Pinhole

Brian Pearcy · Apr 30, 2020

I have been impressed with some pinhole images I've been seeing lately.

The Harman Titan 4x5 Pinhole Camera images I've seen are impressively sharp. Is that normal? Or is there a lot of luck involved?

Before I invest in a Harman Titan I need a better understanding. Is the sharpness I've seen something that is technically possible or are the images likely sharpened up significantly via post processing?

Roger Thoms · Apr 30, 2020

I own both the 4x5 and 8x10 Titans and they are very sharp for pinhole cameras and I find the results very consistent. I think they are great cameras. This image is taken with the 4x5 and is a scan of an 8x10 silver gelatin print with minimal sharping.

Roger Thoms · Apr 30, 2020

This is from the 8x10 and is a scan of an 8x10 contact print.

Roger

Brian Pearcy · Apr 30, 2020

Thanks for the feedback. Very nice examples.

rubbernglue · Apr 30, 2020

To compare with, this is from my homemade 4x5" camera (46mm focal and 0.2mm hole) The hole was made by myself too using a needle and fine grained sandpaper. I am very satisfied with the results and sharpness of this camera. I NEVER adjust sharpness on my pictures, they are scanned with no "image enhancements", I might mildly adjust the curve for blacks and whites and if some large dust caughts my attention.

https://flickr.com/photos/rubbernglue/48589311612/in/dateposted-public/

Brian Pearcy · Apr 30, 2020

That is pretty sharp, especially if not enhanced.

Jim Jones · May 1, 2020

The Harman Titan pinhole camera has a properly sized pinhole and covers a wide angle, both contributing to its sharp images. Any other well-made 4x5 camera with a well-made pinhole of the same specifications should have similar image quality. An extensive source of information on pinhole photography is the late Eric Renner's book, Pinhole Photography: Rediscovering a historic technique. Much information is also available online at https://jongrepstad.com/pinhole-photography/. We find conflicting information in these and many other sources. The often casual approach to pinhole photography contributes to this. While such an approach can be rewarding, it rarely yields results comparable to the Harman Titan and other similar cameras. A major joy of pinhole photography is its versatility. We can labor towards perfection, or enjoy the novelty of a camera improvised in a fraction of an hour from whatever we have in our homes.

jeffreyg · May 1, 2020

I have the Titan 4x5 with both cones and have been very pleased with the results. I usually make platinum/palladium prints from the negatives (Ilford HP5).

http://www,jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

John Koehrer · May 1, 2020

The pinhole size is critical to sharpness. a bit off in size give serious differences.
The Renner book is a good one on pinhole technique.

Andrew O'Neill · May 1, 2020

I have a machined pinhole that I have used on my 8x10 camera. I was absolutely shocked at how sharp the negs were when I proofed them. The film was TMY-2. That said, I'm always surprised at how sharp some of my photo students pinhole box cameras paper negs turn out! And we're just using a tack pressed through a piece of aluminum foil!

Donald Qualls · May 1, 2020

Pinhole images, especially from wide angle cameras and contact printed, can be almost shockingly sharp.

The optimal hole size for, say, a 60 mm projection distance is comparable to the acceptable circle of confusion for calculating depth of field for negatives intended for contact printing, so a print in hand at normal viewing distance can appear to be visually sharp for objects from nearly in contact with the hole to the horizon. Shorter projection distances will use smaller holes, and contact prints will be correspondingly sharper, though the extreme wide angle of a large negative with very short projection can be a little disconcerting.

Brian Pearcy · May 1, 2020

Thanks. I've been wanting to buy a 4x5 camera, but after seeing some pretty outstanding 4x5 pinhole images, I find it intriguing.

There is a whole alternative photography scene that I didn't know existed. I'm just not sure it makes sense to spend $300 on a pinhole when I could put that towards a Toyo, Sinar or Horseman.

Roger Thoms · May 1, 2020

Brian, you certainly don’t have to spend $300 to get started in pinhole photography. Really with some Foam Core, tape, a piece of an aluminum can, you can make a pinhole camera that is capable of high quality images. I find it nice if the camera takes a film holders vs one that you load the film in directly. But either way will work. If you have any kind of woodworking skills that’s even better. Here’s a thread over on LFPF that you might find interesting. https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?136967-LF-Pinhole-design-and-building

Roger

Brian Pearcy · May 1, 2020

I am not a math whiz, but if I'm understanding correctly I probably need multiple pinhole cameras depending on the subject matter.

For example an image of a church or other architecture vs. an image of a mountain.

I need to read that Renner book.

RalphLambrecht · May 1, 2020

Brian Pearcy said:
I have been impressed with some pinhole images I've been seeing lately.

The Harman Titan 4x5 Pinhole Camera images I've seen are impressively sharp. Is that normal? Or is there a lot of luck involved?

Before I invest in a Harman Titan I need a better understanding. Is the sharpness I've seen something that is technically possible or are the images likely sharpened up significantly via post processing?

a pinhole can easily achieve a resolution of 7 lp/mm on negative. if contact printed, this comes close to the eye's limit and appears ,therefore, extremely sharp. that said, the beauty of a pinhole often comes from it's light softness.

Brian Pearcy · May 2, 2020

I like the ONDU 6 x 9 too. Their Instagram gallery has some nice shots.

I am wondering if the typical pinhole image will print well at a 18 x 24 size (or similar).

Nick Dvoracek · May 2, 2020

Brian Pearcy said:
I like the ONDU 6 x 9 too. Their Instagram gallery has some nice shots.

I am wondering if the typical pinhole image will print well at a 18 x 24 size (or similar).

I just participated in an exhibition at the Oshkosh Public Museum where they made 16 inch square prints of my photographs from scans of my 6x6cm negatives, with no sharpening or unsharp mask applied. https://sites.google.com/view/opmthenandnow

I think they hold up well. If you’re going to look at them with a loupe, you’re not going to be able to read the fine print, but if you’re looking for a pinhole photograph, they’re fine. Incidentally these are all with hand-drilled pinholes in cameras ranging from a .25mm pinhole 35mm away from the film to a .5mm pinhole 200mm from the film.

Brian Pearcy · May 2, 2020

Thanks for sharing. 16x16 is good. Those shots are great.

Brian Pearcy · May 2, 2020

I think a 6x9 might be a sweet spot. 8 shots a roll is probably better that 1 shot for a newby like me.

Arthurwg · May 2, 2020

I've recently printed a 20x24 picture cropped from a 6x9 negative made with a Zero Image camera. Very pleased with the results. It probably works because a pinhole image is not tack sharp to begin with.

tezzasmall · May 3, 2020

I've tried homemade cameras, made from various boxes to give me various sized negs, along side well manufactured ones. With both types of cameras, I've used both aluminum foil pin pricked holes alongside laser pin holes, and I definitely prefer the homemade pinholes. They are far from perfectly sized and the prints are of varying softness's, but out of the two I much prefer the look of these. Basically if I want a sharp print, I'll use a manufactured lens.

Have fun experimenting, but as said, save your $$$ and have a go at making one - it is quite easy and experimenting is half the fun!

Terry S

MattKing · May 3, 2020

I have a Noon 6x12 pinhole camera that is truly a thing of beauty, as well as being very flexible (multi format) and capable.
I like it because it handles the issues surrounding film handling really well.
Here is a web photo of the camera:

And here are two images taken side by side - one with a "regular" 120 camera, and the other with the Noon Pinhole:

\

The pinhole exposure was a 30 second one - our friends are great sports!

Donald Qualls · May 3, 2020

Brian Pearcy said:
Thanks. I've been wanting to buy a 4x5 camera, but after seeing some pretty outstanding 4x5 pinhole images, I find it intriguing.

There is a whole alternative photography scene that I didn't know existed. I'm just not sure it makes sense to spend $300 on a pinhole when I could put that towards a Toyo, Sinar or Horseman.

One really, really cheap way to get into pinhole: buy a truly cheap folder on eBay. A 6x6 or 6x9, of the "box camera with a bellows" variety can often be had for $10 plus shipping, and for that price, you won't cringe when you hack out the bellows, remove and discard the erecting mechanism (and maybe even the door, unless you like it in your images) and install a plate with a pinhole under the original door. Depending on the folder, that'll give you anywhere from 20 to 30 mm projection, and on 6x6 or 6x9, if you have a decent tripod, your images will likely look at least as sharp those from the original lens you removed, even when enlarged to six inch prints. Except they'll look that good from the door that gets in the bottom or side of every frame (if you didn't remove it) to the horizon.

The folder handles the film transport for you, and you replace the crappy lens with a pinhole -- many of these cameras are improved by this conversion.

ciniframe · May 3, 2020

Don’t forget to consider 4x5 using B&W photo paper as a negative, and then contact printing to get a positive.
The whole loading, developing and contact printing can be carried out under safelight. Only minimal equipment needed. Even if buying new from a dealer like B&H from scratch you would not spend more than $250 total. And after initial investment cost per print is about 50 cents. If you go the scan negative and print you could make enlarged prints from the negative.
I use Ilford MG4 RC Pearl but Ilford has just replaced that paper with a newer type.
ISO is slow, usually about ISO 6.

Donald Qualls · May 3, 2020

ciniframe said:
If you go the scan negative and print you could make enlarged prints from the negative.

Heresy!

If you use fiber base paper, you can oil or wax the paper negative and put it in a condenser enlarger. You'll have fairly long exposure times, but you'll avoid sleeping with the enemy...

Pinhole

Brian Pearcy

Roger Thoms

Roger Thoms

Brian Pearcy

rubbernglue

Brian Pearcy

Jim Jones

jeffreyg

John Koehrer

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Donald Qualls

Brian Pearcy

Roger Thoms

Brian Pearcy

RalphLambrecht

Brian Pearcy

Nick Dvoracek

Brian Pearcy

Brian Pearcy

Arthurwg

tezzasmall

MattKing

Moderator

Donald Qualls

ciniframe

Donald Qualls

Pinhole

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency