----Original Message Follows----
From: "Scott Guthrie"
Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinhole is not about "sharpness"?
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:46:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [65.121.97.211]
Received: from [216.92.1.92] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBEA2AFB900C84004376AD85C015C0AE80; Wed, 08 May 2002 10:47:54 -0700
Received: from pairlist.net (localhost.pair.com [127.0.0.1])by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTPid 3AEEA53688; Wed, 8 May 2002 13:44:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vala.pair.com (vala.pair.com [209.68.1.127])by pairlist.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 80C4053688for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 13:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 90868 invoked by uid 59120); 8 May 2002 17:46:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 90865 invoked from network); 8 May 2002 17:46:45 -0000
Received: from law2-f55.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (216.32.181.55) by vala.pair.com with SMTP; 8 May 2002 17:46:45 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:46:15 -0700
Received: from 65.121.97.211 by lw2fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;Wed, 08 May 2002 17:46:14 GMT
From pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com Wed, 08 May 2002 10:49:02 -0700
Delivered-To: pinhole-discussion@pairlist.net
Delivered-To: pinhole-pinhole:com-pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2002 17:46:15.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FEF5770:01C1F6B8]
Sender: pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
Errors-To: pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
X-BeenThere: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: Pinhole Photography Discussion
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
X-Original-Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:46:14 -0600
That is a heck of a good image, my idea of an ideal pinhole image, well
executed no matter what the apeture.
Mitch Guthrie
>From: ragowaring
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinhole is not about "sharpness"?
>Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:35:01 +0100
>
>
> >
> > On Tuesday 07 May 2002 09:51 pm, Michael_Georgoff@trendmicro.com
>wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > I have had people who couldn't believe that some Finney pics I
>made
> > were actually pinhole, due to sharpness. Using the "correct"
>focal
>length and
> > aperature, I was able to get this amount of detail:
> >
> >
>http://hiddenworld.net:81/pinhole/?cmd=max&start=&pic=blackbeard.jpg
> >
> > I don't mind not having "razor" sharpness, but I like a certain
>level of
> > clarity...
>
>
>I like you picture Jeff
>
>
>Alexis
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
_______________________________________________
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/