F/238 Pinhole - Pool view - TMax 400, 15 secs
Photo thanks to Clint O'Connor
His Very First Pinhole Photo!
[see Clint's Web Site for more Pinhole Photos and Projects!]
Related Links:
Anamorphic Pinhole Camera [7/2001]
Beseler's 6x9cm Pinhole Camera Kit
Clint O'Connor's Pinhole Web Site [9/2000]
Douglas Art Studio Pinhole Photos.. [3/2002]
Holga Modifications Page (pinholes.. by Clint O'Connor) [7/2001]
Kenko Pinhole Lens [1/2001]
Panoramic Pinhole Pages [7/2001]
Pinhole Cameras
Pinhole discussion list
Pinhole Photography by David Stein (including cylindricals) [7/2001]
Worldwide Pinhole Photography day [10/2002]
Zone Plate Photography (Guillermo Penate) [8/2000]
(zone plate article local archive)
Pinholes are fun, interesting, low-cost, and offer some surprising
capabilities. Pinholes are lens-less cameras, in which image is formed by
light passing through the tiny camera's pinhole. You can use any film
holder in a homemade pinhole, including spare medium format film
backs where the dark slide is removable off the camera.
Sheet film holders are popular for reasons of ease of use and economy.
Pinholes are obviously slow, due to the small aperture of the opening,
with values beyond f/128 being common. Naturally, that means either fast
film and long exposures, or slow film and really long exposures ;-).
You can use a tripod or other support for the long exposure.
You don't
need a shutter, since the exposures are so long. You just uncover and
cover the opening! Since there is no shutter, and no lens, pinholes
are potentially inexpensive to build. You can also find fine wood
finished pinholes for sale from around $100 US up that take sheet film
holders (e.g., 6x9cm or 4x5 inches).
You can buy medium format body caps in which a hole has been drilled, a
piece of foil mounted, with the foil having a laser-blasted hole. Such
holes are neater than most drilled holes of similar small size. You can
do something similar yourself with a body cap and a drill, mounting a
piece of foil, and poking or drilling a pinhole. See the many online
pinhole camera resources (including site listed above).
Pinholes come in different focal lengths, as it were. A short distance from
pinhole to film plane makes for a wide angle design, while a long
distance related to a telephoto one. The March 1998 Shutterbug has a Tom
Fuller
article on making a tele-photo pinhole using a long cardboard tube.
If the pinhole is well-made, and small enough, you can get reasonably
sharp images with a time exposure. At most pinhole apertures beyond f/64,
the pinhole rivals the performance of most lenses. Since there are no
controls, pinhole operation is usually simple once the individual setup's
parameters have been measured and studies.
The excellent review by Michael Gudzinowicz posted below provides a great
overview of pinhole camera operations, and motivated setting up this page.
Thanks, Michael!
---
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
[1] Re: info on pinholes
Date: Wed Feb 18 1998
I'll save you the trouble of looking for it. Assume the film spot size or diameter of a star image is equal to the pinhole diameter (D) ignoring diffraction. Spot = D The diffraction limited spot size is: Spot = 2 * W * L / D where W is the light wavelength, L is the distance from the aperture to film, and D is the aperture diameter. For green light, assume W is 1/1800 mm. Combining the two equations gives: D = L / (900 * D) D^2 = L / 900 D = SQRT (L / 900) where D and L are in mm, and SQRT is the square root of L / 900. The f# of the pinhole is L / D. Often, diameters 10-20% larger are used since off-axis there will be barrel vigneting due to the finite thickness of the foil or shim stock used for the aperture. To meter, one can read a time corresponding to f/16. Divide the pinhole f# by 16, and square the result to get a factor by which the metered time should be multiplied: Exposure_time = Metered_time_@_f/16 * (pinhole_f# / 16)^2 Common diameters, focal lengths and exposure factor to convert f/16 meter readings to pinhole times are: exposure factor std. needle drill # dia. (mm) FL (mm) f# metered at f/16 7 74 0.66 342 518 1048 8 75 0.58 264 455 809 9 76 0.51 204 400 625 10 77 0.46 166 360 508 11 79 0.40 125 312 381 12 80 0.35 96 274 293 14 -- 0.30 71 236 218 16 -- 0.25 49 196 150 From another source: Exposure factor Drill# D -in D -mm FL -mm F# metered @ f/16 80 0.0135 0.3429 92 268 281 79 0.0145 0.3683 106 288 324 78 0.016 0.4064 129 317 394 77 0.018 0.4572 164 359 503 76 0.02 0.508 202 398 618 75 0.021 0.5334 223 418 683 74 0.0225 0.5715 256 448 784 73 0.024 0.6096 291 477 890 72 0.025 0.635 316 498 967 71 0.026 0.6604 342 518 1048 70 0.028 0.7112 397 558 1217 69 0.0292 0.7417 431 581 1319 68 0.031 0.7874 486 617 1488 67 0.0312 0.7925 492 621 1506 66 0.033 0.8382 551 657 1688 65 0.035 0.889 620 697 1900 The time should be corrected for reciprocity failure, and development time adjusted to decrease contrast build-up. Those corrections, and a derivation were posted a week or so ago, but are summarized below: The values are easily derived, and the method is shown in the following tables. First, the exposure time corrected for reciprocity failure is divided by the metered time, and is indicated as the "Ratio" in the table. The ratio is the degree with respect to time of over-exposure of the high values (light areas) due to the increased exposure required for low values. To convert the time ratio to stops of overexposure, the log of the ratio is divided by log(2), so Over-exposure (Stops) = log(Ratio) / log(2) Next, it is assumed that the "normal" exposure range of a scene is 8 stops or zones, and that the over-exposure to correct for reciprocity failure adds to the density range by the number of stops or zones calculated above. Therefore, the contrast required (% of normal development time) must be decreased by approximately the following amount: Contrast Reduction = 8 / (8 + overexposure in stops) Or it can be expressed as the percentage of development time to be subtracted (last column below). Also, note that the over-exposure (stops) is also the correction you would use if you wished to open the aperture and use the metered time. For instance, for an Ilford film which has a metered time of 20 seconds at f/11, to correct, you could expose for 82 sec at f/11 or for 20 seconds by opening 2 stops to f/5.6. In either case, the developemnt correction is the same. Ilford Films Over- Exposure Contrast Development Metered Corrected Ratio (Stops) Reduction Reduction Time Time 5 12 2.40 1.26 86% -14% 10 32 3.20 1.68 83% -17% 15 55 3.67 1.87 81% -19% 20 82 4.10 2.04 80% -20% 25 120 4.80 2.26 78% -22% 30 155 5.17 2.37 77% -23% 35 200 5.71 2.51 76% -24% Kodak Plus-X, Tri-X Over- Exposure Contrast Development Metered Corrected Ratio (Stops) Reduction Reduction Time Time 1 2 2.00 1.00 89% -11% 10 50 5.00 2.32 78% -22% 100 1200 12.00 3.58 69% -31% Kodak T-Max 100 (TMX) Over- Exposure Contrast Development Metered Corrected Ratio (Stops) Reduction Reduction Time Time 10 15 1.50 0.58 93% -7% 100 200 2.00 1.00 89% -11% Kodak T-Max 100 (TMX) Over- Exposure Contrast Development Metered Corrected Ratio (Stops) Reduction Reduction Time Time 10 15 1.50 0.58 93% -7% 100 200 2.00 1.00 89% -11% Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY) Over- Exposure Contrast Development Metered Corrected Ratio (Stops) Reduction Reduction 10 15 1.50 0.58 93% -7% 100 300 3.00 1.58 83% -17% Kodak T-Max P3200 (TMZ) Over- Exposure Contrast Development Metered Corrected Ratio (Stops) Reduction Reduction 10 15 1.50 0.58 93% -7% 100 400 4.00 2.00 80% -20%
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Roger Urban roger_urban@yahoo.com
Subject: Mottweiler 120 pinhole camera with no image distortion
Date: 1998-08-11
Fellas,
Here's a site that I think is pretty innovative. The Mottweiler 120 pinhole camera has a curved back, and thus no image distortion. I saw a print from one and it certainly got my attention. If anyone else would like more information, here is the link:
http://www.cnsp.com/mdesign
(updated from old address -
http://laplaza.org/~pinhole/)
P.S. If the price for this camera was about 1/3 to 1/2 the asking price then I might consider it. But, $900 for a pinhole is hard to justify, even for the great shots this one produces.
[Ed. note: an interesting Homebrew Pinhole Camera!...]
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999
From: Clint O'Connor clint@argonauta.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Pinhole posting
I don't see how to post a reply to this particular topic but thought you'd
be interested. I recently made one myself using a set of pinholes I bought
for $31 and model aircraft plywood and basswood, using 120 film and a
semicircular back. Finished it up with veneer and a brass T-crank to make
it look nicer. Total cost was about $60 plus one pinhole out of the $31
set. I took it to the Pacific Northwest and got spectacular transparencies
using Velvia and Provia 100 & 400 and B&W; with HP5 400 and Pan F 50. I
should have the prints ($200 worth!) back next week and can scan them if
you're interested in posting them.
Camera
0.0126" pinhole in .001" monel
3" focal length
effective f-stop of 238
120 roll film
images are 54mm x 160mm (about 6" long)
field of view is approximately 120 degrees
uniform exposure, edge to edge (no apparent falloff)
The one thing I never anticipated in building this was whether anyone in
town could print 6" negatives. They have to go to Dallas; no one in Austin
has a 5"x7 enlarger.
Clint O'Connor
[Ed. note: Special Thanks to Clint O'Connor for sharing this neat first
pinhole photo - Neat!!]
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999
From: Clint O'Connor clint@argonauta.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Pinhole posting
This is the very first picture I took with the camera. My scanner is
chopping off about 20% of the full image of this and two more I'm sending
you. I'll have to get contact prints in the future.
Photos are copyrighted of course, and you have my permission to post these.
I'd love to see them posted when you get them up. Thanks!
Clint O'Connor
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999
From: Clint O'Connor clint@argonauta.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Pinhole posting
This is on the Bainbridge ferry from Seattle to Bainbridge Island. My
scanner is chopping off about 20% of the full image of this and two more
I'm sending you. I'll have to get contact prints in the future.
Photos are copyrighted of course, and you have my permission to post these.
I'd love to see them posted when you get them up. Thanks!
Clint O'Connor
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999
From: Clint O'Connor clint@argonauta.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Pinhole posting
This is the beach at Clallum Bay on the south shore of the Strait of Juan
de Fuca. Vancouver Island is on the north shore but is not visible in this
picture. The color prints are due back tomorrow.
My scanner is chopping off about 20% of the full image of this and two more
I'm sending you. I'll have to get contact prints in the future.
Photos are copyrighted of course, and you have my permission to post these.
I'd love to see them posted when you get them up. Thanks!
Clint O'Connor
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999
From: Clint O'Connor clint@argonauta.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Pinhole posting
I always forget this part.
Pool view - TMax 400, 15 secs
Bainbridge Ferry - Ilford HP5 400, 30 secs
Clallum Bay - Ilford Pan F 50, 2 mins
The camera is f/238. Other details in earlier mails.
Thanks for your interest!
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
From: Clint O'Connor clint@argonauta.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Pinhole posting
Something you might be interested in.
I saw a similar table in Eric Renner's pinhole book but it wasn't right
for my camera so I turned it into a spreadsheet and interpolated the times
for some ASA speeds that aren't in there. If you change the FL and
aperture (or f/stop directly, wiping out the formula), the tables will
automatically update. There's a filter correction factor table also, set
for 3/4 f/stop using an 85 filter. Any correction factor can be put in
(in terms of f/stop) and the table will update also.
I just print it out and shoot, noting actual exposures as I go along so I
can make corrections. Having all the times for all film speeds is very
handy. I've only done a few rolls so far but they seem to be reasonably
close. I always bracket, because the descriptions are variable. Right
now, I'm burning film trying to match them up with some light meter
readings at f/8 in addition to the general lighting descriptions.
I've attached the spreadsheet, dumbed down from Office 97 to Excel 4.0 so
anyone with a reasonably recent spreadsheet program should be able to
import it.
Maybe it will help someone? There are no macros in the spreadsheet and my
system is regularly de-virused.
Clint O'Connor
Austin, TX
[Ed. Note: Download Excel 4.0 Spreadsheet]
| O'Connor Pinhole Camera Exposure Guide | in | mm | |||||||
| Pinhole | 0.0126 | 0.3 | |||||||
| F.L. | 3 | 76.2 | |||||||
| f/stop = | 238 | ||||||||
| Conditions | f/stop | 32 | 50 | 64 | 100 | 125 | 160 | 200 | 400 |
| Bright/Hazy Sun | 200 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| Light Background | 238 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| 250 | 6.5 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | |
| Bright/Hazy Sun | 200 | 10.0 | 6.5 | 3.8 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| Distinct Shadows | 238 | 16.9 | 10.9 | 6.3 | 4.4 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.9 |
| 250 | 19.0 | 12.3 | 7.1 | 5.0 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.0 | |
| Weak, Hazy Sun | 200 | 24.0 | 15.7 | 9.2 | 6.4 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 1.0 |
| Soft Shadows | 238 | 40.0 | 26.0 | 15.1 | 10.6 | 6.0 | 4.6 | 3.1 | 1.2 |
| 250 | 45.0 | 29.3 | 17.0 | 11.9 | 6.7 | 5.2 | 3.5 | 1.3 | |
| Cloudy Bright | 200 | 66.0 | 42.9 | 25.0 | 17.4 | 9.8 | 7.6 | 5.1 | 1.9 |
| No Shadows | 238 | 107.1 | 70.4 | 41.8 | 28.9 | 16.0 | 12.5 | 8.5 | 3.2 |
| 250 | 120.0 | 78.9 | 47.0 | 32.5 | 18.0 | 14.0 | 9.5 | 3.6 | |
| Open Shade or | 200 | 168.0 | 107.3 | 60.0 | 42.5 | 25.0 | 19.4 | 13.0 | 4.9 |
| Heavy Overcast | 238 | 282.3 | 183.0 | 105.7 | 73.7 | 41.8 | 32.3 | 21.4 | 8.2 |
| 250 | 318.0 | 206.6 | 120.0 | 83.5 | 47.0 | 36.3 | 24.0 | 9.2 | |
| Early AM | 200 | 462.0 | 300.0 | 174.0 | 120.0 | 66.0 | 51.5 | 35.0 | 13.0 |
| Late PM | 238 | 750.0 | 490.3 | 288.3 | 200.0 | 111.7 | 86.9 | 58.6 | 22.1 |
| 250 | 840.0 | 549.8 | 324.0 | 225.0 | 126.0 | 98.0 | 66.0 | 25.0 | |
| Cokin A029 (85) Filter Corrected Exposure Guide | 0.75 | ||||||||
| Conditions | f/stop | 32 | 50 | 64 | 100 | 125 | 160 | 200 | 400 |
| Bright/Hazy Sun | 200 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| Light Background | 238 | 10.1 | 6.6 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| 250 | 6.5 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | |
| Bright/Hazy Sun | 200 | 10.0 | 6.5 | 3.8 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| Distinct Shadows | 238 | 30 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| 250 | 19.0 | 12.3 | 7.1 | 5.0 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.0 | |
| Weak, Hazy Sun | 200 | 24.0 | 15.7 | 9.2 | 6.4 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 1.0 |
| Soft Shadows | 238 | 70.0 | 45.5 | 26.5 | 18.5 | 10.4 | 8.1 | 5.5 | 2.2 |
| 250 | 45.0 | 29.3 | 17.0 | 11.9 | 6.7 | 5.2 | 3.5 | 1.3 | |
| Cloudy Bright | 200 | 66.0 | 42.9 | 25.0 | 17.4 | 9.8 | 7.6 | 5.1 | 1.9 |
| No Shadows | 238 | 188 | 123 | 73 | 51 | 28 | 22 | 15 | 6 |
| 250 | 120.0 | 78.9 | 47.0 | 32.5 | 18.0 | 14.0 | 9.5 | 3.6 | |
| Open Shade or | 200 | 168.0 | 107.3 | 60.0 | 42.5 | 25.0 | 19.4 | 13.0 | 4.9 |
| Heavy Overcast | 238 | 494.0 | 320.2 | 185.0 | 129.0 | 73.1 | 56.4 | 37.4 | 14.3 |
| 250 | 318.0 | 206.6 | 120.0 | 83.5 | 47.0 | 36.3 | 24.0 | 9.2 | |
| Early AM | 200 | 462.0 | 300.0 | 174.0 | 120.0 | 66.0 | 51.5 | 35.0 | 13.0 |
| Late PM | 238 | 1313 | 858 | 505 | 350 | 196 | 152 | 103 | 39 |
| 250 | 840.0 | 549.8 | 324.0 | 225.0 | 126.0 | 98.0 | 66.0 | 25.0 |
From Pentax Mailing List:
From: "Bob Blakely" Bob@Blakely.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: pin holes anybody?
How about...
Constructing your own pinhole... in an old body cap! Since SLR's have
focal plane shutters, you don't have to make a shutter. If you have an LX,
use fast or moderately fast film, you can adjust ISO for reciprocity
failure and let the camera determine the exposure up to two minutes.
Different colors often have different reciprocity failure curves, so be
prepared for possible "artsy" effects. At any time, you can take off the
modified body cap, pop on a real lens, readjust the ISO and do some
regular shooting.
f/64 and away we go!
Regards,
Bob...
From Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: Shel Belinkoff belinkoff@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: pin holes anybody?
Calumet offers laser cut pinholes in various brands of body caps.
Probably a better way to go as the hole is perfectly centered,
perfectly round, and with smooth edges.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:belinkoff@earthlink.net
[Ed. note: Zone Plate Photography Pages Links...]
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000
From: "G.Penate" penate@home.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Pinhole (lens-less) Medium Format Cameras
You ask for "suggestions, updates, comments, links, and glitches to fix",
I have this:
In the spirit of "lens-less" (meaning no glass lens) photography, what
about Zone Plate photography?
I wrote a small article about Zone Plate that you could read here:
http://members.home.com/penate/zoneplate.html
and I have my first results
using a modified Lubitel TLR 6x6 with a 65mm Zone PLate, here:
http://members.home.com/penate/ZP120.html
.
You could post the article and any of the images in your site if you so
desire.
Let me know what you think.
Guillermo Penate
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: 8x10 pinhole camera help
> I'm thinking of trying my hand at pinhole photography (not the Converse > shoebox stuff of Photo 101, c. 1977), and was wondering if anyone can point > me towards any helpful sites, books, or forums.
first, don't cross post to so many groups, especially to the marketplace
groups.
try this site and mailing list...
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pinhole-discussion
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com
From Bronica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001
From: Shinsaku HIURA shinsaku@sys.es.osaka-u.ac.jp
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] slightly OT: Bronica as Pinhole camera
Hello,
The sharpness of the image is determined by two factors.
The first factor is the diameter of geometric confusion circle.
For distant scene, the confusion circle is as same as the
diameter of the pinhole.
If the hole is smaller, the image becomes sharper.
But, the other factor, diffraction limit degrades the image.
Diffraction limit is caused by the wave characteristics of the light.
This limit is denoted as:
Fno. x lpmm = 1500
So, if you use the hole with f/150, the blur of the image caused by
this factor is 0.1mm.
The best diameter of the hole is defined by the best barance of this
two factor. If you place the hole at 150mm distance from the film plane,
the optimum diameter of the hole is about 0.3mm.
If the focal length (distance from film plane to the hole) is shorter,
the hole must be smaller.
Anyway, the theoretical limit of the sharpness using bronica is
about 3line/mm to 4line/mm.
If you want to get more sharper image, you must place the hole
closer to the film (This allows the hole smaller, and F no. also
smaller).
For the material of the pinhole, you can use alminium foil and a small
pin. Make many number of the hole, and then choose the best hole using
loupe. the flatness around the hole is also important.
----
Shinsaku HIURA (Dr. Eng.)
http://www-inolab.sys.es.osaka-u.ac.jp/users/shinsaku
Some great pictures!
A lens would have a finite depth-of-field (and perhaps better
resolution) whereas the pinhole has no appreciable depth-of-field with a
resolution porportional to the pinhole size and the size of the film.
I made a similar cylindrical pinhole panoramic camera but with the
pinhole at the geometric center of the cylinder - less distortion while
retaining the very wide field of view. Also less edge fall-off. My
camera could make ~6 exposures without changing film.
Make the pinhole
out of very thin foil that you "zap" with a needle, capacitor and
battery. This can produce very clean holes with no ragged edges. You can
achieve holes < 20 microns this way.....large f-stop and exposure
times
but great depth of field and resolution. Large exposure times would make
a busy street look deserted.
-Mike-
-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Sage [mailto:rsage@infi.net]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: A new method of Panorama Photography ?????
I could never figure out from the picture how this camera works. Now I
know. The pinhole is on the end of the cylinder. I wonder if the pinhole
could be replaced with a fisheye lens?
Omniscope Anamorph Pinhole Camera
http://www.pinholeresource.com/products.html#omniscope
Rod S.
ADavidhazy wrote:
> A suggestion regarding this type of panoramic camera would be to post > the inquiry to the Pinhole photography mail list or similar Internet > sites such as: > > To subscribe to the PINHOLE photography discussion list send email to: > pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com > stating in the Subject: line or body of the message the following: > SUBSCRIBE > - this list covers all aspects of pinhole photography. > List info and archive at website below. > www: http://www.pinhole.com/discussion/ > > It seems to me that this variation of pinhole cameras has been > discussed there ... but I may be wrong. > > regards, > > Andrew o o 0 0 o . o Davidhazy, Imaging and Photo Tech > \/\/\/\/\/\/ www.rit.edu/~andpph 716-475-2592 > __________| |_____________________________________
From panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: scantech scantech.pano@wanadoo.fr
Subject: Re: Pinhole_panorama
I just now repeated the pinhole production procedure to be sure of my
facts. I used a 12v power supply (batteries will do) to charge a 330 uf
capacitor through a 1K ohm resistor (to limit the current). One lead of
the capacitor was connected through a clip lead to a strip of ordinary
aluminum foil (mine is .018 mm thick) and the other to a
....
the best one. I also found that putting a drop of light oil on the end
of the needle and letting the metal vaporize in oil produced cleaner
holes. The holes were about 0.08mm in diameter which will produce a
surprisingly sharp image (for a pinhole camera). You can vary the diameter
by varying the voltage.
......
Hope this helps.
-Mike-
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
From: Mike Sinclair sinclair@microsoft.com
Subject: Pinhole_panorama
Concerning the construction of a panoramic pinhole camera (hope this is
not off-topic):
I have posted a single picture explaining most of what I did (way back
in 1964) at ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/Users/sinclair/Public/.
Basically it's two half-cylinders mounted on top of each other. The
half-circumference of the cylinders is 5" while the length of each is
4". This gave me slightly less than 180 degree field of view
horizontally and about 103 degrees vertically. The top half held the
unexposed sheets of 4"x5" film, wrapped around the inside of the
cylinder, facing the flat side and the pinhole. This put the pinhole in
the geometric center of an equivalent full cylinder. I rigged up a
shutter mechanism with a cable release but a piece of black tape over
the pinhole should work also.
I just now repeated the pinhole production procedure to be sure of my
facts. I used a 12v power supply (batteries will do) to charge a 330 uf
capacitor through a 1K ohm resistor (to limit the current). One lead of
the capacitor was connected through a clip lead to a strip of ordinary
aluminum foil (mine is .018 mm thick) and the other to a needle, also
through a clip lead. A small gauge wire cut on a bias also works as a
needle. When the resistor charged up the capacitor after a couple of
seconds, I'd slowly bring the needle into contact with the aluminum
foil, producing a small spark and making a tiny hole - much smaller and
cleaner than you can drill!. I did this repeatedly, spacing the holes
about every inch. I then looked at the holes under a medium microscope
and chose the best one. I also found that putting a drop of light oil on
the end of the needle and letting the metal vaporize in oil produced
cleaner holes. The holes were about 0.08mm in diameter which will
produce a surprisingly sharp image (for a pinhole camera). You can vary
the diameter by varying the voltage.
For multiple exposure capability, I taped a length of string to the
bottoms of each of the unexposed 4"x5" films (I could get up to 6). Each
string had one, two, three...knots tied in it to indicate what exposure
I was on. As I'd take an exposure (several minutes in daylight with
Tri-X film) I'd pull the next string in the exposure series which would
pull that sheet into the bottom cylinder, leaving the next unexposed
sheet ready for exposure in the top cylinder.
I will try to find some of the pictures to post, but it's been a long
while and many moves ago....
Hope this helps.
-Mike-
[Ed. note: thanks to Clint O'Connor for sharing his experiments with
us!]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
From: Clint O'Connor coconnor@austin.rr.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: A new method of Panorama Photography ????? (fwd)
Break out the champagne, Bob! That suggestion from Mike works
beautifully.
Most welders are very low voltage. So I grabbed a piece of aluminum foil
and headed out to the garage for my 12V lead acid battery, a dental pick,
and a pair of alligator clip test leads. A lead acid battery can deliver
tens to hundreds of amps, depending on the size. A capacitor isn't
necessary unless you have a smallish battery, in which case, the capacitor
helps by delivering more instantaneous current than the battery may be
able to deliver.
1. Connect one terminal to the foil
2. Smooth it out on a flat non-conductive surface (wooden table)
3. Connect the other terminal to the dental pick (or a needle)
4. Lower the pick until a spark jumps to the foil, making a momentary
snapping, frying sound
Perfect pinhole! It was a rather blunt dental pick, so the hole measures
out on my dial calipers as 0.0130".
I believe if you have a consistent contact gap, you can make perfectly
repetitive pinholes on aluminum foil. Should be a pretty simple rig.
The size can be varied by using bigger or smaller needles, the surface
area on the tip should determine the size of the pinhole. And 12V makes a
very safe source, the worst that can happen is probably pricking yourself
on the needle. I envision the ideal rig as something like a giant
telegraph key with adjustable gap distance. The foil goes between the
bottom contact and the descending key, which has a needle.
Of course, even though the amount of metal vaporized is miniscule, you
should wear safety glasses and don't put your face right up to it. Don't
use anything heavier than aluminum foil or ultra-thin sheets though.
It'll draw a lot more current from the battery and might vaporize
something else besides the foil - like the pick or the needle or even the
wires to the battery.
You can post this if you want. Be sure Mike gets the credit for the idea.
Feel free to chop the pic down to a small file size.
Clint
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
To: "Clint O'Connor" coconnor@austin.rr.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001
Subject: RE: A new method of Panorama Photography ????? (fwd)
> neat trick on making pinholes ;-) fyi bobm
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] DIY Macro Gadget
Zorkendorfer (www.zoerk.com) sells precision cut pinholes for this use.
His fit on the front of the lens. I have a set I got from him ages ago
and use them now and then. The ones I have fit on the front of a 90mm
Rodagon enlarging lens which I sometimes use at the end of a set of tubes
for macro work.
Bob
> From: "Jack Casner" jackinkc@home.com > Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 > Subject: Re: [CONTAX] DIY Macro Gadget > > Muchan, re your pinhole lens idea: > > I once saw a modification of a 50 mm Mamiya Sekor screw mount lens where the > rear element was removed and a thin aluminum disc was inserted and the rear > element was returned to its normal position. The disc cut from an offset > press master and had a minute pinhole in the center. The disc was coated > with lamp black, from a candle. > > As I recall, the depth of field with this setup was something like 1 inch to > infinity. The photographer was a master model builder and an artist. He > grew up in Cripple Creek, Colorado. One picture he had was of a model gold > mill against a real mountain background. The model was about 12 inches away > and the mountains were at least 10 miles distance from the shoot. > Absolutely beautiful! > > Jack C.
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Focal Length
> From: "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" watteau@krakow.neurosoft.net > Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 > Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Focal Length > > It sounds odd to me too :) > (PUN) But yes, there is a focal length of camera. It is a focal length > of pinhole put in lens mount, as I did in my IIIc. So IIIc's f.l. = 28.8mm > (/pun)No, that's just a measure from the pinhole to the film. Pinholes don't have focal lengths in the usual sense of that term, since they can be used at a wide range of distances from the film.
Focal length is a characteristic of a refractive or reflective image
forming "lens".
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Focal Length of a pinhole
>From Bob S.: > > Focal length is a characteristic of a refractive or reflective image forming > "lens". > > Pinholes don't have focal lengths in the usual sense of that term, > since they can be used at a wide range of distances from the film.
Yes. However, strangely enough, you can derive an "optimum
pinhole-to-film distance" for a pinhole camera ; optimum in terms of
image sharpness, but not in terms of brightness of the image. A nice
visual example of an optimum setup is shown in L. Stroebel's "bible"
textbook "View Camera Technique". Stroebel shows with two nice test
images that when you use the optimum pinhole, the image is clearly
better, at least with a large format view camera.
The explanation is as follows. If the pinhole, supposed to be drilled
in a thin and perfectly absorbent material, has a diameter "d", all
points of an object located far from the camera are rendered on film
as a small circle of diameter "d" according to geometrical optics,
here simply shadow-casting by parallel rays. This will be true
whatever the pinhole to film distance, "f" might be if the object is
far enough. However since the pinhole is very small there are
diffraction effects, and on exit the rays spread out with an angle
roughly equal to "lambda/d" where lambda is the wavelength of light,
say 0.5 micron to allow an estimation. If the film is located at a
distance "f" from the pinhole, a pure diffraction effect would yield a
circle equal to "lambda*f/d" in the film plane. So the optimum quality
of the pinhole image when both effects combine is obtained when the
pure geometrical effect "d" is equal to the pure diffraction effect
"lambda*f/d", yielding an optimum value "f_opt=d*d/lambda". In other
words the optimum diameter "d_opt" of the pinhole is
"d_opt=sqrt(f*lambda)"
If we take f=150mm, this yields and optimum pinhole of diameter .27mm,
and 0.2mm for f=80mm ; the equivalent f/stop number will be
respectively 150/.27 ~= 550 and 80/.2=400 which of course means very
long exposure times. However you'll be able to cover a much bigger
film size than 4"x5" with this "150mm focal length" pinhole which will
act as a distortion-free wide angle "lens".
Stroebel gives a table of optimum values "f_opt" (and corresponding
f/stop numbers) which are not exactly equal to "d*d/lambda", but there
is only a small multiplying correction factor.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr
Date: 23 Jul 2001
From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Pinhole reciprocity for Polaroid and other films
Mark Anderson andermar@teleport.com wrote:
>I've started doing pinhole photography on 4x5. So far I'm using >polaroid film and want to figure out what the reciprocity failure is >for various films and LONG exposures, in order to be able to better >predict exposures. My available reciprocity tables don't go nearly >far enough w/ long exposures.
I've done a lot of 4x5 pinhole photography with Type 54 (B&W; 100ISO)
and Type 55p/n. Generally, once the metered and corrected (for the
pinhole's f-ratio) exposure time gets above one minute I just add one
stop. I don't add more than that. I almost always shoot outdoors,
and my longest exposures are about 45 minutes.
If you want to do better than that I have a couple of ideas. First,
you could print the Polaroid curves and extend (extrapolate) them with
a French curve.
Second, you could measure the actual reciprocity failure. You need a
lens (in shutter) and a ND3.0 filter. Compose a scene with normal
contrast and a middle grey (perhaps include a grey card or step
wedge). Set the aperture so that the exposure time is 1/8 second.
Take a picture. Next place the filter on the lens and use the same
aperture, but with an exposure time of 128 seconds (1/8 * 1024). Take
a few more exposures with a wider aperture (+1, +2, etc.) for each
exposure. Now compare the prints and see how many stops (n) were lost
through the reciprocity (assuming the middle grey in the 128 second
exposure doesn't look like the 1/8 second exposure). The following
equation will give you the Schwarzchild exponent (p) which can then be
used to correct the metered exposure time (t) for reciprocity failure.
p = 1 - (n/7)
corrected time = ((t+1)^(1/p))-1
Once you figure out p a programmable calculator can be used to figure
out the corrected exposure time when you are out in the field.
You probably want to read Michael Covington's "Astrophotography for
the Amateur, 2nd edition" (pgs. 180-184) for a better explanation of
the Schwarzchild exponent.
--
Brian Reynolds
[Ed. note: humor alert!]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] mxsmanic and pinholes
Jimmy writes:
> That is utter rubbish.
In what way? Pinholes have no aberrations or distortions at all; they are
diffraction-limited. No glass lens can match that, no matter what its
design. The only real reason to use a glass lens at all is that pinholes
require very long exposure times. Glass provides some other conveniences,
also, but better image quality is not one of them.
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Johnny Deadman john@pinkheadedbug.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] mxsmanic and pinholes
Mxsmanic at mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
> Jimmy writes: > >> That is utter rubbish. > > In what way? Pinholes have no aberrations or distortions at all; they are > diffraction-limited. No glass lens can match that, no matter what its design. > The only real reason to use a glass lens at all is that pinholes require very > long exposure times. Glass provides some other conveniences, also, but better > image quality is not one of them.
Sorry, you are really up the creek on this one. The image quality of a
pinhole camera increases with diminishing size of the pinhole up to the
point at which diffraction effects start to become more significant.
This puts a clear limit on resolution.
Contrary to what many people think the diffraction effects are significant
even when the diameter of the pinhole is *much greater* than the
wavelength of the light involved. The maths are not very difficult and
agree well with experimental results. The maths also tell you that a
pinhole of a certain diamter has an optimum focal length associated with
it.
So, what is the resolution of a pinhole lens in the best-case scenario of
optimum diameter and optimum focal length? Some experimental results can
be seen here:
http://www.pinhole.com/resources/articles/Young/
They seem to me to show that the maximum possible resolution of a pinhole
camera, is about 5 lp/mm. That is an order of magnitude less than not just
Leica lenses but most commercially available 35mm lenses.
- --
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
From Leica Mailing List;
ate: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: "Daniel Post" dpost@triad.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] mxsmanic and pinholes
Re your chromatic abberations- take a look at Huyghen's work- while
slightly bereft of mathematical background, he did describe his
experiments with a 'pinhole' and how the action of diffraction around the
edge of an object can cause a color fringing becasue of the differing
amount of diffraction of different colors of light.... Boy, this physics
stuff is neat, but I think the dog ate my sliderule, so I can only be
accurate to two significant figures!!!
Dan
...
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:01:35 -0400
From: Austin Franklin
[Ed.note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted photo article and CDROM author with
interests in testing Leica lenses and related technical issues...]
There has been some discussion on this list about the image quality that
can be attained with a pinhole camera.
Anthony commented on pinhole quality and some typical responses are quoted
above. One of the reasons for me to stay out of discussions as long as
possible is the agressive tone and low quality of many exchanges of
opinion. But before proving/stating some persons ignorance one might want
to look up the facts in an optical handbook. While Anthony's statement is
not exactly true, there is more value in it that the commenters want to
belive. A pinhole camera, with a properly measured diameter of the pinhole
will give you distortion free architectural pictures of great depth of
field and very commendable reproduction of shapes and even details. Of
course the edges of the pinhole will generate diffraction but I wonder if
it is more than that what you would get when stopping down a lens to f/16.
In Jenkins/White: Fundamentals of Optics you can see a reproduction of a
picture taken with a pinhole that some would assume could have been taken
with an older Leica lens.
So before you hang a man at the willows, do your home work.
Erwin
From Leica Mailing List;
Erwin Puts at imxputs@ision.nl wrote:
[SNIP]
curiously, Erwin omits to quote my post referring to a detailed
examination of pinhole optics, including a experimental and theoretical
limit to their sharpness.
In particular, his statement that pinhole diffraction may not be more than
you get in a lens at f/16 is deeply strange.
The whole point about pinhole optics is that diffraction effects ARE the
limiting factor... at a certain point making the pinhole smaller doesn't
make the image sharper because diffraction effects set in.
Unfortunately, the image formed by a pinhole at this point is not a nice
sharp one like a lens at f/16, but a fuzzy one because the pinhole isn't
small enough to render details sharply. And making it smaller justs makes
matters worse.
Tests with pinholes of optimum diameter at their optimum focal distance
clearly show a resolution an order of magnitude less than standard optical
lenses. I would be astounded if anyone had ever made a pinhole that could
resolve 10 lp/mm.
Well I did, Erwin, but I wonder if you did?
All someone has to do is produce a sharp pinhole photograph to end this
discussion right now.
Don't hold your breath.
- --
From Leica Mailing List;
Erwin Puts at imxputs@ision.nl wrote:
A pinhole is somewhere around f/200 or f/300, getting towards the size
where it is possible to see the Airy disk, or diffraction interference
patterns, from a point source.
This is not remotely comparable to a lens stopped down to f/16
I feel that there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on here.
I am not going to go into the derivation of the limit for the resolution
of a pinhole optic as it is too long and boring but I posted a link to one
version of it yesterday if anyone's curious.
Pinhole images are indeed distortion free but to compare (on the basis of
a book reproduction) to images formed by an 'older Leica lens' is really
completely beyond me and, I would imagine, anyone else who has used a
pinhole camera.
- -- From: "Kayaker" <jay@bossig.com>
Anyone have it? Suggestions? I can probably figure something out, but From: "Guillermo" <penate@home.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 this gave the enlargement ratio. From: "Guillermo" <penate@home.com> .... A slide projector is even better as you can project the pinhole to a Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 This might be useful:
mf/pinhole.txt
from camera makers mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
From: "A. Buck, G. Wietelmann" buckwiet@yahoo.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: making a pinhole
there's been much discussion of how best to make one.
yes, this is the cameramakers list, but since the
lensless camera company of santa barbara sells
'perfectly' made pinholes for about $5, wouldn't it
make more sense to concentrate on the body
From: gypsymoth@mindless.com (Chieh Cheng)
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.ph
oto.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: built a SLR pinhole lens
Date: 12 Feb 2002
A year ago, I talked about making a pinhole lens for the EOS cameras
(same principle applies to any SLR), but never took the time to write
up the article on it. I have finally started on it last week. So far,
the construction portion (75% of the article) is complete. Hopefully
you will get a kick out of making this lens as I have. The article is
located on my web-site below.
Chieh
--
Camera Hacker - http://www.CameraHacker.com/
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002
From: douglas ketler scheffer dkscheffer@excite.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Holga & Pinhole
Hello,
Great links and resources. I have been visiting for days and there is still
more to see.
I am a visual artist and I have just completed my website where I am displaying
Holga 120s and Poloroid pinhole 4x5 images.
Douglas Art Studio Pinhole Photos..
I hope you will find my work worthy of adding to your site.
Thanks,
Douglas
From: "Simon Brown" SImon.Brown@cerebros.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: New Pin-holes from P&L;
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
Having seen the info on the new pin-hole cameras
(http://www.palsolutions.co.uk/prod01.htm), and 35mm adapter from P&L;, i'm
sort of intrigued, but before slapping down my money for one, i was
wondering what kind of image i could expect to get, using either one of the
6cm x X cm ones, or the 35mm adapter... For example, I'm thinking of using
mainly for landscapes, so what would be the pro's and con's in terms of
exposure/picture quality?
thanks
Simon
From: "Bernie Kubiak" bkubiak@mediaone.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New Pin-holes from P&L;
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
Before you plunk down any money for P&L;, check Zero Image at
http://www.zeroimage.com/
I didn't fiddle with currency exchange, but their product looks like Zero
Image's and for what I believe is a higher price. I bought a pinhole (the
2000) from Zerneke at Zero Image and am very happy with it.
From: "Clint O'Connor" clint@no~.argonauta.~spam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Worldwide Pinhole Day April 28
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002
Worldwide Pinhole Day, April 28, 2002
If you take pinhole photos, you ought to check this out. www.pinholeday.org
[Ed. note: thanks to Monte Collard for sharing the above photos of his pinhole cameras!]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001
From: Monte Collard montecollard@mediaone.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Pinhole camera
Hello Robert,
Thought you might get a kick out of my new project. A Kodak 120 Pocket camera
with a Kodak Box camera shutter. I just took some pics with it this morning and
plan to develop them tomorrow. Here are a couple of pics of the camera.
[Ed. note: thanks to Jason for providing this tip to a new pinhole camera source...]!
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
From: "shutay@tm.net.my" shutay@tm.net.my
To: 'Robert Monaghan' rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: New Pinhole camera company?
Bob,
I've just seen an advert on the back of Black & White Photography magazine
for a company based in Hong Kong called Zero Image:
http://www.zeroimage.com/
You might be interested, add it to the pinhole pages. I didn't see an
existing link to it...
Their 4x5 multiformat is incredible...25mm super wide??? Plus you can
change focal lengths by inserting extension frames? Make use of Polaroid,
4x5 sheet or Calumet 6x9 rollfilm holders?!?! Thai teak construction? Fits
into jacket pocket??? Unreal! I only just got back from Hong Kong 1.5 days
ago!!!
Jason
From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cheap Cameras
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002
"Gordon Moat" moat@attglobal.net wrote:
> Any idea on price for this item?
The film holder is US$70 or so. With the camera, it's US$80 or so
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002
From: rstein rstein@bigpond.net.au
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Pinhole Camera
Dear Stuart,
Yes. I cut the "V" out of a plastic HB body cap and taped a brass shim
with pinhole in there about 5 years ago. The pinhole size was taken from the
big pinhole book but basically ended up being the size of a twist drill used
for putting titanium pins in broken teeth - I have a drawer full of old dull
ones. It is the red packet Filpin. Should you want a few just tell me.
I just pop off the lens, pop on the body cap, mount it on a tripod and
open the rear body flaps for about 30-45 seconds with a cable release ( 125
ASA , West Australian sunshine about EV 14-15) Negs print up very sweetly,
particularly architectural studies of old buildings.
I have no idea of the putative f. stop or focal length but it is fun to
do.
Uncle Dick
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Pinhole cameras
My favorite was made and eaten by a friend. He used the holes in a Ritz
cracker to take a photo of another Ritz cracker, then ate them both. He got
a great multiple image of the cracker.
Marty
From: "Andrea" andrea_7500@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Building a nice pinhole camera
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
> size and am itching to move up. I figure the cheapest way to wet my
> appetite is to build myself a halfway decent pinhole camera. I know it's
> 1) Ability to use multiple film sizes, as I'll probably start out with 8x10
> 2) Ability to switch out the pinholes for different sizes as well as
> 3) Ability to change film in the field. I'd like to be able to use multiple
> 4) Perhaps some sort of shutter mechanism other than a lens cap or flap of
> Am I asking too much here? I'm willing to put the time and effort in to get
if you have such a complicated project in mind, i think you shouldn't just
consider to build a pinhole camera. Build a view camera! and changing the
front lens board you can switch it from a view camera to a pinhole camera.
maybe that will be a camera without too many movements.
the nice thing would be that in 'pinhole mode' changing the focal lenght
will change the actual magnification factor of the camera. if you want the
top of configuration, build a 8x10 one.
i built a couple of pinhole camera. both of them are panoramic for medium
format roll. i get negatives of 6x20cm. the back is curved semicircular, the
angle of field is 120Y about. results are really good, and, if you follow
the formulas (measurements) carefully you'll be able to calculate the
correct exposure with no problems. they are made of cardboard, which works
great for these applications. one is very simple (you have to go to the
darkroom after each photo), the other one is an evolution, with roll film
holders, so you can wind it from the outside and also change film on the
field.
if u wanna see the first test results of mine:
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=354532
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=354383
i'm publishing a web page about these cameras in a few days. but it looks
like you're planning something much more sophisticated. Maybe before
throwing yourself in such a big project, you should do some tests with
simple ones.
Andrea
From: Tom Dove tomdove@toadmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Building a nice pinhole camera
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
Aidan,
Back in the old days, when Louis Daguerre and I were teaching
photography, my first assignment was always for students to build
pinhole cameras; it was a good way to teach the basics inexpensively. As
a result, I did a bit of study and found some things that worked for me;
others will probably disagree, but here's my take on it:
1. The optimum pinhole size is probably about f/256.
2. The thickness of the material with the pinhole is important. The
thinner the better. Aluminum foil, spray-painted black on the inside to
reduce reflections, works very well. Thicker material seems to reduce
sharpness, probably a result of diffraction.
3. The angle of view varies with the distance between the pinhole and
the film. To keep the f/ number constant would call for different size
pinholes for different angles of view. You could consider this analogous
to focal length.
4. The image is degraded by ragged edges on the pinhole. Ideally, I
guess you'd find an industrial laser and burn the hole. Certainly, a
drill is better than a nail., mounting the pinhole in the lens board
opening. For medium format, one of the Mamiya twin-lens reflexes would
be good, although they don't have focal plane shutters and you'd have to
improvise something to cover the aperture. The exposures are long enough
that precision timing isn't that important.
The most convenient shutter is your forefinger. It's always on hand...
-- TD
From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Building a nice pinhole camera
Date: 21 Oct 2002
If you'd like the versatility of film packs that 4x5 gives you,
just pick up any old cheap 4x5 camera that lens you change lens
board. That's going to be less than $100. If you look around
for some of the 1920s classy-looking fold-up 4x5 cameras, the
lenses are on a wood board that is removed with 2-4 screws.
It wouldn't be hard to turn this into a wonderfully versatile
pinhole camera. These old things often sell for $40-$60 and
are pretty lightweight. Some of the lenses have a simple spring
mechanism like the Brownie, et al, and just one element in front
and one in back. Unscrew the elements and add your pinhole in
front for your own little pinhole with shutter.
You could also just use the old lens with film when you wished.
From: marsgal42@hotmail.com (Laura Halliday)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Building a nice pinhole camera
Date: 21 Oct 2002
"Andrea" andrea_7500@yahoo.com wrote...
> if you have such a complicated project in mind, i think you shouldn't just
> consider to build a pinhole camera. Build a view camera! and changing the
> front lens board you can switch it from a view camera to a pinhole camera.
> maybe that will be a camera without too many movements.
> the nice thing would be that in 'pinhole mode' changing the focal lenght
> will change the actual magnification factor of the camera. if you want the
> top of configuration, build a 8x10 one...
A very good suggestion!
The other suggestion in this thread - start with a
cardboard box - is a good one too. You have to start
somewhere. Starting with an all-singing all-dancing
camera (which probably doesn't exist anyway) is a
mistake.
My pinhole cameras have always been the cardboard
box variety. I found that I could make nice small
holes in 120 film backing paper, which is flat black
on one side. Just what I needed. By using paper
as film I didn't need to worry about timing sub-second
exposures, either, and got 5x7 negatives to boot.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH
From: "Steve Grimes" skgrimes@skgrimes.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Pinholes and Wire Gauge Drill Bits
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002
Try making a three piece sandwich of perhaps 1/16" or so aluminum sheet,
then the foil/medium you are boring and then another 1/16" sheet. Clamp the
three together and then bore the hole thru all three. This will keep the
drill running true and avoid burring the sandwiched medium. Use some
lubricant on the drill.
--
S.K. GRIMES
From: pross@dejazzd.com (Paul W. Ross)
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-
format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Building a nice pinhole camera
Date: 30 Oct 2002
I got the Bender Photo 4x5 pinhole camera kit, which works just great!
I used their brass shim stock, and also the bottom of a disposable
aluminum pie plate. Just pushed the needle through, just a dimple,
then sanded (#6oo grit) the dimple down.
For easy interchange, I made a piece of flat brass with a 1/2" hole in
it, and holes for 4 machine screws through the lens board. Changing
pinholes is then just a matter of removing the plate and placing a
newpinhole in place.
There is an outfit in Australia that markets a cool pinhole/shutter
unit, but I couldn't figure out how to get it here/pay for it/etc.
For the moment, I'm contact printing the 4x5's. I have used TMAX-100,
and the ASA 25 stuff from Kodak. Inspection delvelopment under #1
green filter with 1:25 Rodinol.
My enlarger is the light source, so I can put a var. contrast filter
in the light path.
From: Michael Waldron [mwaldron@cadogan.net]
Sent: Mon 2/24/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Pinhole photography
I have done pinholes with a large format camera. I just cut a piece out of a soda can, used a sharp small needle to
pierce a small hole, then used very fine sandpaper to thin out the material near the hole to make it as thin as possible.
I then taped it to a lensboard.
With hassy, all my body caps have a central crosspiece to grab -- are there any old body caps without this that are simply flat.
There is some theoretically "most sharp" size pinhole for any given focal length. However, with the one I made, it was
far sharper than I expected across a fairly wide range of lengths. I found that I could compose with a lens in place, then
replace the lens with the pinhole. Really, the pinhole is the ultimate zoom lens. With a Hassy, it seems like one would be
stuck with whatever the body-cap to film length is.
Pinhole photo is interesting to me because everything is in focus and interesting near-far compositions are possible.
Also, I like the look.
One final caveat is that with long exposures, contrast goes way up, since the dark areas have more reciprocity failure
than the bright areas. However, I found I typically needed 3-6second exposures outside, which isn't too bad. Otherwise,
you might want compensating development or use TMAX (or color).
Michael Waldron
-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Tempel [mailto:ptempel2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Pinhole photography with the Hassy
Anyone tried one of these?
http://www.pinholeresource.com/products.html#bodycap
I also remember reading in the new issue of Practical
Photography that someone made a "Pinblad." It was a
custom body with a pinhole that accepted a regular A12
back. Pretty cool. ;-)
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Science project
See this site for making a Pintoid, a pinhole camera made from an Altoid container.
http://www.merrillphoto.com/pintoidhowto.htm
Marty Magid
[Ed. note: nice sales of 2,000+ pinhole cameras, with 25mm f/47 pinhole ;-)]
From: muchan muchan@promikra.si
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 21mm for MF
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> for 70mm work (or 6x6cm), the widest production rectilinear lens ever
> reportedly made is the kowa 6/super 66 35mm (which I have). The two widest
> production fisheye lenses ever made in 6x6cm are reportedly the 24mm zeiss
> fisheye for hasselblad (50 were made for an industrial corp. special
> requirements) and the 19mm kowa fisheye (again, very limited production).
This one is 25mm for 6x6: http://www.zeroimage.com/66.html ;)
(not a "rectilinear lens" so it doesn't deny anything Bob said above.)
muchan
[Ed. note: actually uses a lens, but could use a pinhole as similar projects have ;-)...]
From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: A truly large format camera
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003
This guy converted an old van into a gigantic pinhole camera that shoots
4x8 negatives (four by eight _feet_, that is):
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59929,00.html
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: john@stafford.net
Subject: RE: [Cameramakers] help requested on designing a 360 degrees pinhole camera
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003
vaenw1@tegenlicht.com wrote:
> Hi John,
> Also a good option. But how do I calculate the shutterspeed/rotating
> speed?
> If a single picture is exposed for let's say 30 seconds, how fast must it
> rotate
> to have the right amount of light reaching the circular negative?
> Thanks,
> Bert
I might be all wrong about the slot idea. I'm not sure the image will be
projected the same way.
At home I have all the Pinhole Journal publications from the beginning
to just a year ago so perhaps I can make time to browse them for
articles on their slit-aperture cameras.
You might also check The Pinhole Journal online. It's a historically
significant compilation of technique and esthetics.
See: http://www.pinholeresource.com/
From: DaiNaka@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003
Subject: Re: Re: [Cameramakers] help requested on designing a 360 degrees pinhole camera
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Hi folks,
Here is a reference to a 360 degree PH camera:
http://www.jankapoor.net/HexCamera.html. It is hexagonal and very
similar to what Bert proposed. Since it does not have an internal baffle
to keep each images 'separate', the 360 PH camera creates a surreal,
overlapped and blended images. Check it.
Dai.
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 19 Nov 2003
Subject: Re: Depth of field: From Zero to Infinite
>However,
>for a point source 1mm from a 1mm pinhole and using a 100mm focal
>length, the CoC size is 101mm (pinhole size*(1 + focal length/object
>distance)) not 1mm. You can easily see this if you draw a diagram.
This would be true if it was a glass optic but it is not. Resolution is always
the pinhole size and focal length is always the distance from the pinhole to
the film.
Diffraction limits in noon summer sun is about the following
f-1 2000 lines per millmeter
f-2 1000
f-4 500
f-8 250
f-16 125
f-32 64
f-64 32
f-128 16
f-256 8
f-512 4
f-1024 2
f-2048 1
So my example is a 500 micron pinhole which produces a 2 lines per millmeter
resolution from zero focal length to one million micron focal length or 1 meter
or 40 inches. At that point your at the diffraction limit at f-1000. As you go
out to f-2000 resolution falls to 1 line per millmeter.
At 40 inch focal length you are working with a 2 line per millmeter image using
a 500 micron or 1/2mm pinhole.
Actually I find f-1000 a little hard to work with. I like using f-256 at 2
lines per millmeter resolution at a 10 inch focal length. I am using a 500
micron gold foil scientific pinhole.
Exposure using 8x10 RA-4 paper and a 85B filter is around 30 seconds. Process
as normal, scan, reverse and color correct with Photoshop. Print out on Dye
8x10 sub paper. Perfect!
Larry
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 19 Nov 2003
Subject: Re: Depth of field: From Zero to Infinite
>Why on earth do you think all lenses in
>which diffraction is the limiting factor (e.g. microscope lenses) are
>described entirely by numerical aperture (a measure of the angle) not
>width.
We are NOT talking about glass lenses but rather a point light source. A whole
different ballgame.
You can do this test yourself. Find a scientific 500 micron pinhole. They run
about $225. Mount it on a 4x5 view camera. With Poloriod film, photograph a
resolution target with the bellows extended 5 inches f-125, 10 inches f-250, 20
inches f-512, and 40 inches f-1024.
Notice the resolution readings to be 2 lines per millmeter in all images. Now
notice the scale is different in each image with the 4 inch image having the
smallest scale. The 32 inch image having the largest scale.
A very simple but complicated test.
Larry
From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Minolta pinhole camera
Anyone ever use the Finney pinhole adapter for the Minolta cameras? Minolta
never made a pinhole camera, but Finney makes a simple adapter to turn your
camera into a pinhole camera. Basically, you replacce the lens with a body cap
that has a precision hole drilled in it. The Minolta model creates a 50mm
"lens" with a f180 f-stop. (There is no glass in the lens cap, it's just a hole)
I just got mine and I'll be testing it out in the next few days.
Although the f-stop is tiny, there is enough light to see the scene on a
bright day. The aperture requires about a 1/2 second exposure with ISO 400 film,
and it's best to use a hand-held meter, but you can get away with the camera's
meter as well. It's best to use a camera with auto-exposure (and a
viewfinder cap), but you can work in manual mode as well. With the SRT102, you can
just barely see the matching needles, so you'll have better luck with a model
with an LED readout. In anything but BRIGHT light, you can't use matching
needles. I suppose you could use a normal 50mm lens and then calculate the shutter
speed at f180, but a hand-held meter is a lot easier. Of course, even with a
hand-held meter, you'll have to do some calculating, since even these won't go
to f180. My Autometer II only goes to f90.
Looks like another option for people like me who love soft effects. Another
alternative is to use close-up filters on a bellows (without a lens) which we
discussed on this board a few years ago. For more details on this, search the
archives.
From: "jjs" john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stenopeic photos
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003
"piterengel" pslaviero@interfree.it wrote...
> I'm not sure this is the right place for my question, anyway here's
> the matter.
>
> One friend of mine and me want to try to build a camera equipped with
> stenopeic hole. To take the picture we are thinking to use normal
> photografic paper. We are looking for any suggestion on this argument:
> links to web pages, tricks used by somebody, and anithing else are
> welcome!
The large format people might be able to help, but if I may, I suggest you
visit the Pinhole Resource http://www.pinholeresource.com/ and then feel
free to write or email the publisher/editors so that you can locate their
back issues that cover stenopeic cameras. The Pinhole Resource has a lot of
material.
For some interesting pictures made with such a camera, see:
http://www.cefvigo.com/ingles/galeria_thorne.htm
Ruth Thorne Thomsen has been making such images for decades. Very well done
and strange stuff.
From: Moldy i.dont.want.any.spam@not.real.com.foo
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Build a working paper camera [from LockerGnome]
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004
Dirkon Paper Camera
http://www.pinhole.cz/en/pinholecameras/dirkon_01.html
{Paper camera} Download the PDF file with the instructions and cut out
pages to build a real working paper camera. I wish I had the time to
try this out as I loved doing model cards as a kid. What can I say? I
snubbed Barbie for Chevies. Those with no time to build a camera can
instead check out the gallery taken with such a camera, which is
impressive for a paper camera. Also available is Pinhole Designer,
software for simplifying the calculations to design the pinhole
camera. Want more? Go to the Links page for a wealth of pinhole camera
resources. Get snapping.
--
Moldy
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004
From: "jonyquikv" jonyquikv@netscape.net
Subject: The Dirkon Camera
I've always had an interest in pinhole cameras, and came across this
url featuring the assembly of a paper pinhole camera. Check this out
if you're bored with the run of the mill camera.
http://www.pinhole.cz/en/pinholecameras/dirkon_01.html
I have been planning building one from an oatmeal container that uses
enlarging paper for a medium, and because of the curved format,
produces wide angle photos, and eliminates the corner cutoff. Have
fun.
Vincent (jonyquik)
From: "f/256" askme@my.email.pls
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: another newbie question
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004
"jjs" john@xyzzy.stafford.net wrote
> You know, there are perfectly well researched papers which describe the
> physics of pinholes, give apertures and difraction limits for various
> focal lengths, and so forth. Speculation is unneccessary.
You suggested http://pinholeresource.com/ and I'd suggest you tell Eric
Renner about the "unnecessary speculation", in your own words, he is "the
expert who have decades of experience" and he is the owner of that
speculation. BTW, what you call speculation, is not, Eric Renner has based
the 3.5X factor on the physics of pinholes and a fall off criteria. I
could have given further explication to the factor but basic and simple
geometry and algebra is not digested well by most of artistic minded people,
if we add some basic trigonometry, it would make it even harder, fortunately
they (I am not artistic minded) don't need to know that stuff to make good
images, so a factor like the "3.5 times the focal length" as the circle of
coverage for a pinhole should be good enough. If you need more info about
the physics of pinhole and its application for mundane photographic uses,
pls ask me and I'll be glad to help you, Mr.JJS.
Guillermo
From: "f/256" askme@my.email.pls
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: another newbie question
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004
"John Bartley"
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: Erwin Puts imxputs@ision.nl
Subject: [Leica] Pinhole camera quality
>> A properly-sized pinhole should be able to beat any Leica lens, too, as long
>> as
>> exposure times are not an issue.
>
> That is utter rubbish. You prove your ignorance every time you post.
> Congratulations.
>
>Jimmy is of course quite right. Will Msxmanic admit his diffraction-limited
>error? I can't wait. Over on Streetphoto he recently admitted he DIDN'T KNOW
>something, so anything is possible.
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: Johnny Deadman john@pinkheadedbug.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Pinhole camera quality
> There has been some discussion on this list about the image quality that can
> be attained with a pinhole camera.
>
>>> A properly-sized pinhole should be able to beat any Leica lens, too, as long
>>> as exposure times are not an issue.
>>>
>> That is utter rubbish. You prove your ignorance every time you post.
>> Congratulations.
>>
>> Jimmy is of course quite right. Will Msxmanic admit his diffraction-limited
>> error? I can't wait. Over on Streetphoto he recently admitted he DIDN'T KNOW
>> something, so anything is possible.
> Anthony commented on pinhole quality and some typical responses are quoted
> above. One of the reasons for me to stay out of discussions as long as
> possible is the agressive tone and low quality of many exchanges of opinion.
> But before proving/stating some persons ignorance one might want to look up
> the facts in an optical handbook. While Anthony's statement is not exactly
> true, there is more value in it that the commenters want to belive. A pinhole
> camera, with a properly measured diameter of the pinhole will give you
> distortion free architectural pictures of great depth of field and very
> commendable reproduction of shapes and even details. Of course the edges of
> the pinhole will generate diffraction but I wonder if it is more than that
> what you would get when stopping down a lens to f/16.
> So before you hang a man at the willows, do your home work.
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: Johnny Deadman john@pinkheadedbug.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Pinhole camera quality
> Of course the edges of
> the pinhole will generate diffraction but I wonder if it is more than that
> what you would get when stopping down a lens to f/16.
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: First LF for my son
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001
You can compose if the pinhole is oversized.... so it lets enough light in
to see something. Then you switch to the "optimized" pinhole for shooting.
It is done, but with two pinholes. The one large enough to allow you to see
something on the glass will not produce a good (sharp) image.
--
Jay Bender
Bender Photographic, Inc. http://www.benderphoto.com
From Camera Makers Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: Myron Gochnauer <goch@unb.ca>
Subject: [Cameramakers] pinhole measurement
Does anyone have an efficient way to measure the size of pinholes without
using specialized equipment? On the Bender website the pinhole camera
kit includes:
"Pinhole Measuring Device -- Use it with your enlarger to view and accurately
measure your pinholes, for the optimum in sharpness and controllability."
if you know how to do this it will save me a lot of "circling" around the
most efficient way to do it.
My first approximation would be to create a negative that has a line on it
that is, say, one inch long, and then set my enlarger so that the image of
the line on the baseboard is ten inches long (or twenty if I can go that
high).
Once that is done the pinhole sheet can be put in the place of the
negative and the size (and shape) of the hole measured on the baseboard.
Even with only a magnification of ten, a 0.3mm hole (for a "75mm" pinhole)
would be 3mm on the baseboard (or 6mm if I can go up to 20x).
Thanks.
Myron
To: <cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com>
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] pinhole measurement
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001
Hi,
Check an article I wrote on how to measure pinholes using a cheap
flatbed scanner. Here is a link to my website, look for the article almost
at the bottom of the page:
http://members.home.com/penate/pinhole.html
Guillermo
Toronto/Canada
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: peter davidoff <peterd@hcberger.com>
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] pinhole measurement
my daughter made a pinhole camera for a science project.
actually, her project investigated the relationship of pinhole
to focal length... as well as a 10 year old could.
to measure the pinhole we did this:
1. punched a hole in a piece of paper with a paper punch
2. measured the hole with a ruler in mm
3. put the hole in the enlarger, projected the hole and measured it
then we "drilled" pinholes in blackened copper foil, numbered each
and put them, one at a time, in the enlarger (which we hadn't changed).
we measured the projected pinhole and using the ratio calculated
the actual pinhole.
it worked. it was easy. since she had just started fractions she
found it interesting.
peter
To: <cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com>
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] pinhole measurement
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001
larger size and easier to measure.
Guillermo
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: Gregg Kemp <gregg.kemp@pinhole.com>
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] pinhole measurement
http://www.pinholevisions.org/resources/articles/poke.html
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001
From: Richard Cochran rcochran@lanset.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is it so hard to make a fast lens?
ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >etter than the fast ones when measured at apertures they
> >have in common, if only for having fewer elements with
> >correspondingly less flare. But I wouldn't be surprised to
>
> By that logic the old ssngle element box camera lenses should be the best
> performing of all.
No, zero-element pinholes would be, and they are, from the
restricted standpoint of flare.
But re-read what I said more carefully. I said the slower lenses
are typically better than the fast ones whem measured at apertures
they have in common, IF only for having fewer elements with
correspondingly less flare. There may be many other reasons the
slower lenses are typically better.
--Rich
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Home made pin hole lens.
> From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
> To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Home made pin hole lens.
>
> OK, sounds like you're leaving the glass in place. IMO all you'd get is a
> severely-diffracted image. Most medium format (and smaller) lenses suffer
> diffraction once you stop down past the mid range. Large format stuff is
> less susceptible to it, mainly because the longer the focal length, the
> larger the absolute "hole size" at any given f stop.
I have a set of precision cut pinholes which screw into the filter thread of
a lens. Yes, they produce diffraction, but no more than a plain pinhole
camera (diffraction is the limiting factor in pinhole camera sharpness).
They produce incredible depth of field.
Bob
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: "Beau Schwarz" ejschwarzjr@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Home made pin hole lens.
It's viable if you can put the lens back together. Why not just use your
body cap for a wide angle and use an eltension tube for a telephoto. The
focal length would be the measured distance from the pinhole to the film
plane. If you have a rangefinder camera or an SLR with mirror lockup, you
could even get an extream wide angle by recessing the pin hole within the
camera body on a second body cap.
I guess lazer drilled pinholes are great. But you could go to a local hobby
shop and buy a pin vice (human powered drill, $4-$5),and a few small bits
($0.80 to $1 each). Coke cans or shim stock (auto parts store) work well for
the lens material. Before buying the drills, look at a couple of pinhole
sites to get the "best" approximate size Fstop (ie drill size) for your
desired focal length. A sheet of 600 grit sandpaper is used to finish the
edges of the hole.
>From: "Parlin 44" parlin44@hotmail.com>
>To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [camera-fix] Home made pin hole lens.
>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
>
>Hi group,
>
>It's not about camera-fixing directly but this involves thinkering and
>rigging...
>
>I've read about pin hole camera setup by punching a tiny hole on what
>basically is a body cap. What I have in mind is to take apart a
>dispensable, junk lens, replace the aperture blades with a piece of round
>opaque thin metal or paper with a tiny hole in the centre.
>
>Is that viable? With this setup you can tell the focal length thus you can
>frame properly, you can adjust the focusing too (though at f250 don't think
>focusing matters).
>
>Would this yield better results because unlike a punched body cap you have
>optics involved or would refraction due to extreme f-stop gets the better
>of
>it?
>
>TIA,
>parlin
>
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: rolohar@aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Home made pin hole lens.
Freestyle Photographic Supply in Hollywood California sells complete pin hole
camera kits for as low as 26 bucks for a 120 rollfilm model to 110 bucks for
a nice wooden 5 X 7 model.
Precision laser cut pin holes, etc.
1-800-292-6137
www.freestylecamera.com
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: "Rick Oleson" rick_oleson@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
Subject: [camera-fix] Re: Home made pin hole lens.
You're right Parlin, and this will work to give you tremendous DOF
plus better resolution than a regular pinhole.
Another (easier) thing to try is putting a pinhole in a lenscap and
just putting that over your normal lens (shoot wide open to minimize
vignetting). Gives similar advantages, and you can swap it from lens
to lens.
rick :)=
--- In camera-fix@y..., "Parlin 44" parlin44@h...> wrote:
>
> OK, fair enough, but I thought the idea of pinhole is to get infinite DOF
> and wouldn't I achieve that with a fixed f250 lens?
>
> I thought I find some use of junk lenses I have, with a known focal length I
> don't have to do complex measurement and calculation (as simple as what the
> materials out there make it look, in practice it's NEVER that simple), all I
> need a perfect cirle with a nice smooth small hole in the centre and put it
> in place of the aperture blades.
>
> In any case, it's my one of those boring-afternoon-at-the-office ideas, I'll
> give it a try during one of few free weekends I have. And I don't wish to
> spend too much resources (time in particular) devicing it.
>
> parlin
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Don Tuleja" durocshark@h...>
> To: camera-fix@y...
> Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Home made pin hole lens.
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
>
> No, you'd just have a lens with a fixed f-stop of f250 (or whatever).
>
> The point of pinhole photography is that there are NO optics, and the image
> is projected on the film with its sharpness determined by the recision of
> the hole itself and its placement.
>
> Personally, I'm not into the idea. The sharpest pinhole image isn't as sharp
> as a disposable camera image (at least that I've seen). If I need an unsharp
> image, I can deliberately de-focus the lens or manipulate the image in
> Photoshop.
>
> On the other hand, I've seen some really interesting shots done with
> homemade pinhole cameras.
>
> Don
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: Michael Vanecek mike@mjv.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Home made pin hole lens.
Lens and Pinhole use two very different techniques to project an image
to film - IMHO. A lens grabs a wide area of field and compresses it down
by bending and modifying the light to fit on the film plane. A pinhole
does the opposite - more or less. It doesn't modify or bend light like a
lens does, but uses a very narrow aperture to isolate a stream of light
from any point on the subject.
Putting a f250 aperture in a regular lens will cause diffraction
problems that would negate the benefits of the apparent infinite DOF.
Plus your image is still modified by the lens rather than the "pinhole".
Even viewcamera users (me) rarely use f64 - but prefer to use a happy
medium - f32-f45 or so to maintain image sharpness which would be
degraded by diffraction problems... Even f22 on 35mm or medium format
lenses can cause this problem - f16 is usually the max I'll go on my
Hassy collection or Canon lenses. Even though you have greater DOF at
f22 or f64, the overall sharpness within that DOF is less. That's why
tilt movements are used in largeformat - that eliminates the need for
super-high aperture settings.
But, give it a try anyway. I'm curious to see the outcome. You could
always strip out the lens elements and leave the shutter and f250
aperture... that would give you the benefit of a shutter. I'm not sure
what size aperture you should use - check out
http://www.pinholeresource.com/ or http://www.pinholevisions.org/ for
more information on calculating aperture size. It's a mathmatical
calculation that takes distance from aperture to film plane into account...
Cheers,
Mike
Parlin 44 wrote:
> OK, fair enough, but I thought the idea of pinhole is to get infinite DOF
> and wouldn't I achieve that with a fixed f250 lens?
>
> I thought I find some use of junk lenses I have, with a known focal length I
> don't have to do complex measurement and calculation (as simple as what the
> materials out there make it look, in practice it's NEVER that simple), all I
> need a perfect cirle with a nice smooth small hole in the centre and put it
> in place of the aperture blades.
>
> In any case, it's my one of those boring-afternoon-at-the-office ideas, I'll
> give it a try during one of few free weekends I have. And I don't wish to
> spend too much resources (time in particular) devicing it.
>
> parlin
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: The Photon Sieve: Pinholes - The Next Generation
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
Researchers at the University of Kiel, Germany have developed the
next-big-deal in diffractive optics: a cross between a pinhole and a zone
plate they are dubbing a "photon sieve." The new imaging aperture is
described at
http://www.photonsieve.de/
The device was developed for imaging soft X-rays. At present there are no
refractive optics available for X-rays and they have been imaged using
pinholes, zone plates and mirrors. Pinholes don't transmit much light, zone
plates have low resolution and mirrors are a tolerance nightmare (think 1/4
wave at 10 nanometers).
The advantages over prior are:
o Up to a 4:1 increase in resolution over a zone
plate of the same size.
o Same useful effective f/no. as a zone plate.
o Great bokeh: no ripples in the image, unlike a
zone plate; Intensity distribution is close to
Gaussian.
Research so far has been done on coherent monochromatic light sources.
Performance will degrade due to non-coherence, and nothing can be done about
that. A #25A red (or other narrow pass) filter, however, takes care of the
monochromaticity requirement. If one does high resolution B&W; work (hullo
there, Tech Pan...) a narrow filter is needed in all cases, so this should
not be an impediment.
The photon sieve could be made from lith film, much like a zone plate, or it
can be made with chemical etch of a thin shim of metal - like an eraser
shield.
Humph, great project for the weekend, if it wasn't for a backlog of (paying)
work.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Pinhole Camera Project Photos Courtesy of Monte Collard - Thanks!