Finally a bit of success.

[Grandpa Ron]

I have been trying to get as sharp a pin hole photo for a while.

I decided to try as small a pinhole as I could make, (.356 mm) as close to the film plain as I could mount it.(61.5 mm). this gave me an f 170 aperture.

The subjects were simple a swing at about 25 meters, and a windmill base at about 75 meters.

The photos are as shot, with fujicolor 200 and printed to a disc by the photo lab.

Certainly not the best but a good starting point.

I want to thank all the folks on the forum for their encouragement and suggestions.

 

[OptiKen]

Congratulations.
I really love the romantic feelings in the swing shot especially.

 

[Jim Jones]

That's very close to the pinhole diameter given by the Lord Rayleigh constant in calculating the diameter. Slightly smaller pinholes should make slightly sharper images, but not enough to bother with as long as you're getting such nice results.

 

[DWThomas]

Definitely shows progress! I agree with Jim Jones, a little smaller yet might be sharper, but you're getting some "painterly" images which could be quite acceptable as they are.

 

[wyofilm]

Looking great!

 

[MattKing]

Looks like you are making progress.
One thing that it helps to understand is that when you use film with a pinhole, how you go about creating a print from that film is quite important. A pinhole image is almost by definition deficient in edge sharpness, which is a major component of apparent sharpness.
Here is a resized but otherwise not heavily manipulated "snip" from a relatively high resolution scan from a larger, 6x9 negative:

And this is the result after some aggressive post-processing work, particularly with the the Unsharp Mask tool:

Not bad, considering this was taken using an exposure of about 30 seconds - our friends are great sports!

In case you were wondering, this is how our friends appear on 120 colour negative film exposed in an older but more "normal" folding, scale focus camera:

 

[ciniframe]

as close to the film plain as I could mount it.(61.5 mm).

This line puzzles me. In a earlier post you mentioned trying pinhole in an 'old SLR'. Most of the 35mm film SLRs I know of had a lens flange to film distance of around 44~46mm and a pinhole mounted to a body cap should be at about that distance, especially mounted inside the cap. On the front of the body cap a flap made from black construction paper and black masking tape can serve as a shutter if need be. All in all though, you are making some nice progress.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Ciniframe

Well let me explain, The camera I am using is an old Praktica. It was made in East Germany probably in the 1960's. It is the type of camera you buy used when you are first married and broke.

Yes the distance from the film plain to the outside of the camera body is 45 mm but the cap for the lens hole has long since disappeared. My pinholes are mounted on a series of 3 concentric tubes, the innermost tube dropping into lens hole, supported by the outer two. At the time, the shortest tube I could cut without crushing was 61.5 mm.

However, your suggestion has given me a idea; the inner tube to a flat disk should mount flush with the body. Sealing light leaks will be the biggest issue. Also the aperture will increase to f 130 or so.

If I did not want to change the pinhole lens I could just use double backed foam tape. However, I find it very convenient to set up the shot with the standard lens then switch to the pinhole.

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[ciniframe]

Grandpa Ron;
If it is a Praktica it should be a M42 thread body cap. They are available from several Chinese sellers on ebay for $1 or $2 each, just search "M42 body cap". From China be prepared to wait 10 to 25 days for them to arrive. I'd order 3~5 so you can have several to experiment with.

 

[Nick Dvoracek]

You don’t really need a proper body cap. I did it once by taping a binocular lens cap on to my Canon F-1