Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Attachments (was: new zero 4x5)
on 11/14/01 8:05 PM, Guy Glorieux at guy.glori...@sympatico.ca wrote: I sent the photo to show a print done with the new zero not my work. I did not know the thing on attachments the photo comes up with the note you do not have to call it up. I am sorry for this error. James Thanks James, Very nice picture, indeed. I'd like to see more, but just a quick reminder not to post attachments on the list. You're best seen if you use the upload gallery of the Pinhole Visions site. Check the Discussion area at http://www.???/discussion/ then click on the upload gallery and it will take you there! Best wishes for more pictures with the Zero 4x5 and your 6x12 rollfilm holder. ...-:)) Guy jamesromeo wrote: on 11/14/01 5:05 PM, jamesromeo at jamesro...@mac.com wrote: taken with the new 4x5 zero 25mm pinhole with horseman 6x12 roll film holderI got about 2 weeks ago only 10 dayes from order nice little camera James ___ Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] New wide-eyed questions :
I had bid on the huge bellows also. I assume that they are enlarger or copy bellows and will not be light tight in sunlight. I had visions of a huge format enlarger with one of the old copy lenses I've picked up. It may work as a large pinhole camera with paper negs. Perhaps they won't fog much. Good luck, Richard Heather Uptown Gallery wrote: Hello: Well, after all that ruckus I started about the 127 and 620 cameras I bought to convert to pinhole, the cost and availability of film, awkwardness of development and discouragement from hacking the cameras led me back to eBay. I feel like some fool watching the Home Shopping Network. I bought an 18 x 23 bellows (M-O-O !) [sorry, if you haven't figured out I have a weird sense of humor by now, well, there's your confirmation] today, and a 4-pack of rubber 4x5 development tanks...I guess it's Goodbye 35mm pinhole for me soon. Maybe I should get referred the camera builders part of the Internet? I suppose I could do a variety of things with the bellows...maybe large xray sheets film for pinhole, plastic storage boxes for developing. Not pinhole, but the pinhole camera I made out of a 35mm Kodak SLR orphaned some Schneider lensesmight make an interesting field camera, but for the shutter. Any advice besides cutting my credit card in half? Murray ___
[pinhole-discussion] Re: Attachments (was: new zero 4x5)
Thanks James, Very nice picture, indeed. I'd like to see more, but just a quick reminder not to post attachments on the list. You're best seen if you use the upload gallery of the Pinhole Visions site. Check the Discussion area at http://www.???/discussion/ then click on the upload gallery and it will take you there! Best wishes for more pictures with the Zero 4x5 and your 6x12 rollfilm holder. ...-:)) Guy jamesromeo wrote: on 11/14/01 5:05 PM, jamesromeo at jamesro...@mac.com wrote: taken with the new 4x5 zero 25mm pinhole with horseman 6x12 roll film holderI got about 2 weeks ago only 10 dayes from order nice little camera James
Re: [pinhole-discussion] new zero 4x5
on 11/14/01 5:05 PM, jamesromeo at jamesro...@mac.com wrote: taken with the new 4x5 zero 25mm pinhole with horseman 6x12 roll film holderI got about 2 weeks ago only 10 dayes from order nice little camera James ___ Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/ attachment: pinholepark copy.jpg 2
[pinhole-discussion] new zero 4x5
taken with the new 4x5 zero 25mm pinhole with horseman 6x12 roll film holderI got about 2 weeks ago only 10 dayes from order nice little camera James
[pinhole-discussion] zone plate question
I was interested in Guillermo's recent post about the relationship between number of rings and zone plate image sharpness. I have a converted Lubitel with 75mm focal length. If I wanted a camera with MORE distortion (which I understand from Guillermo's post would also be a faster camera), would I need a camera with a longer or shorter focal length? Thanks in advance. Kate
[pinhole-discussion] thanks / ectachrome
thanks for the swap links... why are there two? also wondering what people's experiences with ectachrome have been... have a box i'm itching to use but haven't ever had that much luck with color. /aaron --- aaron cruse / dead letter type 2555 bryant street / san francisco / california / 94110 415.970.1090
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Pinhole-zilla!
Murray, Just about all of my pinhole work is done with the 8x10 format and the results can be quite sharp. Not tack sharp, but detail is definitely achieveable. Here is my pic from the last WWPD. http://www.pinholeday.org/2001/photo_60.html The flowers and vase were a blur due to the wind, but if you look at the grain in the barn wood you can definitely see some detail there. Hope this proves to be helpful. Bill- Uptown Gallery wrote: OK - someone get out the tranquilizer gun I just did some calculations for the 18 x 23 bellows. 560 mm f.l., 1 mm diameter, f 560 gives me optimum conditions with 73 degree view angle, 830 mm film dimension and 1075 mm coverage. Looks do-able. I guess here's where I need the wake-up call. I was a bit disapointed with the poor resolution I got with my 35 mm roll camera and 4 x 6 prints. The lack of resolution overrode any potential depth of field enjoyment. With the proposed beast above, or any other 8 x 10 or larger proposition, are the results ever sharp? I have seen 4 x 5 scans on the web, and I'm not sure how much is limited by looking thru a 96 dpi monitor. Thanks Murray ___ Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] zoneplates
- Original Message - From: Gordon J. Holtslander hol...@duke.usask.ca some quick questions for the zone plate experts. I am not an expert nor claim to be one, but your questions are right up my alley!! tedious. 1/2 hour for somewhat under-exposed negatives in direct afternoon sun. I want to speed this up somehow. How much faster does a zoneplate work than a pinhole on average? They are as fast as you want/make them to be, at a price tho. The more clear rings they have the faster they are, but the larger the noise/signal ratio. I want to try making a zone plate for this and other cameras. I was going to make the zone-plate on ortho film. I am wondering if its possible to make one master zone plate image and project from an enlarger, this image onto another sheet of ortho to scale it up or down make zoneplates for diffferent focal lengths. I think is doable, but I rather take pictures of a paper zoneplate at different distances with a 35mm SLR camera. I guess this depends upon whether or not the zoneplate for different focal lengths is proportional the same. Is it? Or is the ring relationship unique for each focal length? They are proportional. If B is the intended ZP focal length, A is the master ZP focal length and C is given by C = B/A then the ring diameters formula for Zoneplate B will be: D = Da * SQRT(C) where Da = ring diameter for master zoneplate. (complete explanation upon request) Is the sharpness of the zoneplate image governed by the number of rings? How close can one get the resolution of an image created with an ideal pinole diameter? Very close, just reduce the # of rings until you are satisfied with the sharpness, but then you are trading off fastness for sharpness My other question is has anyone had success creating and outputing these completely digitally -Is there a printer that can create a fine enough resolution image to make good zoneplates? I think Zernike makes his ZPs digitally, don't hold your breath waiting for him to contribute to this or any other thread, though (hope he proves me wrong!!). If I were to speculate. he may have a comercial image setter shop giving him a complete sheet of film with lots of ZPs of different focal lengths as output from a digital file he may produce with Corel or similar program. I never seen one (digitally produced ZP) but I guess they have jagged edges compared with analog made ZPs, that may or may not have any consecuences on the final image they produce. And no, I don't think a consumer or low end comercial printer would work. Should you find the opposite, let us know, pls. Guillermo
[pinhole-discussion] New Year's 2002 Swap
rob wrote: this one? http://www.rahji.com/noindex/pinholexmas.php3 btw, it's not a xmas swap.. i just didn't change the url since i didn't want people who got it early on to get confused.) If you want to find out more about this, go to the pinhole vision forum at http://www.???/forum/index.php and click on Christmas Card Swap which is now New Year's 2002 Swap. Rosanne
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Duraclear (was Re: enlarging paper negatives)
Ops, I should have read further. leezy
[pinhole-discussion] Duraclear/Duratrans
Does anyone know the difference between Duraclear and Duratrans? leezy
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Paper negatives
In a message dated 11/13/01 7:59:14 PM, ethereal...@mindspring.com writes: You get a GREAT negative, can never get a color contact print, It IS possible, but never complete color range. It's difficult. It's more difficult to get a digital positive from a color paper neg. leezy
[pinhole-discussion] zoneplates
Hi: some quick questions for the zone plate experts. I did some work on the weekend with a large pinhole camera and ortho film. The exposure time was tedious. 1/2 hour for somewhat under-exposed negatives in direct afternoon sun. I want to speed this up somehow. How much faster does a zoneplate work than a pinhole on average? I want to try making a zone plate for this and other cameras. I was going to make the zone-plate on ortho film. I am wondering if its possible to make one master zone plate image and project from an enlarger, this image onto another sheet of ortho to scale it up or down make zoneplates for diffferent focal lengths. I guess this depends upon whether or not the zoneplate for different focal lengths is proportional the same. Is it? Or is the ring relationship unique for each focal length? Is the sharpness of the zoneplate image governed by the number of rings? How close can one get the resolution of an image created with an ideal pinole diameter? My other question is has anyone had success creating and outputing these completely digitally -Is there a printer that can create a fine enough resolution image to make good zoneplates? - Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology hol...@duke.usask.ca112 Science Place http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsgUniversity of Saskatchewan Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2 -
[pinhole-discussion] Pinhole-zilla
Sorry, I left my last question off before I hit the send button. Someone explained this before but I wasn't ready for the answer...I was still 'livin small' with the 35 mm approach... 560 mm and 73 degree view angle...can someone translate that into an analogy I can think about, like what kind of lens f.l. on a SLR would produce similar results (I don't know how else to put it in perspective...), or is it format -dependent... ? Thinking about a 560 mm lens on a 35 mm SLR conjures up taking shots of snoozing leopards in a tree on the African savannah without ther awareness. Pinhole from a great distance with detail appeals to me, but I suppose the reality may be disappointing. Thanks Murray
[pinhole-discussion] Pinhole-zilla!
OK - someone get out the tranquilizer gun I just did some calculations for the 18 x 23 bellows. 560 mm f.l., 1 mm diameter, f 560 gives me optimum conditions with 73 degree view angle, 830 mm film dimension and 1075 mm coverage. Looks do-able. I guess here's where I need the wake-up call. I was a bit disapointed with the poor resolution I got with my 35 mm roll camera and 4 x 6 prints. The lack of resolution overrode any potential depth of field enjoyment. With the proposed beast above, or any other 8 x 10 or larger proposition, are the results ever sharp? I have seen 4 x 5 scans on the web, and I'm not sure how much is limited by looking thru a 96 dpi monitor. Thanks Murray
