Re: pinhole is not about "sharpness"?

Not to defend Guillermo, who in any case needs no defending, but I agree
that the optimals are a good place for most people to start. It is a
good place to begin your exploration because it guarantees a reasonable
image. I show students a variety of different efects using zone plate
and various pinholes but I always give them an optimal one to start
with.

My own work tends toward the softer images but I just got back half a
dozen 4x5 chromes from my lab that were shot with an f600 camera of
about 12" focal length. Plenty sharp--tested an f533 and f600 seemed
"sharper." And right for the intended purpose. On the other hand I'm
doing portraits at f128 which are not sharp at all in the conventional
sense. Pinhole never fails to excite me because of the possibilities.
Guillermo's post about the pinhole formulas for close-up work sent me
working on close-up cameras for a while.

But if I hadn't started years ago with a decent pinhole that produced
good images I might never have moved from lensed photography in to this
infinitely exciting realm populated by all these nice, creative and
sometimes erudite people. Cheers,

Howard Wells

Michael_Georgoff@trendmicro.com wrote:
>
> Guillermo, in the course of explaining optimum pinhole formulas to Tom
> Harvey, said "Since pinhole is not about "sharpness", use any pinhole size
> for a particular distance pinhole-film, but I suggest you use what I call
> the "scientific formulation" as the starting point from which deviate."
>
> With considerable respect to the Guillermo, to whom I owe a vast debt of
> personal gratitude, I beg to differ.
>
> Perhaps the majority of pinhole is not at all concerned with sharpness.
> There are many, many of what I consider Pictorial shooters, achieving great
> soft images, some very dreamlike. Very nice stuff! (eg: Davison's The Onion
> Field, etc, etc). The WWPD gallery is full of great, soft pinhole images.
>
> HOWEVER, there are among us certain high-res knuckleheads who explore
> pinhole not [exclusively] for painterly effect, but also for maximum
> sharpness and depth of focus, especially for very close objects, and for
> this sort of stuff, pinhole is very definitely about sharpness. Consider it
> the "f.64: Seeing Straight" counterpoint to the soft-focus Pictorialists.
> If pinhole is not about "sharpness" then why are there so many formulas for
> optimum resolution, a Holy Grail of lensless? Why do I ponder so deeply the
> differences between Petval, Rayleigh, Renner, Young, Patton, Bullis,
> Fratkin, and even Penate himself? The Sharpness Formula God is apparently
> something we must each discover on our own.
>
> In the context of Harvey's query, it's right to provide beginning guidance
> (so as to not start with nail holes and fail to get good image formation on
> a 35mm format) so that one has a starting point. Then wander off into
> larger and smaller holes. Admittedly, much here is about experimentation.
> And, image type and quality is a highly personal thing. But, you can't
> dismiss sharpness as an ojbective.
>
> Pinhole can be about sharpness, as well as softness... it's also about time,
> and light, perspective, art, science, chance and fun!
>
> Michael Georgoff
> San Jose, CA
>
> (PS: Once again, the WWPD gallery is great: I look forward to seeing new
> images, there are many, many great and inspiring images up there! Huge
> thanks to all who worked to make it so!)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> unsubscribe or change your account at
> http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
Received on Tue May 7 20:54:10 2002