Not much sucess yet.

[Grandpa Ron]

I just got back my first roll of pinhole pictures. The results were a bit disappointing. Not surprisingly many were over exposed but even the one that were not, were very fuzzy even with a tripod and release.

I have calculated the f stop at f 178, or about 60 times the shutter time shown for an f 22 light meter reading.

So I guess my question is; how much will an f 360 or f 500 reduce the fuzziness.

 

[MattKing]

Pinhole Designer tells me that for a focal length of 115 mm (4.5 inches) and using the Lord Rayleigh constant, the optimal pinhole diameter would be 0.476 mm, leading to an effective aperture of f/242 and an exposure factor of 121 for f/22 readings.
If you use a substantially smaller pinhole, diffraction will most likely cause more fuzziness.
Are you evaluating scans of the results? I ask, because one of the effects of using a pinhole is that while the pinhole camera may be capable of capturing lots of detail, it tends to be quite destructive of acutance. Scanning systems get tripped up by that. If you aren't printing optically, you may need to use more digital sharpening to compensate for the loss of acutance.
This was shot on medium format film with a pinhole diameter that is close to Lord Rayleigh optimum. A raw scan looks really flat, but either an optical print or the attached resized and sharpened scan is, IMHO, quite rewarding.

 

[mgb74]

Was this a homemade pinhole? If so, what was the thickness of the material used and did you remove any burs from the hole?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The pin hole was hand made but not very carefully. I have since improved the process and can make a very nice hole in .003" aluminum. The f number was is about f 176.

My exposures were far to long, although with a Gimp program I can compensate but the the images are still fuzzy. I may have been too close.

Here is perhaps the best image after tweaking in Gimp.

One thing is for sure, this challenge is addictive.

 

[DWThomas]

Hey -- all pinhole is good! (Especially if you get recognizable images!) In my opinion, the f-number is an indicator, but not necessarily the design target when talking sharpness. The optimum pinhole is affected by the pinhole to film plane distance, and also the size of the film format. The effective pinhole size varies a bit off the central axis which contributes to exposure fall-off toward the sides in a wide angle camera -- the effect can lead to flat-out vignetting if the pinhole plate material is relatively thick. I note some background details on the shot above, those along the left and right edges, appear a lot sharper than the flowers in the central area -- so perhaps that's saying try a smaller pinhole (or maybe a breeze was wiggling the flowers?!)

You haven't said (unless it's in another thread) what film format and dimensions you're using here. I've typically wound up with f-numbers around 210 to 275 or so on the cameras I've built, based on using the Pinhole Designer utility to do the calculations. There is a magic constant used in those calcs that defaults to 1.9, attributed to Rayleigh, but I know Jim Jones, who's an active pinholer here leans to a smaller constant, like 1.4-something. I used 1.65 in my last effort. So far I make the observation, the larger the film format, the sharper the result appears. I've had 8x10 contact prints from pinhole shots on x-ray film wind up in an exhibition or two. They don't have the "snap" of something from a Tessar lens, but they can be pretty amazing when considering there's no lens involved at all!

You can check out some of my good, bad, and ugly through these galleries. I mostly do a big (or not) once a year extravaganza on the last Sunday in April, Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day.

 

[Jim Jones]

Dave is more active in pinhole photography than me. I don't even have a darkroom at the moment. There is a persistent itch to include one in a garage I'm having built, though.
Pinhole Designer with a user constant of 1.4 or a bit larger is my favorite way of calculating pinhole diameters. The Rayleigh constant was derived by a scientist and based more on theory than on practice.
As for material, .002 brass shim stock perhaps works cleaner than thin aluminum. Thinner shim stock might be even better, but more difficult to work with. The dimple and sand method thins the edges of the pinhole, so thickness of the material isn't too important. I've drilled larger pinholes with tiny drills. For this, thin material is best. If it is sandwiched between firm surfaced material for drilling, fewer burrs are created. To deburr a pinhole, I may use a needle that has its tip ground to a blunt point much like a machinist's center punch. This is gently twirled in both sides of a pinhole. A sharp needle lightly twirled in the pinhole usually removes remaining burrs. A feather-light touch should be used for these two operations. A magnifying glass helps guiding the tool into the pinhole to prevent damaging its edges. Gee, how can something as simple as a pinhole become so complicated?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Well my initial set up was easy, I took the lens off of an old SLR, made a multi-layered tube to fit in the lens opening. The distance from the pin hole to the film plane is 124 mm. the Pinhole was .7 mms, close to am f 176 aperture. Of course I did not know about removing the dimple on the inside of the pin hole or have the foggiest idea about exposure time, except the longer the better. .

Since that time I have fabricated a .5 mm round pin hole on .08 mm aluminum stock. That should give me about an f 250 aperture and is close to Lord Rayleigh's suggested size.

Since I have no darkroom handy, I bought a four pack of Fiji 200 speed color film for $10.00. Hopefully by the time I get through the 96 pictures I should have a better handle on this pin hole stuff. .

 

[tezzasmall]

I haven't done pinhole for a while now...

But one of the last times I did, out of curiosity I made a very slap dash pinhole for my tripod mounted 35mm Pentax MZ5N. I literally took the lens off of the camera and 'stuffed' a bit of tin foil in as best as, then poked a pinhole with a safety pin.

Well, they might not have been dead sharp but the subjects were very recognisable. The Pentax even did a good job on automatic exposure as well, giving me a good set of negs.

But, darned if I know where the negs are... So, me thinks I will try the same again really soon and report back. Hopefully I should get the same-ish results.

So, overall, I personally do wonder about all this 'correct pinhole size' and everything else that we're supposed to do to get some pics.

I will return.

Terry S

 

[darkroommike]

Just my opinion but that's a bit large for a pinhole, I got best results using pinholes around f/300 using 4x5 Polaroid type 55 p/n. Today I'd buy a lasered pinhole and about f/295 on 4x5.

 

[Jim Jones]

To some of us who try to squeeze the best possible performance from pinholes, the correct size is critical. Deviating from the optimum size by 10% noticeably degrades the sharpness. However, sharpness in the corners of wide angle pinhole images falls off considerably with the pinhole optimizes for center sharpness. Increasing the pinhole diameter reduces center sharpness but improves edge sharpness. Curving the film is another way of increasing edge sharpness, but induces distortion. Pinhole photography is more voodoo than science.

 

[ciniframe]

Although initial costs are high, getting into 4x5 pinhole using paper negatives is easier and more versatile and controllable (since you do your own processing). Of course it’s B&W but if you really like color then hand color finished prints. Once set up, running costs can be as low as 40 cents a shot and that includes the contact print. The make or break is if you can set up a darkroom, even a temporary set up and take down rig. The requirements for processing paper and making contact prints are minimal. A 4X5 is large enough to see easily and you can photograph the neg with a simple d*g*t*l or even smart phone if you want to make prints that way.

With 4X5 home made cameras are fairly easy with a few garage tools. A table saw would be handy.
If you already have any kind of darkroom (either permanent or makeshift) you are at least half the way there already.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Well.you have to walk before you run as they say. A 24 frame roll of color film was about 80 cents a shot when processed to a disc. The digital image can be manipulated to allow for exposure errors.

Actually the end goal is B&W and I do have a 4x5 view camera and contact printer. But until I can gain enough pin hole experience to get more good frames then bad, I will stick with 35 mm.

I have recently tried a method of scanning negatives into the computer using a typical flat bed scanner with some success and I do have my old 35 mm film developing tanks. So my next film purchase will B&W.

My bathroom will serve as a dark room but my favorite dark room for loading film into the developing tank is my black change bag.

 

[M Carter]

Just my .02, but man - the laser cut pinholes on eBay for eight bucks - really nice. Yep, I have a soda-can pinhole in an isolette conversion, but I made like 5 of them until my high-res scanner showed I had a decent one. The laser-cut are well worth it (disclaimer - I'm only interested in super-wide pinhole cameras for the way they render perspective - wish they were as sharp as my lensed cameras...)

 

[Jim Jones]

M Carter -- At least the super-wide pinhole images are sharper than when using longer focal length pinholes on the same format.

 

[ced]

I 2nd the brass shimming sheets (not that expensive) they give cleaner holes.
I might also try coating them both sides with a black permanent marker as this helps reduce flare about the hole.
I was quite impressed with the sharpness (of course post capture processing) on this image. Good luck with your endeavour!
Apologies for the extenal link:http://www.ipernity.com/doc/987971/34683611

 

[REAndy]

The pin hole was hand made but not very carefully. I have since improved the process and can make a very nice hole in .003" aluminum. The f number was is about f 176.

My exposures were far to long, although with a Gimp program I can compensate but the the images are still fuzzy. I may have been too close.

Here is perhaps the best image after tweaking in Gimp.

One thing is for sure, this challenge is addictive.

The color picture of the pink flowers is very nice. and it is very sharp. The only thing fuzzy is the pink flowers in the foreground. They seem to be on longer stems than the rest of the vegetation in the photo and they are a bit fuzzy because of wind or those flowers moving a bit?

How far was the camera to those "fuzzy" pink flowers? How far was the camera to the background? Have you taken a picture of something solid (building/truck/tractor/etc) with the same pinhole camera? Do those photos seem fuzzy also?

I'm thinking the flowers moved during the long exposure.

 

[ced]

From the Mr Pinhole site:
Pinhole Size Calculator
MrPinhole.com
Inches mm
Focal Length 4.88 - 124mm
Diameter 0.018 - 0.47mm
f stop 264
Image Circle 9.37 - 238

 

[Ces1um]

The color picture of the pink flowers is very nice. and it is very sharp. The only thing fuzzy is the pink flowers in the foreground. They seem to be on longer stems than the rest of the vegetation in the photo and they are a bit fuzzy because of wind or those flowers moving a bit?

How far was the camera to those "fuzzy" pink flowers? How far was the camera to the background? Have you taken a picture of something solid (building/truck/tractor/etc) with the same pinhole camera? Do those photos seem fuzzy also?

I'm thinking the flowers moved during the long exposure.

+1 Hard to get a sharp photo of vegetation. Even the slightest breeze can ruin your photo. Hard structures either buildings or rocks yield better results.

 

[Nick Dvoracek]

I'm thinking the flowers moved during the long exposure.

That’s definitely the reason the flowers are not sharp in the pictures.

 

[DWThomas]

Hard to get a sharp photo of vegetation. Even the slightest breeze can ruin your photo. Hard structures either buildings or rocks yield better results.

Yes! Usually as Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day approaches I start a list of possible subjects. I maintain a definite bias toward historic barns, railroad trestles, dams, and the like. Stuff that doesn't wiggle and has strong lines and shapes brings out the best in pinholery.

 

[Ces1um]

Yes! Usually as Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day approaches I start a list of possible subjects. I maintain a definite bias toward historic barns, railroad trestles, dams, and the like. Stuff that doesn't wiggle and has strong lines and shapes brings out the best in pinholery.

Pinholery. Best. Term. Ever. Almost sounds rude.