora...@uwosh.edu > Director of Media Services Voice: 920-424-7363 > University of Wisconsin OshkoshFax: 920-424-7324 > http://idea.uwosh.edu/media_services/home.html > http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/handouts.htm > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] D'Arcy Power article on-line
I can't get the document to open. - Original Message - From: "Nick Dvoracek" To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:45 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] D'Arcy Power article on-line > A while ago there was a thread about an article by H. D'Arcy Power: > "Advanced Pinhole Photography" from The Photo Miniature from July 1905. > > I got a photocopy through interlibrary loan and created an Adobe > Acrobat document which I've posted on my website > http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/pinholephoto.htm > > I looked into the copyright issue and anything published before 1923 is > in the public domain (http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm) so I'm > pretty sure I'm not infringing anyone's copyright. > > I'm afraid it's kind of big, 3.6 MB, but that's not bad for a 46 page > article scanned at high resolution (text and line art at 300 dpi, > images, grey scale at 150 dpi). > > I've turned my interlibrary loan wizard loose on the citations he gives > to other works and maybe will get those posted also. > -- > Nick Dvoracek dvora...@uwosh.edu > Director of Media Services Voice: 920-424-7363 > University of Wisconsin OshkoshFax: 920-424-7324 > http://idea.uwosh.edu/media_services/home.html > http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/handouts.htm > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] new but not a newbie , kinda but not really
Try the Black Cat thing. I can't remember the rest of the name. You can find it under Black cat at pinhole resource and other camera places. It's not a meter but it will translate from f22 to the higher Fstops. It's a $20 carboard dial with a long list of exposure by condition suggestions too. - Original Message - From: "chad white" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:05 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] new but not a newbie , kinda but not really > > > what is a good light meter for pinhole f-stops ? i am lurking e-bay ,i > what to buy a light meter that can be used practically for pinhole. i > don't want to use the math. i just want a simple light meter so i can > spend my energy taking pinhole images. i noticed that most light-meters > stop about f-16. f-225 or higher is better for me. > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Covering Power of Pinholes
Covering Power of PinholesSimple answer is that covering power generally is 1 1/2 times the focal length either side of the axis. Erics book has both complex and simple formulae. The simple formula is the diameter of the aperture in thosandths of an inch (for example 0.010= 10) divided by 55 equals the optimal "focal length" in inches. On the other hand, the whole thing is very forgiving. You have to be off on the diamerter by 40% to get one stop exposure change. Sharpness is even more forgiving. there's a series of pictures somewher in erics book that illustrates this. Take it from a semi-reformed "critical standards" guy. You don't need critical standards. - Original Message - From: Joe Tait To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:49 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Covering Power of Pinholes Hello! New to the list and this is my first post. A little background. I have been doing photography for 6 years, and currently shoot 4"x5" w/ a Cambo Legend monorail and 6x7 with a Koni Rapid 200. Most of my experience has been with conventional silver printing, but I have tried cyanotype & gum bichromate in the last 6 months, and am going to plunge forward into various alt processes as I can. I really want to try pinhole next, and want larger negatives for contact printing. I've found some interesting info on the web and will build my own camera & pinhole very soon. One thing that I am confused about is determining how much covering power a given pinhole has. Is it just relative to the distance of the pinhole to film/pinhole dia., which then determines the "focal length"? Forgive me, I struggle with comprehending even the most basic concepts of optics generally, and am no better with pinhole. I'd like to try say an 11"x14" format, or perhaps a panoramic 8"x16". The wide-angle possibilities (both the really wide & moderate) are in my sights first and I like distortion, but not to the point of monotony. I am looking to use sheet Lith film developed in dilute developer, or pyro; and will be making my own film holders and back to be able to do multiple exposures. Could someone enlighten me how to figure out the proper pinhole size & lens-to-film distance for the aforementioned formats? I understand that a curved film plane is employed to compensate for light fall-off. Is the optimum curve determined by experience, or are there known combinations? I haven't found any books that focus on specifics. Eric Renner's book apparently focuses on the history more than construction, which is the opposite of what I want to learn first. Perhaps someone could recommend more literature because the web only seems to offer an overview of pinhole. Lastly, Larry Bullis' excellent article on pinhole construction mentioned using silver sheeting & a microscope to make pinholes. I'd actually like to try both of these methods. Does anyone work in this way? Where do you get the silver sheeting and what kind of microscope do you use? Precision pinholes seem to really effect the resolution, quite appropriate for certain shots (although the softness is perfect for others). Thanks. -Joe
Re: [pinhole-discussion] filters with pinholes
I use a filter ring with the filter removed, plus a lens cap, for a shutter. You could then just screw in whatever filter you want to the "shutter" filter ring. - Original Message - From: "G.Penate" To: Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] filters with pinholes > > - Original Message - > From: "Shannon Stoney" > > > > > How do you put a filter in front of the pinhole? With tape? > > If the size of your camera allows it, you could glue a step-up filter right in > front of the camera (centered on the pinhole, of course). This is my wooden 8x10 > with such an arrangement: > > http://members.rogers.com/penate/camera/filter.JPG > > Guillermo > > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] begging for wisdom
make your own tests. It helps the learning curve too. - Original Message - From: "Calfee, Laura" To: Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 4:12 PM Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] begging for wisdom > > > > > Shoot Polaroid Type 55N and your guessing and development worries are over. > > I've used this for a while and love it. However, if I use the exposure > tables I've found through this list, I get completely blown out negatives. > I just can't believe that my exposure meter is that far off. Any ideas? > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] begging for wisdom
I have "pinholed" County Mayo three times, with everything from 120 color to 8x10 Tmax 400. I never paid that much attention to sky-cloud contrast. I guess I'd go with filtering while you're shooting, on the principle that the more you get on the negative the easier it will be to print. I did 8x10 with an eye to platinum printing, but I ended up making dupe negatives to boost contrast. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:49 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] begging for wisdom > I'm going to the west coast of Ireland at the end of June and I'm hoping to > take a lot of pinhole shots, especially of the sea and bogs and the sun > through the clouds, etc., etc., etc. I'm wondering if anyone has any > suggestions on how to get good contrast between the sky and the clouds, in > particular. Is it better to use a filter when shooting or in the printing > stage? (I'll use negatives as final images, but I won't use the originals.) > I'm planning on shooting 4x5 TMax 100, but will probably take along some 400 > also. I'd rather not bring along any developing apparatus, but I may lose my > nerve and load my suitcase up. > Any advise anyone has would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! > Julie (WPPD#167) > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Cutting oatmeal box
Any power tool will shred the cardboard. I'd use either an xacto knife or a single edger razor blade. - Original Message - From: "Chris Harris" To: Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:58 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Cutting oatmeal box > I'll be teaching a pinhole class, constructing cameras from Quaker oatmeal > canisters. I'd like to avoid using knives to cut the opening for the > pinhole. > > I've seen suggestions for using a Dremel drill, which I don't own. A trip to > my local hardware store wasn't helpful; the tool guy said a Dremel wouldn't > cut a clean hole in cardboard and pointed out the cost of the drill. > > Is a Dremel the best alternative to a knife? If so, what Dremel bit should I > buy for this job? > > Thanks, > > Chris > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > ___ > 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/ >
[pinhole-discussion] how to say "It's just a camera" in Italian.
I'm about to leave for two weeks of pinholing in Italy. I feel rather self conscious about digging in a changing bag and putting out suspicious looking cannisters on the Ponte Veccio. Can some one tell me how to say "It's just an home made camera", or "I am harmless, though eccentric" in Italian?
Re: Thanks Re: [pinhole-discussion] best viewfinders for close-up work
If the essence of a child is movement, then a pinhole is the ideal method to desribe it. My experience is that you can captue quiet movement easily enough in bright sun. Anything moving throughout an exposure of more than ten seconds will simply disappear. I enjoy playing with overnight exposures, which might capture the still environment and the child moving in her sleep. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:12 AM Subject: Re: Thanks Re: [pinhole-discussion] best viewfinders for close-up work > In a message dated 4/19/02 11:50:35 PM Central Daylight Time, > heidtsa...@hotmail.com writes: > > > The other night I tried to do an exposure of my > > older child while she was sleeping. She stayed in exactly the same > position > > > > for such a long time. I'm wondering if it will turn out... > > > > I hate to admit how difficult it is for me to find what I consider to be > > suitable subject-matter for a photograph. My children are significant to > me > > > > in a way that a tree or a building can never be. But I love the long > > exposures with the pinhole camera because I feel I am capturing more time. > > > I love standing around counting to myself and taking a picture while not > > looking through a viewfinder. This is a challenge that I am enjoying very > > much, and I appreciate the help. > > > > Sarah > > Sarah, before your very eyes , lies a wealth waiting to be goldmined , your > daughters that is . They are always available, although maybe not always > willing subjects before your camera(s) Worry not , that there is movement > during the pinhole exposure, some really nice images come out of people > moving within the frame , Serendipity plays here :-) > > I forget ( I do that a lot :-) but it seems to me someone on this list > photographs their kids/daughters, as I have seen their work online , one was > a longg exposure , something like several hours, focused upon a > child/daughter as she slept in her bed, and another image, am not sure if by > the same person who made images of their daughter(s) while on a picnic, > perhaps during the World Wide Pinhole Day last year , I am thinking ? Some > one else on the list kindly chime in here , about this please ? > > Sarah, aside from pinhole images and a bit off topic .. Sally Mann who > is a well known photographer has photographed her family with large 8X10 > format cameras, with glass lenses of course, and the images she produces seem > to emote a warmth that subject (family ) knew the photographer well. > > Bottom line, Sarah, play or give yourself permission to play, your kids will > see this, and have fun too, and should you produce images out of this play, I > can bet they will be powerful ones . Good Luck, you are on your way . > > Dennis Alfrey > dalf...@aol.com > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] getting somewhere (and a new question)
I find that if you leave the dark slide in, it tends to wobble or catch the breeze and move the camera. I pull it out and then throw my jacket or a black plastic bag over the back of the camera. that's what dark cloths are for in large format lens photography. - Original Message - From: "Matti Koskinen" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:21 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] getting somewhere (and a new question) > First, a warm thank to everybody. With your help I'm getting somewhere > with this pinhole business, and getting results that are more and more > better. Last evening I shot a picture from a rapid and as I was under a > bridge and light conditions were not the best, approximating the effect > of #0 filter, I came up to one hour exposure (which turned out to be bit > too long). But as the exposure was so long, there's a light leak from > the filmholder. Now the question is: is it better to remove the slider > totally or leave it in the open position in the filmholder? The leak has > come from the opening, it's not too bad (clone tools are invented), but > the white edge of the negative has two dark dots from which two dark, > but narrower stripes go diagonally over the entire negative. As I have > never actually used large-size films, there are many things I need to > ask or explore. > Using low-contrast filter is now more than enough, so I don't have that > hurry to move to use film. I even got some clouds visible :-) > Main thing I'm pleased with using filter is, that the sky doesn't look > totally burnt. Eg. trees seen against the sky have a distinct contour, > not like without the filter when smaller branches just disappeared. > And yesterday pinhole-camera showed it's superiority. I had a SLR and a > digital camera too with me, but both run out of batteries, but with > pinhole-cam, no problem :-) > > thanks > > -matti > mjkos...@koti.soon.fi > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinhole coverage issue
A 0.44 mm aperture placed 145mm from the film will cover about 500 mm. The formulas is that the coverage equals about 1 1/2 times the "focal length" either side of center. Focal length is just the distance from the pinhole to the film. It's really a misnomer because nothing focusses, it's just the distance at which the light waves mesh best, for the optimally sharp image. - Original Message - From: "Achal Pashine" To: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 6:31 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] pinhole coverage issue > Hello all, > I am working with 4X5 film format (at 145mm length) with 0.44mm pinhole > (~f/300). How do I find out what is the coverage of the 'lens' (is it > equivalent to 50mm, 100mm 35mm camera lens?). How to make pinholes which > will give wider angle coverage? I have seen shots taken with extreme wide > angle pinholes. How does one do that? > Does formula "Pinhole diameter = 0.0073 * SQR(focal length)" give some known > coverage? > thanks, > > Achal > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ray Esposito" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 7:58 AM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] developing tanks/pinhole cam [was paper > negative tricks] > > > > Jim - there is no pricing on the XD. Ray > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jim Kosinski" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:12 AM > > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] developing tanks/pinhole cam [was > > paper negative tricks] > > > > > > > The Merlin-XD pinhole camera is made from a film developing > > > tank. Check the website for details, > > > www.paintcancamera.com > > > > > > Jim K > > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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/ > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Source for 8x10 film holders
I've seen a number of wooden ones on Ebay. - Original Message - From: "Greg Newberry" To: "Pinhole-Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:10 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Source for 8x10 film holders > Hi, I want to buy a few used (but good) 8x10 film holders for my pinhole > photos. Is there a good source you know of? > > > Thanks > Greg > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] alt process list?
Check out bostick and sullivan and there are more than one cyanotype lists. - Original Message - From: "Uptown Gallery" To: Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:51 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] alt process list? > Hello: > > Is there an alternate-process list similar to our pinhole list? > > Thanks > > Murray > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] enlarging negative pinholes re:format
Having done both, my vote is clearly for contact 8x10. It depends, of course, on the sharpness of the original image. A sharp 4x5 can enlarge without losing much at all, while a fuzzy 8x10 negative is just that. dragging around even a simple 8x10 pinhole camera with film holders, changing bag, etc, can preocupy one. I did it for two weeks in ireland last summer, but it was worth it for the half dozen great results. tray developing 8x10 risks scratches. be very sure to cut your fingernails. - Original Message - From: "ragowaring" To: Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] enlarging negative pinholes re:format > I am travelling in the summer and need to keep equipment down to a minimum. > I am considering building a 10 x 8 and 5 x 4 cameras. My question is: > > How does enlarged 5 x 4 negative pinhole photographs compare to contact > printed 10 x 8 paper negatives? > > You see, the problem is where to go for negative film with all the storage > and development headaches that go with it when away from a darkroom for > weeks, or go for the easier but less sharp paper negative. > > And if I were to go for 10 x 8 negative film, how would that enlarge? > > Is it worth enlarging pinhole negatives or is it always better to contact > print? > > This is mainly an aesthetic question based on practical considerations. > > I would very much appreciate some advise and imput - I am torn in two! > > Alexis > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Brand New Pinhole User Questions
So does mine. - Original Message - From: "G.Penate" To: Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Brand New Pinhole User Questions > > - Original Message - > From: "Katharine Thayer" > > > > Just remember, if you're using an 8x10 filmholder, that 8x10 paper is > > bigger than 8x10 film, and you'll need to shave a little off each side > > of the paper to make it slide into the holder smoothly. > > Katharine Thayer > > Try it before you shave, my 8x10 holders take 8x10 paper "sans" shaving. > > > > ___ > 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/ >
[pinhole-discussion] Latest issue of Pinhole journal
Wonderful set of anamorphic images by Marnie Cardozo, late of the slit camera, in the issue of pinhole journal I just got. Worth a look, which might just end with you subscribing, which would also be great.
[pinhole-discussion] scanners
This seems like an opportune time for a variation on the scaner topic. I have negative scanners but my flatbed scanner is older and not too adequate. Any advice on choice of flatbed scanner for prints, not negs?
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Epson Perfection 1250 Photo Flatbed Scanner
Are these good scanners for opaque material or are they just attractive because they offer the opportunity to scan negatives? - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Epson Perfection 1250 Photo Flatbed Scanner > In a message dated 3/20/02 11:35:35 PM Central Standard Time, > pinholeren...@netscape.net writes: > > << the epson 2450 is a great scanner costing around $375.00 . It has 35mm > ,120mm & 4x5 capabilities . several photo magazines have given it rave > revues . If you can save up for it you will not be disappointed . I feel > it is a very good value for your money . > chip renner >> > Following this thread, I have seen the Canon1240 U advertised in several > photo mags, and supposedly , I say with some degree of caution, you can scan > ANY neg sizes up to 4X5, plus whatever flat print work you would like , price > is about $299.00, saw it in B&H photo catlogue I think, just FWIW > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Pinhole Calculations
Well, actually, the "angle of view" depends on there being a flat film plane interposed on the hemispheric optimal image distance. The average 'angle of view' is 1.5FL either side of the axis. Light falloff is a function of the different distance from the pinhole at different points on the flat film plane, plus the changing apparent shape of the pinhole as you move off-axis. Film configurations that approximate the chape of the optimal image,. i.e. half cylinder cameras, have only the light fall off due to the change in apparent shape of the pinhole, but no falloff due to change in pinhole-film distance since theat is the same for the full 180 degrees. They give good exposure through all 180 degrees. - Original Message - From: "Richard M. Koolish" To: Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Pinhole Calculations > photo...@earthlink.net writes: > > > Query to Larry Bullis: > > > > > > I have experimented with a set of 12 pinholes obtained fromCalumet, ranging > > from 0.0059 to > > 0.032 inches in diameter, on a 4x5 view camera. > > It quickly became apparent that angle of view is dependent only only on > > lens to film plane > > distance. Any of the 12 varying pinhole sizes give the same angle of view > > at a given bellows extension. > > The difference is in the amount of light admitted by the pinhole aperture. > > Thus it makes sense that, as > > the pinhole aperture becomes smaller , admitting less light, the bellows > > extension must decrease, to > > maintain the same amount of light, which means the focal length gets > > smaller. You've given a formula > > to calculate the optimum pinhole size for a given focal length to give the > > "sharpest image." > > The formula is pinhole(in) = square root FL x 0.0073 or pinhole(mm)= square > > root FL x 0.03679. > > > > My question is; does this formula really give the sharpest image? > > > > First, you've said that depth of field is essentially uniform from near to > > far and somewhat soft > > because of diffraction. Since, for a given focal length, aperture(pinhole) > > varies inversly with f-stop, the > > formula must be designed to balance pinhole against f-stop, one admitting > > more light and the other > > admitting less light. The constant (.oo73 or .03679) is what determines the > > answer. So, now the > > question is; How is the constant determined? Does it give the "sharpest" > > image or is it just a trade off > > between exposure time and pinhole size? Do smaller pinholes give more > > diffraction and thus less sharp > > images? Using a different constant will gives different answers; what is > > unique about the given > > constants? > > > > > 1. You are right in observing that the angle of view depends only on the > distance from pinhole to film, and has nothing to do with the size of > the pinhole. The easiest way to visualize what is happening is to make > a scale drawing of the camera, showing the film plane and the pinhole > at the desired distance from the film. Straight lines drawn from the > edge of the film through the pinhole show you the angle of view. Note > that the intensity of light from the pinhole does fall off as you move > from the center of the film toward the edge of the film, both because > the film get farther from the pinhole, and because when viewed from an > angle, the circular pinhole looks more and more elliptical and has a > smaller effective area. > > 2. The calculation for 'optimal' pinhole usually starts with some > assumption about the physics of light going through a small hole. > Since every aperture, hole or lens, produces a diffraction pattern, one > 'rule' is: > > The size of the optimal pinhole for a given focal length is the > size of the diffraction disk it produces. > > The theory behind this rule is that a larger hole would produce a > larger geometrical beam of light coming through, and therefore a less > sharp image, while a smaller hole would produce a larger diffraction > spot, and therefore also produces a less sharp image. > > Note that the size of the diffraction disk depends on the wavelength > (color) of light. One common assumption is to assume a wavelength of > 500 or 550 nanometers (nm). This is a green color. If you use > panchromatic film, red light coming through the pinhole will make a > slightly larger diffraction spot. But nothing is is very critical > here. > > Nothing in this rule takes into account the f number of the pinhole. > The f number is just something that results from computing the optimal > pinhole for a desired focal distance. Because the optimal pinhole size > increases only as the square root of the focal distance, the f number > gets larger and larger as the focal distance increases. > > 3. Since you have a number of pinholes, you can try some of them at a > fixed focal distance and what happens. Please report on your findings. > > _
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Zero 6x9 pinhole
There are at least two different formulas for the pinhole to film plane distance question. There are lots of different tables already calculated that have been referred to before. See Eric Renner's book for a long detailed description. Also, since you can be off from the "right" distance by a factor of 10 and still get usable images, just try something and see what you get. - Original Message - From: "cfowler" To: Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 7:49 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Zero 6x9 pinhole > Hi all, > > How about different subject than photoflo ! > > I am getting ready to order the zero 6x9 multiformat pinhole > camera, has anybody used this camera's ? is it worth 200 Bucks ? > I have mostly used large format camera's, I have a big 5x7 view > camera, I dont think it be hard to convert to pinhole but how do > select the distance of the bellows ( pinhole to film plane ) ? > is there certain rule ? > > C.H. Fowler > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Photo-flo
Don't know about the photo-flo, but I have dried film in all sorts of configurations. One time I left a roll of film hanging for ayear to see how much dust it accumulated (surprisingly little, probaby because it was vertical and in a protected corner with no airflow.). If the film is in an area where there is little airflow it will dry without dust. I made a drying cabinet, just a vertical box with no fan, which works well also. I'd worry about dust if you just used a fan. - Original Message - From: "Tim Midkiff" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:56 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Photo-flo > Hi all, > > This may be a bit off topic but, is there a readily available > subsitute for kodak photo-flo? I happen to be at home today and need to > develop some images, both pinhole and otherwise, and i'm being plagued > with spots and such. please send and ideas!!! > > Also what do you folks with darkrooms at home do about drying film? > Has anyone build a small film drying cabinet? Or seen plans or worthy > ideas? since I do both 120 and 35roll at home some, I would like > something small and cheap(!) would it be feasible to construct > something to dry a few rolls (2-4) of 120? maybe use muffin fans? maybe > this is just wishful thinking and not practical. could 35mm film be > held by both ends up in a "U" shape to conserve space? there I go > dreaming again. > > Most importantly, the photo-flo. > > thanks, tim > > Timothy S. Midkiff > > "Photographers get a Click out of life!" > > ku...@vci.net > psycho_...@excite.com > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Favorite Cameras?
The first rule of pinhole is "Play!". Try what you said and see if you like it. My impression is that a lot of the pinholers here use converted lens cameras or the Zero series. Next favorite is the curved film plane ones, with the oatmeal carton being the prototype. Figuring out what you yourself like is half the fun. - Original Message - From: "Steve Bell" To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:20 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Favorite Cameras? > Hey Everyone, > > I haven't yet begun to construct my first pinhole camera. I'm so busy with > school work and everything. I have a question for you all. What is your > favorite type of pinhole camera? i know that there are tons of ways to > construct one, so i'm interested in hearing what you all use. I've got an > old Minolta XG-1 and i've been thinking about maybe converting it into a > little pinhole camera, any tips? Sorry for the relatively general > questions. > > thanks, > > Steve > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] New photo: Rome double exposure
Very nice. I have played around with double exposures, pinhole and otherwise. I find that including sky in the first exposure tends to eliminate the second exposure appearing there. - Original Message - From: "Mark Interrante" To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:02 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] New photo: Rome double exposure > Here is a recent double exposure: > > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=mark_int errante_rome.jpg > > Mark > > Ps. technical details: Zeroimage 6x9 pinhole > Photo1 - Santa Maria Degli Angeli Church (remodeled by Michelangelo) originally > the Baths of Diocletian with myself standing in the church > Photo2 - View overlooking Rome from the Castle Saint Angelo in rome. > > > > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Hand made darkslides
I changed it to plain text the last time this went around. I looked at it in Outlook Express again. It says it's sending in plain text, but the settings for sending mail and sending news were different. I made themthe same. the format options thing on this message says it's plain text. let me know what you get. - Original Message - From: "Guy Glorieux" To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Hand made darkslides > Hi Bill, > > May I also kindly ask that you turn your HTML (Rich-text) email to Plain > text. > I you are using Outlook Express, go to Format on the options on the top > and then down the column, click on "Plain Text". You can also go to > your address book and mark the pinhole list address as always send in > Plain text when you go to the name tab. > Thnaks for your attention, > Guy Glorieux > > - Original Message - > From: "Bill Erickson" > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Hand made darkslides > > > I've tried it, can't say with much success. I was making a "film holder" > for a daguerreotype plate by laminating succesive layers of model > airplane plywood, using one of the thinner pieces for the dark slide. it > worked OK for the dag because the plate is so "slow', but for film or > photographic paper I think you'd need to add felt or something to make > the slot more light tight. You'll also need to pay close attention to > light tightness around the film holder and at the closed end. > - Original Message - > From: Myisp > To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:02 AM > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Hand made darkslides > > > Has anyone tried making their own darkslides? I am thinking of making > a 10x8 camera and would like to be able to take more than one photo > before returning to the darkroom. > > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Hand made darkslides
I've tried it, can't say with much success. I was making a "film holder" for a daguerreotype plate by laminating succesive layers of model airplane plywood, using one of the thinner pieces for the dark slide. it worked OK for the dag because the plate is so "slow', but for film or photographic paper I think you'd need to add felt or something to make the slot more light tight. You'll also need to pay close attention to light tightness around the film holder and at the closed end. - Original Message - From: Myisp To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:02 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Hand made darkslides Has anyone tried making their own darkslides? I am thinking of making a 10x8 camera and would like to be able to take more than one photo before returning to the darkroom.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] question and website
That's some sort of diffraction pattern, I assume from internal reflections. if you figure it out let me know. i made one camera that did the same thing and i could never isolate the source. - Original Message - From: "Daniel Donnelly" To: Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:09 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] question and website > hello, have recently taken a load of photos (about 40) > out in Egypt. The problem is though is that there > seems to be a mark in the centre of the print. It was > a home made pinhole camera. The photos can be viewed > at > http://www.picturetrail.com/danieldonnelly > if you click on "random stuff". They r called "me" and > "water". Hope u can tell em what it is from, Daniel > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] New Pictures uploaded!
Very nice. I like the kalotype best. I think it's neat to have the whole process be handmade. - Original Message - From: "Ingo Guenther" To: Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:02 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] New Pictures uploaded! > Hi all! > > I added two images to the upload gallery at > > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=ingo_gue > nther_cyanotypie_1.jpg > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=ingo_gue > nther_kalotypie_1.jpg > > The "cyanotypie" was made in a home-made wooden camera on 4x5 inch sheet > film at a cloister near Hude, Germany printed on self-coated aquarell paper > in a cyanotypie process. > > The "kalotypie" was made in a home-made Coffee Canister in the center of my > home town Oldenburg, Germany on a sheet film printed on self coated aquarell > paper in a kalotypie process. > > Thanks for looking, Ingo > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] New image "saloon" uploaded on behalf of Pete Eckert
Thanks for the response. I was looking at the picture and realizing that one could sense the space by feel, heat, noise and the warmth from sunlight. - Original Message - From: "pete eckert" To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] New image "saloon" uploaded on behalf of Pete Eckert > You are correct. I have only been totally blind for a few years. I still > dream in full vision. I've been learning how to take pictures for about a > year. > > I was a sculptor. I lost my vision slowly. I adapted and got an MBA. Four > years ago I left my job as a business consultant. I spent a while > considering what to do next. First I was a martial arts instructor. Martial > arts have been one of my methods of adaptation. That job made me realize > that the senses could be pushed much further than I assumed. Now I am > returning to art to apply what I learned from the last job. > > Vision takes up an enormous amount of nerve bundles in the brain. It is > possible to rewire all of that to be of use to the other senses, as long as > you have a understanding of the data coming in. Like a baby learning to > see, sight is meaningless until the mind can grasp the information. I am > working on learning how to translate the other senses to a minds eye view. > > enough background info, on to responding to your post. > > I would still have some interest in light if I was blind from birth: like a > astronomer viewing objects in space using radio waves. I use sighted folks > descriptions of my finished photos to confirm or disprove what I envisioned > in my minds eye. The process of taking photos is an event for me not a > product. Once the product has been manufactured I involve sighted people in > the art process. Their descriptions of my finished photos help me sharpen > my senses to go out and apply what I have learned. I avoid asking for any > help in taking the actual picture because that would alter the photos by > making them from a sighted perspective. > > I have learned to question my own assumptions and those of others. I focus > on exploring the range of my senses. this makes what I am up to more > conceptual art rather than photography. While trying to teach sighted > fighters to spar blind folded I learned that sight masks the other senses. > It is as if there is only a set amount of attention available. When sight > is removed the other senses don't become stronger. The brain just has that > area once used by sight available. actively attempting to rewire that area > results in a better ability to translate the other senses to minds eye > sight. I suspect the areas in my brain once used by sight would still show > up as active if studied with medical devices: (as if sight was stimulated > in a dream. > Conceiving this particular photo involved stepping in from the warm sun > into a cool bar. Sound gave a clear impression of the dimensions of the > room. I could hear the people at the bar. So they were easy to track. I can > track about 6-8peoples movements at once before I become a little > overwhelmed. I like a complete range of black to white in most of my images > so I went to the coolest area knowing that would be the darkest. There was > no air conditioning running. Once in the back of the bar I listened for all > of the window openings and doors to the out side. Knowing where the > openings are allows me to know about the lighting. getting a drink was a > good excuse to investigate the bar area by touch. I returned to my seat by > a different rout to explore the area further. I moved to a lower seat to > listen for the reflected sound bouncing off lower objects. the people were > coming and going a little to quickly for what I thought was a pin hole > shot. I am still blushing the borrowed camera was zone plate. I waited for > some heavy drinkers to settle in at the bar. I setup slowly taking in as > much information as I could. as I was told by a wise old Grandfather " > anything worth doing is worth doing slow". using slow speed film gives me a > wider range of reciprocity failure. It is more forgiving to errors in light > estimation. > > > Hopefully the above was of interest and answered your questions.. > > Pete > > P.S. > > In response to Andy's post-- If I drink to much I tend to forget to advance > the film > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] New image "saloon" uploaded on behalf of Pete Eckert
As ithink about your image, i have a question which I think pertains to our art and is not just ersonal poking around. I have had experience with hearing impaired people, and I have the impression that those who have been deaf since birth and do not experience sound except as a sense of vibration are not much interested in subtleties of sound. I wonder if the same applies to visual impariment, and, if so, from your image I would predict that at one time you had useful vision. If not, could you talk a bit about how you conceived the composition? - Original Message - From: "pete eckert" To: Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] New image "saloon" uploaded on behalf of Pete Eckert > Guy, > > sorry for the silly question. But can't a camera be both pin hole and zone > plate? > > The shot I sent in was from a zero 2000Pin hole camera I was testing out. > the shop told me it had a zone plate in it. > > as I understand it the image is formed on the plate after coming through > the pin hole. I don't know much about zone plates and view them something > like filters. > > Pete > > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] New image "saloon" uploaded on behalf of Pete Eckert
Amazing! - Original Message - From: "Steve Wilson" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] New image "saloon" uploaded on behalf of Pete Eckert > A new image, "Saloon", has been uploaded in the 2002 gallery. The image > was taken by Pete Eckert. I am posting for him since scanners & > photos editing software tend to play havoc with his speech recognition > software. Pete is the contributor to the group who is blind. Here are > Pete's words describing the image capture process. > > "It is of a dive bar in San Francisco called the "Saloon". It was shot > by sound,heat, and touch. There was also a single dry Manhattan involved > as I recall which approximated the exposure time." > > > www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?cmd=max&start=& > pic=saloon.jpg > > *** > Steve Wilson > Bainbridge Island, WA > Email: steve.wil...@eyeconcur.com > > > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Type 55 reciprocity adjustments
All suggestions will work, but just letting it dry and then re-wetting it when you want to clear it worked OK for me. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Type 55 reciprocity adjustments > While the focus is on discussion of Typ55 Polaroid films, I have a question. > Once I press the "process" lever on my 4X5 film holder and pull and wait > the amount of time needed to develop correctly , I then peel apart the > 'pod(?) and seperate the negative from the positive print , and wash in Hypo > Clearing Agent , then hang to dry, and print from there , once the neg is dry > .This is easily done at home , but > My question to those of you who use Type 55 in the field is this, "How do you > keep the negative moist until you get home and can process the neg with HCA ? > A holding tank of some sort, a bucket of water, zip lock baggie filled with > water, ? Any suggestions . ? > > Thanks > dalf...@aol.com > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] umm (ortho-litho development)
If you use lith developer, you will get only blacks and whites. If you use dektol1:2 you will get some shades of grey. It's easy to try other film or paper developers since you can develop by inspection, just deelop until it stops changing. I think you'll get more pleasing results using Dektol. More poster-like with kodalith developer. - Original Message - From: "R Duarte" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 8:26 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] umm (ortho-litho development) > ummm, sorry.. i also wanted to ask if anyone has sort of a summary of > developing techniques for that ortho-litho stuff (eg which chemicals in > which dilutions). i wish there was an easier way to search the archives. > :-/ > > thanks again, > rob > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] ASA for ortho-litho film (again)
Try 5 or 10. Instead of under or over exposure what you get is more or less black areas. it's alsmost a matter of personal taste. - Original Message - From: To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 2:44 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] ASA for ortho-litho film (again) > > Hey everyone, > I'm sorry, but I've searched the archives all morning - I even downloaded > the 18MB file and searched it that way - and I can't find the answers to the > question that I asked last year about the ASA of the ortho-litho film that I > got from photo warehouse (i think) last spring. They're 35mm rolls and I > remember being surprised at the low ASA number someone suggested. > Thanks again if anyone remembers what it was. > > Rob. > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Type 55 reciprocity adjustments
My memory of my work with type 55 is that the reciprocity corrections used for other film worked fine with type 55. I exposed for negative, not positive, ASA 25. - Original Message - From: "Markus Birsfelder" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:12 AM Subject: AW: [pinhole-discussion] Type 55 reciprocity adjustments > I am not sure you refer to this post, but here is what I have saved: > > == > Guy, > > Back in the 1974 Jim Shull published "The Hole Thing", a pinhole photography > book which includes a table of > reciprocity corrections for enlarging paper used in pinhole cameras. > (Apparently he was using Luminos > Industrial F which he rated at an ASA of 10.) > > Using Shull as a starting point and gathering a few other data points from > web sites such as those of George > Smyth, Airtime, and Penate and adding in my own experience, I have > constructed a reciprocity table that works > for orthochromatic B&W paper in pinhole cameras in sunlight: > > Indicated Exposure Corrected exposure > 32 secs 1 min 15 secs > 45 secs 1 min 50 secs > 64 secs 3 mins > 91 secs 4 mins 40 secs > 128 secs 7 mins > 181 secs10 mins 50 secs > 256 secs16 mins 40 secs > 362 secs25 mins > 512 secs40 mins > 724 secs64 mins > 1024 secs 104 mins > > Using this table, I can consistently get good shadow detail (an indication > of proper exposure) with Agfa > Multicontrast Premium and Ilford Multigrade IV RC papers. Although these > papers have different published > paper speeds, I have found that assigning them the same "daylight ASA" of 6 > works in practice. > > In the darkroom under enlarger light, B&W paper does not seem to exhibit > much reciprocity departure up to > times around two minutes. Possibly the fact that in sunshine the light > meter is measuring a good deal of > light to which the paper is not sensitive may account for some of the > variation from indicated time. My > pinhole cameras have had f/stops ranging from about 180 to about 360, so > most of my work has been in the 4 to > 40 minutes range. > > Bob > > p.s. I have also found that using a yellow filter on the camera with these > papers lowers the contrast and > yields a paper negative that is much easier to print, but of course still > results in that "orthochromatic > look". The filter blocks UV and allows you to optimize the camera for the > wave lengths to which the paper > responds, i.e., about 500nm. > > == > -Ursprungliche Nachricht- > Von: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? > [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]Im Auftrag von Howard Wells > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2002 16:44 > An: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? > Betreff: [pinhole-discussion] Type 55 reciprocity adjustments > > > Late last year a list member published a chart of reciprocity > adjustments with Type 55 Polaroid. I printed it out, lost it, and now > can't find it in the archives. Some interior work has taken me into > uncharted (to me) realms with this wonderful material. Help and thanks. > Howard Wells > > ___ > 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/ > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 120 slide film?
No. They're bigger and you will need a different, and much more expensive, slide projector. Sorry. - Original Message - From: "R Duarte" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 7:18 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] 120 slide film? > Hi. Stupid question.. if I buy and shoot 120 slide film in my Zero2000, are > the slides the same size as the ones I get from 35mm film? ie: can I use > them in an ordinary slide projector or viewer? > > Thanks for any info, > Rob > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Pinhole Planet new cameras
I've seen the prototype and talked to the fellow, but i haven't seen any pictures. It seems to be well thought out. - Original Message - From: "Tom Harvey" To: Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 8:41 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Pinhole Planet new cameras > http://www.pinholeplanet.com/Home/home.html > > I just ran across a new pinhole camera listed on eBay. The > manufacturer's website is listed above. It is under construction, so > not much to learn yet. > > You can actually see the camera on the eBay listing at: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1333483183 > > "This wonderful thing is a hand made pinhole camera produced by > pinhole planet. It's a 4x5 dual focal length pinhole. This camera has > both wide and super wide modes, 12mm and 24mm. The body is hand > crafted in solid oak. Designed around a laser-drilled pinhole lens > and integrated shutter slide for maximum exposure control. The camera > accepts all 4x5 backs but can be used without one with a little more > hassle." > > > > That is all I know. I am not affiliated in any way with the maker or > the seller. It does look interesting. > > Tom > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] new AOL tins; limits on wide-angle pinhole?
If the "focal distance" is 1/3 inch, you could expect a visible image cone of about 1 inch. The rule of thumb is one and a half focal lengths either side of the axis. - Original Message - From: "J.E. Patterson" To: Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 8:41 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] new AOL tins; limits on wide-angle pinhole? > > The ubiquitous AOL trial CDs have begun appearing in a different > packaging in our neighborhood; a metal tin slightly larger than a CD > and about 1/3 inch in height. From this sprang several questions: if > this was made into a pinhole, how "wide angle" of a pinhole would > it be (I can do the calculation if given the formula, I think) and is it > going to cover the whole area of the back? I guess what I mean to > ask is what are the limits of the "image cone"? > > Cheers, > Jane > -- > J.E. Patterson > www.lightjunkie.org | www.luxumbradei.com > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] contast
You might be getting some flare from shooting toward the sun. this flattens out contrast. Also maybe some fogging? It is said to be very difficult to boost contrast with Ilford film. try tmax. - Original Message - From: "Liav Koren" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:39 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] contast > I've been working with a small pinhole that I made from a disposable > camera. I've been using 35mm delta100, developed in D76, per ilford's > recommendations, and I've been finding the negatives to be very flat - > I've been pretty much using #3 and higher filters. Anyone have any > recommendations for better contrast, other then push development? > > > -Liav Koren. > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Angle of ligh
Since you brought this up, there are two factors influencing the intensity of light at the film plane, the distance from the pinhole and the angle off axis. As you move off axis of a flat film plane, the distance from the pinhole to the film grows, and the apparent shape of the pinhole changes from round to narrower and narrower. The so called fourth power of the cosine law governs. The intensity at any point on a flat film plane equals the intensity at the axis point times the cosine, to the fourth power, of the angle off axis. When you curve the film around the pinhole you counteract half of it because the film is always the same distance, and the only darkening you get at the edges is due to the change in the apparent shape of the pinhole. - Original Message - From: "ragowaring" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Angle of ligh > Dear Joao > > I'm no mathematician but I think you will find that the parts of the film > nearest the pinhole will receive a greater amount of light for a given area > than parts of the film further away > > This is because of the inverse square law, which states simply that the > radiation falling on a surface from a point source will decrease inversely > proportinally with distance by 1/xsquared where x is the distance. > > This means that for every doubling of the distance from the source, the > amount of radiation reaching a given area is quartered (that is because the > same radiation has to cover four times the area covered at half the > distance). > > Imagine the area covered by a cone (of radiation if you like) - it is > actually easier to imagine this as a four sided pyramid, so I shall continue > with this visualisation. The square at the base of the pyramid is 1 square > unit. The point of the pyramid is the source. Radiation will reach the base > at a given rate, say one unit of radiation per second. > > If you double the height of the pyramid, which is equivalent to doubling the > distance from the source of radiation, you will find that the base of the > pyramid is now four times the area of the first pyramid - four squares of > one unit each or one big square four times the area. > > Now come the fun part. The radiation reaching this larger square in a given > time is the same as that reaching the 1 unit square at half the distance. > That is to say, one unit of radiation per second. But this time that one > unit has to cover four times the area as the radiation spreads out. > > Therefore each square unit at double the distance recieves a quarter of the > radiation per second. Therefore a doubling in the distance from a point > source of radiation results in one quarter of the radiation falling on one > unit area! > > This explains why on wide angle pinhole photographs, the sides of the > negative come out less dense - because they are further away from the > pinhole and therefore less light reaches them per given time. It is this > per given time that is all important when calculating exposures with focal > lengths etc. > > Now, when the film is parallel to the plane of the pinhole, i.e. at the back > of the camera, normally the inverse square law has a small effect, > particularly if the angle of acceptance or vision is small. > > However, if you put the film on the camera side walls, the effect becomes > very significant indeed. The parts nearer the pinhole will need a > considerably shorter exposure that those further away. > > This however, can be compensated for if the side wall of the camera are > short, that is to say, the camera has a short focal length. > > > Enough of theory, the thing is to EXPERIMEMT! > > It is so much easier with pictures > > By the way, the above explanation is an approximation because in real life > the base of the pyramid would be curved and not flat, but it is close > enought to get the picture - sorry no pun intended > > Alexis > > > > > > > > > > on 12/2/02 5:40 pm, Joao Ribeiro at jribe...@greco.com.br wrote: > > > Thanks Bill and Guillermo for your answers. > > > > But ... > > > >> Geometrically/mathematically speaking, the angle changes when the > >> pinhole diameter changes, the change is so small tho, that in practice you > >> can dismiss it. Since you want to calculate the "cone angle", otherwise > >> known as "angle of view", here is a formula I just derived that takes the > >> pinhole diameter into consideration: > >> > >> Cone angle = ArcTan [ (D+P) / (2 * B) ] > >> > >> Where" > >> D = Diagonal of your film format > >> P = Pinhole diameter > >> B = Bellows extension (or focal length) > >> > >> As you can see, the effect of adding P to D is very small, i.e., for 8x10, > >> "D" would be equal to about 325mm if you add to that a "P" of 0.5mm, you get > >> 325.5mm, again, not a big change. The same happens if you change the > >> pinhole diameter. > > > > I'm not sure this is the answer to my question. If I could send a drawing > > attached to the list it
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Newcomer with questions
The body cap on your canon will allow you to compose with the lens first, then switch to the body cap and pinhole. Also, you will get prints easily at one hour places. I don't use the zero but everybody who has one seems to like it. Be sure you can get the film processed and printed near you. - Original Message - From: "Sarah Heidt" To: Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Newcomer with questions > > Hi, I'm Sarah Heidt. I just signed on to the list and hope to get some > advice and learn from you all. > > I want to ask about cameras first. I don't have a darkroom set up. I am > thinking of getting a pinhole cap for my Canon EOS. I want to use film that > I can load in daylight. But I was thinking of getting one of those > ZeroImage cameras that will accept medium format film. Is it worth the > money? I am not into making a camera myself. > > About me: I'm a philosophy professor by training, but now I am an at-home > mom to two girls. I love photographs and I love taking pictures of my > girls. Photography is just a hobby for me at this point. > > Thanks, > Sarah > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Angle of ligh
When you increase the focal length but leave the negative size the same all you do is decrease the "angle of acceptance" of the light beam. You sample a smaller portion of the potential image. I can't see how the size of the pinhole would make a difference, except that it casts an optimal potential image that is greater in radius. I figure out these things by drawing them out. I suspect Trigonometry would work but to me that's a dark science, one to which I have not been admitted. - Original Message - From: "Joao Ribeiro" To: Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 6:51 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Angle of ligh > Hi folks, > > I have a question, but I'm not sure I'll be able to put it properly. > Here it goes: > > When the light enters the camera, it enters in an angle the depends on > the pinhole diameter or this angle is constant? > Imagine I have a pinhole of 0.5 mm. If I make a bellows camera and set > it to say 50 mm focal distance using an 8x10 film I'll have a very wide > angle image. But if I enlarge the bellows distance to 500 mm I'll then > have a telephoto image. Well, actually the image "cone" will be the > same, I'm just choosing a section of the cone farther away from the > pinhole or origin, and I am also selecting part of this cone to be > recorded. How can I calculate the cone angle? Will changes in the > pinhole diameter make any difference in this angle or it will always be > constant? > > I hope I could make myself clear! > Thanks in advance for any info, > > Joao > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Lull in the conversation
Great image. I'm reminded of some postings here a while ago of trafic and people in times square. I don't care much for zone plate still lifes, but it gives an interesting sort of surrealism to people. - Original Message - From: "Mark Interrante" To: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:19 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Lull in the conversation > Hi, > > Here is something to toss into the lull in our conversation > > Last year I came across some portraits at the Fraenkel Gallery in SF and > was quite moved by them. In the same vein I recently took some Zone Plate > photos: > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?cmd=max&star t=&pic=markinterranteclown.jpg > > Here are the Portraits from the Gallery along with some discussion: http://www.culturevulture.net/ArtandArch/Sugimoto.htm > > > Mark > http://www.interwalk.com/pinhole.htm > > > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] list is fine (?)
I noticed the lapse also. I think it's happened before on weekends. I thought maybe I'd done something wrong and was being shunned. Nice to know it's not so. - Original Message - From: "Ricardo Wildberger Lisboa" To: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] list is fine (?) > Gregg, > > As you see I got your message, but nobody else's. Isn't that strange ? God, > where's "the others" ? On 08/02/02 I got no messages. Never saw this > happens. Did you receive any ? If the whole list took a nap you shouldn't > have received any either; if you had, so the problem maybe was in my > provider or a momentary comunication gap between only us, since I received > messages from other folks. The feeling now is that the whole cyberspace is > only ours ! > > So, as the night is beautiful here, think I go outside a take some very long > exposure shots in old colonial narrow stone paved streets. > > Ricardo. > > > - Original Message - > From: Gregg Kemp > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 7:38 PM > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] list is fine (?) > > > > Hi Ricardo, > > > > The list is fine, as far as I know. Sometimes everyone takes a nap around > > here. :) > > > > Maybe you can wake things up? > > > > - Gregg > > > > At 07:14 PM 2/9/02 -0200, you wrote: > > >Gregg, > > > > > >I don't receive new messages for two days, what's very unusual. Could you > > >please tell me if there's something wrong going on and why ? Indeed I > can't > > >live without the list news anymore ! Thanks for your help, > > > > > >Ricardo. > > > > _ > > Pinhole Visions at http://www.??? > > Worldwide Pinhole Photograhy Day at http://www.pinholeday.org > > > > > > ___ > > 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/ > > > > > ___ > 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/ >
[pinhole-discussion] ilfochrome speed etc.
The addresses I wrote only take you to the gallery page. the images are in the 2002 gallery.
[pinhole-discussion] ilfochrome classic speed.
Final report. http://www.???/discussion/upload/ifoout ISO of 1.5 outdoors with 85B filter gives a print maybe just a little overexposed. http://www.???/discussion/upload/ilfoin ISO 3 with tungsten indoors, no filter, gives print just a little underexposed. Indoor color balance is nice. Both uploaded prints scanned more blue than the original. I don't care for the outdoor color balance with 85B filter, but it would take a lot of tinkering with CC filters to get it just so.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] speed of Ilfochrome classic.
I've done some more trials, indoors with tungsten l9ight and no filtration. I'll do more but I think I might revise the speed estimates downward. I really like the saturated warm colors of a little under exposed print. - Original Message - From: "George L Smyth" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] speed of Ilfochrome classic. > > --- Bill Erickson wrote: > > Here's my first tries. With a pinhole of known diameter at optimal distance > > from the paper, ASA 3 will yield a good print at 20 minute exposure. At 7 > > minute exposure it looks like ASA (ISO)4 might be closer to the mark. Keep > > in mind that using different ASA at different exposure time accomplishes the > > same thing as using different multipliers for reciprocity failure at > > different exposure times. > > Bill - > > Thanks for the information. Are you using a filter to compensate for the color > shift? If not, the EI may need to be lowered if one is applied. > > Thanks - > > george > > = > Handmade Photographic Images > http://members.home.net/hmpi/ > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] speed of Ilfochrome classic.
This is without filtration. Images to follow. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] speed of Ilfochrome classic. > Are you filtering the Ilfochrome? > When can we see some of the images? > leezy > > ___ > 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/ >
[pinhole-discussion] speed of Ilfochrome classic.
Here's my first tries. With a pinhole of known diameter at optimal distance from the paper, ASA 3 will yield a good print at 20 minute exposure. At 7 minute exposure it looks like ASA (ISO)4 might be closer to the mark. Keep in mind that using different ASA at different exposure time accomplishes the same thing as using different multipliers for reciprocity failure at different exposure times. You don't have to do both. Also, with positive paper you have less exposure latitude than is the case for a paper negative, because what you see is what you've got and there's no compensating when making the print from a paper negative that's overexposed. If you make your own pinholes, begin by assuming that you have an optimal "focal length" and correct as needed. It's really fun to see a color print right out of the camera. P30 chemicals and paper are available from Calumet. They can be used at room temperature, so all you'ld need is a drum and roller.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Optimal Focal Length
optimal focal length0.276 inches. Will cover roughly 3/4 inch. - Original Message - From: "ballard borich" To: Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Optimal Focal Length > I have a pinhole micro-drilled in grade 400 Monel that is marked .0039" > What would be the optimal focal length for this pinhole and what size area > would it cover? > Ballard > > > > > _ > Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] question on exposure
I'm just beginning to calibrate Ilfochrome classic paper, to determine the effective ASA at various durations of exposure. I'll post the results when I get them. - Original Message - From: "Glenn Friedel" To: Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:21 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] question on exposure > Hello all! > I am new to pinholes and I have a question on exposure I was hoping someone > could answer. I am in the process of making a camera with a .34mm pinhole > and a focal length of 75mm. I want to use illfochrome paper instead of > negative or film. I can't figure out my exposure because I don't know what > ASA to rate the paper. Does anyone have any tips that would help me to > determine my exposure time? > Many thanks in advance... > Glenn > > ___ > 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/ >
[pinhole-discussion] scrambled messages in digest form.
I discover that people who get my messages forwarded in the digest format have been receiving scrambled messages. I've been told that this is because I had been sending in html instead of plain text, and that the digesting program presumably can't read MIME (the name of some program regarding html). I've switched to plain text. If this solves the message scrambling problem, maybe others could follow suit.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Art 21: Ann Hamilton
Mouth-pinhole portraiture! What a wonderful way to de-sensitize students to photographing other people close enough up. - Original Message - From: "Lisa Reddig" To: Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 10:19 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Art 21: Ann Hamilton > Did anyone else watch the Art 21 episode on PBS last night? It had Ann > Hamilton who did a series of mouth pinholes. That part was only a small > part of the show, but it was interesting none the less. She used film > canisters that she put in her mouth, then took the tape off, then stood with > her mouth open for some seconds to take the picture. The thing that struck > me most was something she brought up. To take a picture of a person she has > to stand looking at that person about 1-2 feet away with her mouth open. > It's rather awkward. I can't even take pictures in public, outside of my > apartment. I always feel like people are stareing at me. It makes me > really uncomfortable, so I don't enjoy doing my art, so therefore I tend not > to do it. The process of making the image has become so private and > personal to me that I can't share it with anyone. Except my cats of course. > I may be limiting myself, but this limit has caused me to explore more in > the place I live and exist comfortably. > > lisa > > > ** > Olly Olly Oxen Free > ** > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film
I agree about the scratching. Be sure to clip yourfingernails short before you start. - Original Message - From: "John Yeo" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film > I strongly recommend tubes. Very cheap to make, don't have to be used in > complete darkness, and pretty much impossible to scratch the film (which can > be a problem with trays). See http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/brontube.html > for how to make a light trap for them. If you don't want to go through the > trouble of making a light trap, just a piece of abs pipe with 2 caps will > work just as well, but you will have to change the chemicals in the dark. > > I think many people don't fill the tube all the way, and just roll them back > and forth in trays. My method is to fill them enough to cover the film with > developer, and stand them up. Agitate for 5 sec, let it sit for 25 and > repeat. There are no wires or obstructions to cause uneven development, and > if I miss an agitation cycle, the film is completely submerged, so there is > no risk of uneven development. > > John > > - Original Message - > From: "R Duarte" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:26 PM > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film > > > > hey, i'd like to try using 4x5 sheet film. does anyone have suggestions > on > > the easiest way that i could develop it? should i just use trays in the > > dark? is there something easier without buying the $150 developing tank i > > saw at the local camera store? :) you can email me directly instead of > > sending to the list since it's not necessarily pinhole related - although > > i'm asking because i want to finally use FILM in the pinhole camera i > built > > to accept 4x5 film backs. thanks for any info.. > > rob > > > > > > ___ > > 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/ > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film
Tray development is easy, but here's a consideration. TMAx contrast will vary with the amount of agitation. TriX contrast won't vary nearly as much because of agitation, and Ilford hardly at all no matter how much you slosh it around. - Original Message - From: "R Duarte" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:26 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film > hey, i'd like to try using 4x5 sheet film. does anyone have suggestions on > the easiest way that i could develop it? should i just use trays in the > dark? is there something easier without buying the $150 developing tank i > saw at the local camera store? :) you can email me directly instead of > sending to the list since it's not necessarily pinhole related - although > i'm asking because i want to finally use FILM in the pinhole camera i built > to accept 4x5 film backs. thanks for any info.. > rob > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] (no subject)
When the notch is in the upper right corner the emulsion is toward you. - Original Message - From: "pete eckert" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:10 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] (no subject) > I made a 8 x 10 camera to take glass plates. It was intended to have liquid > light painted on the plates so I could play with drawing with the emulsion. > It's the rainy season here in Northern California. so the camera is much to > slow four what I intended to do with it. I only found this out after > reading some of the recent posts concerning paper exposure speeds. Thanks, > saved me some bucks. > > To make a long story a bit shorter, I now want to put sheet film in it. The > stuff is expensive. I tried taking a few test shots to get the exposure > down. My problem is, (besides being totally blind), I can't tell what side > the emulsion is on. Paper has more tooth on the paper side than the > emulsion side. the film feels the same on both sides. I tried both sides > and my wife said both negatives had images. I noticed some notches on the > film. Can I use them to orient the film? > > > If you are wondering I had intended to use the glass plates to take shots > of a nearby steam train as it stops at a station . I wanted to take them in > the rain, so the camera is so robust it looks like it was made in a tractor > factory. The train isn't running during the rainy season I just found out. > I don't want a little rain to slow me down so I still want to give my > camera a dunking. > > the guide dog didn't like the steam train anyway , > > Pete > > > ___ > 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/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] upload
Re: [pinhole-discussion] uploadIs it "fortune favors the brave", "chance favors only the prepared mind" or 'even a blind squirrel will occasionally find a nut"? - Original Message - From: Kosinski Family To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] upload Bill writes: "I uploaded the results of an accident.. This is a gift of the gods..." Hey dude, a gift of the gods is not an accident!
Re: [pinhole-discussion] upload
Re: [pinhole-discussion] uploadI just do the usual calulations and apply the usual reciprocity corrections. I once spent more than a year composing an entire 40 print show of multiple exposures (lens, not pinhole.) mostly color negative film. In that context I just multiplied the film speed by the number of exposures per frame. Got good exposure density results. Compositions depended on the relationship between light and shadow areas in each exposure. With pinhole I tend to just overexpose and correct in printing. - Original Message - From: ragowaring To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] upload A beautiful photograph I wonder if you remember the time at each exposure and go through the same or a similar process for other images. I think this is one of the strong points about pinhole - multiple exposure. What time does the T Max 400 need for such exposures? I am thinking of using film in addition to the paper I use at the moment and am wondering what difference this will make in a practical sense. I have uploaded a photograph I took during a residency I was on recently and used one of the props the students were using during lunch time. The exposures were all calculated guesswork ranging from a third to half the total expsure. There were three exposures on the paper in all. As you can see, it is a self portrait. Alexis on 21/1/02 8:26 pm, Bill Erickson at erick...@hickorytech.net wrote: I uploaded the results of an accident: www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=achagower.jpg <http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=achagower.jpg> The figures are in a cemetery in the village of Achagower, in County Mayo, Ireland, but the tombstones are at Kilgeever Abbey, thirty miles south. I was shooting 8x10 Tmax 400 and mistakenly did a double exposure. I never ever discard apparent mistakes without loking at them carefully, or even printing them just to see what i really have. This is a gift of the gods. The other thing I learned from this trip was that I can shoot 8x10 and then just cut the good image out of the negative. I've been using this set of images from ireland to cut my teeth on platinum printing, with good enough results so far.
[pinhole-discussion] upload
I uploaded the results of an accident: www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=achagower.jpg The figures are in a cemetery in the village of Achagower, in County Mayo, Ireland, but the tombstones are at Kilgeever Abbey, thirty miles south. I was shooting 8x10 Tmax 400 and mistakenly did a double exposure. I never ever discard apparent mistakes without loking at them carefully, or even printing them just to see what i really have. This is a gift of the gods. The other thing I learned from this trip was that I can shoot 8x10 and then just cut the good image out of the negative. I've been using this set of images from ireland to cut my teeth on platinum printing, with good enough results so far.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Darkroom light
In a darkroom that small you should make some effort to assure adequate ventilation. It's no fun only being able to print until you begin to get sick. - Original Message - From: Dennis Johanson To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Darkroom light I am planning to make a darkroom out of a rather limited space (floor about 1 by 1,5 meters), and it seems possible to find room for the equipment necessary - but definitely not anyhing else. I put a yellow-green darkroom bulb in the existing wall socket and placed pieces of photo paper where I intend to have the enlarger as well as the developer tray, and covered one half of each paper (one vertically and the other diagonally in order to be able to identify them later on). Then I turned the darkroom light on for five minutes. Thereafter I developed the pieces of paper in total darkness. Unfortunately the papers had been affected by the light. Then I covered the lamp bulb by a milky-white glass globe, tested once more, and the papers came out shining white from the developer tray. So, as long as I keep the globe on everything will probably turn out fine. Finally, here comes what I am wondering about. Does the globe work like a filter reducing one colour and enhancing another? If so, which? Or does the milky-white globe just function like a dimmer reducing the existing yellow-green light without adding or deducting anything? If anyone can enlighten me I shall certainly appreciate it. Thanks! Dennis
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Darkroom light
Should be just density. - Original Message - From: Dennis Johanson To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Darkroom light I am planning to make a darkroom out of a rather limited space (floor about 1 by 1,5 meters), and it seems possible to find room for the equipment necessary - but definitely not anyhing else. I put a yellow-green darkroom bulb in the existing wall socket and placed pieces of photo paper where I intend to have the enlarger as well as the developer tray, and covered one half of each paper (one vertically and the other diagonally in order to be able to identify them later on). Then I turned the darkroom light on for five minutes. Thereafter I developed the pieces of paper in total darkness. Unfortunately the papers had been affected by the light. Then I covered the lamp bulb by a milky-white glass globe, tested once more, and the papers came out shining white from the developer tray. So, as long as I keep the globe on everything will probably turn out fine. Finally, here comes what I am wondering about. Does the globe work like a filter reducing one colour and enhancing another? If so, which? Or does the milky-white globe just function like a dimmer reducing the existing yellow-green light without adding or deducting anything? If anyone can enlighten me I shall certainly appreciate it. Thanks! Dennis
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Overnight photo labs in the US?
Not good prospects for quick processing of medium or large format in those areas. I've done a lot of travel pinholing and I've found that once I know the camera and have hit on an exposure schedule that works, I can get quite uniformly reliable results and can shoot away for a couple of weeks in Europe and rely on what I'll get. The real secret is, I think, that overexposure is so forgiving. I'd suggest trying a roll or two, meter the exposure, apply the multiplier that would be right if the pinhole you're using is optimal for the pinhole-film distance and the reciprocity correction for the time, then overexpose by one stop and see what you get. the Zero cameras, like all commercial pinhole cameras, have an optimal pinhole for the focal length. - Original Message - From: "Dieter Bublitz" To: Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:53 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Overnight photo labs in the US? > Hi folks, > this may be somewhat off topic but I hope not too far :-). > I will be on a trip through Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and South > Dakota in May and June. > While I will take photos mainly with my SLR-equipment, I plan to take > one pinhole camera on this trip. Did not decide yet, wether it will be > a 4x5" or one of my medium format Zero's. > The problem is, that I would like to see the pinhole images as soon as > possible to decide if I should do them again (due to the uncertainties > of the exposure of a pinhole image) before I head on to the next > place. > How is it in the mentioned area? Does one usually find one hour or > overnight photolabs in the (bigger) cities, that can do medium format > (maybe even large format) slide film or is there no chance? Are > chances better for negative film? > > Thank you! > Dieter > > > -- > Dieters Lochkamera Seite: http://www.die-lochkamera.de/ > drf-Süd-Homepage: http://www.drf-sued.de/ > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Alexis' debate of how and why.
I'm reminded that when I visited the Sistine Chapel the man in front of me in line was blind, white cane and all. He seemed to be as moved as the rest of us. - Original Message - From: "Murray" To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:21 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Alexis' debate of how and why. > Hello: > > I'm deeply rooted in the 'how' first, before the 'why'. It's my nature to > try and understand processes before I experiment with them, so thus far, I'm > mostly an 'armchair' pinholer (I spend alot of time planning great things > rahter than doing them). > > I think there is some validity in this approach even in a more balanced > case... > > I draw parallels among different artforms - > > To produce poetry of any depth, one has to learn the language > vocabulary, grammar, style, > etc, and study previous works. > > To produce music, one must learn and practice a great deal of mechanical and > theoretical matters before creating art. Someone once said of jazz, "you > have to learn the rules before you can break them." Heretoo, one has to > learn the language to 'speak > > Painting requires a mastery of technique to allwo the process or craft to > deliver a feeling, rather than be an obstacle to expression > > Some people have told me "this is pinhole...just do it." I'm heading > there...I just don't do well with a purely Edisonian approach (by gosh or by > golly results). I then don't know why something worked or didn't work. > > Getting to the 'why' part, I'm practicing with an SLR right now, taking > shots of things I want to do in pinhole...I feel like maybe if I can learn > to 'see' composition conventionally, it will give me better pinhole results, > since composing them is a 'blinder' approach. > > Speaking of blind photographers, which has been discussed here earlier, > someone told me they met an artist recently who sold a painting to Stevie > Wonder...I paused for a moment, trying to imagine what or how he would > select, and she said that someone with him guided him and he selected one by > touching it. That was interesting, but that leaves us photographers out of > the loop. > > Murray > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
[pinhole-discussion] a new debate
Science or art? Science ensures that is titanium yellow is always titanium yellow. Art makes yellow things. Style or content? As has already been noted, they mate. What is pinhole all about? About involving the operator more in the process, about technical minimalism, about points of view unattainable with purchased lens cameras, about a more real and immediate relationship with light.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Polaroid Pinhole Kits
I tried one pack of the sepia and wasted a lot of it because I underestimated the reciprocitycorrection very badly. It would be a contributiuon for soemone to come up with good reciprocity recommendations for polaroid sepia. - Original Message - From: Louisa M. Kirby To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Cc: lmki...@hotmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 7:19 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Polaroid Pinhole Kits I am in Japan where they released Polaroid pinhole camera kits mid last year, and am thinking about buying one. http://www.polaroid.co.jp/product/business/pinhole/pinhole.html http://www.polaroid.co.jp/support/pinhole_sample.html The sepia kit is about ��8000 and colour is ��9000. Each include a double pack of film (sepia 606 and colour 669). They were planned to be released in the US last October for $100, but I have never seen them there. Anyway this is a bit much for a cardboard box. My questions are: Is there any reason that I could not use sepia/b&w film in the colour camera and visa-versa? Is it worth buying one, or is it cheaper and just as good to make one from an old back? I am a complete Polaroid beginner (only used a day lab a few times), can anyone recommend the best sites to check out to learn about building a polaroid-pinhole? What old camera models would I be looking for to get the back? Cheers, Louisa P.S. Should it be "pinaroid," "polarhole," or "pinholaroid"? -- MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here ___ Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
Let me know when the debate starts. I have some thoughts. - Original Message - From: "ragowaring" To: Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE > I would like to open up a debate. > > I feel it is time we discussed critically what we are doing. Not a > critiscism of individual works or persons but a debate on our aims, purposes > and motivation.We hardly ever talk about why and what we are doing, > almost always how. > > What is more important, style or content? > > Are you driven by developing the subject and idea or by the means of > achieving this through technical innovations? > > Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously > the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you think? > > Alexis > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure
And thank you for making MY day. - Original Message - From: cmcbe...@aol.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?cmd=max&start=&pic=bathtub_copy.jpg this is an awesome photograph!!! When I opened up the page it jumped right out a t me. thanks for making my day. christine
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Multigrade filters
They should work for both neg and positive. My guess is you'll need to experiement to see the effect on the negative. Effect on positive should be as predicted. - Original Message - From: "Chris" To: Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:02 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Multigrade filters > Just developed my first pinhole photographs today. Built a 5x7 foam core > camera and used containers in the bathtub to develop. I have a question on > multigrade filters: are the filters used to adjust contrast the set I see > at B&H that are magenta in color? They cost $20 for a complete set of 3.5" > filters. Can I use them when making positves as well as negatives? I'm > using Ilford paper for negatives. Thanks. > > Chris > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Dwarf pictures
By gosh, he's got it! I think he's got it! - Original Message - From: "Jean-Louis Thiry" To: Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:40 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Dwarf pictures > As it is the first time I'm posting a message, though I avidly read every > messages of this list every morning (and learn a lot from it) before beginning > to work. Let me introduce myself. My name is Jean-Louis Thiry and I'm a french > graphic designer working in a hi-tech environment (I got addicted to the > Macintosh thing 12 years ago, but before that all I did was done by hand and > reflexion and of course by photographic process) which drove me to a lot of > questions and changes. > I needed a lo-tech activity to rediscover what was missing in my (long) day job > : reflexion, nothing between my brain and my images except my hands and eyes and > that's how i naturally came to the pinhole photography . In fact I began > pinholing from nothing to refer to, only some childhood reminicences of how to > make a photo with simply a hole in a shoe box. Then I discover I could get some > nice images easily if I took the time to think about what I wanted to do and > what I wanted to get (until then I thought that there were no photos existing > aside the Nikon FM2). It's only after building two or three cameras and films > holders that I discover that there were a lot of people sharing that interest > ans ejoying it at whatever the level of use - from rough cardboard box to > expensive large format cameras, computer digital work and more scientifics > users. I must say that I learned more in the last few months about photos, > camera, eye's vision, paper sensitivity. and above all what can be unique in a > photo than in the last thirty years. > I build all my cameras, spend a lot of time (and no money) at it. Only made from > cardboard and paper, I need them to be beautiful, clothed with nice and luxuous > papers (I'm lucky enough to get a lot of samples from paper manufacturers) and > as solid as wood boxes would be. If I get some good responses to the photos I > just uploaded, I'll send some of my boxes. I love to build boxes and to find > solutions for the shutter, the way to attach the film holder, to make the hole > (printer's plate). I spend also a lot of time to experiment with the wide range > of graphic art films and negative paper. > What I knew before but became more important when I went to pinhole is the > importance of the negative. A negative is a complete image and is NOT the > contrary of what we see, rather something we CANNOT see. It is more evident for > me when I handpaint - it would certainly be easier and faster with Photoshop but > I don't want to - my negatives. > The two photos I upload show a plaster dwarf on one with me (I am the tallest of > both), and looking at the top of a ladder on the other. For the more technicals > of you : negative papers 100 x 150 mm and focal length 185 mm, hole 0,51 > mm/diam, etc. > enjoy, Forgive my english, ans happy new year to everyone > > Jean-Louis > > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=jlouis_t hiry_1.jpg > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=jlouis_t hiry_2.jpg > -- > DON'T MISS !!! > __ > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/multimage/sessionbanjo/ > __ > > MULT'IMAGE > Applications graphiques - 41, rue Voltaire - ZI Nord > F-82000 MONTAUBAN > Tél 05 63 63 54 54 - Fax 05 63 63 11 18 - ISDN 05 63 63 11 18 > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] develop-in-camera, ABS pipe size availability, how much developer?
Seems to me you would also need to protect the pinhole from water, lest you get a meniscus of water there due to surface tension. - Original Message - From: "Uptown Gallery" To: Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 11:35 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] develop-in-camera, ABS pipe size availability, how much developer? > Hello: > > Re: develop in the can > Maybe I'm worrying needlessly, but I'd think not only does one need to get > the developer into the camera, you also need to be able to efficiently and > quickly drain it (completely) to move on to the next chemical process after > developer. > > Re: Previous discussion of ABS pipe > > Well, some states, like Indiana use and require ABS. Michigan doesn't so > getting is more difficult. > > PVC is available in pretty large diameters. > > Does anyone know how large a diameter ABS is made in? I'd like to find 8". > > Maybe the answer is to heavily paint PVC on the outside and over the end > caps. > > Re: How much developer? > > Anyone know how to determine (sans instructions) how much liquid is needed > in a tube type processing tank? I would think filling the width of the tank > with a half inch or so would do it, if it's rotating continuously. > > Thanks > > Murray > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Upload
very nice! It's fun to see images where the artist clearly visualized in advance what they wanted to accomplish, and did so. - Original Message - From: "Christian Harkness" To: Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 7:32 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Upload > Hi, > > I just uploaded: > 'HandsChristine1' > > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=handschr istine1.jpg > > It is a portion of an 11x14 lith print I just made from a 35mm pinhole neg. [Forte Polywarmtone RC] > > Best - > > chris > > > --- > http://ChristianHarkness.tripod.com > > > > Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] focusing loupe and focusing cloth
Porters, at www.porters.com has good plastic. Not very elegant, though. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] focusing loupe and focusing cloth > > In a message dated 1/4/02 12:48:32 AM, dilc...@hiddenworld.net writes: > > << Anyone have any good / cheap suggestions on how > > I should go about obtaining a focusing loupe and focusing cloth? >> > > This reminds me. I'm looking for some darkroom cloth for the windows in my > digital darkroom. Any suggestions for me? Is that the same as focusing cloth? > Thank you. > leezy > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure
I suspect that ythe reason there was so little flair from the window is that the days were mostly overcast and the light level in the window was quite low. - Original Message - From: Guy Glorieux To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 6:58 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure Bill, Very nice picture! Did you have any difficulty leaving the camera around undisturbed for that long a period in what seems to be a public space. I'm also struck by the amount of light coming from the window and how little it seems to create a backlight problem in the photograph. What kind of film did you use to be able to make such a long exposure? Guy Bill Erickson wrote: I glue on a filter holder with the glass broken out over the pinhole, then just use a lens cap for a shutter. I eyeball the position of the camera, sometimes use a laser pointer for fine tuning. The situation was 'as is'. i'd been thinking about this image for several years. It's now the museum of the current hospital on the same grounds.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure
I glue on a filter holder with the glass broken out over the pinhole, then just use a lens cap for a shutter. I eyeball the position of the camera, sometimes use a laser pointer for fine tuning. The situation was 'as is'. i'd been thinking about this image for several years. It's now the museum of the current hospital on the same grounds. - Original Message - From: Andy Schmitt To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 6:56 PM Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure now that must have been a DARK room. Did you just open the shutter & leave the camera? cool.. happy new year andy -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of Bill Erickson Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 7:36 PM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: [pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure http://www.???/discussion/upload/bathtub_copy.jpg This is the result of a twelve day exposure of a bathroom in a nineteenth century state psychiatric hospital building. Newly admitted patients were stripped and scrubbed here before they were allowed onto the ward. I like to think that the glow of light over the tub represents the ghosts of all those unhappy people.
[pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure tech data.
I forgot to add that the negative was 5x7Ilford iso 400 curved in a semicircle to conform to the curve of the optimal image. When it's put right up against the front of the camera it results in nearly a 180 degree angle of view. The curved lines at the sides are the edges of the filter holder that holds the lens cap shutter. The metered exposure for the pinhole was 4 hours. A seven day exposure resulted in a very thin neg. This one was quite dense.
[pinhole-discussion] 12 day exposure
http://www.???/discussion/upload/bathtub_copy.jpg This is the result of a twelve day exposure of a bathroom in a nineteenth century state psychiatric hospital building. Newly admitted patients were stripped and scrubbed here before they were allowed onto the ward. I like to think that the glow of light over the tub represents the ghosts of all those unhappy people.
[pinhole-discussion] ice lens
Oh please, won't someone pursue this,or share what you know. It's not pinbhole, but it is directly in the pinhole spirit of play and experiment.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Pinhole-Discussion digest, Vol 1 #564 - 8 msgs
What i meant was as close as i can get to small things, thus making them larger. When you work at less than the "focal length" of the pinhole, the image is sometimes more fuzzy. my closest closeup was with a camera I made by drilling out the lens and shutter, then putting on a pinhole. I took a "closeup" of a dead fly on w indow sill. The fly was in focus, the tree a hundred feet waway waqs in focus, and a piece of the shutter spring inside the camera was in focus. - Original Message - From: "ROGER ARMOUR" To: Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:09 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Pinhole-Discussion digest, Vol 1 #564 - 8 msgs > Subject : Ultra closeup photography. > Bill Erickson in replying to Rachel Mallon's questionnaire mentioned ultra > closeup pinhole photography. Please tell me what this means. What subject, > how close, and how is it illuminated? I experimented with photographing a > coin at diminishing distances obtaining magnifications of 20X and more at > 1cm with a 0.16 mm pinhole. Lighting became a problem and the image became > blurred. > Roger > > > - Original Message - > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:08 PM > Subject: Pinhole-Discussion digest, Vol 1 #564 - 8 msgs > > > > Send Pinhole-Discussion mailing list submissions to > > pinhole-discussion@p at ??? > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pinhole-discussion > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > pinhole-discussion-request@p at ??? > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Pinhole-Discussion digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > >1. Re: Hello all you pin-holers out there!! I need your help! (Bill > Erickson) > >2. Encoding (Chris) > >3. Re: New Year print swap (Richard Heather) > >4. Re: developing ortho (hol...@duke.usask.ca) > >5. Re: Will paper work in 4x5 film holder? (Joao Ribeiro) > >6. Re: developing ortho (George L Smyth) > >7. Re: developing ortho (Joao Ribeiro) > >8. Re: developing ortho (Joao Ribeiro) > > > > --__--__-- > > > > Message: 1 > > From: "Bill Erickson" > > To: > > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Hello all you pin-holers out there!! I > need your help! > > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:47:15 -0600 > > Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > > --=_NextPart_000_003A_01C18805.2CC66CA0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="Windows-1252" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > > > - Original Message -=20 > > From: Rachel Mallon=20 > > To: Pinhole-Discussion@p at ???=20 > > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:25 PM > > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Hello all you pin-holers out there!! I = > > need your help! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all you pin-hole photographers out there! > > > > My name is Rachel Mallon and I am a student at the Surrey Institute of = > > Art & Design in Epsom, Surrey England. I am in my final year of a degree = > > in Fashion Promotion & Illustration BA Hons and as part of my final = > > project work I have to hold a presentation on an area of disscussion of = > > my choice. I have just taken up the medium of pin-hole photography and I = > > am investigating its photographic possibilities, so I thought it would = > > therefore be appropriate to do my presentation on this photographic = > > form. > > This is where I hope you may be able to help me by giving me your = > > opinions and reasons of interest behind why you use pin-hole, and how = > > you feel about it re-emerging as a photographic area of interest. > > > > What follows is a series of questions about pin-hole and if you have a = > > moment I would greatly appreciate your views. > > > > THE PIN_HOLE QUESTIONNAIRE > > > > 1 Name: Bill Erickson =20 > > > > 2 Age: 66 > > > > 3 Occupation: physician > > > > 4 How did you get into pin-hole photography? Got interested after = > > buying a 4x5 view camera, realised this was something i could experiment = > > with, read eric renner's book.=20
Re: [pinhole-discussion] agfa grade 1 craziness
You get it all the time when loading 35mm or 120 film, when you pull the tape off. I've never seen it cause a problem. - Original Message - From: "R Duarte" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:56 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] agfa grade 1 craziness > I bought a package of AGFA grade 1 RC paper a few weeks ago (old stuff i > think - it was cheap) and as I took their tape off of the black bag in the > dark, I thought I noticed a flash of light. I was right!!! As I slowly > pulled the sticker off of the bag it was creating a bunch of little sparks!! > Has anyone ever seen this?!? > > rob > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Hello all you pin-holers out there!! I need your help!
- Original Message - From: Rachel Mallon To: Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:25 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Hello all you pin-holers out there!! I need your help! Hello all you pin-hole photographers out there! My name is Rachel Mallon and I am a student at the Surrey Institute of Art & Design in Epsom, Surrey England. I am in my final year of a degree in Fashion Promotion & Illustration BA Hons and as part of my final project work I have to hold a presentation on an area of disscussion of my choice. I have just taken up the medium of pin-hole photography and I am investigating its photographic possibilities, so I thought it would therefore be appropriate to do my presentation on this photographic form. This is where I hope you may be able to help me by giving me your opinions and reasons of interest behind why you use pin-hole, and how you feel about it re-emerging as a photographic area of interest. What follows is a series of questions about pin-hole and if you have a moment I would greatly appreciate your views. THE PIN_HOLE QUESTIONNAIRE 1 Name: Bill Erickson 2 Age: 66 3 Occupation: physician 4 How did you get into pin-hole photography? Got interested after buying a 4x5 view camera, realised this was something i could experiment with, read eric renner's book. 5 What camera/s do you use? Mostly I make my own. I try to make a distinction between ordinary phtography using a pin hole instead of a lens and "pinhole photography", those types of images and approaches that are only possible with a pinhole. 6 What type of pin-hole photographs do you like to take? Experiements with ultra wide angle, ultra closeup, ultra long exposures, placement of the film at odd angles to the aperture, using naturally occuring apertures. I did a very successful series of images using one of the holes in a soda cracker as a pinhole. 7 How long have you been using pin-hole? about 4 years. 8 Do you use it commercially or purely for enjoyment or both? Just for me. 9 Why do you prefer this format to other more conventional photography formats? There is less apparatus between me and the image, and my decisions are more central to the process rather than being at the mercy of lenses, shutters, etc. 10 Why do you feel the revival of pin-hole in the mid 1960s happened? Don't know. Where you a part of this movement? No. 11 Do you feel the attraction with pin-hole is an artistic desire to get back to basics, and have more control over a photo? Yes. It's a dramatically more 'personal" art. 12 Do you feel you are re-inventing creativity by going back to the first camera and using it in a new way? No. 13 Do you feel this movement towards pin-hole in photography may be happening because of the move into digital i.e Because we seem to be offered with digital "infinite possibilities" and a predictable, efficient result, and pin-hole offers a much more unexpected and original result? I don't think so. More and more pinhole shooters are printing digitally, including me. 14 What do you feel about the move into digital technology in photography that is inevitably happening? Do you feel it breaks barriers or creates them? for me, it makes "darkroom" work so much easier. I never drop a negative on the floor, I can always replicate a print. I can quit at any point in time. I did color printing for several years, and it was a grueling discipline. if i had to print something complicated or critical, I got up at 4:30 in order to be fresh and not distratcted. I had to quit whenever I started making mistakes because it was only going to get worse, etc. 15 In a few words describe why you love pin-hole My images are a more immediate expression of my wishes. there is almost nothing between me and an image. With the cracker series, all I had was a cardboard box with a piece of photographic paper taped inside and a cracker stuck over a hole on the other side with peanut butter, and light. And yet I could make art. With pinhole, I never ask light to do anything it wouldn't do spontaneously. If you have any further advice on pin-hole information in areas not covered by my questions I would appreciate any extra view points you may be able to pass on. THANKYOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING PART IN MY WORK. IT IS MUCH APPRECIATED & I VALUE YOUR THOUGHTS & OPINIONS. Rachel Mallon. -- MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here ___ Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] followup on very long exposures.
I did an exposure of a scene for which the metered exposure for the pinhole was 4 hours. I exposed it for five days, an aggregate of about 40 hours of peak light time, on Ilford HP5 ASA 400, with standard development in HC 110. There's a usable image but its thin and lacking in detail in the shadows. I'll report on the two week exposure.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Will paper work in 4x5 film holder?
Absolutely. use a "fim" speed of 5 or6. - Original Message - From: "Chris" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:10 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Will paper work in 4x5 film holder? > I'm building my first 4x5 pin hole. It's an inexpensive one made of > foamboard. I want to use a something like a Lisco 4x5 double sheet film > holder for the back. Not having used or seen a film holder before, I'm not > sure that photographic paper will work in one. Can I use 4x5 ilford paper > in a film holder? Many thanks. > > John > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Reciprocity failure with paper
I doubt you'll have much trouble. Correct paper exposure in the darkroom is traditionally a matter of trial and error, or at least repeated trials, anyway. There have been several discussions here about this topic. My impression is that you get some reciprocity effect beginning at maybe a half hour exposure, not much before that. - Original Message - From: "Guy Glorieux" To: "Pinhole List" Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 1:43 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Reciprocity failure with paper > Hi everyone, > > Does anyone have information about reciprocity failure with paper. I > have to print large format prints which require long exposures (several > minutes) and can't open the lens without creating vignetting on teh > edges of the print. > > It would help if I could know more about the appropriate correction > factor to use for exposure times of say 1 minute, then 2 minutes, then > 3minutes and so on. > > Thanks, > > Guy > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Pinhole-Discussion digest, Vol 1 #557 - 16 msgs
See eric renners description in his book. - Original Message - From: "Daniel Donnelly" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:51 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Pinhole-Discussion digest, Vol 1 #557 - 16 msgs > Has anyone any info on underwater pinhole? am > interested in any examples, tips etc > cheers > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] estimating 'view' with homebrew pinhole cameras
you're right, experience with a given camera gives better results. Drawing lines on the top and sides to define the margins is also helpful. For closeups, I find that a laser pointer laid on the top and sides gives me a good idea of how the camera is centered. I've used larger format, 8x10, and then just cut out the composition i wantd from the negative. Somebody called this editing on the negative. centering and composition get much more tricky with more 'telephoto" setups. The "normal" focal length for any size negative is equal to the diagonal distance across the negative. This can also be calculated asthe length of the length squared times the lenght of the width squared equals the square of the "normal" focal length. - Original Message - From: "Uptown Gallery" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:02 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] estimating 'view' with homebrew pinhole cameras > Hello: > > I know some of you will tell me to just experiment, but I am wondering if > there is a way to estimate how close/far to be with a pinhole camera of a > given format and focal length to estimate composition? Or do we all just > develop a realtionship with a particular camera from experience? > > > With my 35 mm pinhole, I used the meter on the converted camera, and > pre-viewed my composition thru another SLR with the zoom set to approximate > the f.l. of the 35 mm pinhole camera. I'm just not confortable 'blindly' > pointing and shooting and hoping I'm not too close, not too far. > > Can an analogy be drawn between a 'normal' perspective focal length on two > different formats? Say, a 50 mm f.l. lens on a 35 mm camera is about the > same (whatever same means) as an 85 mm lens on a 120 / 2-1/4" camera. > > I saw a pinhole camera on the Internet somewhere (Australia?) that had a > wireframe 'viewfinder' on top and side. I guessed the manufacturer figured > out how big to make the rectangular 'viewfinders' by trial and error. > > Thanks > > Murray > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures
I'd be proud to share it. Send me your mailing address. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures > > In a message dated 12/8/01 11:38:25 PM, twmil...@mr.net writes: > > << The parade photo is simply beautiful. Anything you want to say about it > would be great. >> > > I agree...they are all wonderful. > I would like to own that parade photo. > How can I get one? > leezy > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures
It was a clear night. I don't think the wondow was tinted. Portra film gets blusih with very long exposures. The monkey skull was by a window after sunset. Must have been some twilight plus street lights. - Original Message - From: Tom Miller To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures Hi Bill, Excellent work!! Thanks for posting it. Naturally, they bring up questions, so hear they are: - Did any part of the overnight exposure overlap evening or dawn? Was it taken through a tinted window? Was is cloudy or snowy that night or was it a clear sky? - The parade photo is simply beautiful. Anything you want to say about it would be great. - For the monkey skull still life, was there any other light source besides the flashlight? Thanks again, Tom - Original Message - From: Bill Erickson To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 7:21 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures I uploaded three images which are the result of exposure times arrived at with less than microscopic precision. Specifically, http://www.???/discussion/upload/overnight was just that, an overnight exposure. http://www.???/discussion/upload/parade the exposure was "as long as it took for the float to pass me", and with http://www.???/discussion/upload/deadbattery I taped a monkey skull to the end of a flashlight and exposed it until the battery went dead. It seems to be impossible to fatally overexpose something. All you get with more overexposure is better detail in the shadows.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures
The camera is a 2 inch focal length with optimal (purchased and focal lenghth calculated) pinhole, just a woden box glued to an old 6x7 rollfilm back. PortraVC 400 film. I find that overnight exposures that go from about a half hour after sunset to a half hour after sunrise give good shadow detail. The parade one was hand held, probably about a 5 minute exposure. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Dilcher" To: Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures > > Great shots! > Can you give the film and aperature / focal length you used? > > Thanks! > > > On Saturday 08 December 2001 08:21 pm, you wrote: > > I uploaded three images which are the result of exposure times arrived at > > with less than microscopic precision. Specifically, > > http://www.???/discussion/upload/overnight was just that, an > > overnight exposure. http://www.???/discussion/upload/parade > > the exposure was "as long as it took for the float to pass me", and with > > http://www.???/discussion/upload/deadbattery I taped a > > monkey skull to the end of a flashlight and exposed it until the battery > > went dead. It seems to be impossible to fatally overexpose something. All > > you get with more overexposure is better detail in the shadows. > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
[pinhole-discussion] A test of long exposures
I uploaded three images which are the result of exposure times arrived at with less than microscopic precision. Specifically, http://www.???/discussion/upload/overnight was just that, an overnight exposure. http://www.???/discussion/upload/parade the exposure was "as long as it took for the float to pass me", and with http://www.???/discussion/upload/deadbattery I taped a monkey skull to the end of a flashlight and exposed it until the battery went dead. It seems to be impossible to fatally overexpose something. All you get with more overexposure is better detail in the shadows.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] beseler room temperature color chemicals.
Thanks for the reply. I've formerly used only RA4, but will try Ilfochrome. - Original Message - From: "Chris Peregoy" To: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] beseler room temperature color chemicals. > I used to use these all the time and thought they were great. I used > them in the early 80's in a ciba drum and motor base and did up to 16x20 > prints. Later I moved to a Jobo and 20x24 prints and still used them. > Now I have a 40" Colenta. I just finished mixing 10 gal of kodak > chemicals and your post reminded me of my earlier years working at room > temprature, processing a print for 20 minutes, (EP2 was slower). You > might look into other chemicals. I think I saw the Jobo's line of > chemicals could also be used at room temprature. > > Bill Erickson wrote: > > > Ihe arts center where i teach has a darkroom but no capacity for > > stable higher water temps. tTe beseler room temp color chemicals would > > allow us to do color printing, but I can't find anyone who'se ever > > used them, and the last camera store I went to had sent their full > > supply back because it was all contaminated. Any reports of experience? > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Chris Peregoy | http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~peregoy | http://imda.umbc.edu/ > > > > > > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] strange color with Polaroid color materials
I had the same experience with polaroid color and dcided it wasn't worth it. - Original Message - From: "jack duganne" To: Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 12:07 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] strange color with Polaroid color materials > This problem may be painfully elementary to most people, but I am in a > quandary as to the solution. > I have been trying to use Polaroid color material in my 4x5 pinhole and have > gotten only yellow/green and majenta/purple images. > Does anyone have a suggestion as to what kind of filtration I must use, if > any, to rectify the situation? It is all daylight material. > I have used the Fuji material and it is perfect! What's the deal?! > > Jack Duganne > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
[pinhole-discussion] beseler room temperature color chemicals.
Ihe arts center where i teach has a darkroom but no capacity for stable higher water temps. tTe beseler room temp color chemicals would allow us to do color printing, but I can't find anyone who'se ever used them, and the last camera store I went to had sent their full supply back because it was all contaminated. Any reports of experience?
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 1) film holder light leaks 2) roll film cutting
It'll be rolled with the emulsion to the inside, and you can cut your own notch. - Original Message - From: "Uptown Gallery" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:23 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] 1) film holder light leaks 2) roll film cutting > Hello: > > 1) I've acquired some 4 x 5 and 5 x 7 film holders thru both the generosity > of list members and eBay shopping. > Is there anything that can be done with holders declared to be 'leaky' by a > previous owner? I haven't tried them yet. > > 2) Has anyone here any experience with cutting film or paper from a full > roll with a homemade fixture? A local pro studio photographer says he just > made up a little fixture because he didn't do it often enough to but a > dedicated fixture, but I don't know if or when I'd be able to get to see > his. > > I'm anticipating the arrival of my 5" roll film, but some realities are > sinking in - I have to cut it to size, I may not be able to tell which side > is which, there will probably be no notches, as it was made for continuous > use in shooting and development, and I will probably have to do my cutting > in batches (don't know where it'll get stored, but at least the garage is > cold for the winter). > > Thanks > > Murray > Thanks > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] reciprocity failure of paper negs.
Thanks. I think Zen is the proper approach to very long exposures. The gods seem to know. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] reciprocity failure of paper negs. > Bill, > I don't know if I can give you specifics, but my longest successful exposure > has been 47 days. I tried an exposure in a basement area for ten days and the > result was too faint so i put the date I began the next exposure and kind of > forgot about my camera for a while. When I remembered it, 47 days had passed > and the resulting paper negative wasn't bad. > Rusty > > << Bill Erickson wrote: > I'm planning an image of a dark corner in an old building. The exposure > calculates out to about five days with a paper negative. At what exposure > time does one begin to run into reciprocity failure with paper, and what are > the parameters? >> > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
[pinhole-discussion] A final thought about reciprocity failure with paper negs.
The more I thought about this the more I realized that, with very long exposures, the risk of overexposure is lessened by reciprocity failure, and the longer the exposure, the less the overexposure risk. In essence, it is far easier to fatally underexpose than fatally overexpose, and far more efficient to overexpose and then work backward from that than vice versa.
