Re: [pinhole-discussion] Silver prints from digital files?
Nick, I have just started down that road myself, and the guy who does my silver printing told me that he now has that capability to do so. He can print RC, fiber, or platinum. For my work, I do 8x10 black and white Polaroid transfers; scan them, have negs made and then print them to fiber in editions of 10. I use both pinhole and lens cameras for this technique. The company is called RichPrints owned by Rich Silha. He is a very pleasant man to do business with and a pleasure to talk to. His number is 612-338-7172 and he is located in Minneapolis. Hope this helps. Bill Mull- Nick Dvoracek wrote: > > Does anyone know if a vendor exists who outputs digital files to real > silver prints. Fiber would be great but I could live with RC. My > local camera store didn't know of any. I can't imagine there's a lot > of market, but you never know what someone might specialize in. > > I know there's been a lot of discussion of inkjet and other computer > output. We have a Xerox/Tektronix Phaser 7700 color laser printer > that puts out really good black and white print quality and can do it > on a wide variety of papers. Are people exhibiting these inkjet and > laser print images? Do juried shows accept them? > > Nick > -- > -- > Nick Dvoracek dvora...@uwosh.edu > Director of Media Services Voice: 920-424-7363 > University of Wisconsin OshkoshFax: 920-424-7324 > http://idea.uwosh.edu/media_services/home.html > http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/handouts.htm > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Type 55 reciprocity adjustments
I simply sandwich my negatives in between store-bought baby wipes. They are already moist and come packaged in a variety of sizes. I put them in a ziplock baggy so they stay moist and have had no problems with this method as of yet. Bill- dalf...@aol.com wrote: > My question to those of you who use Type 55 in the field is this, "How do you > keep the negative moist until you get home and can process the neg with HCA ? > A holding tank of some sort, a bucket of water, zip lock baggie filled with > water, ? Any suggestions . ? > > Thanks > dalf...@aol.com > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Art 21: Ann Hamilton
Lisa, I too understand about being a little uncomfortable shooting in public. What helped me with this issue was to go someplace that didn't have a lot people present. I used to shoot a lot of seascapes from the beach close to where I used to live. I would go there early on the weekend mornings because of the light quality and because there were usually no more than a handful of people there as well. Actually I became so comfortable there that I started to explore every knook and cranny of this small stretch of beach. It's amazing what you can find in a tiny area when you look at it from all angles. After several weeks of going to the same place, I started to notice that the people I saw were there on the same consistent basis that I was. They themselves became familiar even though I didn't know them, which led to me being more comfortable. After a while, some of them approached me and asked what I was doing. They were genuinely curious and I got a chance to explain to them about pinhole photography and what it was. Bill- Lisa Reddig wrote: It's rather awkward. I can't even take pictures in public, outside of my apartment. I always feel like people are stareing at me. It makes me really uncomfortable, so I don't enjoy doing my art, so therefore I tend not to do it. The process of making the image has become so private and personal to me that I can't share it with anyone. Except my cats of course. I may be limiting myself, but this limit has caused me to explore more in > the place I live and exist comfortably. > > lisa > __ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film
I develop all my 8x10 sheet film in trays and haven't had any problems with scratching. I use Ilford HP5. You really shouldn't have a problem with this method, however I will give you a tip on what not to do... A few years ago while my wife and I were living in a small apartment in California, I used to develop all my film in the spare bedroom which was also our storage room as well. Very small space. All I could use as a work surface was an old ironing board we had stored in there. The board was just long enough to fit 3 trays for 8x10 film...developer, stop bath, fixer. To make a longer story shorter, while developing some film, the catch bar on the ironing board released itself and the whole setup came crashing to the ground; filled trays and all. I could feel the chemicals soaking in the carpet as I was barefoot, and I just stood there in the dark for a moment trying to figure out how I was going to explain this to my wife. We lost our security deposit on that apartment. Bill- R Duarte wrote: > > hey, i'd like to try using 4x5 sheet film. does anyone have suggestions on > the easiest way that i could develop it? should i just use trays in the > dark? is there something easier without buying the $150 developing tank i > saw at the local camera store? :) you can email me directly instead of > sending to the list since it's not necessarily pinhole related - although > i'm asking because i want to finally use FILM in the pinhole camera i built > to accept 4x5 film backs. thanks for any info.. > rob > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 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/
[pinhole-discussion] Rotating Pinhole
Hi all. I have a question that I have been hesitant to post for fear it may seem a bit foolish, but after thinking about it for a few months; I've decided to ask now. I don't know if anyone has tried/experimented with this sort of thing, but it's an idea that popped into my head a while back. Has anyone tried to use a pinhole camera in which the camera was stationary but the pinhole rotated or spun? By this I mean the pinhole itself would stay aligned to the film plane but but it would simply spin in a circle. The reason I ask is this...Would the light passing through the spinning pinhole be affected in any way shape or form? Would it alter the image? I don't know if something like this is even feasible to make, but I thought it was an interesting scenario and maybe some of the more scientifically-minded ones could share an answer. Would this be a worthwhile attempt or would I just be spinning my wheels? Thanks- Bill-
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Type 55 Polaroid materials, et al..
That's true, you don't have to fix the negatives. However, there is a two part Fix/Hardener solution available ( Kodak, I believe ) where you can harden the negative so it will be more scratch resistant. You just don't use the Fix portion of it. Regards- Bill- Colin Talcroft wrote: > > It's been a while since I've done this, so I'm a bit > uncertain, but for the sake of clarity, I was hoping > someone who uses the Type 55 regularly will chime > in--as far as I remember, you don't need to fix Type > 55 negatives, you simply clear them with the sodium > sulfite or Permawash--or am I going crazy? > > Comments appreciated. > > Colin
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Polaroid for newbies?
Jeff Dilcher wrote: > > Does anyone know a good site for someone who knows nothing > about Polaroid to learn? What film, what are the properties, > caveats, etc? Jeff, This is a good place to look... http://www.polaroidwork.com/prophoto/prophoto_home.jsp Bill- _ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] (no subject)
Natalie Nadozirny wrote: > Is peeling apart an exposed and developed Polaroid 600 film safe? Hi Natalie. I have been using Polaroid products for years and almost exclusively do Polaroid Transfers. I have not had any problems what-so-ever with the caustic paste used in their process. This is not to undermine any of the potential hazards that may exist, i.e. getting the paste in your eyes, etc. I always have a wet wash cloth in my working area in case I get some of the paste on my hands or work surface. If you happen to have extra sensitive skin, gloves may be needed; though I don't use them. If you follow Polaroid's directions for handling their product, you shouldn't have any problems. Have fun. Bill- Natalie Nadozirny wrote: > Is peeling apart an exposed and developed Polaroid 600 film safe? > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] new image
Hello all. A sculptor friend of mine is working on a web site for her work and wanted some photos taken...preferably something "artsy." So, after taking many shots with a lens camera on Polaroid film, I decided to do some shots with the 8x10 pinhole camera on Polaroid film. She was amazed at the image produced by a "big square box." Furthermore she liked the resulting image much more than the ones taken with more conventional means. Chalk up another pinhole fan. The photo is titled "Angels", and can be seen at the upload gallery. Sorry for not providing a direct link as that knowledge still eludes me. Regards, Bill- http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2001.php?cmd=max&start=&pic=angels.jpg
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Speaking of Polaroid...
I've been wondering 'bout that myself, but haven't found anything on the net. If you find out anything be sure to let us know. Bill- pinhol...@aol.com wrote: > > Hi All! > > The talk about 4x5 Polaroid reminded me of a special Polaroid > camera...their > 20x24. Anyone ever hear of a pinhole image made with one of those? > > Joel
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Small, Medium or Large?
Hi Wayne and welcome to pinhole photography. You won't regret it! My personal preference for pinhole is to use large format cameras. Actually, all my pinhole work is done in large format...it's just what I'm most comfortable with. Aside from that, you just can't beat the use of Polaroid film with pinhole/large format photography (just my opinion). For me, it's all I use anymore. Having the instant results will let you know where you stand on your exposures and you can recalibrate accordingly. Also, I don't have acces to any darkrooms in my area so the instant film is the best way to go. Hope this helps. Just remember, do what works best for you! Regards, Bill- waynerol...@aol.com wrote: > > Hello: > > I have been looking at pinhole pictures for the past two weeks and have been > reading Eric Renner's outstanding book, Pinhole Photography, and as a result > have resolved to explore pinhole and zone plate photography myself. I have > so many questions, but today I have been thinking about what format to focus > on. I have Crown Graphic 4x5, Mamiya Press 2x3 and Nikon 35mm cameras that > are > available for adaptation for zone plate and pinhole photography. > > 1) Aside the aesthetic attractiveness of creating pictures that are part > investigation and part meditation, etc., what are the practical benefits of > making zone plate and pinhole photographs with the medium and large format > cameras listed above over the 35mm? > > 2) What are the pitfalls in using zone plate bodycap and pinhole bodycap > apertures in small format cameras? And what are the workarounds and working > methods for small format zone plate/pinhole photography? > > Thanks, > Wayne > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Polaroid exposures
Correction... I meant to write f16 @ 1/125 sec instead of 1/100 sec (as indicated below). Bill- The Painted Horse wrote: > Hi Guillermo, > Thank you for your reply. Obviously, I miscalculated the math for my > exposures > (*sigh*). However, just to clarify..on the calculations given below, wouldn't > it be f16 @ 1/100 secs and not 1/25 sec? I apologize if I am incorrect, but > I'm trying to understand the basis for the formula and the 804 film is ASA > 100. Given this, wouldn't the initial exposure (not factoring in reciprocity) > then be around 10 sec. rather than 40 sec? > > ___ > > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > > unsubscribe or change your account at > > http://www.p at ???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Polaroid exposures
Hi Guillermo, Thank you for your reply. Obviously, I miscalculated the math for my exposures (*sigh*). However, just to clarify..on the calculations given below, wouldn't it be f16 @ 1/100 secs and not 1/25 sec? I apologize if I am incorrect, but I'm trying to understand the basis for the formula and the 804 film is ASA 100. Given this, wouldn't the initial exposure (not factoring in reciprocity) then be around 10 sec. rather than 40 sec? To answer your question I had taken a metered reading of the northern sky rather than the snow for these exposures. The reflection was just too bright from the snow for me to think I would get an accurate reading. The reading came to EV16. Now, here is the part that, looking back, I can't explain...somehow I came to an exposure of 15 minutes. Please don't ask me how I did this, as now that I am thinking about it, I have no idea. Nontheless, an obvious miscalculation on my part. Unfortunately the snow has melted but I will be out again this weekend to try once more. Thanks again! Bill- "G.Penate" wrote: > Bill, > Using sunny/16, your exposure should be f/16 > @ 1/25 secs. There are about 10 stops separating f/16 from f/500, therefore > for your camera, the uncorrected exposure time should be around 40 secs (2^10 > * 1/25). > > Could you tell us what's your metered or estimated uncorrected exposure time > and actual exposure times you have used? > > Guillermo > > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] Polaroid exposures
Hello All! I could use some help here. We just got a wonderful spring time snowfall yesterday (10") and it got me out and about with my 8x10 pinhole camera (due to the extra light reflection of the snow). I tried using Polaroid type 804 ASA 100 (first time using this film) and I can't seem to get the exposures correct. The prints keep coming out real light. Now, I could keep adjusting the time exposures but it is expensive film and I really don't want to use the whole box of film as testing material (that is, if I can help it). The camera is a normal focal length (13 inches) Leonardo 8x10 and the pinhole is F 500. Anyone out there do 8x10 pinhole Polaroids? For some reason the time charts I use for Ilford HP5 aren't working. And yes, I calculate for the difference in the film speeds. Any help would be appreciated. Oh, by the way, I let the Polaroid film warm up before processing it, and it is fresh film. Thank you in advance! Bill-
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 20x24
I contacted Polaroid several months ago to see if they sold the 20x24" film sheets (I really wanted to use this film). I was told it was only distributed to the studios that host the 20x24 camera and was not available to the general public. Now, that was several months ago. Since Wisner is making the Polaroid processor, maybe the film can be bought from Wisner?? I haven't checked, but since I don't have the processor or camera to use the film I guess it is a moot point. I'll just keep using their 8x10 film. Bill- Pam Niedermayer wrote: > > I'd suspect it's possible, given that Wisner sells a 20x24 system. > What I haven't figured out is where do you buy the film, so I've > emailed Polaroid for more information. And I don't know whether Wisner > had to license any technology from Polaroid. > > Pam > > che lawrence wrote: > > > > do any of you remember hearing something about an instructor at the museum > > school(MFA boston) making a 20x24 camera like polaroids 20x24. he was sued > > by polaroid for patent infringments. do you think that those of us out here > > could make a 20x24 with a back for polaroid film? i would really like to > > explore the possibilty. > > _ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > ___ > > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > > unsubscribe or change your account at > > http://www.p at ???/discussion/ > > -- > Pamela G. Niedermayer > Pinehill Softworks Inc. > 600 W. 28th St., Suite 103 > Austin, TX 78705 > 512-236-1677 > http://www.pinehill.com > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] 20x24 pinhole camera
Hello all. I'm interested in building a 20x24" pinhole camera, preferably a take-down model. Has anyone out there tried to attempt this? I currently do all my pinhole work in 8x10" so I am well aware of the long exposures this may entail...which also makes it all the more enticing. My biggest concern I'm trying to resolve is how I would mount such a large camera on a tripod and keeping it stable. Though I'm sure it's possible to do, it may not be the best way to go. Maybe set it on a couple of saw horses?? Anyway, just wondering if anyone out there attempted such a feat and what were the obstacles that occurred. I do remember reading in Pinhole Journal about a photo artist who used a 20x24" pinhole camera a few years ago. I can not remember his name, however. Thanks in advance. Bill-
