I've been thinking about a telescoping camera consisting of a 5-sided box
within a 5 sided box and who to have cut the wood for me...but you folks
keep reminding me that frugality is reality with a few letters changed...I
just got 3- 48"x96" sheets of black Gatorfoam in at work, and there's bound
to be
s-c-r-a-p left over. For anyone who doesn't know what Gatorfoam is (not
bedroom slippers - those are Dearfoams), it's an extremely rigid foamcore,
and it comes in black and white. The black isn't super dense optical black,
but I guess that's what paint is for.
Murray
----- Original Message -----
From: <pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com>
To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:00 PM
Subject: Pinhole-Discussion digest, Vol 1 #508 - 12 msgs
> Send Pinhole-Discussion mailing list submissions to
> pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pinhole-discussion
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Pinhole-Discussion digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: slit cameras? (Tom Miller)
> 2. Re: slit cameras? (Tom Miller)
> 3. Re: Construction: slit cameras? (Tom Miller)
> 4. Re: 120-220-620 film? Oatmeal part II (JAMES301@aol.com)
> 5. Re: 127 film? (JAMES301@aol.com)
> 6. sheet film instead of photo paper (Murray)
> 7. scanner pinhole camera? (Jack Duganne)
> 8. Re: sheet film instead of photo paper (Gordon J. Holtslander)
> 9. RE: sheet film instead of photo paper (Andy Schmitt)
> 10. Re: sheet film instead of photo paper (Charles Sloan)
> 11. Re: sheet film instead of photo paper (Bill Erickson)
> 12. RE: sheet film instead of photo paper (Michael Keller)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Tom Miller" <twmiller@mr.net>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] slit cameras?
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:05:01 -0600
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> Hi Brigitte,
>
> Further in Jim Moninger's article he mentioned that he saw the banding
> using .5mm slits and so increased the slit width to 2mm thus making
> more diffuse images with less banding. I can't see banding in the
> images that accompany his article.
>
> The use or elimination of banding is up to the photographer. Marnie
> Cardozo's images in the same issue of PJ are much sharper, but include
> banding. I've dedided to keep the banding in the iconoclast images.
>
> Tom
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Brigitte.Harper@london.glencore.com>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] slit cameras?
>
>
> >
> > Thanks guys.
> > But what does it mean in pratical terms of constructing or pairing
> > differently shaped slits. Is there anything I can do or avoid to do
> in
> > order to eliminate or diffuse the problem?
> > Regards,
> > Brigitte.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Guillermo"
> > <penate@home.com> To:
> <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> > Sent by: cc:
> > pinhole-discussion-admin@p Subject:
> Re: [pinhole-discussion] slit cameras?
> > inhole.com
> >
> >
> > 07/11/2001 13:08
> > Please respond to
> > pinhole-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Miller" <twmiller@mr.net>
> >
> > > > Also, do you have any explanation why in some slit
> configurations
> > > > there is a lot of banding (thin black lines) forming over the
> image?
> > >
> > > This quote is from Jim Moninger's article in the Pinhole Journal
> vol.
> > > 15 #1 : "These are apparently caused by the light rays / waves
> with
> > > form the two separate images becoming out of phase with one
> another."
> > > Tom
> >
> > Not just out of phase but 180 degrees from each other.
> This -perhaps- are
> > regions where light (wave) diffracted by one slit is at its maximum
> peak
> > (+)
> > and light (wave) diffracted by the other slit not just overlaps the
> former
> > but happens to be at its lowest peak (-), the net effect is
> darkness, light
> > from one slit canceling out with light from the other slit, weird,
> eh?
> > This
> > BTW, is called Destructive Interference.
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. The contents of this email and any
> attachments are strictly confidential and they may not be used or
> disclosed by someone who is not a named recipient.
> > If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by
> replying to this email inserting the word "misdirected" as the
> message.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "Tom Miller" <twmiller@mr.net>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] slit cameras?
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:25:01 -0600
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> Hi Guillermo,
>
> I crudely measured several of the dozen or so slits that I use. They
> range from about .5mm to .75mm; most are about .65mm. I wasn't sure
> how to plug the numbers into the the following formula, since the
> slits are different lengths from the film plane. Most always the
> inner slit is 3" or about 75mm from the film plane and the outer slit
> is 6" or about 150mm. There is only one focal length variable in the
> formula. Using .65 for both A and B: at 150mm focal length, the
> result was f 204; at 75mm it was f 102. My guess is that neither is
> quite right.
>
> Tom
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guillermo" <penate@home.com>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] slit cameras?
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Miller" <twmiller@mr.net>
> >
> > > The format for the two images is 4x5. The rule of thumb I heard
> was
> > > to "meter the scene at f90 and give it two more stops."
> >
> > This means your slits set up is f/180
> >
> > > This gives
> > > exposures of 1 or 2 seconds in bright sun with Ektachrome 64T
> (EPY).
> > > The few pinhole exposures I've made with 4x5 EPY were in the 16
> second
> > > range. Naturally the slit exposure times can vary depending on
> the
> > > width and length of the slits; but I've found that this rule of
> thumb
> > > works well in almost all cases.
> >
> > I'd say the widths alone affect the exposure time. The lengths and
> distance
> > between them affect the image circle size or angle of view.
> >
> > Tom, if you know the widths of the slits of your camera, could you
> do me a
> > favor? Could you please substitute the focal length and width of
> slits in
> > the following formula and find the result?
> >
> > f/stop = 0.886 x focal length / SQRT( A x B )
> >
> > where SQRT stands for Square Root, A is the width of one slit and B
> is the
> > width of the other slit
> >
> > Is the results anywhere close to f/180? (close in this case means
> above 128
> > and bellow 256)
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
> >
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> From: "Tom Miller" <twmiller@mr.net>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Construction: slit cameras?
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:01:10 -0600
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> Mac wrote:
> >
> > Okay Tom,
> >
> > Now I really need to try this. I think I will just use 4x5 B&W. You
> have
> > have already gone over this and I missed it. If i remember you have
> two
> > slits. One a questionmark shap and the other kind of like a 30
> degree
> > bent straw. How wide are the slits? 1-2mm?
>
> Right now I have a "library" of about a dozen slits in various shapes
> and orientations. Most are about .65mm, crudely measured.
>
> > What is the distance between the slits? Touching oran inch?
> The inner slit is usually 3 inches from the film plane; the outer slit
> is usually 6 inches.
>
> > What focal length are you using to cover 4x5? inches?
> The above configuration usually produces an image that touches the
> edges of the 4x5 film plane, but never covers it fully. For the work
> I'm doing now, the large black spaces enhance what I'm trying to
> accomplish. This is a truthful but windy way of saying "I don't
> know."
>
> >
> > I assume you are not focusing or use a ground glass?
> I'm not.
>
> >
> > I have a 5x7 field camera, but this sounds like a job for some black
> > foamcore. God I love black foam core.:-)
> >
> Even after reading the Pinhole Journal articles and the section in
> Eric Renner's book about slits, skull density prevented me from
> visualizing how to make the camera or to make the slits (or where to
> find the time for experimenting). So, a couple of
> years ago, I bought a Cardozo camera from Pinhole Resource. It is a
> beautiful match of design and craftsmanship. The camera has inner
> spacers that let the slits be arranged in different focal lengths.
>
> Black foam core should work great for building a slit camera.
> Actually, I bought a large piece a week or two ago to make a slit
> camera that I won't mind leaving in the back seat of the car when its
> parked outside at night.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> From: JAMES301@aol.com
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:31:24 EST
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 120-220-620 film? Oatmeal part II
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Cc: JAMES301@aol.com
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>
> The 120 fiilm is a roll film that is 2 1/4 in wide when used in a Twin
Lens
> Reflex it usually made 12 2 1/4 in pictures on a roll . This film is
> paperbacked the length of the entire roll. It could also make 16 pictures
on
> a roll. The exact size I do not recall but smaller that 2 1/4 in square.
>
> The 620 film is identical to 120 film except I HAD a narrower lip on the
> spool. The idea been tha smaller cameras could bee produced. It is no
longer
> made. I have some rolls of 620 Verichrome Pan(ASA 125) from the '70s
have
> not used yet.
>
> The 220 film is twice as long as 120. This allows 24 pictures on a roll.
It
> has a paper backing at the beginning of the roll and at the end of the
roll.
>
> I hope this helps!
>
> James Johnston
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> From: JAMES301@aol.com
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:38:29 EST
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 127 film?
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Cc: JAMES301@aol.com
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> Murray,
>
> You bought a filmless classic. The 127 film was discontinued by Kodak in
the
> mid-90s. It took 8 pictures with a negative tha gave a wallet sized
contact
> print it could also take 12 square pictures again the dimensions I do not
> recall. It fell out of favor due to the 126 film cartridge.
>
> James Johnston
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Murray" <uptown@uptowngallery.org>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:26:41 -0500
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> Hello:
>
> Apologies if this question was answered 47 times already before I thought
to
> ask it.
>
> Any one use b/w sheet film that uses 'conventional' developer instead of
> paper negatives (other than lith/exotics) ?
>
> If so, what kind? Maybe 4 x 5 film packs? Anything larger?
>
> Anyone try x-ray film? If so, what kind of behavior does it exhibit with
> light vs. x-rays (contrast?).
>
> Thanks
>
> Murray
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 14:56:01 -0800
> From: Jack Duganne <duganne@earthlink.net>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] scanner pinhole camera?
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> I am posting this for the second time because I am new here and may be
doin=
> g
> it wrong, but here goes...
>
> I am thrilled with the discussions that go on here and am delighted with
th=
> e
> information. It is inspiring and motivational - both things I need to get
> going again after having been so long away from the art and craft of the
> 'hole thing'! =20
> I made many pinhole cameras and produced a large body of pinhole images
> directly onto Cibachrome paper with an old 8x10 portrait camera. I
scanned
> those one-of-a-kind pictures and printed them with an IRIS printer. I
also
> made many Polaroid B&W and color images with a hand made 4x5 camera.
> I have spent the last many years becoming a fine art digital printmaker
and
> am the one responsible for coining the term 'gicl=E9e'. I would love to
trad=
> e
> prints and/or digital printmaking information for the tools of your unique
> pinhole art. If anyone is interested, I am available at:
>
> Duganne Ateliers
> www.duganne.com
> 2651 Main Street
> Santa Monica, Ca. 90405
> 310-314-0050
>
> I have seen listings referring to using a scanner as a pinhole camera. I
> have looked in the archives for listings relating to this posting and have
> been unproductive. Anyone remember or know of a way to do that thing?
>
> Also, I am still looking for ways of using a digital camera to do pinhole
> photography if anyone has had the luck of doing so...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack Duganne
>
> P.S.
>
> Thank you to Meggan Gould and Denise Sallee for their replies and
> experiences....
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:55:26 -0600 (CST)
> From: "Gordon J. Holtslander" <holtsg@duke.usask.ca>
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> Hi:
>
> I remember reading a reference to using x-ray film covered in the pinhole
> resource.
>
> It does work with light. I believe x-ray film is more contrasty than
> regular film. I think a lower contrast developer is suggested. Selectol
> was supposed to work, but its no longer being made.
>
> The cool thing about X-ray film is that it often has an emulsion on both
> sides of the film.
>
> some people made cameras where the film hung in the middle and pinholes
> were on each end. a sort of double exposure was made with two images
> being formed on opposite sides of the film.
>
> Large format film from kodak ilford is expensive see if you can find a
> supplier of forte or bergger, In Canada there's
> http://www.eightelmphoto.com
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Murray wrote:
>
> > Hello:
> >
> > Apologies if this question was answered 47 times already before I
thought to
> > ask it.
> >
> > Any one use b/w sheet film that uses 'conventional' developer instead of
> > paper negatives (other than lith/exotics) ?
> >
> > If so, what kind? Maybe 4 x 5 film packs? Anything larger?
> >
> > Anyone try x-ray film? If so, what kind of behavior does it exhibit with
> > light vs. x-rays (contrast?).
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Murray
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology
> holtsg@duke.usask.ca 112 Science Place
> http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg University of Saskatchewan
> Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
> Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> From: "Andy Schmitt" <aandy@home.com>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:25:03 -0500
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> X-Ray film shows up on EBay at least once a week.....cheap too...
> andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
> [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com]On Behalf Of Gordon J.
> Holtslander
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:55 PM
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
>
>
> Hi:
>
> I remember reading a reference to using x-ray film covered in the pinhole
> resource.
>
> It does work with light. I believe x-ray film is more contrasty than
> regular film. I think a lower contrast developer is suggested. Selectol
> was supposed to work, but its no longer being made.
>
> The cool thing about X-ray film is that it often has an emulsion on both
> sides of the film.
>
> some people made cameras where the film hung in the middle and pinholes
> were on each end. a sort of double exposure was made with two images
> being formed on opposite sides of the film.
>
> Large format film from kodak ilford is expensive see if you can find a
> supplier of forte or bergger, In Canada there's
> http://www.eightelmphoto.com
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Murray wrote:
>
> > Hello:
> >
> > Apologies if this question was answered 47 times already before I
thought
> to
> > ask it.
> >
> > Any one use b/w sheet film that uses 'conventional' developer instead of
> > paper negatives (other than lith/exotics) ?
> >
> > If so, what kind? Maybe 4 x 5 film packs? Anything larger?
> >
> > Anyone try x-ray film? If so, what kind of behavior does it exhibit with
> > light vs. x-rays (contrast?).
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Murray
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology
> holtsg@duke.usask.ca 112 Science Place
> http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg University of Saskatchewan
> Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
> Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> unsubscribe or change your account at
> http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:49:51 -0700
> From: Charles Sloan <chaslo@getnet.net>
> Organization: Chaslo Enterprises
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> I used to work in an X-Ray Darkroom, of course I experimented with the
> film. There is an example of the results I got at:
> http://www.chucksphotos.com/Gallery_pinhole.html , it's the one labeled
> 'Coworkers'. I used an Oatmeal box with a pinhole lens and if I remember
> correctly about a 20 second exposure. I developed the film in the
hospitals
> processor and contact printed it later.
>
> Chuck
>
> Murray wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyone try x-ray film? If so, what kind of behavior does it exhibit with
> > light vs. x-rays (contrast?).
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Murray
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
>
> --
> 'Tearlach'
>
> ICQ: 32665989
> My Home Page: http://www.getnet.net/~chaslo
> http://www.chucksphotos.com
> **********************************************************
> ...........Second Star to the right, straight on
> till morning..........
> ......."Roger, go for throttle up"........
> **********************************************************
> Genealogists never die they just lose their census.
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 11
> From: "Bill Erickson" <erickson@hickorytech.net>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:13:26 -0600
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> I've used 4x5,5x7,8x10 without problem. for me the issues were how much
> could i influence negative contast since I intended to use the negs for
> contact alternative process prints. Tmax is much the easiest to influence
> contrast via agitation. don't know anything about xray film. Your task, if
> you choose to accept, is to try it and report.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Murray" <uptown@uptowngallery.org>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:26 PM
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
>
>
> > Hello:
> >
> > Apologies if this question was answered 47 times already before I
thought
> to
> > ask it.
> >
> > Any one use b/w sheet film that uses 'conventional' developer instead of
> > paper negatives (other than lith/exotics) ?
> >
> > If so, what kind? Maybe 4 x 5 film packs? Anything larger?
> >
> > Anyone try x-ray film? If so, what kind of behavior does it exhibit with
> > light vs. x-rays (contrast?).
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Murray
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
> >
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 12
> From: "Michael Keller" <m.w.keller@verizon.net>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film instead of photo paper
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:58:02 -0500
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> I use TMax 100 4x5 in HC110 dilution B, simply cause I have a bunch left
> from some commercial work.
>
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |
> |Any one use b/w sheet film that uses 'conventional' developer instead of
> |paper negatives (other than lith/exotics) ?
> |
> |If so, what kind? Maybe 4 x 5 film packs? Anything larger?
> |
> |
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
>
> End of Pinhole-Discussion Digest
>
Received on Fri Nov 9 02:13:09 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 13 Dec 2004 - 23:33:29 PST