RE: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Ed Nazarko writes: And many lenses, even very good ones, have diffraction fringing at small apertures. ... Diffraction cannot be avoided, it's the way light behaves when going through any system. Every lens, telescope mirror and pinhole has diffraction. The best optics are said to be 'diffraction limited' which means that the optics are about as good as they can be because the other defects in the system have been reduced to below the level of the diffraction.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
erick...@hickorytech.net writes: It occurs to me that lack of sharpness in pinhole images is not inherent to the nature of diffraction photography. It is caused by lack of precision in matching the diameter of the pinhole to the distance to the film, or in less than perfect pinholes. Thus it could be said to be a lovable blemish attributable to the operator rather than an essential characteristic of the process to be defended against heresy. Or something like that. Lack of sharpness is directly caused by diffraction. The optimal pinhole for 100mm focal length can only resolve about 5 lines/mm. In addition, there are a number of things that can degrade performance even farther. Pinholes are computed for a specific wavelength, but when we use normal panchromatic film, the image is formed by a range of wavelengths. Most of the tables are computed for green light, but we are using everything from blue to red. And if you look in Eric Renners book, you see that there are various tables for pinhole size that are different because they are based on different theories. The point is that pinhole size is not that critical and we mostly don't use them in a way to create maximum sharpness.
RE: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
And many lenses, even very good ones, have diffraction fringing at small apertures. I'm starting pinhole photography specifically for the look and feel of diffraction for certain images I have in my head and want to create on film. It's only a flaw if unintended and ineffective. Or if it LOOKS unintended and ineffective. (Hey, I'll take a lucky accident as readily as the next guy...but as someone once said, the harder I work, the luckier I get.) After much digital labor, I don't believe that it can be done digitally as well as in creation of a first generation image. Also agree totally with the assertion that lack of sharpness may be due to imprecise matching of pinhole focal length and pinhole to film distance. The proliferation of commercial pinhole cameras is what convinced me of this. There seems to be a pretty consistent look to images produced by any one person's branded pinhole camera, but others get different amounts of sharpness in the images they produce using the same make (and theoretically, specification) camera and pinhole. Again, well known in lens world, normal manufacturing variability is by definition bounded by abnormal and therefore unacceptable results. Ed Nazarko -Original Message- From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???] On Behalf Of erick...@hickorytech.net Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:43 AM To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering It occurs to me that lack of sharpness in pinhole images is not inherent to the nature of diffraction photography. It is caused by lack of precision in matching the diameter of the pinhole to the distance to the film, or in less than perfect pinholes. Thus it could be said to be a lovable blemish attributable to the operator rather than an essential characteristic of the process to be defended against heresy. Or something like that. - Original Message - From: Mike Vande Bunt mike.vandeb...@mixcom.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering I understand the sentiment expressed here, but the short answer is because you can't. There is no practical way to manipulate a lens photo to make it look like one shot with a pinhole. You can make it fizzy, but that's not the same thing. (If you stop a lens down to f/125 you can get a pinhol- like shot, but you can get the same shot by stopping the lens down to f/125 and removing all the glass elements from it...) I would say that 95% of the time, sharpening added added to a scanned pinhole shot is to correct for problems caused by the scanning process. The sharpening is not (usually) being added to make the pinhile shot look better, but to make it look more like the original. Mike Vande Bunt Jean Hanson wrote: 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/ ___ 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
It occurs to me that lack of sharpness in pinhole images is not inherent to the nature of diffraction photography. It is caused by lack of precision in matching the diameter of the pinhole to the distance to the film, or in less than perfect pinholes. Thus it could be said to be a lovable blemish attributable to the operator rather than an essential characteristic of the process to be defended against heresy. Or something like that. - Original Message - From: Mike Vande Bunt mike.vandeb...@mixcom.com To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] wondering I understand the sentiment expressed here, but the short answer is because you can't. There is no practical way to manipulate a lens photo to make it look like one shot with a pinhole. You can make it fizzy, but that's not the same thing. (If you stop a lens down to f/125 you can get a pinhol- like shot, but you can get the same shot by stopping the lens down to f/125 and removing all the glass elements from it...) I would say that 95% of the time, sharpening added added to a scanned pinhole shot is to correct for problems caused by the scanning process. The sharpening is not (usually) being added to make the pinhile shot look better, but to make it look more like the original. Mike Vande Bunt Jean Hanson wrote: 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/ ___ 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
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 dger...@adobe.com 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 dger...@adobe.com 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] wondering
Hi Traci, They were taken with beer cans. I used bw 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 bonk...@bonkersfiber.com 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] 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] 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
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] 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.
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] 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
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] 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.
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 jhan...@pon.net To: pinhole-discussion-request@p at ??? pinhole-discussion@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 jhan...@pon.net To: pinhole-discussion-request@p at ??? pinhole-discussion@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] 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 jhan...@pon.net To: pinhole-discussion-request@p at ??? pinhole-discussion@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/
