daveleo
what?
The world will never be the same.
I mounted a body cap pinhole on my D5100 and stepped in this brave new world.
That's a 35mm viewfinder - I must get a 50mm viewfinder, as that is close to the field of view of this 0.2mm pinhole on my APS-C camera.
.
.
.
I mounted a body cap pinhole on my D5100 and stepped in this brave new world.
That's a 35mm viewfinder - I must get a 50mm viewfinder, as that is close to the field of view of this 0.2mm pinhole on my APS-C camera.
.
.
.
jon.oman
Well-known
You did very well making this image! I've tried the pinhole body cap, but I was never happy with the results. This image is much better than what I was able to do.
I have been shooting film pinhole images, from 35mm to 8x10 inch xray film. I have been much happier with the film results......
I have been shooting film pinhole images, from 35mm to 8x10 inch xray film. I have been much happier with the film results......
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Have you looked at godfrey's pinhole work? He's been doing a lot with Skink body caps on different cameras and getting fascinating images. I got a Pinwide for m43, shot some outdoors & low light indoors, but it ended with a Meh. And I even have a lovely book on pinhole photography. Seems the best pinhole cameras are those invented from scratch where the conceptual and building effort are worth as much or more than the image itself.
daveleo
what?
Jon,
The pinhole images you have posted here and in your web galleries are just
super, and you work in general is wonderful. Far more artistic than anything
I have created (so far anyway
).
Robert,
Yes, I discovered Godfrey's images and others in this sub-forum and enjoy
them quite a bit. In fact, that's what inspired me to try out this "new"
technology. As far as making my own camera - if I can do it with 2X4's and
plywood, okay, but any craft that requires nimble fingers is outside my
domain (Oh looking at http://roberthilllong.tumblr.com/ . . . . .
the Dalai Lama is a wise and funny and insightful thinker,
and a cool speaker - is that closed captioning that I see along side him speaking ? ? - very neat idea )
The pinhole images you have posted here and in your web galleries are just
super, and you work in general is wonderful. Far more artistic than anything
I have created (so far anyway
).Robert,
Yes, I discovered Godfrey's images and others in this sub-forum and enjoy
them quite a bit. In fact, that's what inspired me to try out this "new"
technology. As far as making my own camera - if I can do it with 2X4's and
plywood, okay, but any craft that requires nimble fingers is outside my
domain
(Oh looking at http://roberthilllong.tumblr.com/ . . . . . the Dalai Lama is a wise and funny and insightful thinker,
and a cool speaker - is that closed captioning that I see along side him speaking ? ? - very neat idea )
daveleo
what?
Let's call this my second pinhole picture . . . (from the Audubon sanctuary today) - I cropped it to 16:9 . . .
JohnTF
Veteran
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=136077
I used to do quite a lot more, I found some surplus aerial film in a long roll, only yellow antihalation and ortho, used it in many cameras, I think I had more fun with the tubes, the image would extend from about 3mm on each side of the pinhole and wrap all the way. I tried traveling with a military flashlight and its red filters, to reload the cameras-- there is a lot you can do with pinhole.
We used to soup in paper developers by inspection as the film was ortho. Most common comment was the satisfaction kids got from making a camera from almost nothing. They learned microscope skills as they had to inspect their pinholes. Somewhere is a large box of empty Paint cans left over.
I have done limited work with digital pinhole-- but we had a lot of interesting projects, many with students.
If I can figure it out, I will try and attach a shot with a IIIc, and body cap pinhole.
Eric Renner's books are terrific, and he is a very decent sort.
I recall Eric used some prints made from a very old camera that used both pinhole and a lens-- in theory the light in the very center of the lens should go straight through?
Regards, John
I used to do quite a lot more, I found some surplus aerial film in a long roll, only yellow antihalation and ortho, used it in many cameras, I think I had more fun with the tubes, the image would extend from about 3mm on each side of the pinhole and wrap all the way. I tried traveling with a military flashlight and its red filters, to reload the cameras-- there is a lot you can do with pinhole.
We used to soup in paper developers by inspection as the film was ortho. Most common comment was the satisfaction kids got from making a camera from almost nothing. They learned microscope skills as they had to inspect their pinholes. Somewhere is a large box of empty Paint cans left over.
I have done limited work with digital pinhole-- but we had a lot of interesting projects, many with students.
If I can figure it out, I will try and attach a shot with a IIIc, and body cap pinhole.
Eric Renner's books are terrific, and he is a very decent sort.
I recall Eric used some prints made from a very old camera that used both pinhole and a lens-- in theory the light in the very center of the lens should go straight through?
Regards, John
daveleo
what?
My third pinhole picture
My third pinhole picture
My third pinhole picture
charjohncarter
Veteran
There must be something wrong with digital pinholes, or maybe I'm wrong. But I will say that in my experience the bigger the format the better. I've tried 35mm film pinhole without much luck. But the bigger the format the better. Now this is just me, but here are a few:
Polaroid Pinhole (homemade), and as you know Polaroid film is not sharp film.
and this is a 6x7 pinhole
Polaroid Pinhole (homemade), and as you know Polaroid film is not sharp film.
and this is a 6x7 pinhole
daveleo
what?
^ Well, yeh, but . .. . a 6X7 negative is 10X the area of an APS-C sensor.
That's the big difference in clarity, it's not the digital/film difference.
That's the big difference in clarity, it's not the digital/film difference.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I don't think I said digital/film difference, if I implied that I meant format difference.
daveleo
what?
Ah yes, I see.
I read too much into your opening phrase.
Sorry about that !
EDIT: I actually like the smooth, blurry look of the pinhole pictures (in some situations) -
it's like "smooth bokeh all over the place" - that's why I am experimenting with it.
I read too much into your opening phrase.
Sorry about that !
EDIT: I actually like the smooth, blurry look of the pinhole pictures (in some situations) -
it's like "smooth bokeh all over the place" - that's why I am experimenting with it.
JohnTF
Veteran
A contact print was always the best.
I shot some pinhole on 8x10, and it was possible to mistake it for a lens image.
I know I have seen accounts of combination lens/pinhole cameras from the early 20th Century-- overall, pinhole photography is interesting in any number of ways.
The exposure time is long, so objects moving through the frame may well not be recorded, or be recorded as a ghost image.
The depth of field is very interesting.
I have one or two pinhole images in my gallery here, and about the largest print I could get from a IIIc/pinhole image was 5x7, but interestingly, when I scanned it with a flat bed scanner, I could get much larger images, I assume from the software interpolation ?
Always a learning and creative tool.
Regards, John
I shot some pinhole on 8x10, and it was possible to mistake it for a lens image.
I know I have seen accounts of combination lens/pinhole cameras from the early 20th Century-- overall, pinhole photography is interesting in any number of ways.
The exposure time is long, so objects moving through the frame may well not be recorded, or be recorded as a ghost image.
The depth of field is very interesting.
I have one or two pinhole images in my gallery here, and about the largest print I could get from a IIIc/pinhole image was 5x7, but interestingly, when I scanned it with a flat bed scanner, I could get much larger images, I assume from the software interpolation ?
Always a learning and creative tool.
Regards, John
daveleo
what?
^ Yes I have also experimenting with motion. My results are not good
The discussion has my techy brain working - the last image that In posted here is about 50% of the original picture.
That means the image you see was recorded on a piece of sensor about 0.5" X 0.4" - now that is SMALL !
The discussion has my techy brain working - the last image that In posted here is about 50% of the original picture.
That means the image you see was recorded on a piece of sensor about 0.5" X 0.4" - now that is SMALL !
robert blu
quiet photographer
Congrats Dave, you are starting an interesting journey along "pinhole road"! Keep posting your results! I like very much your third picture, could be the cover of a book about...
robert
robert
JohnTF
Veteran
^ Yes I have also experimenting with motion. My results are not good
The discussion has my techy brain working - the last image that In posted here is about 50% of the original picture.
That means the image you see was recorded on a piece of sensor about 0.5" X 0.4" - now that is SMALL !
Waterfalls work well and rivers. and I have a couple in my gallery shot in Prague, one with Swans by the river, who remained relatively still for the 30 second exposure.
John
daveleo
what?
^ John,
That is a lovely photo (the swans).
That is a lovely photo (the swans).
JohnTF
Veteran
Thanks so much, I believe I have another posted from the same day of the Charles Bridge. Prints are about 5x7, on Czech Neobrom paper.
I made the pinhole from .002 or .003 brass shim stock mounted on a body cap on the IIIc. Light tripod pushed down during exposure.
I did not do much pinhole with 35mm, as you really must enlarge with small formats, though some cameras I made exposed on to the sprocket perfs which is interesting. Have considered making a composite set of strips to fill an 8x10 holder.
However, I am beginning to think when you scan the smaller prints from such negatives, you can enlarge them, -- soft ware interpolation at play?
I can get a much larger digital print from the analog original -- cheating? Perhaps, though perhaps serendipitous. Have not got it sorted.
John
daveleo
what?
Well, my Skink set got here and I am shooting away with it.
Have not yet found the groove, but I am heading towards simple compositions with solid areas.
This is a whole other world really.
Have not yet found the groove, but I am heading towards simple compositions with solid areas.
This is a whole other world really.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Nice!
Pinhole is a learning curve. DSLR bodies and mirror clearance are deep enough that it's hard to get a wide-angle pinhole view, 40-50 mm is the typical view possible. I like it anyway ..
And yes, the bigger the format, the better the quality with pinholes. That said, I kinda like the roughness of shooting hand-held at "barely usable" exposure and sensitivity values ...
One of my favorites:
Skink FT zone plate on adapter with E-PL1 body
Godfrey
Pinhole is a learning curve. DSLR bodies and mirror clearance are deep enough that it's hard to get a wide-angle pinhole view, 40-50 mm is the typical view possible. I like it anyway ..
And yes, the bigger the format, the better the quality with pinholes. That said, I kinda like the roughness of shooting hand-held at "barely usable" exposure and sensitivity values ...
One of my favorites:
Skink FT zone plate on adapter with E-PL1 body
Godfrey
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
For small-format pinhole I like a bit of granularity or noise in the image. Of course the subject matter has to work with it, something a bit mysterious, or diminutive, that doesn't require or rely on high amounts of detail.
I've built so many pinhole cameras over the years that I've lost count, but the larger the format the more detail (assuming the pinhole size is optimized for the camera projection length), up to a point. Too high of a focal ratio and the extended exposure times required for film or paper means excessive camera vibration or subject movement, which limits how much image detail gets captured.
My favorite pinhole camera format at the moment, after having built and used cameras from sub-Minox format to 24"x30" sized, is 5"x7". My crudely built foamcore and gaffer tape box camera has a storage compartment behind the film plane for over 50 sheets of film or paper, and fits inside a standard changing bag, perfect for day trips or vacations.
The first image shows the camera exterior, covered in adhesive silver plastic film. The second image shows the magnetic strips that hold the paper negatives in place (the paper is cut to 5"x8" from 8"x10" sheets, the extra 1/2" on each side is where the magnets hold the paper in place), behind which is the storage compartment with divider separating exposed from undexposed paper.
~Joe
I've built so many pinhole cameras over the years that I've lost count, but the larger the format the more detail (assuming the pinhole size is optimized for the camera projection length), up to a point. Too high of a focal ratio and the extended exposure times required for film or paper means excessive camera vibration or subject movement, which limits how much image detail gets captured.
My favorite pinhole camera format at the moment, after having built and used cameras from sub-Minox format to 24"x30" sized, is 5"x7". My crudely built foamcore and gaffer tape box camera has a storage compartment behind the film plane for over 50 sheets of film or paper, and fits inside a standard changing bag, perfect for day trips or vacations.
The first image shows the camera exterior, covered in adhesive silver plastic film. The second image shows the magnetic strips that hold the paper negatives in place (the paper is cut to 5"x8" from 8"x10" sheets, the extra 1/2" on each side is where the magnets hold the paper in place), behind which is the storage compartment with divider separating exposed from undexposed paper.
~Joe