Closeup photography with pinhole?

[keithostertag]

Is there a practical limit for how close you can generally get with a pinhole with good results? There are calculators to give the expected image circle and angle of view for various apertures and focal lengths, but I'm wondering if there are other optical limitations. I'm trying to remember... seems I read somewhere once that closer than a certain lens-to-subject distance starts affecting the diffraction, or circle-of-confusion? or...? Anyone doing closeups with a pinhole? Maybe 2:1, or 1:1?

 

[BAC1967]

I don’t know how close you can get, I’m curious to find out as well. The photo below is as close as I have done, I think it turned out ok, maybe not as close as you are looking for. It was shot with a Polaroid Pack Film pinhole Camera that I cobbled together from spare parts. The pinhole was 0.5mm, the focal length used was 85mm giving me f/283. The film was Fuji FP-100C.

Flower Polaroid Pinhole by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Is there a practical limit for how close you can generally get with a pinhole with good results? There are calculators to give the expected image circle and angle of view for various apertures and focal lengths, but I'm wondering if there are other optical limitations. I'm trying to remember... seems I read somewhere once that closer than a certain lens-to-subject distance starts affecting the diffraction, or circle-of-confusion? or...? Anyone doing closeups with a pinhole? Maybe 2:1, or 1:1?

it would be difficult to light the subject with a pinhole so close to it bu an interesting question.

 

[NedL]

You should look at Dead Link Removed

I made one that uses 5x7 photopaper and has a "subject distance" between 1/2 and 3/4 of an inch... but it works quite well down to 1/4 of an inch or even less.
Not sure what the magnification factor is, but a photo of small pocket watch did not fit on the paper... maybe 3 or 4:1, and had lots of detail.
It uses a pinhole that is a bit less than 0.15mm but it is very difficult to light the subject well. I haven't used it very much because of the difficulty with lighting.

I've had two ideas along these lines that I've never tried....one is to mount a small platform at the pinhole to put subject on..with a flexible little book reading lamp mounted on each side for lighting..if the platform was made from a microscope slide it could help with illumination. I was imagining a small flat black background for the mini "stage". An advantage of this is that once you've figured out the exposure, it could be used for lots of tiny things ( I was thinking of a bee's face or a beetle's face... but never pulled it off )

The other idea is to make the camera pyramidal, with the pinhole at the apex.. but when I worked out the angles, it still seems like it would be difficult to get light on the subject, just less difficult.

Have fun, it's definitely possible!

Edit: the "focal length" on mine is 4" so I guess that would be a magnification factor of about 8:1. Here's a photo of some hypo "prismatic rice"... I put them on some glass above the pinhole and lit it from above....

 

[keithostertag]

@brYan- the combo of pinhole and Polaroid gave some interesting color rendition, eh?

Very cool Ned! That's pretty much the type of image I'm thinking about. And thank you for the pdf, I'll give it some study.

In terms of lighting... why not increase the focal length so you can more easily get lighting in there? Does it work similar to a regular lens, where as you increase focal length the greater your lens-to-subject distance?

I've got some parts ordered, and will hopefully be able to start playing with it in a few weeks...

 

[NedL]

Yes, that's exactly right. Doubling the "focal length" would double the subject distance to achieve the same magnification factor.
But increasing the FL will also increase the pinhole size, at some point it will limit the resolution ( e.g. a 0.5mm pinhole can't resolve details much less than 0.5mm! )... it's an interesting question! I already had the coffee can I used to make mine, and was wondering "how tiny an object can I photograph with this can?" When I was thinking of making the "bees face" camera a couple years ago, I remember I was thinking of a 5" FL for an 8x10" paper, but I don't remember how I came up with that.

 

[DWThomas]

You should look at Dead Link Removed ....

Wow! Thanks for that; last time I was looking for some of the nitty-gritty pinhole math I ran into difficulty.

I saw this question earlier, but have never tried seriously closeup pinhole, so figured there was no point indulging in speculation. "I'm not a complete fool -- some parts are missing ...."

It does seem sort of intuitive that the optimum pinhole size basis might apply in both directions, that is, when the pinhole to subject distance gets shorter than the subject to "film" distance, that might better determine the pinhole diameter. And yeah, lighting at such close range might be tedious, imagine my 8x10 pinhole would not be the one to experiment with first! Wonder about those ring flashes used with macro lenses for dental records and such --- ooh -- no end to the available distractions out there ....

Enh -- something to put on my list for WPPD, thanks!

 

[Barry Kirsten]

I haven't tried this, but have it in mind for future pinhole close-up work... but how about covering the front of the camera with aluminum cooking foil and bouncing light from sources behind the object onto its face? As long as the light sources didn't shine directly into the pinhole, it should be OK.

 

[NedL]

Ha! Barry great minds think alike. I was imagining constructing the "pyramidal camera" I mentioned above with mirror surfaces for exactly that reason. In that case the lights could actually be behind the pinhole and reflect off the camera surface onto the subject. Fussy to put together and a pain in the neck to make the "apex" where the pinhole would be... I like your idea better, it's simpler and uses an easy-to-build geometry.

With your idea, you could put a little "flare guard" on either side of the pinhole, to shade direct view of the lights....

 

[keithostertag]

I decided to test some of this out with an old pinhole I have... using a digital camera, but heck, its just a test (am I in trouble?). Using strobe and camera set to very high ASA. Too cloudy today here to do it outside.

Both shots using a .22mm pinhole. Tightest shot is (I think) pretty close to 1:1. I think the lack of sharpness is due to the quality of my pinhole more than the setup, but you can see that getting closer did blur it more.

The equation from Prober/Wellman calls for a smaller pinhole: .145mm. FL approx 32mm, object distance in the tight shot 30mm. I think the longer shot was about 60mm object distance.

Anyway, I'll play more when I get better pinholes in. Lighting was not a problem, but then again I wasn't too picky for this test ...

 

[Luckless]

I may have to get into pinhole photography over the winter, as this kind of sounds like an interesting project to experiment with.

My first thought so far has been to try to find a way to get the camera sort of 'hidden' into a reflector to light your subject with, without allowing the light you're bouncing off it to flood onto your film.

Wonder if you could put a polarized filter between the pinhole and film, then cross polarize the lights you're aiming at the 'reflector' on the front of the camera, and get a decent usable image out of the whole thing.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

At close distances the sharpness limiting effects of geometry, from too large of a pinhole, outweigh diffraction effects, at least until you get crazy small apertures. Good to know there's a formula for it. But simple ray tracing shows that for a subject at 1X the focal length, the image blur from geometry is twice that of infinity focus, which should give us a good starting point toward figuring an optimal pinhole for macro photography.

 

[James Guerin]

Hi Keith!
You will find these posts helpful.. Daryl's 84mm macro pinhole setup was the best macro pinhole camera I've ever seen..
http://www.f295.org/main/showthread.php?6786-Depth-of-Optimum&highlight=macro
http://www.f295.org/main/showthread.php?6481-84mm-f-560-Macro&highlight=macro
P.s- I shipped your pinholes yesterday.

 

[ic-racer]

You can calculate your Airy disk diameter with the formula :
Airy disk diameter in micrometers = 2.44 * 0.520 * N
N = F stop number

 

[keithostertag]

Thanks for the links,unique and useful.

 

[NedL]

This past weekend, I actually made a version of the camera we were discussing in this thread - for the current MSA.

When I view this thread now it says "dead link removed", but I think the link is still good.
Here's the link,
and I've attached the pdf too, just in case.

A funny thing happened... I was testing the camera for the first time last night, and I thought I was clever using two little flexible LED reading lamps for the lighting. The picture ended up more blurry than I was expecting, and I just realized tonight that the lamps were slowly "sinking" during the course of the exposure... it wasn't that the photo was blurry but that the lights were moving!

 

[Jim Jones]

These sites aren't specifically about macro- and micro-photography with pinholes, but I've found them useful and sometimes entertaining while researching and practicing pinhole photography over several decades.

http://inside.mines.edu/~mmyoung/PHCamera.pdf Matt Young touches on several aspects of pinhole that most authorities ignore.

http://pinhole.stanford.edu/index.htm Chris Patton is an often cited expert on basic and sometimes advanced pinhole photography.

https://jongrepstad.com/ Jon Grepstad has published much esoteric information on pinhole photography with valuable links and citations for more knowledge.

 

[Nick Dvoracek]

Here's a post about close up pinhole I did on f295

http://www.f295.org/main/showthread.php?14398-Close-up#post93689

 

[NedL]

Thanks Nick! Those are impressive for 35mm film

Two shots from mine are in the gallery now. I made the pinhole very quickly and I'm certain that it needs to be smaller... the amount of detail from my other camera is much much better. -- on a photo of the same watch, the gears are crisp and the writing is easily legible. If you look at the watch photo, near the bottom on the watch cover, there's an area where the "sharpness" is much better, when the pinhole got enough "squint" to be small enough. I'll replace the pinhole with a better one eventually.

I cannibalized an old camera I wasn't using and added on the pyramid...
The main advantage to this design is that it makes it possible to light the subject. I used two small LED reading lamps mounted on flexible necks.

 

[sc0rnd]

Thanks Nick! Those are impressive for 35mm film

Two shots from mine are in the gallery now. I made the pinhole very quickly and I'm certain that it needs to be smaller... the amount of detail from my other camera is much much better. -- on a photo of the same watch, the gears are crisp and the writing is easily legible. If you look at the watch photo, near the bottom on the watch cover, there's an area where the "sharpness" is much better, when the pinhole got enough "squint" to be small enough. I'll replace the pinhole with a better one eventually.

I cannibalized an old camera I wasn't using and added on the pyramid...
The main advantage to this design is that it makes it possible to light the subject. I used two small LED reading lamps mounted on flexible necks.

View attachment 207194

Hi all, I know that this is a very old thread, but I am a so called "long time lurker" who finally bit the bullet and made an account!
I am very interested in making a pinhole camera for close up photography. I was specifically intrigued by @NedL 's reference to photographing subjects " between 1/2 and 3/4 of an inch". would you be able to provide guidance or resources that would help me achieve this? I am a total novice in this area, but if I could somehow construct or achieve this I would be forever indebted.

I doubt anyone will actually reply to this because it's so old, but no harm in trying!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don’t know how close you can get, I’m curious to find out as well. The photo below is as close as I have done, I think it turned out ok, maybe not as close as you are looking for. It was shot with a Polaroid Pack Film pinhole Camera that I cobbled together from spare parts. The pinhole was 0.5mm, the focal length used was 85mm giving me f/283. The film was Fuji FP-100C.

Flower Polaroid Pinhole by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

nice example and experiment and it shows clearly that the limit will always be picture sharpness and clarity; the Achilles heel of pinhole photography

 

[xkaes]

All pinholes have diffraction. My pinholes range from f244 to f455. Diffraction is not something I lose sleep over. It's always there. Sure, it increases the closer you get.

As to close-up work, the biggest problem in composing.

All you need to do is approximate the magnification you want. Let's say you want a 4" flower on 4x5" film. That's about a 1X magnification. Pick the focal length you want for the perspective, let's say 180mm f365. You'll need 360mm of extension (180mm for infinity, plus 180mm more for 1X). That creates f730. Then compute the distance from the pinhole to the flower, or the film to the flower -- and compose as best you can.

One good thing about close-up, is that using flash will shorten the exposure a lot. You can use the flash very close at full power, or you can move it back and take several flashes in different positions at different power settings, for creative effects.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I am very interested in making a pinhole camera for close up photography.

I've done this, even to 1:1-ish macro. It works, though I found the optimum hole size gets a little smaller as your subject distance decreases. For 1:1, I'd reduce the calculated optimum aperture by 10-20%, trading off geometric blur against diffraction.

 

[NedL]

Hi all, I know that this is a very old thread...

Hi Sc0rnd. I finally did photograph a bee's face for WPPD a couple years ago with that pyramid camera. Well, it was a yellow jacket but same idea

this is almost a "pinhole microscope" because it is much more than 1:1... the negative is on 5x7" photopaper and the face is maybe 1/8" wide. It's difficult to light the subject when it is close to the camera, and the pyramid shape helped a lot with that. This image took 6 or 7 hours with two bright reading lights on either side. Getting it centered in front of the pinhole was difficult. I tried a few times and one time the little hairs on top of the thorax were well defined in the image ( those are tiny! ). I'm certian this image could have been much better if I'd spent more time on it... the pinhole size was a bit too big. I was intent on making the face fill the photo paper.

In macro photography with a lens thin depth of field is a problem. A similar but less extreme thing happens with pinhole. For example, the magnification factor for a plane 1/4" from the pinhole is twice as much as the plane 1/2" from the pinhole. That makes a big difference in the "optimal" pinhole, enough that it matters to the percieved sharpness of the image.

Best thing to do is build a simple camera and give it a try! For more normal macro, like 1:1 or larger, it can do surprisingly well and the pinhole size is not so critical.

Have fun!

 

[xkaes]

That's about 40-50X -- maybe f4000?!?!?