[pinhole-discussion] 35mm images
Hello all While we are talking 35mm, I thought I would upload a few images that were taken on my Nikon f3T with Kodak 3200 asa, hand held using the cameras TTL metering... http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/stat.jpg http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/face.jpg http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/mttaranaki.jpg Any comments questions welcomed. Cheers Tim
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
Richard Heather wrote: > > Try a "Blank" frame with the camera in the sunlight to rule out light leaks. > > Richard Heather > Done that, thanks. As I just reported, rather shamedfacedly, I think it's the shutter. Thanks for ideas, Katharine
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
Try a "Blank" frame with the camera in the sunlight to rule out light leaks. Richard Heather Katharine Thayer wrote: > Chris Peregoy wrote: > I would try to get a > > better fix on your pin hole size. I use a comparator as described in > > Eric Renner's book, page 113 and 114 with the use of an enlarger to > > enlarge a metric scale. Then figure for reciprocity failure. I always > > try to make an accurate guess first with meter and calculations, then > > after gaining experience I can usually guess without these aids. > > > > I've done all those things, except for precisely accurately measuring > the pinhole, and even there I doubt that my estimate is all that far > off. I've done pretty well with my five other pinhole cameras, > estimating the pinhole size and making my way to a good guessing range > for exposures, with only one or two trial exposures in each case. The > point was that for this particular camera, even allowing a large margin > of error on my estimation of pinhole size, the range of exposure times > that would be predicted seems to be many magnitudes too long (even > without figuring in reciprocity failure) compared to the empirical data. > The question was, does anyone have any idea why that would be, and more > to the point, why there doesn't seem to be a logical function that I can > identify connecting the exposure times to how the negatives turn out. > After I could see that using the textbook rules wasn't going to get me > anywhere very fast, I started running exposure trials, taking the same > subject at 6 or 8 widely differing exposure times, taking careful notes, > but since there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the results at > the end of a week or so, I decided I couldn't spend any more time on it > until after I get this show up. I just wondered if someone had a bright > idea I hadn't thought of. My first thought was that maybe there's > something squirrely about this film, but later I read in one of the > books that it's considered a good film for color pinhole, so I guess > it's not that. > Katharine Thayer > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
Chris Peregoy wrote: > > If it seems to be no "rhyme or reason" then I would look to possible other > mishaps. Film will respond to light in a consistent manner. One would think. Is there a > problem with your Minolta shutter? Could there be a light leak in you > gaffer tape tube. Or is there light reflecting off the inside of the tube. > As a matter of fact I had just come back to the computer to report that I think I've figured it out. After I wrote and sent the sentence about no logical function between exposure times and negative density, it occurred to me that that sounds like a shutter malfunction, because after all film does respond to light in a consistent fashion if the laws of physics are still in place. And after THAT I suddenly remembered that the reason that camera was replaced, many years ago, was because it had a bad shutter. Which just shows two things: (1) the laws of physics still rule, and (2) one doesn't do one's best thinking when racing a deadline. Thanks, Chris, for the thoughtful suggestions. Katharine
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
If it seems to be no "rhyme or reason" then I would look to possible other mishaps. Film will respond to light in a consistent manner. Is there a problem with your Minolta shutter? Could there be a light leak in you gaffer tape tube. Or is there light reflecting off the inside of the tube. Katharine Thayer wrote: > Chris Peregoy wrote: > I would try to get a > > better fix on your pin hole size. I use a comparator as described in > > Eric Renner's book, page 113 and 114 with the use of an enlarger to > > enlarge a metric scale. Then figure for reciprocity failure. I always > > try to make an accurate guess first with meter and calculations, then > > after gaining experience I can usually guess without these aids. > > > > I've done all those things, except for precisely accurately measuring > the pinhole, and even there I doubt that my estimate is all that far > off. I've done pretty well with my five other pinhole cameras, > estimating the pinhole size and making my way to a good guessing range > for exposures, with only one or two trial exposures in each case. The > point was that for this particular camera, even allowing a large margin > of error on my estimation of pinhole size, the range of exposure times > that would be predicted seems to be many magnitudes too long (even > without figuring in reciprocity failure) compared to the empirical data. > The question was, does anyone have any idea why that would be, and more > to the point, why there doesn't seem to be a logical function that I can > identify connecting the exposure times to how the negatives turn out. > After I could see that using the textbook rules wasn't going to get me > anywhere very fast, I started running exposure trials, taking the same > subject at 6 or 8 widely differing exposure times, taking careful notes, > but since there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the results at > the end of a week or so, I decided I couldn't spend any more time on it > until after I get this show up. I just wondered if someone had a bright > idea I hadn't thought of. My first thought was that maybe there's > something squirrely about this film, but later I read in one of the > books that it's considered a good film for color pinhole, so I guess > it's not that. > Katharine Thayer > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???/discussion/ -- Chris Peregoy | http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~peregoy | http://imda.umbc.edu/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
Chris Peregoy wrote: I would try to get a > better fix on your pin hole size. I use a comparator as described in > Eric Renner's book, page 113 and 114 with the use of an enlarger to > enlarge a metric scale. Then figure for reciprocity failure. I always > try to make an accurate guess first with meter and calculations, then > after gaining experience I can usually guess without these aids. > I've done all those things, except for precisely accurately measuring the pinhole, and even there I doubt that my estimate is all that far off. I've done pretty well with my five other pinhole cameras, estimating the pinhole size and making my way to a good guessing range for exposures, with only one or two trial exposures in each case. The point was that for this particular camera, even allowing a large margin of error on my estimation of pinhole size, the range of exposure times that would be predicted seems to be many magnitudes too long (even without figuring in reciprocity failure) compared to the empirical data. The question was, does anyone have any idea why that would be, and more to the point, why there doesn't seem to be a logical function that I can identify connecting the exposure times to how the negatives turn out. After I could see that using the textbook rules wasn't going to get me anywhere very fast, I started running exposure trials, taking the same subject at 6 or 8 widely differing exposure times, taking careful notes, but since there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the results at the end of a week or so, I decided I couldn't spend any more time on it until after I get this show up. I just wondered if someone had a bright idea I hadn't thought of. My first thought was that maybe there's something squirrely about this film, but later I read in one of the books that it's considered a good film for color pinhole, so I guess it's not that. Katharine Thayer
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
I'm not sure why you would have an increase in grain when using your pinhole except perhaps it was due to a thin negative. This was the one that was exposed for a fraction of a second? I would try to get a better fix on your pin hole size. I use a comparator as described in Eric Renner's book, page 113 and 114 with the use of an enlarger to enlarge a metric scale. Then figure for reciprocity failure. I always try to make an accurate guess first with meter and calculations, then after gaining experience I can usually guess without these aids. Katharine Thayer wrote: (snip) My inspection by loupe showed it was somewhat smaller than my smallest, which was a #10. For > calculation purposes I estimated it at .016 (I guess that must be > inches) but I have not actually measured it. All I cared at the time, in > my rush to make pictures, was it was smaller than the #10, which made > blurry pictures that everyone loved but couldn't be enlarged even a > little bit. > > My film of choice for color work is Fuji Reala, ISO 100, and I stayed > with this film for the pinhole work. > > Okay, so here's my problem: The exposures on this thing are completely > wacko. I shot four or five rolls of film to try to get a bead on the > exposures but never could come up with a reliable way to predict whether > the exposure would be even in the ballpark, which is why I gave up on it > for the moment, although I'm quite intrigued with the potential. > > The only image that came out exposed right at an exposure I estimated to > be near the right exposure, (8 seconds under high overcast) can be seen > at (I hope I've got this right): > -- Chris Peregoy | http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~peregoy | http://imda.umbc.edu/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
Perhaps I should add a caveat that the images themselves aren't anything special, I was just pointing the camera at whatever was handy in order to shoot off rolls of exposure trials in a hurry. KT
[pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion]35 mm pinhole
Hi folks, I am a brand new pinholer but learning VERY FAST because for reasons I won't bother to try to explain at the moment, it came to me about a month ago that pinhole was the way to express what I'm trying to say in the work that I'm showing in my fall show. One of the things I attempted right away, along with cardboard boxes, was a 35mm pinhole camera, for color work. I encountered a problem that seemed to require more research and experiment than I had time for, and my local/regional consultants were as puzzled as I, so I dropped that for the moment and am focusing on monochrome (I print in gum bichromate) pinhole images for this show, using negatives from the cardboard boxes. But this thread on 35mm pinhole makes a lightbulb go on over my head --(duh!) this might be the place to ask a collective mind about my problem. My camera is an old Minolta 202 SRT body. I use a roughly 100mm lens most of the time, so to work at my accustomed distance I stuck the core from a roll of duct tape on the front and taped it on well with black tape; it gives me a 95mm focal length. I don't know the size of the needle; it's one the owner of my local photography supply store, who happens to be a pinhole hobbyist, had on hand. My inspection by loupe showed it was somewhat smaller than my smallest, which was a #10. For calculation purposes I estimated it at .016 (I guess that must be inches) but I have not actually measured it. All I cared at the time, in my rush to make pictures, was it was smaller than the #10, which made blurry pictures that everyone loved but couldn't be enlarged even a little bit. My film of choice for color work is Fuji Reala, ISO 100, and I stayed with this film for the pinhole work. Okay, so here's my problem: The exposures on this thing are completely wacko. I shot four or five rolls of film to try to get a bead on the exposures but never could come up with a reliable way to predict whether the exposure would be even in the ballpark, which is why I gave up on it for the moment, although I'm quite intrigued with the potential. The only image that came out exposed right at an exposure I estimated to be near the right exposure, (8 seconds under high overcast) can be seen at (I hope I've got this right): http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/greenpillar.jpg Mostly everything else I took at what seemed the right kind of times was way overexposed (I'm talkin *black* negatives) and only much shorter (fraction-of-a-second in most cases) exposures yield images that can be seen. However, those images are also very very grainy and don't lend themselves to enlargement because of the grain. One of them can be seen at http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/trestle_bay.jpg I don't know if the grain is evident on the screen, but it's there. So if anyone has any ideas about what's going on here, I'd like to hear. Thanks much, Katharine Thayer
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Where can I buy a pinhole cap?
You also might try http://www.calumetphoto.com/calumet/ProdSearch.taf?_function=detail&qryItem_ Copy_Parent_uid1=PY2110&type=SPDSEARCH&_UserReference=C7BB612C145BAAE739E0C6 1E on 10/8/00 1:57 PM, garfinkeldes...@aol.com at garfinkeldes...@aol.com wrote: > John, You can purchase a body cap from www.pinholeresource.com click on > cameras, bodycaps - you will see Nikon listed... > Wendy > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Where can I buy a pinhole cap?
John, You can purchase a body cap from www.pinholeresource.com click on cameras, bodycaps - you will see Nikon listed... Wendy
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Where can I buy a pinhole cap?
Where can I buy a ready made pinole cap for my Nikon? I can't seem to make one properly. I love all of your images.Thanks...John
[pinhole-discussion] Monthly Pinhole Mailing
Hi all, I just wanted to say hi to everyone, and welcome all of the new members who have joined the list in the last few weeks. I just checked the membership and we have a total of 281 of folks from all over the world. I was telling some friends about the list I believe we have repesentives of every contenent except Africa and Antartica. I'm not 100% sure about Africa, so let me know if I'm wrong. Over the last month or so Gregg Kemp has been putting lots of work switching over the list to a new server, and dealing with the couple of problems that came up durning the switch. One of the reasons for the switch was on the administrative end, and hopfully you have not seen much diffrence between the old list and the new one. Remember get in touch with Gregg or myself, if you are having any troubles. Below is a list of the "rules" to the discussion list. I will try to post it monthly. Thanks to every one, but old and new members for making this one of the better discussion lists on the web. James James Kellar Manager, Pinhole Discussion List http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pinhole-discussion ja...@kellar.com PINHOLE DISCUSSION MAILING LIST Document dated: October 8, 2000 PURPOSE OF THE LIST: The purpose of the pinhole discussion mailing list is the discussion of any and all aspects of pinhole photography. All messages sent to this list should be related to pinhole photography. THE RULES OF THE LIST: There are no specific rules for participating on this list. But everyone is reminded that list membership is a privilege, and list members are expected to treat each other with proper respect. Personal attacks or "flames" will not be tolerated and can get one banned from the list. If you encounter any problems of any kind in using the list, please notify James Kellar at ja...@kellar.com or Gregg Kemp at gregg.kemp@p at ???. Please do not send problems you may encounter to the list. The only ones who can help you solve these problems are James and Gregg. REPLYING TO POSTINGS: Messages sent to you via the discussion list are set up to "behave" differently from messages sent to you by an individual. When you "reply" (using your email program's reply feature) to messages you receive from the list, your reply will automatically be directed back to the mailing list and NOT to the person who sent the message. The list program creates a Replyto: discussion-list@p at ??? line in the mail message header. This tells your email program to send the message back to the list rather than the person who originally sent the message. In order to send a private message back to someone who sent a message through the list by replying, you must change the To: address from pinhole-discussion@p at ??? to the individual's e-mail address. Note that if someone puts the list in the Cc: field rather than the To: field, the reply may go to the sender rather than the list. For this reason, it is ALWAYS a good idea to check who you are sending an e-mail to before sending it. ATTACHMENTS Attachments are files that are attached to an email message. The email system is designed to send messages using standard ASCII character set. Attachments are a way of sending a content that uses characters outside of the ASCII standard. Attachments are not welcome on this list. They are large. They usually can only be accessed with a specific program. They can unintentionally carry viruses. A significant portion of the list is unable to use attachments. Please do not send attachments to the list. All email to the list should be send as plain text. This is the one and only standard used by all computers and all email programs. Some email programs by default send email messages as attachments, the MS Outlook Express and Netscape's Communicator are often set up to send all email messages as two attachments, one in plain text (ASCII) and one in 'rich' text (html format). If you use these programs please change your setting so that your messages will be sent as plain text ONLY. WARNINGS, VIRUSES, TAXES, END OF THE WORLD ETC There are always a number of hoaxes traversing the net, where one is urged to email an urgent warning message concerning some catastrophic new virus, government policy, etc to everyone you know These are almost always hoaxes. Do not send copies of these to the list, even if you are sure it is legitimate. SUBSCRIBING, UNSUBSCRIBING, and changing PREFERENCES 1) go to: http://www.p at ???/discussion/ 2) enter your email to enter your account (this is near the bottom of the page), 3) on your account page, make any changes and then enter your password to make the changes effective. If yo
Re: [pinhole-discussion] new color images
Son, 08 Okt 2000 - Gregg Kemp schrieb / wrote : Dear Gregg, thanks for Information. --- > Please do not post images to the list. They use up considerable > resources in the message archives, cannot be viewed in the > archives, and cannot be viewed by all list members. > > To share images with the list, please use the upload gallery at: > > http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/ > > - Gregg Have a nice day & smile --- HERBERT DL7MAM QTH-LOCATOR JN58RD / ZONE 14 / DARC DOK C13 / QRP-CANADA #124 -- HERIBERT JOSEF GRUENBAUER hgr...@attglobal.net LINUX SYSTEM -- Please visit our homepage http://pws.prserv.net/gruenbauereof
Re: [pinhole-discussion] new color images <-- Nice 35 mm pictures
Please do not post images to the list. They use up considerable resources in the message archives, cannot be viewed in the archives, and cannot be viewed by all list members. To share images with the list, please use the upload gallery at: http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/ - Gregg Below is the list reminder regarding all email attachments. ATTACHMENTS Attachments are files that are attached to an email message. The email system is designed to send messages using standard ASCII character set. Attachments are a way of sending a content that uses characters outside of the ASCII standard. Attachments are not welcome on this list. They are large. They usually can only be accessed with a specific program. They can unintentionally carry viruses. A significant portion of the list is unable to use attachments. Please do not send attachments to the list. All email to the list should be send as plain text. This is the one and only standard used by all computers and all email programs. Some email programs by default send email messages as attachments, Micro$oft's Outlook Express and Netscape's Communicator are often set up to send all email messages as two attachments, one in plain text (ASCII) and one in 'rich' text (html format). If you use these programs please change your setting so that your messages will be sent as plain text. At 09:39 AM 10/8/00 +0200, you wrote: Fre, 06 Okt 2000 - Claudia Smith schrieb / wrote : Hello Claudia, I like the "fishingboat.jpg" very much. It's unbelieveable how sharp a 35mm pinhole picture can be. How do you manage that? What kind of material is used to build your pinhole and how big (small ;-)) is the diameter? I've converted an old russian ZORKI 4 viewfinder camera to get my first experience on 35 mm b&w-film. All the best to you and yours from Munich City, Germany. > hi all, > I have posted some 35mm pinhole images made with a praktiflex with > pinhole body cap. > > > http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/fishingboat.jpg > http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/flagboat.jpg > http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/flagboat2.jpg > > claudia Have a nice day & smile --- HERBERT DL7MAM QTH-LOCATOR JN58RD / ZONE 14 / DARC DOK C13 / QRP-CANADA #124 -- HERIBERT JOSEF GRUENBAUER hgr...@attglobal.net LINUX SYSTEM -- Please visit our homepage http://pws.prserv.net/gruenbauereof _ Pinhole Visions at http://www.p at ???
Re: [pinhole-discussion] new color images <-- Nice 35 mm pictures
Fre, 06 Okt 2000 - Claudia Smith schrieb / wrote : Hello Claudia, I like the "fishingboat.jpg" very much. It's unbelieveable how sharp a 35mm pinhole picture can be. How do you manage that? What kind of material is used to build your pinhole and how big (small ;-)) is the diameter? I've converted an old russian ZORKI 4 viewfinder camera to get my first experience on 35 mm b&w-film. All the best to you and yours from Munich City, Germany. > hi all, > I have posted some 35mm pinhole images made with a praktiflex with > pinhole body cap. > > > http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/fishingboat.jpg > http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/flagboat.jpg > http://www.p at ???/discussion/upload/images/flagboat2.jpg > > claudia Have a nice day & smile --- HERBERT DL7MAM QTH-LOCATOR JN58RD / ZONE 14 / DARC DOK C13 / QRP-CANADA #124 -- HERIBERT JOSEF GRUENBAUER hgr...@attglobal.net LINUX SYSTEM -- Please visit our homepage http://pws.prserv.net/gruenbauereof <>
