A Pinhole Camera For Landscape And Portrait Photography?

[Bluester]

Joe also pointed out that a typical resolution for a 35mm film frame is more like 10-12 megapixels rather than the 20 that you keep claiming.

Mind you limr, you toss a lot of BS in here. I think you should see a psychiatrist.

 

[Soocom1]

OK...

Back in high school I had the opportunity in my photography class to make a pinhole camera.
Everyone made one that was the standard 4x5x2-1/2 inches.

I made a zoom.

I made a pinhole camera that had a total overall length of 14 inches with a front that slid back and forth by 6 inches.

I got an A++ for the project.

The Effective aperture size came out to approx F265 if I remember the math correctly.

The image however was also surprisingly sharp. The images were nearly as tack sharp as any 35mm and the edges were good because the image circle actually was larger than the back of the camera.

We used 50 sp. 2x3 film sheet and D76 when we finished up. The tone was spectacular!

I may still have the images and if so ill post them.


Oh and I forgot... The zoom range was approximate to a 600 mm.

Thanks Soocom 1! Your contribution to this thread is very much appreciated. Now we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel in this discussion and my assumptions are right. And we'd like to see some pictures of your pinhole camera if you find them.

So the point was just for someone to confirm that your assumptions were right and ignore anyone who questioned those assumptions?

What is there to question if my assumptions are right?

Lol...

the main point is two fold.

1, the edging being blurry is a direct result of the lack of optics and defraction of light from the pinhole itself.
It is physically impossible to get a perfectly sharp image with any system, but you can get extremely close.

2: The point of the zoom lens aspect is to point out that following only a small given set of rules does not make an entirely specific situation.
Ergo, that the rules set for the example given was only one possible situation.

These are close enough to my assumptions; if I were concerned I am satisfied with a "close enough" performance. I agree that a pinhole camera is a device also and no device or contraption is 100% efficient. If there's a problem with blurriness perhaps making the hole bigger would allay the problem.

Actually no.

When we worked the pinholes, we actually experimented with hole size and more importantly the SHAPE!

The roundness of the hole and the means of how it was produced was exceptionally important.
Remember, DEFRACTION!

We actually experimented with different push pins and discovered that most (because they are covered with a chrome) were actually out of round.

I worked three days polishing my pint as round as possible.
The professor (Mr. Smith, a really chilled hippy dude left over from the '60s) just let me play and and gave a lecture after the assignment on the subject.

 

[limr]

Joe also pointed out that a typical resolution for a 35mm film frame is more like 10-12 megapixels rather than the 20 that you keep claiming.

Mind you limr, you toss a lot of BS in here. I think you should see a psychiatrist.

I would remind you of forum rules:

"*TPF prides itself on encouraging friendly and open discourse regarding photography. Personal attacks on any members as well as TPF Staff will not be tolerated, and these posts will be deleted and the instigators possibly banned."

 

[Bluester]

OK...

Back in high school I had the opportunity in my photography class to make a pinhole camera.
Everyone made one that was the standard 4x5x2-1/2 inches.

I made a zoom.

I made a pinhole camera that had a total overall length of 14 inches with a front that slid back and forth by 6 inches.

I got an A++ for the project.

The Effective aperture size came out to approx F265 if I remember the math correctly.

The image however was also surprisingly sharp. The images were nearly as tack sharp as any 35mm and the edges were good because the image circle actually was larger than the back of the camera.

We used 50 sp. 2x3 film sheet and D76 when we finished up. The tone was spectacular!

I may still have the images and if so ill post them.


Oh and I forgot... The zoom range was approximate to a 600 mm.

Thanks Soocom 1! Your contribution to this thread is very much appreciated. Now we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel in this discussion and my assumptions are right. And we'd like to see some pictures of your pinhole camera if you find them.

So the point was just for someone to confirm that your assumptions were right and ignore anyone who questioned those assumptions?

What is there to question if my assumptions are right?

Lol...

the main point is two fold.

1, the edging being blurry is a direct result of the lack of optics and defraction of light from the pinhole itself.
It is physically impossible to get a perfectly sharp image with any system, but you can get extremely close.

2: The point of the zoom lens aspect is to point out that following only a small given set of rules does not make an entirely specific situation.
Ergo, that the rules set for the example given was only one possible situation.

These are close enough to my assumptions; if I were concerned I am satisfied with a "close enough" performance. I agree that a pinhole camera is a device also and no device or contraption is 100% efficient. If there's a problem with blurriness perhaps making the hole bigger would allay the problem.

Actually no.

When we worked the pinholes, we actually experimented with hole size and more importantly the SHAPE!

The roundness of the hole and the means of how it was produced was exceptionally important.
Remember, DEFRACTION!

We actually experimented with different push pins and discovered that most (because they are covered with a chrome) were actually out of round.

I worked three days polishing my pint as round as possible.
The professor (Mr. Smith, a really chilled hippy dude left over from the '60s) just let me play and and gave a lecture after the assignment on the subject.

Okay, that's good enough for me but I'm still skeptical. I'll try other sources to clear up my doubts.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think you need to be aware of your sources of information because there's a good bit about photography 'out there' that's inaccurate or incorrect and I'm not sure if some of what you've quoted is necessarily reliable information.

I think it would depend on your vision if what you see would look like what a pinhole would record on film. Without my glasses unless I'm really really close to something what I could see would be waaay more blurry than the pinhole photos!

Your comment to Leonore (Limr) sounded inconsiderate after she took time to show you some of her pinhole photos. I've done some pinhole photography but not nearly as much as she has, but her photos show what pinhole photos look like (mine were similar quality).

Soocom your pinhole camera recreated early lenses, that's exactly how they worked. Great project you did at that age!

I don't know Sparky... but I'm going to see if I can find an example of anyone using a pinhole to shoot sports! lol There was a photographer at the Olympics who was using one of those big wooden large format cameras. There have been tintypes done of sports. Of course those were specific projects not typical day to day sports shooting. I took a Kodak box Brownie to a hockey game once (although I mostly took photos of the end of the season carnival in the parking lot). It was fun. You gave me an idea, maybe I'll take a pinhole camera to a game next season!!

 

[480sparky]

.........I don't know Sparky... but I'm going to see if I can find an example of anyone using a pinhole to shoot sports! lol There was a photographer at the Olympics who was using one of those big wooden large format cameras. There have been tintypes done of sports. Of course those were specific projects not typical day to day sports shooting. I took a Kodak box Brownie to a hockey game once (although I mostly took photos of the end of the season carnival in the parking lot). It was fun. You gave me an idea, maybe I'll take a pinhole camera to a game next season!!

All of which,............ had........... (*gasp*)................. lenses.

Instead of continuing to 'discuss' the matter, I'll just let the OP believe what he want to believe. He's right, and the rest of us 'lensers' are a bunch of dolts for spending our hard-earned money on stupid metal tubes with clear innards.

He obviously don't want to listen.... merely wants to preach to us unwashed masses.

I'm done here.

 

[SquarePeg]

Joe also pointed out that a typical resolution for a 35mm film frame is more like 10-12 megapixels rather than the 20 that you keep claiming.

Mind you limr, you toss a lot of BS in here. I think you should see a psychiatrist.

Attacking other forum members is against forum rules. Keep to the topic. If you can’t win your “debate” without getting personal and insulting other members, admit you’ve been bested and move on.

 

[terri]

Rules are here to be followed, period. We only post them when members are in violation of them, despite having agreed to them when joining the forum.

One more snipe at anyone here and you're out, Bluester. I can't be any clearer than that. It shouldn't be that difficult to be pleasant while having a debate on a photography forum. If it's a struggle for you, then you and TPF clearly aren't a good fit.

 

[Derrel]

A 35 mm. ISO 100 color camera film has 21 megapixels.

Years ago, I read 12 megapixels...I spent 15 years shooting a lot of 24x36mm (35mm) ISO 100 and 200 color negative film..and spent 5,6 years with the NIKON D2x (12.2 MP and Canon original 5D (12.8 MP) and I would say that those two cameras out-did most 35mm films of the ISO 100 color negative 1980's and 1990's; although Kodak's Ektar was uber-sharp, and in the 2011-2012 era, I shot some (expired) Ektar in 120 rollfilm format on a 1938 Speed graphic with my 1950's Linhof 6x6 rollfilm back, and the results from the very old Ektar 58mm x 58mm negatives were VERY high-resolution, even though using a very old lens and a very old set-up,and a consumer-level flatbed scanner. Film quality of "some" medium-speed (ISO 100-160-200 being what I call "medium-speed") film is better or higher that of some medium-speed film, I think.

I THINK THE NIKON D800 with its 36MP FX sensor is a LOT like 6x6 or 6x7 Medium Format film of the 1980's in terms of resolving power and crop-ability.

>SNIP>>
There was a photographer at the Olympics who was using one of those big wooden large format cameras.

I saw some of his photos. Pretty good! Very different look, due to the 4x5 inch film, and 240-360mm lenses used. LESS DOF per picture angle, not-too-modern 4x5 aspect, just a differnt "LOOK" due mostly to the actual equipment being sooooo different from most sports/news guys, who have very similar gear to one another.

 

[Derrel]

Film resolution depends on size of film. For example, are we looking at 4x5" film? 2x3 inch? 120 in 6x4.5 cm? 120 in 6x6 cm? 6x7 or 6x9 cm? 120 in 6x19 cm wide-format shot let's say ? Film granularity: Panatomic- X or Delta 3,200? 100 or 400-speed B&W? Conventional grain structure/formulation or T-grain film? Degree of exposure and development. Lens quality. Exposure-time handling of the camera (focusing properly? camera support? vibration control?). And of course, a couple other small things I am not going to go into.

PRINT resolution--scanner? scanner quality, operator skill, and printing-out methodology...wet printed, or wet-printed by machine. Enlarger alignment?

BAD anything can reduce image quality, often by a marked amount.

In terms of pinhole photography...the old Quaker Oats cylinder was what I built my pinholes out of, and the pinhole was pin-punched through aluminum foil and taped into place by me, a 14 year-old boy. Perhaps better pinhole-punching would have yielded sharper results?

 

[Derrel]

Let's try another tact. If pinhole photography is the nirvana of the craft, why doesn't anyone actually use it?

I searched for "pinhole landscape photos" and got this: pinhole landscape photos - Bing images

SEE also: Artifacts of an Uncertain Origin: About the Project

 

[bulldurham]

Buy this and don't look back. If you can't make a superb landscape with this set up, then I just don't have a good answer for you.

Zero Image 75D Deluxe 4x5 Wood Pinhole Camera 25-75mm Multi Format System | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

 

[Solarflare]

Pinhole cameras of course produce a very muddy, nonbrilliant image. Thats because of the physical effect of diffraction.

They also collect VERY little light. Which is why it takes ages to take a photograph.

Thats also why our natural eyes are certainly not pinholes. They are still of very low quality, because they only have a single lens element. Still with that single lens element they are able to be sharp in the center, which is the only place that we can see sharp. And we can collect a LOT more light this way, too.

Indeed pinhole cameras have everything in focus. That doesnt mean anything is sharp.

The human eye has about 3 to 6 Megapixels of resolution in respect to color, and about 100 Megapixels of black and white resolution. The color resolution is distributed unevenly - you get a LOT of resolution in the center, and not much elsewhere. The 100 Megapixels are NOT present in the center, and are useless in regular light; they only get into action when light gets really low.

So how many Megapixels an image should have so you can look at it as a whole and fully resolve it is disputed as well. I usually simply use 6 Megapixels for my final images as its sufficient for most needs. With sharp 6 Megapixels one can print a regular book page at 300 dpi with no loss of resolution.



Estimates for film resolution depend upon how the author in question estimates the resolution.

For resolution of film isnt constant. We call this effect grain.

Thus one possible criteria how to estimate resolution is when does grain get visible in the scan. Thats a very strict criterion, resulting in low estimates.

Another possible criteria is when does raising the resolution not make any more details visible. Because even when grain is already visible, new details might still be resolved. Such a criteria results in high estimates.

Correspondingly I've read very different estimates from different sources. Some say that modern ISO 50 color film would resolve about 6 Megapixels, while others say the same film would resolve about 24 Megapixels. Which would be a full stop more resolution.

Also, resolution of film varies most extremely. Low sensitivity extremely fine grain ugly colored microfilm reaches extreme resolutions. I've read estimates a 36x24mm microfilm would store about 5 Gigapixels of resolution. Nobody uses such a film in a small format camera, though, since only special optics are even able to resolve such an amount of detail in the first place.

As a general rule of thumb, if a film gets more sensitive, resolution drops drastically.

Also, color film offers less resolution than black and white film.

Also it depends upon from what time the film in question is. Modern film got increasingly better in respect to resolution, while at the same time becoming more sensitive. The later made changes like using zoom lenses possible in the first place. That, and the invention of lens coatings.

 

[Theo2]

I almost never post on this forum anymore but occasionally lurk but as a physicist and photographer all I can say is what a crock of $#%@ the first few pages of this thread are. That is all. Carry on with your cool pinhole photos, limr.

 

[petrochemist]

If you can see something, the pinhole camera can see that too. The pinhole camera should see the picture the way your eyes would.

What a pinhole camera see's depends on the film/sensor used it dies not have to correspond to the wavelengths of visual light at all. X-ray, infra-red & ultraviolet images are all possible with appropriate sensors/film.

Because of the very small aperture exposure times typically are very long, so again do not tie in with what your eye see. Years ago I made a quick & dirty pinhole body cap for my DSLR, with flash exposures were handhold-able, but my pinhole was too big for any sort of reasonable resolution, and extremely uneven so very soft. Muck on the sensor was remarkably visible too being by far the sharpest bit of the image.

The human visual system is a combination of the eyes & the brain. The images we see are built up over time from multiple views with the eye looking at different portions of the scene adjusting its iris (aperture) & focus as required during this. The brain also adds in details that it assumes are present sometimes getting important bits totally wrong!
No set up taking an instantaneous image can EVER see the way we see it.

Normal cameras with lenses, have been painstakingly optimized over the years, so as to give colour results similar to human perception. Any variation in colour from the glass of the lens will be minimal, with reasonable quality lenses other aberrations are also fairly small, so that the images will be better than a pinhole can manage, unless of course a dreamy soft yet fully focused look to the image is what is desired.