A Pinhole Camera For Landscape And Portrait Photography?

[Bluester]

This thread is never meant as an insult. I have come across information that the photo a simple pinhole camera takes will still be blurry about its edge. Is this true? If not, then the stationary pictures this camera takes would be better than those of a DSLR device. The resolution of a 35 mm. film is about 20 megapixels. Any informations and opinions that will be shared here is appreciated.

 

[Ysarex]

Pinhole photos are always blurry throughout. Pinhole cameras have a practical handicap as the effective f/stop is generally in the range of f/200 to f/300 making handheld photography impractical. And where did you come up with your assertion that the resolution of 35mm film is about 20 megapixels? I would question that.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

The edges, theoretically, should be sharper than the center. It will be darker, however. Both as a function of the geometry of the film plane / digital sensor.

 

[Derrel]

I have shot only two pinhole cameras, and that was YEARS ago. Approximately f/256 was the aperture value used with a hand-held light meter. Exposures were, as I recall, 2.5 to 3 minutes.

 

[limr]

If not, then the stationary pictures this camera takes would be better than those of a DSLR device. The resolution of a 35 mm. film is about 20 megapixels.

Define 'better.' What are you after? Perfect sharpness and high resolution? Don't shoot 35mm pinhole. Do you want to experiement with a different sort of 'look' or perspective? Then give it a try.

Judge for yourself.

35mm


Waterfall by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Old barn by limrodrigues, on Flickr

120 (6x6 medium format)


rShoreline by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Joe mentioned the fact that the camera will need to stay very very still since the exposures are generally at least a few seconds (full sunlight, depending on film speed or ISO) and if you're working indoors, then a few minutes up to a few hours.

This exposure was 7 hours long - the only lights being the Christmas lights on the tree.


Xmas Tree by limrodrigues, on Flickr

The other thing that relates to this is if you were thinking of doing portraits (as you mention in your title), then your models will also have to sit very very still, unless you want some motion blur, which I think actually could make for a more interesting portrait. This exposure was, iirc, 2-3 seconds.


Wasting film by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[Bluester]

If not, then the stationary pictures this camera takes would be better than those of a DSLR device. The resolution of a 35 mm. film is about 20 megapixels.

Define 'better.' What are you after? Perfect sharpness and high resolution? Don't shoot 35mm pinhole. Do you want to experiement with a different sort of 'look' or perspective? Then give it a try.

Judge for yourself.

35mm



Waterfall by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Old barn by limrodrigues, on Flickr

120 (6x6 medium format)


rShoreline by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Joe mentioned the fact that the camera will need to stay very very still since the exposures are generally at least a few seconds (full sunlight, depending on film speed or ISO) and if you're working indoors, then a few minutes up to a few hours.

This exposure was 7 hours long - the only lights being the Christmas lights on the tree.


Xmas Tree by limrodrigues, on Flickr

The other thing that relates to this is if you were thinking of doing portraits (as you mention in your title), then your models will also have to sit very very still, unless you want some motion blur, which I think actually could make for a more interesting portrait. This exposure was, iirc, 2-3 seconds.


Wasting film by limrodrigues, on Flickr

After? All. I was thinking that the pictures taken by a pinhole camera would be better since there are no elements to impede the travel of light to the film.

 

[Bluester]

Pinhole photos are always blurry throughout. Pinhole cameras have a practical handicap as the effective f/stop is generally in the range of f/200 to f/300 making handheld photography impractical. And where did you come up with your assertion that the resolution of 35mm film is about 20 megapixels? I would question that.

Joe

The Internet. I don't remember the site but you could always look this topic up on the web.

 

[limr]

But what do you mean by "better"? What are you valuing in the photograph? Sharpness and resolution? Or something else?

 

[480sparky]

After? All. I was thinking that the pictures taken by a pinhole camera would be better since there are no elements to impede the travel of light to the film.

Technically, that's true. Lacking glass, you don't have any issued glass causes (coma, astigmatism, flare, etc). But........ you have no way to focus the light.

 

[Bluester]

But what do you mean by "better"? What are you valuing in the photograph? Sharpness and resolution? Or something else?

Like I previously said, all. Everything that a DSLR camera cannot deliver. I was also thinking that the background blur would go away since it has no lens. And you would see the picture the way your eyes would see them but there would be no problem with regard to sharpness, detail, and blurriness at the fringes because there is no lens.

 

[480sparky]

'Background blur' will be equal to the 'subject blur'. There is equal 'out-of-focus' across the entire depth of the scene.

 

[Bluester]

After? All. I was thinking that the pictures taken by a pinhole camera would be better since there are no elements to impede the travel of light to the film.

Technically, that's true. Lacking glass, you don't have any issued glass causes (coma, astigmatism, flare, etc). But........ you have no way to focus the light.

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

 

[Ysarex]

Pinhole photos are always blurry throughout. Pinhole cameras have a practical handicap as the effective f/stop is generally in the range of f/200 to f/300 making handheld photography impractical. And where did you come up with your assertion that the resolution of 35mm film is about 20 megapixels? I would question that.

Joe

The Internet. I don't remember the site but you could always look this topic up on the web.

I don't need to look it up. A more realistic figure would be in the range of 10 to 12 megapixels.

Joe

 

[limr]

But what do you mean by "better"? What are you valuing in the photograph? Sharpness and resolution? Or something else?

Like I previously said, all. Everything that a DSLR camera cannot deliver. I was also thinking that the background blur would go away since it has no lens. And you would see the picture the way your eyes would see them but there would be no problem with regard to sharpness, detail, and blurriness at the fringes because there is no lens.

What do you want that a DSLR "cannot deliver"?

Do the pictures I posted look like "the way your eyes would see them"? They are real live examples of pinhole photography. Do they look the way whatever website you read said they would look? Is that the look you are after?

I keep asking the same question because you don't seem to be clear on what you actually want from pinhole photography that you are apparently not getting from a DSLR. The only thing I can guess is that it seems like you want a picture to be perfectly sharp from corner to corner with no blurriness whatsoever.

Stick with the DLSR.

 

[Bluester]

'Background blur' will be equal to the 'subject blur'. There is equal 'out-of-focus' across the entire depth of the scene.

I'm thinking now that a lens is supplied to a camera in order to make the picture bigger or the subject closer at a reasonable subject-to-camera distance. And on the other hand, you may have a point here by stating that a lens is the component that focuses the picture to the film (or sensor). But I'm not sure of that.