8x10 Pinhole questions

[Brian Pearcy]

I have been contemplating pinhole photography for several months trying to learn more details.

For me, getting involved in pinhole would mainly be to generate an actual physical print rather than a scan for the web. For the web, I have about 5 different digital cameras and 2 other film cameras.

Using photo paper such as Harman FB1K in 8 x 10, my understanding is that 8 x 10 is what get and thats it whereas with film enlargement is possible.

I have a print I purchased that is 9 x 11 printed from 35mm film and that size is quite adequate for my personal tastes hanging in my home. 8 x 10 in pinhole will not have the same level of detail, but that's part of the mystique for me. Pinhole has a "mood" and is "one of a kind" attributes that provide my primary motivation for pursuing it.

Would I better of with 4 x 5 film?

 

[dasBlute]

Go for it, pinhole is a lot of fun. It gives what I like to call a "squinty-eyed" view of the world. Each image is unique.
You'll get a lot of surprises, plenty of fails at first, but also some marvelous successes.
I started with 4x5 film, scanning mostly, working on my exposures / compositions.

For darkroom printing, you'll need some stuff, trays, chemistry, contact printing frame, safelight, etc.

With 8x10, RC paper is a good way to start. The paper is slow, like iso 7, and it is also blue sensitive, so you'll often get white skies.
It is also fairly contrasty, and people often "pre-flash" the paper, giving it a "slight" exposure before loading it into the holder. This
is typically with an enlarger, because of the precise timing required, something like 1/4 sec.

I made my camera from foam core and gaffers tape. The laser-drilled pinhole was the most expensive part,
but you can make your own pinhole even from aluminum foil, and I have.

There's no 'wrong' way

-Tim

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are advantages to 4x5 film over 8x10 paper, and disadvantages.

First, 4x5 film costs more (and requires more expensive equipment up front) than 8x10 paper, camera films in general need to be handled in total darkness (as you most likely already know, since you have film cameras). Yes, 8x10 paper negatives are pretty much limited to contact prints, Direct Positive paper, or reversal processing (adds a few more steps, but produces a one-of-a-kind positive image for a lot lower cost than Harman Direct Positive) -- but there are in fact ways to optically enlarge from a paper negative. You can use an 8x10 enlarger (you'll just need long exposures, because the paper blocks much of the light), or you could build or find (good luck) an "opaque projector" type reflection enlarger to make enlarged prints (which shines very bright light on a reflective original, then projects an image from that -- same idea as projectors used long ago to put a book page on a screen for a whole school class to view).

The other side of this is that if you already have a 4x5 camera, all you need is a pinhole to replace the lens in your existing shutter (most lenses will let you unscrew the glass from the shutter to slip a mounted pinhole in place, then reverse the process as often as desired), so there's much less work to get started, and no big learning curve (since you've presumably already learned to load a 4x5 film holder). Film is also generally much faster than enlarging paper, so you get shorter exposures. I've had a couple pinhole setups (modifications of existing cameras) that, by way of using very fast film, could be hand held with good results. For 8x10 paper, on the other hand, a camera can be simpler than one that uses 4x5 film holders -- two nested boxes, pinhole and whatever you use for a shutter on the inner one, which then holds the paper flat in the outer one. A tripod mount and some sighting lines (for composition), and you're ready to go. Get some black-core foam board and you can build on of these in an hour or so.

 

[DWThomas]

Some random comments ...

Being 4x the area of 4x5, 8x10 film can be an expensive proposition. I have been shooting 8x10 pinhole on X-ray film (which has potential spectral sensitivity and handling issues but works), then contact printing it. (8x10 enlargers exist -- it's the fork lift to move them that's problematic! )

An exposure on photo paper results in left/right reversal of the image reversed. That may or may not matter depending on how abstract you want to be. I've done very little of it, but in theory one can contact print from a paper negative. That could be a way to get a positive image and correct left/right reversal.

4x5 film is certainly more economical. But it might be a little small unless you can enlarge it optically or via a scan and inkjet hybrid process.

I view pinholery as a Grande Experiment anyway, so playing around with all sorts of approaches is certainly legit. If you lean toward relatively sharp detailed results even from lens-less work, the larger formats appear to offer some advantage. (Some days I think maybe building the cameras is more fun than using them -- but that's me!) My pinhole stuff -- and cameras -- may be seen in my PBase galleries. I have gotten nicely framed 8x10 contact prints into a couple of juried art shows in this area.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You could always start off with some 8x10 X-ray film. Pretty cheap stuff. I've been using it on and off for many years now.

 

[Brian Pearcy]

The other side of this is that if you already have a 4x5 camera, all you need is a pinhole to replace the lens in your existing shutter (most lenses will let you unscrew the glass from the shutter to slip a mounted pinhole in place, then reverse the process as often as desired), so there's much less work to get started, and no big learning curve (since you've presumably already learned to load a 4x5 film holder). Film is also generally much faster than enlarging paper, so you get shorter exposures. I've had a couple pinhole setups (modifications of existing cameras) that, by way of using very fast film, could be hand held with good results.

My first attempts at pinhole were with a modified lens cap purchased on ebay for $12. I have not yet made a viewable image using my Sony DSLR.

I keep receiving a "no lens attached, shutter is locked message".

 

[DWThomas]

My first attempts at pinhole were with a modified lens cap purchased on ebay for $12. I have yet made a viewable image using my Sony DSLR.

I keep receiving a "no lens attached, shutter is locked message".

I know nothing about the details for Sony, but I can configure my Canon EOS M5 to ignore the absence of an "official" communicating lens. I have done that to use Canon FD manual focus lenses with a simple dumb adapter. Given the number of people snatching up old manual lenses to adapt to their digital stuff, I would expect Sony might also have a way to do that. Alas, most of these digi-things can get deep into multi-level menus and 300 page manuals for a bit of torment in the process.

 

[awty]

You could always start off with some 8x10 X-ray film. Pretty cheap stuff. I've been using it on and off for many years now.

And if you can process without scratching it Its better than paper for contact prints. Or if you want a bigger print you can use larger sized x ray film...14 x 17 is good.
The trick with sharp pinhole is to start with a precision cut hole and work to the optimum focal length for the size of film and focal angle you want....then get the correct exposure. Oh and use a yellow or orange filter ....easy
I havent used positive paper, having a negative gives you more scope to make different prints and use alternative processes.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I have been contemplating pinhole photography for several months trying to learn more details.

For me, getting involved in pinhole would mainly be to generate an actual physical print rather than a scan for the web. For the web, I have about 5 different digital cameras and 2 other film cameras.

Using photo paper such as Harman FB1K in 8 x 10, my understanding is that 8 x 10 is what get and thats it whereas with film enlargement is possible.

I have a print I purchased that is 9 x 11 printed from 35mm film and that size is quite adequate for my personal tastes hanging in my home. 8 x 10 in pinhole will not have the same level of detail, but that's part of the mystique for me. Pinhole has a "mood" and is "one of a kind" attributes that provide my primary motivation for pursuing it.

Would I better of with 4 x 5 film?

As you appear to have never done pinhole, i would advise against starting on 8x10 and paper. It may seem easier, but results may quickly put you off pinhole, possibly for good. 8x10 negatives are quite pricey, so perhaps another point against starting out at that size. Pinhole is not necessarily an instant success.

 

[awty]

I started with 8x10, actually did do one roll of 35mm once, but apart from that have never done anything smaller than 8x10.
I hardly ever have time to do more than a couple of shots, with sheet film you can develop one at a time and adjust your developing to suite your exposure..
You also need a reciprocity calculator.

 

[Brian Pearcy]

And if you can process without scratching it Its better than paper for contact prints. Or if you want a bigger print you can use larger sized x ray film...14 x 17 is good.
The trick with sharp pinhole is to start with a precision cut hole and work to the optimum focal length for the size of film and focal angle you want....then get the correct exposure. Oh and use a yellow or orange filter ....easy
I havent used positive paper, having a negative gives you more scope to make different prints and use alternative processes.

I checked out your media page. Those are some great shots.

 

[Brian Pearcy]

Thanks for the tips about x-ray film.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I must admit I am impressed with anyone who uses 8x10. I switch to 4x5 because 35 mm was too blurry for my taste when printed 5x7. I have an old view camera and I find f360 works well for me.

I am going to, try f500, but that is as far an my bellows will reach. Reciprocity requires an exposure "guessimate" so we will see.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Reciprocity requires an exposure "guessimate" so we will see.

Reciprocity can be calculated to better than 1/2 stop accuracy for films that have any published data on reciprocity departure. Patrick Gainer built on work by Howard Bond and showed that for all or nearly all films, it's possible to first derive a characteristic value (how much real time needs to be added for each one stop of meter time beyond the linearity breakdown), and then directly calculate the true exposure required by knowing the film's correction factor and the metered exposure.

With a few test exposures, it ought to be possible to determine the Gainer factor for unknown films, enlarging papers, and so forth to allow the same calculations to be performed (though with enlarging papers, we have the complication that their speed changes as the color of the light changes, so, for instance, they might be as much as two stop slower in the Golden Hour than they are at noon).

 

[DWThomas]

I am going to, try f500, but that is as far an my bellows will reach. Reciprocity requires an exposure "guessimate" so we will see.

I read between the lines here that you are intending to alter the "focal length" and the aperture. While that would change the field of view, I think it would partially lose whatever increase in sharpness comes out of the smaller aperture. I would just play with the aperture in whatever your current setup has as a starting point.

I know that the Pinhole Designer app in coming up with "optimum" parameters uses a "magic constant" in its equation for which it offers several pre-defined values, but also a user configurable one. The constant they identify as from Rayleigh is about 1.9. I know I use a smaller value (like 1.6 or so), and I recall Jim Jones uses an even smaller number. There is purportedly some trade-off between center sharpness and edge sharpness, as the effective pinhole-to-film distance increases away from the center, and also the pinhole becomes an ellipse viewed from off-axis, and of course diffraction comes into play also as a lower limit. The off-axis performance can be worse if the pinhole plate is thick and more so if the hole is drilled (creating a cylinder with some small bit of length). The ideal pinhole plate is infinitesimally thin and the hole has a knife edge. That happens automatically if the plate is ridiculously thin, but can be approached by dimple-and-sand or chemically etched holes.

8x10 need not be that intimidating except for the cost of film. Using X-ray material aids considerably with the cost. I'm becoming a little curious as to what a shot on conventional pan film would look like, but haven't quite talked myself into the price of entry! Maybe for WPPD 2021!

 

[neilt3]

My first attempts at pinhole were with a modified lens cap purchased on ebay for $12. I have not yet made a viewable image using my Sony DSLR.

I keep receiving a "no lens attached, shutter is locked message".

Go into the menu , on the cog settings , find the bit where it say " release without lens " and select "YES" rather than "NO" .
Then you'll be able to take a picture when you haven't got a lens on ( due to it being a lens cap with a hole in it ).
Leave it set like this permanently , if you ever attach another adapted lens or T-mount lens etc on , you'll still be able to take a shot .

 

[Grandpa Ron]

DW,
Yes, I am using bellow lengths to increase aperture. My technological limits (Pop can and Needle) have limited my pin hole size to about .33 mm or .013 inch. My goal is to reenact early 19th century technology. So a laser cut Pinhole seem out of place.

To date my of best photos have been with a .43 mm or .017 inch for an f 256 or f 360. (bellows 4.35" and 6.10" respectively0 This has given me some fair results. so, I am going to try for f 500. The biggest factor is with a 4x5 negative, there is little or no enlargement needed. However, working with cut film is had been a steep learning curve and digitizing with a home scanner is not the best either. I am restoring a 1930's vintage enlarger that will handle 4x5 prints.

Here are two shots.

I believe the swing is about f 256. The statue is about f 360.