RE: [pinhole-discussion] Re: pinhole IR
that print is absolutely stunning! i love it! so now i have to ask, you said you used and opaque IR filter? did you mount it in front of the pinhole? or behind? i'm going to assume that you didn't move it about in front of the pinhole if you rated the film at 3? it must have been a lengthy exposure. please impart your knowledge. i've recently crafted a pinholga myself, and i'm really interested in trying this IR business. congratulations on the wonderful image. and making a cyanotype was a great idea. cheers, Steve > [Original Message] > From: ColdMarblePhoto > To: > Date: 12/10/2002 11:15:19 PM > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Re: pinhole IR > > on 12/10/02 , "Ed Nazarko" wrote: > > > I've been craving pinhole with infrared imaging capability, difficult > > with Kodak now only producing 35mm infrared film. > > I've had fun with the Maco IR820 film which is available in 35mm, 120 and > 4x5 (Yippee!) It's slow as my mind in the morning before coffee. I usually > rate it about 3 (the film, not my mind) and you will need an opaque IR > filter such as a Wratten 87 or a Hoya R72. I just uploaded a cyanotype IR > pinhole made with a pinHolga to the gallery. > > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=jhb_ir_c > yano092902.jpg > > John Bolgiano > -- > > > > ___ > 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/ --- Steve Bell --- veracity...@earthlink.net --- "We have...become our own thought police; but instead of calling the process by which we limit our own expression of dissent and wonder 'censorship', we call it 'concern for commercial viability'." -David Mamet
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinholes
I'm sure that something like this: http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-demo-scanner-cam.html could be made into a digital pinhole. Mainly because of the way that it captures the images. - Original Message - From: "megg" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:48 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinholes > Hi-- > I have experienced the 'real' digital pinhole, with a Canon D30 and a very > rough home-made pinhole from a coke can pasted on the front. worked quite well > with long exposures and flashes-- > > www.meggould.netfirms.com > or meggould.netfirms.com/index2.html if you have a fast connection--flash and > i haven't really optimized the image size yet, so it's a bit slowbut > nicer. > > i also threw some pinhole animations i did up there--they are very simple but > the idea was amusing. anyway, i do both 'traditional' and digital pinholes, > and find the anachronistic use of digital technologies and a coke-can lens to > be quite satisfying... > it is getting one's hands dirty, just in a different way. > > meggan gould > > > ___ > 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] Re: pinhole IR
on 12/10/02 , "Ed Nazarko" wrote: > I've been craving pinhole with infrared imaging capability, difficult > with Kodak now only producing 35mm infrared film. I've had fun with the Maco IR820 film which is available in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 (Yippee!) It's slow as my mind in the morning before coffee. I usually rate it about 3 (the film, not my mind) and you will need an opaque IR filter such as a Wratten 87 or a Hoya R72. I just uploaded a cyanotype IR pinhole made with a pinHolga to the gallery. http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=jhb_ir_c yano092902.jpg John Bolgiano --
RE: [pinhole-discussion] I am so not done wondering!!!!
Hey all, This is all fascinating! I'm a software developer. I just recently started in my own darkroom. 120 b+w for now. Everyone at work asks me why I didn't go digital. Mainly because I don't want to be a slave to the computer. I also like working with my hands at something other than typing and pushing a mouse around. Do I think digital vs. film is better? No. Use the one that you are comfortable with and are able to spend the funds on. Pinhole is very cheap. The minimum is paper and developing chemicals for that paper. Never, never, never, ever be a slave to technology. Just because it is bigger and newer does not mean you will get better images. That is all up to your talent and experience. Talk 2 U L8R, Jasper Taylor --- andy schmitt wrote: > is not!! > 8*D > andy > > -Original Message- > From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? > [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On > Behalf Of > pinholeren...@netscape.net > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:04 PM > To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? > Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] I am so not done > wondering > > > Lisa Reddig wrote: > > >Sorry, Sorry, Sorry > > > >You know how it is. Sometimes you just get caught > up in the moment and you > >lose your head and spout off on something everyone > has talked about a > >bazzilion times. It was just my turn this time to > join in. I apologize to > >all those who just hate getting tons of emails they > have to delete. > > > >And may I get on my soapbox again and say every > time there is a discussion > >about > scanners/printers/photoshop/zoneplates/precise > measurements of > >pinholes/reciprocity failure/holga's/diana's/where > to buy a camera/and > other > >very pinhole related things that I care nothing > about, my delete button > gets > >really tired. > > > >We all should just stick our tongues out and say > "my mommy's better than > >your mommy". > > > >The end > > > >Lisa > > > >my pinholes cooler than yours > > > > > >cool > > > > > >___ > >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/ > > > > __ > The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. > Upgrade now! > http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp > > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account > today at > http://webmail.netscape.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/ > > > ___ > 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/ = "If you can in this life help others, if you can't don't hurt them" Hare Krishna
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
Pinhole infrared is easy with a 35mm pinhole camera, red filter and Kodak high spees IR film. See my page from the '99 pinhole swap: http://www.slonet.org/~rheather/pinhole.html Richard Heather - Original Message - From: "Ed Nazarko" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? > Because most digital cameras are CCD, they have little lenses over the > tops of each of the sensors, so are they authentically pinhole cameras? > Guess it's a matter of theology. > > I've routinely shot several second exposures with digital cameras (not > pinhole) without horrible noise problems, and you can remove a lot of > noise in photoshop anyhow. Many of the infrared camera experiments in > the digital world (you have to remove the infrared filter glass that > sits on top of the CCD, replace it with other clear glass of exactly the > same thickness) are many-second exposures. > > I've been craving pinhole with infrared imaging capability, difficult > with Kodak now only producing 35mm infrared film. Perhaps pinhole > digital is the way to go. > > > -Original Message- > From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? > [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???] On Behalf Of Tom Miller > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:50 AM > To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? > > Hi Robert, > > Look at: http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2002/index.php?id=370 > There may be one or two other digital images in the gallery; but, this > is the one that stuck in my mind. > > Tom > > - Original Message - > From: "Fox, Robert" > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? > > > > Has anyone tried to convert a digital camera to pinhole? I'm > guessing that > > the results would be poor since digital ccds do not handle long > exposures > > well at all, resulting in a lot of digital "noise" and artifacts. > But who > > knows, it might look interesting.. > > > > I would enjoy tearing open a few of those consumer digital cameras > though > > and installing a pinhole! Surely someone out there has already done > this?? > > > > > ___ > 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] I am so not done wondering!!!!
is not!! 8*D andy -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of pinholeren...@netscape.net Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:04 PM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] I am so not done wondering Lisa Reddig wrote: >Sorry, Sorry, Sorry > >You know how it is. Sometimes you just get caught up in the moment and you >lose your head and spout off on something everyone has talked about a >bazzilion times. It was just my turn this time to join in. I apologize to >all those who just hate getting tons of emails they have to delete. > >And may I get on my soapbox again and say every time there is a discussion >about scanners/printers/photoshop/zoneplates/precise measurements of >pinholes/reciprocity failure/holga's/diana's/where to buy a camera/and other >very pinhole related things that I care nothing about, my delete button gets >really tired. > >We all should just stick our tongues out and say "my mommy's better than >your mommy". > >The end > >Lisa > >my pinholes cooler than yours > > >cool > > >___ >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/ > __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.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] digital pinhole?
Wow, I didn't know aboiut any of this specialized digital equipment -- thanks for the information! I'm still not going out to buy a new digital camera, but I will consider some older models that are now getting dirt cheap, especially used. R.J. -Original Message- From: luish m. coelho To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Tue Dec 10 18:38:12 2002 Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? hi, CCDs have a property of reading heat as much as reading light, since heat has also its waveform. long exposures makes the CCD surface get moisty, I believe that this is why we get those dots, they are from the heat interference. so, you need a CCD made for long exposures which is called cooled CCDs. they may be found in cameras used for astronomy (pinholes whatching the stars). http://www.sbig.com/ I suggest you take a look at this animation of a comet made with a CCD: http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/ccd/07032000_0800ani.html []s luish http://www.ignore.com.br ___ 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] digital pinhole?
Most astronamers use digital now. So digital can do long exposures. It's just that most digital camera aren't designed to. I imagine that it takes a constant stream of photos, and merges them together. -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of Jeff Dilcher Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2002 4:55 a.m. To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? The newer, more expensive camera apparantly can handle longer exposures better. Here is a 30 second Nikon D1 exposure (not pinhole): http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD1/Samples/Night/000902-0739-37.jpg the dots in the night sky are stars, and not artifacts! In a few years, technology will increase to where long exposures will be routine, I imagine... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Byron wrote: > Indeed. I have. I took a Logitec USB digital camera as a starting > point. The images are lousy. The CCD firmware isn't all that accessible > and it's fun to tinker with. > > Start with a cheap camera...it's less painful. > > Byron > > > ___ > 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] The reason I started this list.
Hi all, When I got home this evening and down loaded my email I had over 45 messages in my pinhole mailbox. I think that is a record for 1 12 hour period. Now this is why I started this list. Thanks for everyones intelligent and thought provoking messages. BTW I just noticed that the Solo Photography Gallery has announced entries for Krappy Kamera V. You can get more info and an entry from at, http://www.sohophoto.com/comp.html James Kellar Co-manager of the Pinhole Discussion List http://www.???/discussion/ pinh...@jameskellar.com
RE: [pinhole-discussion] I am so not done wondering!!!!
Lisa Reddig wrote: >Sorry, Sorry, Sorry > >You know how it is. Sometimes you just get caught up in the moment and you >lose your head and spout off on something everyone has talked about a >bazzilion times. It was just my turn this time to join in. I apologize to >all those who just hate getting tons of emails they have to delete. > >And may I get on my soapbox again and say every time there is a discussion >about scanners/printers/photoshop/zoneplates/precise measurements of >pinholes/reciprocity failure/holga's/diana's/where to buy a camera/and other >very pinhole related things that I care nothing about, my delete button gets >really tired. > >We all should just stick our tongues out and say "my mommy's better than >your mommy". > >The end > >Lisa > >my pinholes cooler than yours > > >cool > > >___ >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/ > __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] I am so not done wondering!!!!
Ok, I get it, digital stuff is just another way of doing it,as for the real question: Is it art? Just kidding people, just kidding :-)
RE: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Oops, I must have missed the "fine print"! ;) -Dan -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of Guillermo Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:32 PM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering - Original Message - From: "Dan Gerber" > > Seriously, I spent almost every waking hour of my 4 years of college in the > darkroom, and yet now, when I own a home with a lovely space for a darkroom, > and all of the equipment I need(x2!) I don't have a darkroom! Why? Because I > don't need one for the type of work I do, and my highly experimental nature > has led me to digital processes(it also doesn't help that I work for Adobe!) They offered me a job, but when I read the contract, the line where it says: "Thou shall not do it in the dark", I declined to sign. :-) ___ 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] wondering
- Original Message - From: "Dan Gerber" > > Seriously, I spent almost every waking hour of my 4 years of college in the > darkroom, and yet now, when I own a home with a lovely space for a darkroom, > and all of the equipment I need(x2!) I don't have a darkroom! Why? Because I > don't need one for the type of work I do, and my highly experimental nature > has led me to digital processes(it also doesn't help that I work for Adobe!) They offered me a job, but when I read the contract, the line where it says: "Thou shall not do it in the dark", I declined to sign. :-)
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
hi, CCDs have a property of reading heat as much as reading light, since heat has also its waveform. long exposures makes the CCD surface get moisty, I believe that this is why we get those dots, they are from the heat interference. so, you need a CCD made for long exposures which is called cooled CCDs. they may be found in cameras used for astronomy (pinholes whatching the stars). http://www.sbig.com/ I suggest you take a look at this animation of a comet made with a CCD: http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/ccd/07032000_0800ani.html []s luish http://www.ignore.com.br
Re: [pinhole-discussion] I am so not done wondering!!!!
Oh, but a least this is better than arguing about who's the better webmaster :-) Z (-: _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
I use both digital and silver processing. I find that it is far easier to get a 'slick' image with digital. With digital it does not take long to produce a good image and then print it. The creativity digital allows is very great indeed. With today's technology and materials, archival longevity is not such an issue anymore. Silver printed pinholes on the other hand are much harder to controll. With silver if I want each final image to be of the same quality the setup and recording takes time and effort. It can take me a whole day to produce one print. With digital it can take me less than one hour (from a silver negative, that is) and I am assured that every subsequent print will be identical. If then I want to do some fancy work on the image with digital it is simple, with silver it is a challenge and time consuming. I see it this way; with silver you go through a special process which informs the final image, with digital, the imagination has a freer reign. But I always remember that true feedom can only be experienced in opposition to constraints. I treat each image differently. Alexis
[pinhole-discussion] (no subject)
Recently written: "Lisa "the photographer" spends her weekends in a darkroom, with chemicals on her hands and old mixed tapes playing on the old tape player. Lisa "the employee" spends her workdays in front of a computer screen sizing images for the web, typing and surfing." -- I also work all day on a computer, and have been for a number of years now. I work with stock and commissioned photography for educational textbooks, and in this industry, the general trend has been changing to digital formats for everything. From researching the photos online, the press and stock images taken with digital cameras, reviewing images with editors, preparing them for printing - the majority of the process is entirely digital. ...Probably why I've found myself drawn more toward the "hand-crafted" pinhole image lately. Conversely, people who have been taking film pictures their entire life and have not been over exposed (excuse the pun) to digital images and processes are more likely to embrace its aspects and qualities. Funny, but if you pick one group or the other, some members of each side get completely engrossed in the technical aspects. Its Ideal Pinhole Diameter to Film Plane Ratios vs. CCD Sensitivity Ranges. Now that I've alienated everyone on the list, let me just say this: As I have grown as a photographer and artist, I have come to the mindset that whatever the technique, whatever the medium, if the artist has honestly expressed themselves then the result is a success. I'm happy to see these discussions taking place here, and I look forward to reading more. cary_ben...@hotmail.com
[pinhole-discussion] my last two pixels (it was wonderings)
well, I am sorry too about so many messages per second. -- Andy Schmitt wrote 'it's only a tool." well, most of the time what we discuss here? our tools, isn't it? meggan gould wrote: "it is getting one's hands dirty, just in a different way." thanks for your enlightment, meggan. what differences are these is what I tried to discuss a bit, but it seems I got myself all wrongly interpreted. excuse me if I sounded like saying this is better than that, I never meant that. it is ridiculous. I was just trying to say that pixels have a quite different nature than silver cristals. they generate image through a totally new way and this is worth a thinking. it is indeed just a tool, just another subject. but it is a subject to me as much as a closeup pinhole camera or a contact printing alt processs under acrylic/perspex/plexiglass, somehow it manages to get more passion into it, hate and love. at last, films, papers, wet plates are also highly technological products, don't miss this point, please. []s luish Lisa Reddig wrote: Sorry, Sorry, Sorry We all should just stick our tongues out and say "my mommy's better than your mommy". The end Lisa my pinholes cooler than yours
[pinhole-discussion] I am so not done wondering!!!!
Sorry, Sorry, Sorry You know how it is. Sometimes you just get caught up in the moment and you lose your head and spout off on something everyone has talked about a bazzilion times. It was just my turn this time to join in. I apologize to all those who just hate getting tons of emails they have to delete. And may I get on my soapbox again and say every time there is a discussion about scanners/printers/photoshop/zoneplates/precise measurements of pinholes/reciprocity failure/holga's/diana's/where to buy a camera/and other very pinhole related things that I care nothing about, my delete button gets really tired. We all should just stick our tongues out and say "my mommy's better than your mommy". The end Lisa my pinholes cooler than yours
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Hi Traci, They were taken with beer cans. I used b&w paper negatives and before I purchased the scanner I used to contact print them. After working in a professional print processing lab for a while I was quite pleased to get rid of my darkroom. Stephen - Original Message - From: "Traci Bunkers" > Steven, > I enjoyed your photos on your web site. What type of pinhole camera are you > using for the panoramic shots that have a fish-eye look to them? > > I also process my own 120 b/w film, then scan it on my scanner. When I shoot > color, I have the local lab process only and I scan. Otherwise it's too > expensive for me. > -- > Traci Bunkers > Bonkers Handmade Originals > http://www.bonkersfiber.com > > > > > http://www.s-rees.co.uk/pinhole/wal/2.htm
RE: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
Good point, Andy! I guess that's what I was trying to convey, but I got all wordy...! -Dan -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of andy schmitt Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:30 PM To: pinhole discussion list Subject: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings gee this sounds like the discussions when wet plate came out... or color film... so please repeat after me... It's only a tool... no better, no worse... just a tool thank you Aren't we lucky we have so many different tools so we can all make our individual art? regards Andy Schmitt Computerist, Photographer, Slayer of Dragons All opinions expressed are mine... Unless otherwise stated or REALLY stupid www.aandy.org - not non-profit on purpose Head of Photography, Peters Valley Craft Center ___ 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] wondering well I hope your done wondering!!!!
well the best way to get the old e-mail account full is start a discussion about digital vs film. film as we know it is a replacement from the original process they used back in the talbot days. one day they will be saying how muck better the new laser cameras are then the "old digital models" in the muesum.do not think you are better or worse then the photographer on the other side of the fence. be humble & appreciate their work & vica versa .please don't get on your soapbox & spout how you are more pure or better then others.it reeks of snobery .nuff said!keep those cameras & computers going full steem ahead. chip renner >__ps... I shoot both digital & film & have worked in both developments & enjoy >both equally._ >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/ > __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] bellows pinhole
Nothing to it. Just make a lensboard the right size and mount a pinhole. If you are concerned about the right size pinhole for the right bellows extension, either make multiple lens boards or invest in a turret. The Finney turret gives a lot of choices in pinhole and zone plate. costs about $400, which is sort of anti-pinhole. - Original Message - From: "S and C Graham Foto" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:07 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] bellows pinhole > Im new to pimhole and have biult 2 cameras, now im > working on a 4x5 bellows pinhole (full movements)the > front standard will allow me to change lens boards. > has annyone biult a pinhole out of a view camera?just > lookin for advise on this subject. thank you > shannon > scgrahamfoto.com > > = > Shannon & Colleen Graham > S&C Graham Foto > s...@scgrahamfoto.com > www.scgrahamfoto.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/ >
[pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
gee this sounds like the discussions when wet plate came out... or color film... so please repeat after me... It's only a tool... no better, no worse... just a tool thank you Aren't we lucky we have so many different tools so we can all make our individual art? regards Andy Schmitt Computerist, Photographer, Slayer of Dragons All opinions expressed are mine... Unless otherwise stated or REALLY stupid www.aandy.org - not non-profit on purpose Head of Photography, Peters Valley Craft Center
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
I used a pinhole bodycap on my nikon D1X. You can calibrate the exposures by just looking at the LCD and trying again. All in all I didn't like the process or the results. It seemed like too much horsing around with machinery, and the acceptance angle is pretty narrow. - Original Message - From: "Fox, Robert" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:36 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? > Good discussion on this topic. > > Has anyone tried to convert a digital camera to pinhole? I'm guessing that > the results would be poor since digital ccds do not handle long exposures > well at all, resulting in a lot of digital "noise" and artifacts. But who > knows, it might look interesting.. > > I would enjoy tearing open a few of those consumer digital cameras though > and installing a pinhole! Surely someone out there has already done this?? > > R.J. > > > ___ > 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] digital pinholes
Hi-- I have experienced the 'real' digital pinhole, with a Canon D30 and a very rough home-made pinhole from a coke can pasted on the front. worked quite well with long exposures and flashes-- www.meggould.netfirms.com or meggould.netfirms.com/index2.html if you have a fast connection--flash and i haven't really optimized the image size yet, so it's a bit slowbut nicer. i also threw some pinhole animations i did up there--they are very simple but the idea was amusing. anyway, i do both 'traditional' and digital pinholes, and find the anachronistic use of digital technologies and a coke-can lens to be quite satisfying... it is getting one's hands dirty, just in a different way. meggan gould
Re: [pinhole-discussion] cheap 35mm camera
--- "Kawakami, Gregg" wrote: > What cheap 35mm camera would be ideal to convert > into a pinhole camera? I > figure something like the Holga but in a 35mm format > would be good. What do > you guys think? I'm in the middle of converting 6 el-cheapo 35mm cameras into pinhole cameras for presents. I've been surprised both at how easy it is to take them apart and convert them, and at how well they're designed and built -- much better, in most cases, than the Holga! I'd say visit a thrift shop, and look for a couple of those give-away cameras that you get when you subscribe to a magazine or open a bank account. Buy a couple -- don't pay more than a couple of bucks each -- and take a screwdriver to them. The shutters don't convert to a "time" setting, generally, so I just remove them and use a lens cap or a flap of black tape as the shutter. -- p __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
--- "luish m. coelho" wrote: ..snip.. > stimulating. I heard Kodak > wants to terminate film pelicula for the movies in > 2005? It may not be > true, but think about the enviroment impact our > chemicals do). My I'm talkative today. Saw my first digital movie a few days ago -- Harry Potter II -- and I have to admit I didn't like it. I could see the little square pixels that made up the image anytime I focused my attention on a light colored part of the screen.. distracting. For me, it comes down to, we're analog, the world we live in is analog. Digitizedalwaysecessarilily a compromise -- the camera sits there and says, "hey, that pixel looks about like a blue 973" but it's not -- it's a unique color that may never be seen again (not to say that film doesn't make compromises as well, but they're analog compromises -- which, for me, my vision, my pictures, are more honest. -- p __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
[pinhole-discussion] cheap 35mm camera
What cheap 35mm camera would be ideal to convert into a pinhole camera? I figure something like the Holga but in a 35mm format would be good. What do you guys think? Gregg
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
--- I Zarkov wrote: ..snip.. > screens and software galore. Its too darn hard to > throw a sabot into the > CD-ROM drive. Try putting a piece of sliced Bologna in your CD drive -- probably a good sabot substitute! - p __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering about photoshop sharpening
--- jaugu...@adelphia.net wrote: > Oh my, she's got a split personality! > > Bad Lisa: > > > Lisa "the photographer" spends her weekends in a ..snip.. > Good Lisa: > > > Lisa "the employee" spends her workdays in front > of a computer ..snip.. Nah, nah, it's "real Lisa" and "work Lisa" -- leave Jekell & Hyde out of this. -- p __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering about photoshop sharpening
--- jaugu...@adelphia.net wrote: > I've arrived at the conclusion that *any* > photographic technique can be > duped digitally and don't understand why some people > are hesitant to make > the switch. ..snip.. Well, I have to admit, I don't *LIKE* the way my images look when they're digitally sharpened. They look, somehow, brittle. I still profess a strong preference, myself, for the analog combination of intention and chance that produce my pinhole images... __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Steven, I enjoyed your photos on your web site. What type of pinhole camera are you using for the panoramic shots that have a fish-eye look to them? I also process my own 120 b/w film, then scan it on my scanner. When I shoot color, I have the local lab process only and I scan. Otherwise it's too expensive for me. -- Traci Bunkers Bonkers Handmade Originals http://www.bonkersfiber.com > > http://www.s-rees.co.uk/pinhole/wal/2.htm
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
Lisa has expressed exactly my apprehensions about what I read here daily about the marriage of the digital with the pinhole. I began doing pinhole 12 years ago because I was already at that point disgusted with the critical discourse that was then emerging as to how digital imagery would replace film and what the inherent nature of the photographic art was, if indeed there is such a thing as an 'inherent' nature of this process of image making. There seem to be multiple issues implicit within this discussion: the nature of the recording matrix, film vs. hard drives & memory sticks, the medium of display: paper vs. cathode ray tubes; the capture device: lenses vs pinhole; as well as ink vs light sensitive salts, photons vs 0's & 1's, Pythagoreans vs Neo-Platonists [well, maybe] alchemists vs. positivists. While I understand entirely the allure that the digital choice offers, I've never been able to shake the feeling that the prime reason for my doing pinhole work was to restore the 'aura' to the photographic print that Walter Benjamin says was lost to photography in his essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" There is nothing about using digital media that reinvests the print with that sense of the unique that chemical image making allows, especially when one is involved with elaborate bleaching and toning post-processing of the print. I feel that the fundamental difference between digital and wet photography has more to do with our understanding of and complicity with time in the art-making process more than the media of reproduction and that digital manipulation of images further subverts a correspondence relationship between an external world and what is presented as a photographic truth. The conundrum to all of this discussion is that this dialogue/disagreement would not be possible without our computers, networks, CRTs or plasma screens and software galore. Its too darn hard to throw a sabot into the CD-ROM drive. Peter Down, Photoshop, down. BAD dogma! _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
Lisa, don't get me wrong. I may be a little excited about defending digital processes, but I am also very much into 'traditional' pinhole. what realy gets me into defending a more attention to what is happening in the digital field is that pixels are a new way of magic (let's not be naive and forget the powerful industry behind it, of course, trying to set its new patterns, I find this even more stimulating. I heard Kodak wants to terminate film pelicula for the movies in 2005? It may not be true, but think about the enviroment impact our chemicals do). I have nothing agaist old ways, it is not about that. I believe it is about image, whatever path one chooses to walk to get it, but I also believe that someone who works with it needs to know, to care and to discuss the philosophical aspects, the enviromental aspects and the human aspects os its choosen path. yes, may we all be happy in our own little worlds, and how about exchanging some thoughts? how many people in this list have experienced REAL digital pinholing? Not scanning paper or film but really creating images through a hole in front of the CCD? get the old mavica or some security camera take the lenses out and place a little hole in front of it. thats what I mean by going digital. []s luish Lisa Reddig wrote: Luish wrote: but I see that most of the people just don't get what digital image is about yet. Luish, Isn't it interesting that you think people don't understand what digital can do. But I, on the other side, doing nothing digital, feel like people have forgotten the pleasures of non digital. May we all be happy in our own little worlds. Lisa
Re: [pinhole-discussion] bellows pinhole
Shannon, Take a look at this page for an old shutter that I use with a couple of the view cameras I use... http://www.speakeasy.net/~jlmoore/speedioscope.htm You can use any old shutter that has either a "B" (bulb) or "T" (time) setting for the long exposures needed. I've used old Kodak shutters from folding cameras I've picked up for a couple of bucks. Unscrew the lens elements & insert your pinhole. John Moore Ramona, CA --- S and C Graham Foto wrote: > Im new to pimhole and have biult 2 cameras, now im > working on a 4x5 bellows pinhole (full movements)the > front standard will allow me to change lens boards. > has annyone biult a pinhole out of a view > camera?just > lookin for advise on this subject. thank you > shannon > scgrahamfoto.com > > = > Shannon & Colleen Graham > S&C Graham Foto > s...@scgrahamfoto.com > www.scgrahamfoto.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/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] bellows pinhole
--- S and C Graham Foto wrote: > Im new to pimhole and have biult 2 cameras, now im > working on a 4x5 bellows pinhole (full movements)the > front standard will allow me to change lens boards. > has annyone biult a pinhole out of a view camera?just > lookin for advise on this subject. thank you Shannon - Sure, I did. Actually, I didn't have an extra lens holder, so I made one from an aluminum pie pan. I then attached my pinhole behind a larger hole in the "lens holder" and I was off. As I have numerous different-sized pinholes within slide holders, I can select the proper size for the focal length I have chosen. The nice thing is that when one uses film holders, the pinhole camera becomes less of a single-shot deal. Cheers - george = Handmade Photographic Images - http://GLSmyth.com DRiP Investing - http://DRiPInvesting.org __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
I think most of us who do pinhole and "traditional wet" photography get the satisfaction and enjoyment from an all manual, hands-on process. That process is imprecise, and depending on film and exposure and processing and printing, that "imprecision" yields beauty through grain, tonality, bokeh, diffraction, silver, etc. I have nothing against digital, and believe that simple flatbed, affordable scanners like the Epson 2450 have opened the doors for everyone to share their images online, which is absolutely great and has enriched my life. What people are missing who go straight to digital is the beauty of wet prints. Will digital prints ever approach the quality achieved by an 8x10 contact print? I don't think it's a matter of technical limitations -- surely digital will continue to increase the scope and quality of the ccds. I think that the wet chemical process is just physically and fundamentally different from digital, enough so that neither can really reproduce in a pure technical sense the results of the other with accuracy. There's room enough for all. R.J.
[pinhole-discussion] digital wonderings
> Luish wrote: but I see that most of the people just don't get what digital > image is about yet. Luish, Isn't it interesting that you think people don't understand what digital can do. But I, on the other side, doing nothing digital, feel like people have forgotten the pleasures of non digital. I am shocked that on a pinhole discussion group so many people are digital. One of my basic reasons for doing pinhole is it's low level of technology. But obviously there are others like yourself who feel that too many people aren't ready for digital. Maybe we are all just defensive about our way because it is important to each of us. I personally would shrivel up and die if digital was all we had left. I could change how I do my art and do it digitally, but I wouldn't because it would be so unpleasent for me. It's all about the process. I would not enjoy the process of scanning and clicking to get a final image. My alternate personality hasn't done it's job if we don't smell toxic. When all the photo chemicals and emulsions have been used up I will have to become a conceptual photographer. All ideas, no photographs. May we all be happy in our own little worlds. Lisa
[pinhole-discussion] bellows pinhole
Im new to pimhole and have biult 2 cameras, now im working on a 4x5 bellows pinhole (full movements)the front standard will allow me to change lens boards. has annyone biult a pinhole out of a view camera?just lookin for advise on this subject. thank you shannon scgrahamfoto.com = Shannon & Colleen Graham S&C Graham Foto s...@scgrahamfoto.com www.scgrahamfoto.com
RE: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
*snip* Are you saying that digital folk are just as obsessed with CCD's and KPT's as I am with aluminum foil, black tape boxes and plastic chemical containers of all shapes and sizes? *snip* Yes, maybe even more obsessed...ask me how many scanners I own, and how many of them I actually use! (ok, let's not go there!) Seriously, I spent almost every waking hour of my 4 years of college in the darkroom, and yet now, when I own a home with a lovely space for a darkroom, and all of the equipment I need(x2!) I don't have a darkroom! Why? Because I don't need one for the type of work I do, and my highly experimental nature has led me to digital processes(it also doesn't help that I work for Adobe!) and I haven't had enough of a need for a darkroom to justify setting it up. I still shoot with $10 plastic cameras, and pinhole cameras made out of everything from PVC pipe to suitcases, the only thing that has changed is a few steps of the process, and the process led me to change those steps(how's that for some good ole art-speak?!) Bottom line is: For me, the film and digital worlds meld wonderfully, and I don't see any reason they can't play well together. What matters is what you choose to do for your own work, and what your work asks of you. Don't mean to get too art-schooly on all of you, but it happens! My .95... -Dan -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of Lisa Reddig Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:34 AM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering All I can say is HUH??? I don't get it. Maybe that's why I make sure to keep my photographs and my computers very far away from each other. Are you saying that digital folk are just as obsessed with CCD's and KPT's as I am with aluminum foil, black tape boxes and plastic chemical containers of all shapes and sizes? Lisa > I must desagree with you, Lisa. the digital darkroom is a totally > different experience. Let's try to take a look at this subject from a > perspective of ten years in the future. Photoshop and similars were > first invented from the reference in the material world of silver plate > behaviours, etc., but the digital deals with different atoms that we > call pixels, and I believe it will grow even more different as the years > go by. > > In phisical photography we are totaly envolved with the camera and the > nature of film and paper. > In digital photography we have the lenses (or not, the astronomical > digital cameras are pinholes) AND the CCD, which is a chip. > A chip captures what its software tells it to capture. it may capture > heat or infrared or whatever set of lightwaves we wish. > can you imagine if Kay Krause would program a CCD? (Krause invented the > out-of-earth plugin KPT and Bryce). > I believe that the CCDs we have today are only little kids playing the > regular human eyes game. > > I have built a pinhole from my digital sony DSC-70, I saw the CCD, it is > a beautiful piece of blue cristal. > > []s > luish > > http://www.ignore.com.br > > > an Ansel Adamss > > Lisa Reddig wrote: > >> OK, I'm gonna be the PHOTOSHOP BAD person. >> >> I don't understand why so many people think working on a computer is easier >> than working in the darkroom. They will spend hours and hours dodging and >> burning and sharpening in front of a monitor, while complaining about how >> hard it is to do it in the darkroom. Why should I sit in front of a >> computer for hours to do what I can do sitting in a darkroom for hours? >> Some people are hesitant to make the switch because it is not a necessary >> switch. It is just a preference. >> >> Lisa >> > > > > ___ > 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] wondering
well, I mean that we can't say that a chemical + otical + physical process is the same as a physical + electronical one. I live among both universes, and I am very happy mixing them. My paper boxes and my scanner (which has a CCD), my monitor and printer, as I believe most of the digital folks here also do. when pinholing, what matters to me is the image I am working to express. I love pinhole, thats why I am here in this list. but I see that most of the people just don't get what digital image is about yet. try to think that your photoshop only do what someone told it could do in its programming, as someone else did when created a 28 mm lenses. If new programming arise, new ways of pinholing (and seeing the world) may be brought with it. thats what I mean. The beauty is that we will have more options to choose from. []s luish http://www.ignore.com.br Lisa Reddig wrote: All I can say is HUH??? I don't get it. Maybe that's why I make sure to keep my photographs and my computers very far away from each other. Are you saying that digital folk are just as obsessed with CCD's and KPT's as I am with aluminum foil, black tape boxes and plastic chemical containers of all shapes and sizes? Lisa I must desagree with you, Lisa. the digital darkroom is a totally different experience. Let's try to take a look at this subject from a perspective of ten years in the future. Photoshop and similars were first invented from the reference in the material world of silver plate behaviours, etc., but the digital deals with different atoms that we call pixels, and I believe it will grow even more different as the years go by. In phisical photography we are totaly envolved with the camera and the nature of film and paper. In digital photography we have the lenses (or not, the astronomical digital cameras are pinholes) AND the CCD, which is a chip. A chip captures what its software tells it to capture. it may capture heat or infrared or whatever set of lightwaves we wish. can you imagine if Kay Krause would program a CCD? (Krause invented the out-of-earth plugin KPT and Bryce). I believe that the CCDs we have today are only little kids playing the regular human eyes game. I have built a pinhole from my digital sony DSC-70, I saw the CCD, it is a beautiful piece of blue cristal. []s luish http://www.ignore.com.br
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
All I can say is HUH??? I don't get it. Maybe that's why I make sure to keep my photographs and my computers very far away from each other. Are you saying that digital folk are just as obsessed with CCD's and KPT's as I am with aluminum foil, black tape boxes and plastic chemical containers of all shapes and sizes? Lisa > I must desagree with you, Lisa. the digital darkroom is a totally > different experience. Let's try to take a look at this subject from a > perspective of ten years in the future. Photoshop and similars were > first invented from the reference in the material world of silver plate > behaviours, etc., but the digital deals with different atoms that we > call pixels, and I believe it will grow even more different as the years > go by. > > In phisical photography we are totaly envolved with the camera and the > nature of film and paper. > In digital photography we have the lenses (or not, the astronomical > digital cameras are pinholes) AND the CCD, which is a chip. > A chip captures what its software tells it to capture. it may capture > heat or infrared or whatever set of lightwaves we wish. > can you imagine if Kay Krause would program a CCD? (Krause invented the > out-of-earth plugin KPT and Bryce). > I believe that the CCDs we have today are only little kids playing the > regular human eyes game. > > I have built a pinhole from my digital sony DSC-70, I saw the CCD, it is > a beautiful piece of blue cristal. > > []s > luish > > http://www.ignore.com.br > > > an Ansel Adamss > > Lisa Reddig wrote: > >> OK, I'm gonna be the PHOTOSHOP BAD person. >> >> I don't understand why so many people think working on a computer is easier >> than working in the darkroom. They will spend hours and hours dodging and >> burning and sharpening in front of a monitor, while complaining about how >> hard it is to do it in the darkroom. Why should I sit in front of a >> computer for hours to do what I can do sitting in a darkroom for hours? >> Some people are hesitant to make the switch because it is not a necessary >> switch. It is just a preference. >> >> Lisa >> > > > > ___ > 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] wondering
computers are "almost occult medium" to many people at my workplace- otherwise I wouldn't have a job as a computer technician. When you take the romanticism and emotion out of it, film and computers are just two different technologies. On the face of it, neither one can claim to be more "pure" or mystically better able to "capture light". They are just mechanical processes. Both are capable of great pictures. I used to have a similar argument with a friend who claimed that music CDs just could not capture the nuances of sound that were transcribed on his vinyl LP albums. I suspect that the fact that he had thousands of dollars wrapped up in his vinyl collection probably made him a little biased! When you take romantic and subjective opinion out of it, most people agree that digital CDs are far more capable at capturing the spectrum of sound. Still, even after all these years, I haven't thrown out my own vinyl LPs, however, I wouldn't buy one! I try to choose technologies that just "work" best, in terms of price and ability to achieve my desired end. I like using film now, and scanning it later, then printing via inkjet. The reason I use film is, for now, I get high resolution images for a relatively cheap price. I see a day, however, when I will drop film altogether- I really don't like futzing around developing color film. Water baths, temperatures, developing drums, chemicals, time, scratched film, etc. conspire to make me not even want to shoot pictures at times! On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 michelbayar...@aol.com wrote: > > Something being lost? The mystery? The > understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light is > really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? well said Jean. > > ___ > 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] wondering
I must desagree with you, Lisa. the digital darkroom is a totally different experience. Let's try to take a look at this subject from a perspective of ten years in the future. Photoshop and similars were first invented from the reference in the material world of silver plate behaviours, etc., but the digital deals with different atoms that we call pixels, and I believe it will grow even more different as the years go by. In phisical photography we are totaly envolved with the camera and the nature of film and paper. In digital photography we have the lenses (or not, the astronomical digital cameras are pinholes) AND the CCD, which is a chip. A chip captures what its software tells it to capture. it may capture heat or infrared or whatever set of lightwaves we wish. can you imagine if Kay Krause would program a CCD? (Krause invented the out-of-earth plugin KPT and Bryce). I believe that the CCDs we have today are only little kids playing the regular human eyes game. I have built a pinhole from my digital sony DSC-70, I saw the CCD, it is a beautiful piece of blue cristal. []s luish http://www.ignore.com.br an Ansel Adamss Lisa Reddig wrote: OK, I'm gonna be the PHOTOSHOP BAD person. I don't understand why so many people think working on a computer is easier than working in the darkroom. They will spend hours and hours dodging and burning and sharpening in front of a monitor, while complaining about how hard it is to do it in the darkroom. Why should I sit in front of a computer for hours to do what I can do sitting in a darkroom for hours? Some people are hesitant to make the switch because it is not a necessary switch. It is just a preference. Lisa
RE: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
Because most digital cameras are CCD, they have little lenses over the tops of each of the sensors, so are they authentically pinhole cameras? Guess it's a matter of theology. I've routinely shot several second exposures with digital cameras (not pinhole) without horrible noise problems, and you can remove a lot of noise in photoshop anyhow. Many of the infrared camera experiments in the digital world (you have to remove the infrared filter glass that sits on top of the CCD, replace it with other clear glass of exactly the same thickness) are many-second exposures. I've been craving pinhole with infrared imaging capability, difficult with Kodak now only producing 35mm infrared film. Perhaps pinhole digital is the way to go. -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???] On Behalf Of Tom Miller Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:50 AM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? Hi Robert, Look at: http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2002/index.php?id=370 There may be one or two other digital images in the gallery; but, this is the one that stuck in my mind. Tom - Original Message - From: "Fox, Robert" Subject: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? > Has anyone tried to convert a digital camera to pinhole? I'm guessing that > the results would be poor since digital ccds do not handle long exposures > well at all, resulting in a lot of digital "noise" and artifacts. But who > knows, it might look interesting.. > > I would enjoy tearing open a few of those consumer digital cameras though > and installing a pinhole! Surely someone out there has already done this?? ___ 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] Re: Wondering
What is it
that we are doing? I love pinhole photography and am retired from
traditional photo studio work. So my sister asked me recently, "why are
you and your friends intent on taking bad pictures?" I have always
felt
we had a kind of philosophy...we were trying to see the world, or time,
or light another way. And I am not down on digitalbut it is hard
to
explain to non- participants that we really are doing something, and
something important. If we sharpen the images to look like better
conventional photos, is something being lost? The mystery? The
understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light
is
really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? What can I tell my
sister? Jean
I recently joined a camera club that is based out of a nearby retirement
community and
the club is, for the most part, older and established folks that have many years
experience in film photography. They are completely smitten with all things
digital and
the convenience that it brings to picture taking, (i.e. being able to view
photos as you
take them, being able to dispose of unwanted pictures immediately,etc.) and
gave me a
good, hard time when I came in to join ("Kid, film is dead, you need a digital
camera"
and "Polaroid, didn't that go out like, 2000 years ago?"). Irony being as it
is, my
homemade Polaroid pinhole camera and lenscap pinhole pictures can hold their
own in
competition against digital cameras costing XXX times more. I've been
complimented by a
few folks on going back to basics and staving off the advance of technology by
shooting
with pinhole cameras. Do I have Luddite tendancies? No. Am I intrigued by the
process of
pinhole? More than likely the case. Sometimes it's just the ritual that I
enjoy, pinhole
being the antithesis of digital where it's all laid out in bits and bytes. I
must confess
to using Photoshop to tweak and adjust the shortcomings (and have earned the
respect of
the rest of the camera club in the process) that I have as a relatively new
photgrapher.
I would suggest to your sister that perhaps taking up a pinhole camera would
give her the
answer to her question, that it's the pinhole experience itself that provides
the answer,
the "ritual that ends in image". There's room for all of us here, I just prefer
pinhole.
I have to go work on a camera now, good luck.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Something being lost? The mystery? The understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light is really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? well said Jean.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering about photoshop sharpening
Oh my, she's got a split personality! Bad Lisa: > Lisa "the photographer" spends her weekends in a > darkroom, with chemicals on her hands and old mixed tapes playing on the old > tape player. Good Lisa: > Lisa "the employee" spends her workdays in front of a computer > screen sizing images for the web, typing and surfing. regards (and Holiday Greetings!) joseph
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
The newer, more expensive camera apparantly can handle longer exposures better. Here is a 30 second Nikon D1 exposure (not pinhole): http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD1/Samples/Night/000902-0739-37.jpg the dots in the night sky are stars, and not artifacts! In a few years, technology will increase to where long exposures will be routine, I imagine... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Byron wrote: > Indeed. I have. I took a Logitec USB digital camera as a starting > point. The images are lousy. The CCD firmware isn't all that accessible > and it's fun to tinker with. > > Start with a cheap camera...it's less painful. > > Byron > > > ___ > 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] wondering about photoshop sharpening
OK, I'm gonna be the PHOTOSHOP BAD person. I don't understand why so many people think working on a computer is easier than working in the darkroom. They will spend hours and hours dodging and burning and sharpening in front of a monitor, while complaining about how hard it is to do it in the darkroom. Why should I sit in front of a computer for hours to do what I can do sitting in a darkroom for hours? Some people are hesitant to make the switch because it is not a necessary switch. It is just a preference. I wouldn't even contemplate doing my photography on a computer. Computers are not part of my personal idea of myself as a photographer. Lisa "the photographer" spends her weekends in a darkroom, with chemicals on her hands and old mixed tapes playing on the old tape player. Lisa "the employee" spends her workdays in front of a computer screen sizing images for the web, typing and surfing. And back to Jean's original question: A pinhole camera can be made out of a box and a piece of aluminum foil. I'd like to see someone make a homemade SLR in one afternoon. With the cost of one SLR camera I can make a bazilion different pinhole cameras. That's one of the many reasons pinhole is different than traditional photography. And tell your sister that the tradition of blurry pictures is so old it's not even questioned in the art world any more, not even when done with a good camera. I of course am not saying blurry makes a picture good art, but it doesn't, in and of itself, make it a bad picture. That's just old school art speak for ya. Lisa > I've arrived at the conclusion that *any* photographic technique can be > duped digitally and don't understand why some people are hesitant to make > the switch. > > Just remember to use your best lense and take the *sharpest* photo you can. > Everything else is keyboard-frierndly. > > regards, > joseph > >>> wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear >>> them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. >> > > > > ___ > 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] digital pinhole?
Indeed. I have. I took a Logitec USB digital camera as a starting point. The images are lousy. The CCD firmware isn't all that accessible and it's fun to tinker with. Start with a cheap camera...it's less painful. Byron
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
Hi Robert, Look at: http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2002/index.php?id=370 There may be one or two other digital images in the gallery; but, this is the one that stuck in my mind. Tom - Original Message - From: "Fox, Robert" Subject: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole? > Has anyone tried to convert a digital camera to pinhole? I'm guessing that > the results would be poor since digital ccds do not handle long exposures > well at all, resulting in a lot of digital "noise" and artifacts. But who > knows, it might look interesting.. > > I would enjoy tearing open a few of those consumer digital cameras though > and installing a pinhole! Surely someone out there has already done this??
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering about photoshop sharpening
I've arrived at the conclusion that *any* photographic technique can be duped digitally and don't understand why some people are hesitant to make the switch. Just remember to use your best lense and take the *sharpest* photo you can. Everything else is keyboard-frierndly. regards, joseph > >wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear > >them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. >
[pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole?
Good discussion on this topic. Has anyone tried to convert a digital camera to pinhole? I'm guessing that the results would be poor since digital ccds do not handle long exposures well at all, resulting in a lot of digital "noise" and artifacts. But who knows, it might look interesting.. I would enjoy tearing open a few of those consumer digital cameras though and installing a pinhole! Surely someone out there has already done this?? R.J.
[pinhole-discussion] wondering about photoshop sharpening
I'm sure we've all thought about this. First of all, I also sharpen just about every scan, no matter what the source of the original image. The scans just don't match the sharpness of the original print without it in my opinion. As for combining pinhole and digital, I guess I justify myself with Adams " the negative is the composition, the print is the performance" I can't get the same images (or the same experience doing it) with regular cameras, and having been out of daily experience with the darkroom for fifteen years, I'm a pretty lousy performer with traditional methods any more, particularly contact printing paper negatives, but with a digital scan of that negative, I can get full range, burned and dodged, dust and scratch free prints, more honestly expressing what I want and what the negative holds. I imagine this discussion probably came up when Muddy Waters started playing the blues on an electric guitar. Nick Message: 6 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:53:08 -0800 From: Jean Hanson To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???" Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? About the message two days ago; a member took a pinhole image, "sharpened" it in Adobe or a digital method, and printed it out. I wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. -- -- 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
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
I had some of the same thoughts. But one can't be a Luddite about it. The Luddites invented sabotage, throwing their wooden shoes (sabots) into the newly invented machinery which they believed would destroy work as they knew it. The digital darkroom gives much to the process of creativity. It gives the possibility of printing to those without "real" darkrooms. The "essence of pinhole" will have the strength to stand on its own, and need not be defended against the advance of science. - Original Message - From: "Jean Hanson" To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???" Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:53 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering > About the message two days ago; a member took a pinhole image, > "sharpened" it in Adobe or a digital method, and printed it out. I > wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear > them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. What is it > that we are doing? I love pinhole photography and am retired from > traditional photo studio work. So my sister asked me recently, "why are > you and your friends intent on taking bad pictures?" I have always felt > we had a kind of philosophy...we were trying to see the world, or time, > or light another way. And I am not down on digitalbut it is hard to > explain to non- participants that we really are doing something, and > something important. If we sharpen the images to look like better > conventional photos, is something being lost? The mystery? The > understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light is > really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? What can I tell my > sister? Jean > > > ___ > 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] wondering
Why limit myself to 'soft-focus' images? I sharpen all my scans. It doesn't matter if they are taken with a pinhole camera or a conventional camera. My scanner produces soft scans, so I sharpen them. It costs a lot of money to have 120 film processed and printed in the UK so I process my own and scan the negatives. The Zero 2000 produces sharp images but I also like to use a 35mm body cap to produce softer pinhole images. http://www.s-rees.co.uk/pinhole/wal/2.htm I think it's nice to have the choice of a soft or sharp negative. Some subjects look better slightly soft but others need a greater resolution. - Original Message - From: "Jean Hanson" To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???" Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:53 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering > About the message two days ago; a member took a pinhole image, > "sharpened" it in Adobe or a digital method, and printed it out. I > wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear > them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. What is it > that we are doing? I love pinhole photography and am retired from > traditional photo studio work. So my sister asked me recently, "why are > you and your friends intent on taking bad pictures?" I have always felt > we had a kind of philosophy...we were trying to see the world, or time, > or light another way. And I am not down on digitalbut it is hard to > explain to non- participants that we really are doing something, and > something important. If we sharpen the images to look like better > conventional photos, is something being lost? The mystery? The > understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light is > really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? What can I tell my > sister? Jean > > > ___ > 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] Re:About Casado Pinhole
Gerorge, If you are the unnamed person, this time your comments are much more to the point. But this was your earlier comment: Snippet start -- Hmmm, okay. Very poor website design. I would like to see more pictures, get more details, maybe even find out how much it costs. I have no desire to send him an email. Anyway, I do my email through Yahoo, so this doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Too bad that something that should be so simple becomes impossible. I wonder if the camera is similarly designed. Snippet end-- In here it sounds more like an grumpy old man, seen all done all... But I can not see what the above would do for a positiv reaction, or intention to help each other out!! Admit, this was one of your off-days. FYI, Joaquin is the webmaster of these pages, so he can't blame a webmaster for eventual failure. Anf of course I know this was not Java but Javascript (Actually I did write it) Your quote: " as it would be unfortunate to have such an interesting design not be successful due to a failure by a Webmaster." If this was the real reason, I must apologize for my interpretation! As for the other Sites you tried, it seems you have a slow Internet access, but if you wait just a little longer you will see that once the Images are loaded, you can see all images and texts instanteneously! You see something that is not so simple , becomes possible:-) Okay, want to leave it like this...On with the job, doing what we came for in the first place. But, if you are not satisfied tell the owner and if you are satisfied tell the rest of the world! For now: Counting the Days on the calendar, waiting at the window for someone special to arrive, longing for the moment everyone gathers to open gifts. the holidays are filled with anticipation. Here in Driebergen-Rijsenburg we've learned that good things come to those who wait... Happy Holidays Regards, John D. esq Webmaster: Dutch Pinhole Ring __
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Jean, here are three quick thoughts... 1) When your email arrived, I was working in Photoshop, which is nearly a foreign language to me. I have difficulty getting a scanned print to look as good the original. The problem is compounded when trying to get a scanned negative to look good. Maybe a little sharpening would help. Actually, the difficulty I encounter most often is color correction. Maybe a little something extra is needed to make an image look good on a computer screen or to make up for what gets lost in the scan. 2) Some of the image characteristics of pinhole can't be easily matched by lens photography. The one that would stand out in a pinhole-sharp image is the so-called inifinite depth of field. The juxtaposition of near and far is remarkable and is easily and inexpensively obtained. 3) On the occasions when I give talks on pinhole, I mention that it is sufficient. It is sufficient in that it is as capable of expressing the full range of human experience as any great artistic medium. It is a big universe. Pinhole is also sufficient in that a person could spend a lifetime exploring its innumerable variations, subtleties and blatancies without exhausting either its or his or her creative potential. We ARE onto magic here. And the large universe provides plenty of room for scientific and empirical approaches, for sharp and fuzzy imagery and lots of fun along the way. Tom - Original Message - From: "Jean Hanson" To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???" Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:53 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering > About the message two days ago; a member took a pinhole image, > "sharpened" it in Adobe or a digital method, and printed it out. I > wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear > them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work. What is it > that we are doing? I love pinhole photography and am retired from > traditional photo studio work. So my sister asked me recently, "why are > you and your friends intent on taking bad pictures?" I have always felt > we had a kind of philosophy...we were trying to see the world, or time, > or light another way. And I am not down on digitalbut it is hard to > explain to non- participants that we really are doing something, and > something important. If we sharpen the images to look like better > conventional photos, is something being lost? The mystery? The > understanding of an almost occult medium? An atempt to see what light is > really doing as it hits and wraps around an object? What can I tell my > sister? Jean > > > ___ > 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/ >
