Re: [pinhole-discussion] questions & comments
Murray writes: > > BUT, people are telling me I will probably be disappointed by anything > larger than 5 x 7 or so from my 35 mm pinhole negatives because they say > pinhole images are "not very sharp". Actually, what they are telling you is that THEY will be disappointed by anything larger than 5X7. How could they know what you are looking for? Just maybe you are seeking results that they may not desire. Thank goodness we all enjoy something different! Cheers - george = Handmade Photographic Images http://members.home.net/hmpi/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] questions & comments
Murray writes: > > BUT, people are telling me I will probably be disappointed by anything > larger than 5 x 7 or so from my 35 mm pinhole negatives because they say > pinhole images are "not very sharp". > > Is this just anecdotal advice from people who simply poked a hole without > consideration of all the things that play a role(that wasn't supposed to > rhyme, it was an accident)? (Optimal hole diameter/focal length, thickness > and roundness of pinhole material and resultant hole, etc.) Just as an example, the optimal pinhole for 100 mm focal length will resolve about 5 line pairs / mm. That will make a fairly sharp looking contact print but doesn't come close to the resolution of a lens, which can be in the 80 to 100 lines/mm range. So unless you want the artistic effect of enlarging a pinhole negative, it's best to contact print them.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] questions & comments
- Original Message - From: "Gordon J. Holtslander" > You are more or less correct, as you enlarge your image from a pinhole > negative on 35 mm film you will be making the limited resolution of the > image more apparent. > > If you want a really sharp 8x10 pinhole images the best way to produce > this is with a pinhole camera that takes 8x10 inch negatives. This can be > done without a full-fledged darkroom That is right, for "sharpness" an 8x10 contact print is best. Long time ago, I was told: "35mm pinholes images fall apart when enlarged". See how this one falls apart: Warning: 150Kbytes http://members.home.com/penate/originales/big.jpg The above image is the raw scanning (no digital manipulation whatsoever) of an 8x10 print obtained by enlarging a full 35mm format frame, If you use your monitor with a 1024x768 resolution, the above image would show up us a 9X (or so) enlargement of the original 35mm negative. I'd let you decide if it is possible to have relatively sharp images larger than 5x7 from your 35mm format pinhole camera. BTW, the camera was a 35mm disposable camera with a pinhole 14mm from the film, here is a picture of it: http://members.home.com/penate/cameras/14f.jpg Having said all that, unsharp pinhole images like this one, by Tom Lindsay: http://www.???/pinholer/exhibits/TL.html have nothing to envy from "sharp"ones. Guillermo
Re: [pinhole-discussion] questions & comments
Hi: I _think_ this is what happens - knowledgeable people feel free to correct me. There are two things that limit the pinhole resolution: I believe a pinhole image's - the negative - limit of resolution is the size of the pinhole - The finest detail the image can create is the same as the diameter of the pinhole. If this were the only factor then one could make an infinitely small pinhole and create images with "infinite" detail. Unfortunately light diffracts around the edges of the pinhole. The smaller the pinhole the more diffraction. At a certain point making the pinhole smaller makes the image less sharp. There are formulas for determining the ideal pinhole. It is still possible to get very sharp pinhole images. The ideal method is to not enlarge the negative but contact print it. You are more or less correct, as you enlarge your image from a pinhole negative on 35 mm film you will be making the limited resolution of the image more apparent. If you want a really sharp 8x10 pinhole images the best way to produce this is with a pinhole camera that takes 8x10 inch negatives. This can be done without a full-fledged darkroom. See my website for examples and details: http://cyano.usask.ca/cgi-bin/photo/index.cgi If you want color images this becomes a little more challenging - you could use large format color film or ilfochrome. If this is what you really want to do I would recommend getting used doing this in black&white first. On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 mvdtempor...@aol.com wrote: > Hello: > > Excuse me if I already asked this - if I did, I forgot the replies already > (but I don't think I did). > > > BUT, people are telling me I will probably be disappointed by anything > larger than 5 x 7 or so from my 35 mm pinhole negatives because they say > pinhole images are "not very sharp". > > Is this just anecdotal advice from people who simply poked a hole without > consideration of all the things that play a role(that wasn't supposed to > rhyme, it was an accident)? (Optimal hole diameter/focal length, thickness > and roundness of pinhole material and resultant hole, etc.) > > Thanks > > Murray > > - Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology hol...@duke.usask.ca112 Science Place http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsgUniversity of Saskatchewan Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2 -
Re: [pinhole-discussion] questions & comments
My standard, sincere, reply to questions about '"will it work?" is "try it'. Pinhole is not primarily about sharp anyway, depth of field issues aside. You may especially like soft, glowing color pinhole images. . - Original Message - From: mvdtempor...@aol.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:49 PM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] questions & comments Hello: Excuse me if I already asked this - if I did, I forgot the replies already (but I don't think I did). Oh, firstly, apologies for the html forwarding garbage characters...I don't think AOL software lets one too picky about how they do things. I am a little confused, perhaps only by my expectations. I have picked up on the concept that pinhole gives phenomenal (am I overenthusiastic?) depth-of-field due to the typically large f-stops attained by usual camera designs. BUT, people are telling me I will probably be disappointed by anything larger than 5 x 7 or so from my 35 mm pinhole negatives because they say pinhole images are "not very sharp". Is this just anecdotal advice from people who simply poked a hole without consideration of all the things that play a role(that wasn't supposed to rhyme, it was an accident)? (Optimal hole diameter/focal length, thickness and roundness of pinhole material and resultant hole, etc.) We have a few of those color xerography transfers from a local photographer...I'm sure technique, patience and materials play a role...she hasn't been happy with all color copy machine or their operators (copy-jockies?)...some are interesting, some are 'lame'. She won't tell us what solvents she uses. Maybe I could try that with my first pinhole roll which is color...what chance do I have of lucking out and getting accurate color as a pinhole beginner anyway, so why not experiment? Murray (local ISP and 'normal' e-mail address still suffering technical difficulties - I feel sorry for them - down a week, so you know they're catching grief!) Murray Thanks Murray
RE: [pinhole-discussion] questions & comments
Murray wrote >>> BUT, people are telling me I will probably be disappointed by anything larger than 5 x 7 or so from my 35 mm pinhole negatives because they say pinhole images are "not very sharp". <<< Murry, My favorite pinhole camera is a large popcorn tin. It uses 11x14 photo paper with a 2.5 to 4 min exposure time in the sun. My lens is highly technical, I poked a hole with a straight pin in an old piece of pop can, no idea what size it is. :-) The photos are very sharp and if I EVER get better with stiching scans together I plan to publish them to the gallery. My newest large format pinhole, I am working with this fall, will be 24" in dia and 36" tall. I plan on using roll mural photo paper. Good luck, Chuck Flagg
