6-month exposure

Josh66 · Jan 5, 2009

Derek Zoolander said:
Nice, so how does that relate to depth of field then? you would think that a deep DOF would require more of the lens exposed (which means low F number), right? but that's not the case...

Keep in mind that this picture was taken with a pinhole camera, DOF is pretty much infinite - everything is in focus (but - it's pinhole, so nothing is sharp, lol). There is no lens. The aperture was probably something around f/360, but it would be impossible for us to know exactly what it was without seeing the camera (you would have to know the size of the hole, and the distance from the hole to the film).

gsgary · Jan 5, 2009

O|||||||O said:
Keep in mind that this picture was taken with a pinhole camera, DOF is pretty much infinite - everything is in focus (but - it's pinhole, so nothing is sharp, lol). There is no lens. The aperture was probably something around f/360, but it would be impossible for us to know exactly what it was without seeing the camera (you would have to know the size of the hole, and the distance from the hole to the film).

I will try and find the article i read about this photographer and see if it mentions those details

Josh66 · Jan 5, 2009

gsgary said:
I will try and find the article i read about this photographer and see if it mentions those details

The article linked to in the first post says that the aperture was 0.25mm (doesn't mention the focal length though). The camera was an empty drink can, so the focal length could have been anywhere from approximately 120mm to 60mm - depending on where the film was.

At 120mm the aperture would be f/480, at 60mm it would be f/240. So, it has to be somewhere between f/480 and f/240.

Edit
Just realized that depending on the construction of the camera the focal length could have been much shorter than 60mm...

gsgary · Jan 5, 2009

O|||||||O said:
The article linked to in the first post says that the aperture was 0.25mm (doesn't mention the focal length though). The camera was an empty drink can, so the focal length could have been anywhere from approximately 120mm to 60mm - depending on where the film was.

At 120mm the aperture would be f/480, at 60mm it would be f/240. So, it has to be somewhere between f/480 and f/240.

Edit
Just realized that depending on the construction of the camera the focal length could have been much shorter than 60mm...

The article i read was in a pro mag a few months ago

Dick Sanders · Jan 8, 2009

Hey, ST: What you're saying is that there's a whole world of photography out there that isn't digital. And that there's a lot of fun to be had doing it. Very cool idea the English gent had. Now, this is going to seem lightning fast compared to the six months, but I made this pinhole photo with about a 5 or 6 minute exposure on a cloudy rainy day. It's a kinetic sculpture (wind driven two blade propellor) by the artist Steve Rieman. My pinhole camera is an 8x10 4 3/4 inch focal length.

If anyone would like to see the camera, go to this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...7-my-5x7-8x10-pinhole-cameras-plus-photo.html

And for lots of good info on pinhole photography -- check out the Pinhole Resource:

Welcome to the Pinhole Resource

stsinner · Jan 8, 2009

Wow, Dick.. That's really interesting! How long have you been doing pin hole cameras?

jwsciontc · Jan 8, 2009

man that's incredible

Dick Sanders · Jan 8, 2009

Thanks, guys, for the compliments! And to answer your question...

Back in 1993, I bought a 4x5 inch pinhole camera from the Pinhole Resource as a gift for a photographer friend of mine. He used it with a Polaroid back and immediately got cool stuff. Then, I was envious. So, I bought a 5x7 pinhole camera from the Pinhole Resource (had to be bigger, right? -- no actually, I wanted to make contact prints and I liked that size).

In any case, I loved it, but the camera itself was plain and unattractive. So I showed it to my cabinet maker and asked if he'd build me nicer ones in 5x7 and 8x10. We sent away for the precise size pinholes for 4 3/4 inch focal length from a company that makes them (picture quality will be highest when the pinhole is the right size for the focal length). That was in 1994. He even came up with his own designs that were an improvement on the Resource cameras. Again, you can see them in my "show and tell" under "Alternatives" that I linked above.

So, I guess I've been doing this for 15 years. But the pic above was made in 1996, so it's not like I'm a 15-year expert or anything. I tend to roam from antique cameras, to pinhole, to Holga, to 645, to my workhorse camera for street portraits, The Pentax 6x7. But I recommend everybody try pinhole -- it's really fun!

Josh66 · Jan 8, 2009

I have a pinhole body cap for the EOS mount. I play around with it some, but not as much as I should...

The hole is .011"/.279mm, at 50mm (distance from the mount to the film plane) it's f/180.

I've played around with it just enough to know how to use it, I don't have any pictures worth sharing though...

dtornabene1 · Jan 9, 2009

stsinner said:
I guess in the future I can't expect people to get subtleties.. I was saying that this is an alternative to overheated sensors.. Maybe I gave too much credit.. Wow.

Yes, you give some of the people here too much credit. Trust me, you have to explain everything to those who know nothing, but act as though they know everything.

That's cool, it's like a word circle.

I think the photograph and the story about his father is truly amazing.

But thank you, thank you for posting something interesting and get people to think about photography more than just technical specifications.

-Nick

EhJsNe · Jan 10, 2009

Peanuts said:
I think the OP understands the difference between a sensor and film.

Anyways, I think it is quite marvelous. I wonder how many times he went past it hoping that nothing had gone out of place - imagine if a bird built a nest in front of it, or a wasp nest or something. Ack!

This made me think....what are the odds that not a single bird flew across the shot.....