Re: sharpness vs. depth-of-field

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray" <uptown@uptowngallery.org>

> BUT, people are telling me I will probably be disappointed by anything
> larger than 5 x 7 or so from my 35 mm pinhole negatives because they say
> pinhole images are "not very sharp".
>
> Is this just anecdotal advice from people who simply poked a hole without
> consideration of all the things that play a role....(that wasn't supposed
to
> rhyme, it was an accident)? (Optimal hole diameter/focal length, thickness
> and roundness of pinhole material and resultant hole, etc.)

Murray,
             Thanks for giving us another chance to answer your question...!
:-)

Pinhole, is not about sharpness, it is about enjoyment. Don't let anybody
trouble you with ideas of sharpness or unsharpness. As I have said before,
if you want it sharp, surely you can get it, if you want it soft, definitely
you can get it, too. It is up to you and you alone. For me, the beauty of
some of my images resides not in the fact that some one else likes them, but
in the fact that I like and enjoy them.

Having said that, take a look at this image (forget about its artistic
redeeming value, pls :-) made from a 35mm frame:
http://members.home.com/penate/fire.html
Now take a look at this 9X enlargement of a piece of the image (this is a
raw scanning, no digital manipulation whatsoever):
http://members.home.com/penate/originales/firepiece.jpg
I'd let you decide if that image is sharp enough for you (in case you wanted
it sharp), coming from a 35mm and being a 9X enlargement.
Here is the full image (150Kb)
http://members.home.com/penate/originales/big.jpg

Guillermo

9X enlargement of a piece of 35mm frame
Received on Mon Aug 20 20:11:21 2001