Re: Pinhole-Discussion digest, Vol 1 #712 - 12 msgs

Greg,
The Unicolor roller and drum do a wonderful job. If you are having trouble
fixing you have one of several problems:
1. Insufficient fixer quantity - Use as much fixer as your tube will hoild
without running out the pouring spout. I usually use 8 ounces in these tubes.
2. Weak or exhausted fixer
3. Insufficient fixing time - T-Max needs to be fixed approximately twice
as long a other films.

If you will follow fixing with a good clearing agent for two to three
minutes prior to washing it wil help remove that purple stain left from the
anti-halation backing.
Jim
At 04:38 PM 6/1/02 -0400, you wrote:
>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..."
>
>
>Please DO NOT QUOTE the entire digest when replying to a posting, only
>quote the message you are replying to.
>
>Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML.
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Covering Power of Pinholes (Bill Erickson)
> 2. RE: begging for wisdom (Jeff Dilcher)
> 3. re:begging for wisdom (Jeepadog@aol.com)
> 4. Developing sheet film with a drum processor (Greg Newberry)
> 5. WPPD2 on-line exhibition (Gregg Kemp)
> 6. Congratulations to all! (Guy Glorieux)
> 7. Re: Developing sheet film with a drum processor (Richard Heather)
> 8. increased sharpness? (Jim Kosinski)
> 9. Re: increased sharpness? (G.Penate)
> 10. Re: increased sharpness? (Howard Wells)
> 11. RE: increased sharpness? (Andy Schmitt)
> 12. Re: increased sharpness? (Jim Kosinski)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>From: "Bill Erickson" <erickson@hickorytech.net>
>To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Covering Power of Pinholes
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:40:40 -0500
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C2087E.D7F5B1E0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Covering Power of PinholesSimple answer is that covering power generally =
>is 1 1/2 times the focal length either side of the axis. Erics book has =
>both complex and simple formulae. The simple formula is the diameter of =
>the aperture in thosandths of an inch (for example 0.010=3D 10) divided =
>by 55 equals the optimal "focal length" in inches. On the other hand, =
>the whole thing is very forgiving. You have to be off on the diamerter =
>by 40% to get one stop exposure change. Sharpness is even more =
>forgiving. there's a series of pictures somewher in erics book that =
>illustrates this. Take it from a semi-reformed "critical standards" guy. =
>You don't need critical standards.=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Joe Tait=20
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com=20
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:49 PM
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Covering Power of Pinholes
>
>
> Hello!
>
> New to the list and this is my first post.=20
>
> A little background.....
>
> I have been doing photography for 6 years, and currently shoot 4"x5" =
>w/ a Cambo Legend monorail and 6x7 with a Koni Rapid 200. Most of my =
>experience has been with conventional silver printing, but I have tried =
>cyanotype & gum bichromate in the last 6 months, and am going to plunge =
>forward into various alt processes as I can.
>
> I really want to try pinhole next, and want larger negatives for =
>contact printing. I've found some interesting info on the web and will =
>build my own camera & pinhole very soon. One thing that I am confused =
>about is determining how much covering power a given pinhole has. Is =
>it just relative to the distance of the pinhole to film/pinhole dia., =
>which then determines the "focal length"? Forgive me, I struggle with =
>comprehending even the most basic concepts of optics generally, and am =
>no better with pinhole.
>
> I'd like to try say an 11"x14" format, or perhaps a panoramic 8"x16". =
>The wide-angle possibilities (both the really wide & moderate) are in =
>my sights first and I like distortion, but not to the point of monotony. =
>I am looking to use sheet Lith film developed in dilute developer, or =
>pyro; and will be making my own film holders and back to be able to do =
>multiple exposures.
>
> Could someone enlighten me how to figure out the proper pinhole size & =
>lens-to-film distance for the aforementioned formats? I understand that =
>a curved film plane is employed to compensate for light fall-off. Is the =
>optimum curve determined by experience, or are there known combinations?
>
> I haven't found any books that focus on specifics. Eric Renner's book =
>apparently focuses on the history more than construction, which is the =
>opposite of what I want to learn first. Perhaps someone could recommend =
>more literature because the web only seems to offer an overview of =
>pinhole.
>
> Lastly, Larry Bullis' excellent article on pinhole construction =
>mentioned using silver sheeting & a microscope to make pinholes. I'd =
>actually like to try both of these methods. Does anyone work in this =
>way? Where do you get the silver sheeting and what kind of microscope do =
>you use? Precision pinholes seem to really effect the resolution, quite =
>appropriate for certain shots (although the softness is perfect for =
>others).
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Joe=20
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C2087E.D7F5B1E0
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>Simple answer is that covering power = generally is 1=20 1/2 times the
>focal length either side of the axis. Erics book has both = complex=20 and
>simple formulae. The simple formula is the diameter of the aperture =
>in=20 thosandths of an inch (for example 0.010=3D 10) divided by 55 equals
>the = optimal=20 "focal length" in inches. On the other hand, the whole
>thing is very = forgiving.=20 You have to be off on the diamerter by 40%
>to get one stop exposure = change.=20 Sharpness is even more forgiving.
>there's a series of pictures somewher = in erics=20 book that illustrates
>this. Take it from a semi-reformed "critical = standards"=20 guy. You
>don't need critical standards.
>----- Original Message -----
>Joe = Tait
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole= .com=20
>Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 = 10:49=20 PM
>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] = Covering=20 Power of Pinholes
>
>Hello!
>
>New to the list and = this is my=20 first post.
>
>A little background.....
>
>I have been doing=20 photography for 6 years, and currently shoot
>4=94x5=94 w/ a Cambo = Legend monorail=20 and 6x7 with a Koni Rapid 200.
>Most of my experience has been with=20 conventional silver printing, but I
>have tried cyanotype & gum = bichromate=20 in the last 6 months, and am
>going to plunge forward into various alt=20 processes as I can.
>
>I really want to try pinhole next, and want = larger=20 negatives for
>contact printing. I=92ve found some interesting info on = the web=20 and
>will build my own camera & pinhole very soon. One thing that I = am=20
>confused about is determining how much covering power a given =
>pinhole=20 has. Is it just relative to the distance of the pinhole to =
>film/pinhole=20 dia., which then determines the =93focal length=94?
>Forgive me, I = struggle with=20 comprehending even the most basic
>concepts of optics generally, and am = no=20 better with pinhole.
>
>I=92d like to try say an 11=94x14=94 = format, or perhaps=20 a panoramic
>8=94x16=94. The wide-angle possibilities (both the = really=20 wide &
>moderate) are in my sights first and I like distortion, but = not to=20
>the point of monotony. I am looking to use sheet Lith film developed = in
>dilute=20 developer, or pyro; and will be making my own film holders and
>back to = be able=20 to do multiple exposures.
>
>Could someone enlighten me how to = figure out=20 the proper pinhole size
>& lens-to-film distance for the = aforementioned=20 formats? I
>understand that a curved film plane is employed to = compensate=20 for
>light fall-off. Is the optimum curve determined by experience, or = are=20
>there known combinations?
>
>I haven=92t found any books that = focus on=20 specifics. Eric Renner=92s
>book apparently focuses on the history more = than=20 construction, which
>is the opposite of what I want to learn first. = Perhaps=20 someone could
>recommend more literature because the web only seems to = offer an=20
>overview of pinhole.
>
>Lastly, Larry Bullis=92 excellent article = on pinhole=20 construction
>mentioned using silver sheeting & a microscope to = make=20 pinholes.
>I=92d actually like to try both of these methods. Does = anyone work in=20
>this way? Where do you get the silver sheeting and what kind of =
>microscope do=20 you use? Precision pinholes seem to really effect the
>resolution, = quite=20 appropriate for certain shots (although the
>softness is perfect for=20 others).
>
>Thanks.
>
>-Joe
>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C2087E.D7F5B1E0--
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:01:27 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Jeff Dilcher <root@hiddenworld.net>
>To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] begging for wisdom
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>
>
>Agreeing with too much sediment will get your camera dirty,
>and will require expensive cleaning. Best stick with the
>tests...
>
>:)
>
>On Fri, 31 May 2002, Andy Schmitt wrote:
>
> > gee...I kind of agree with that sediment but it's a rather expensive
> > lesson....
> > andy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
> > [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com]On Behalf Of Bill Erickson
> > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:31 AM
> > To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] begging for wisdom
> >
> >
> > make your own tests. It helps the learning curve too. ----- Original
>
>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 3
>From: Jeepadog@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:47:08 EDT
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] re:begging for wisdom
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>It is a somewhat humbling and thoroughly moving experience to put a question
>up for discussion on this list and get back such thoughtful and useful advise
>from people whose work I so admire. Thanks!
>Julie
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 4
>From: "Greg Newberry" <grnewberry@qwest.net>
>To: "Pinhole-Discussion" <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:51:14 -0600
>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Developing sheet film with a drum processor
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>Hi,
>
>I bought a darkroom package that included a UniColor Uniroller which is a
>motorized base and a drum that will process 1 8x10, 2 5x7 or 4 4x5
>negatives. I have searched the Internet and cannot find any instructions for
>this setup. I did try some 4x5 negatives and realized that although it
>developed ok, it doesn't fix well and I will need to fix in a tray after
>it's done in the drum. Has anyone used this setup for developing TMX 100
>with D-76, and do you have any times for developing, fixing, etc? I imagine
>that the 'Tube' times may be similar, except this rotates direction every 30
>seconds or so. I just need a starting place for this setup so I can fine
>tune it.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Greg
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 20:44:58 -0500
>To: Pinhole Discussion List <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
>From: Gregg Kemp <gregg.kemp@pinholevisions.org>
>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] WPPD2 on-line exhibition
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>Dear fellow pinholers,
>
>The submission form for WPPD2 officially closed at midnight (GMT) with 902
>people from 35 countries participating in this year's pinhole day on-line
>exhibition. I would guess that even people than that took a pinhole photo
>that day but did not participate in the on-line exhibition. Even so, the
>exhibition is a true testimonial and document of our joining together
>around the world to support each other in exploring our lives on this planet.
>
>Best wishes to everyone from the WPPD2 coordinating team!
>
> http://www.pinholeday.org/org/2002/images/coord_team.jpg
>
>- Gregg
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 6
>From: "Guy Glorieux" <guy.glorieux@sympatico.ca>
>To: "pinhole List" <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:06:17 -0400
>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Congratulations to all!
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>Hi all pinholers out there!
>
>Congratulations to all of you for the success of WPPD2!
>
>Your presence on the list, be it active or simply lurking, is the ground
>from which the success of this truly "world" happening has grown.
>Without you, your questions, your answers, your postings on the Pinhole
>Visions gallery, the synergy that is required to make happen something
>like WPPD would not have been there.
>
>As I look around my little part of the universe, I see a small group of
>people who have become enthusiastic about pinhole photography as a
>wonderful way of creating images which cast a different view of the
>world . Of course, my own enthusiasm has played a catalytic role for
>them locally and the terrific work of the Coordinating Team has been a
>factor also, by giving them a window to show their work.
>
>But your sustained participation and the enthusiasm of all of you around
>the world is where us, from the coordinating team, drew the energy to
>make this event an outstanding success!
>
>Happy Pinhole Year!
>
>Guy
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 20:10:29 -0700
>From: Richard Heather <rheather@slonet.org>
>Organization: Richard Heather Photography
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Developing sheet film with a drum processor
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>Hi I use the drum tube processing for 4x5 to 8x10 negs. I use Rodinal 1:25 for
>most films. 8 min @70f for normal negs. I fix for 5 min in drum and at
>least 5
>min in tray to lose the purple dye. I have used up to 4 4x5 in an 8x10
>tube and
>even 4 8x10 in a 16x20 tube. Be sure the emulsion side is to the center
>and the
>film does not overlap. Leave the tube a little damp so the film doesn't
>slip. It
>may slip in the fix but more time in the tray fill fix that.
>Richard Heather
>
>Greg Newberry wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I bought a darkroom package that included a UniColor Uniroller which is a
> > motorized base and a drum that will process 1 8x10, 2 5x7 or 4 4x5
> > negatives. I have searched the Internet and cannot find any
> instructions for
> > this setup. I did try some 4x5 negatives and realized that although it
> > developed ok, it doesn't fix well and I will need to fix in a tray after
> > it's done in the drum. Has anyone used this setup for developing TMX 100
> > with D-76, and do you have any times for developing, fixing, etc? I imagine
> > that the 'Tube' times may be similar, except this rotates direction
> every 30
> > seconds or so. I just need a starting place for this setup so I can fine
> > tune it.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Greg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:40:48 -0400
>From: Jim Kosinski <merlin@paintcancamera.com>
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] increased sharpness?
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>in the formulas used to determine the optimal pinhole
>diameter for a given focal distance the wavelength of green
>light seems to be used because it's in the center of the
>visible spectrum... would it be possible to get more
>sharpness with the same pinhole diameter by changing the
>color of the light? for example, what if you used a blue bulb
>to illuminate the subject or put a color filter over the
>pinhole? (assuming black & white film/paper)
>
>jim k
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 9
>From: "G.Penate" <penate@rogers.com>
>To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] increased sharpness?
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:21:47 -0400
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Kosinski" <merlin@paintcancamera.com>
>
> > in the formulas used to determine the optimal pinhole
> > diameter for a given focal distance the wavelength of green
> > light seems to be used because it's in the center of the
> > visible spectrum... would it be possible to get more
> > sharpness with the same pinhole diameter by changing the
> > color of the light? for example, what if you used a blue bulb
> > to illuminate the subject or put a color filter over the
> > pinhole? (assuming black & white film/paper)
>
>Yes to all the ??? above.
>
>Would you really see a markedly difference in the results? Not quite sure.
>
>Guillermo
>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 10:45:44 -0400
>From: Howard Wells <sandwell@earthlink.net>
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] increased sharpness?
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html
>
>See the link above for a suggestion that exposing pinhole with nothing
>but UV makes a sharper photo. I've been thinking about buying one of the
>appropriate filters from Edmund Scientific and trying UV pinhole this
>summer. Has anyone done it?
>
>Howard Wells
>
>"G.Penate" wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Kosinski" <merlin@paintcancamera.com>
> >
> > > in the formulas used to determine the optimal pinhole
> > > diameter for a given focal distance the wavelength of green
> > > light seems to be used because it's in the center of the
> > > visible spectrum... would it be possible to get more
> > > sharpness with the same pinhole diameter by changing the
> > > color of the light? for example, what if you used a blue bulb
> > > to illuminate the subject or put a color filter over the
> > > pinhole? (assuming black & white film/paper)
> >
> > Yes to all the ??? above.
> >
> > Would you really see a markedly difference in the results? Not quite sure.
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 11
>Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 15:36:22 -0400
>From: Andy Schmitt <aschmitt@warwick.net>
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] increased sharpness?
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>I've been looking for one for a while. The optical UV filters are real
>expensive (+100$). Does Edmunds have the optical grade UV filters at a
>decent price?
>thanks
>andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
>[mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com]On Behalf Of Howard Wells
>Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 10:46 AM
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] increased sharpness?
>
>
>http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html
>
>See the link above for a suggestion that exposing pinhole with nothing
>but UV makes a sharper photo. I've been thinking about buying one of the
>appropriate filters from Edmund Scientific and trying UV pinhole this
>summer. Has anyone done it?
>
>Howard Wells
>
>"G.Penate" wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Kosinski" <merlin@paintcancamera.com>
> >
> > > in the formulas used to determine the optimal pinhole
> > > diameter for a given focal distance the wavelength of green
> > > light seems to be used because it's in the center of the
> > > visible spectrum... would it be possible to get more
> > > sharpness with the same pinhole diameter by changing the
> > > color of the light? for example, what if you used a blue bulb
> > > to illuminate the subject or put a color filter over the
> > > pinhole? (assuming black & white film/paper)
> >
> > Yes to all the ??? above.
> >
> > Would you really see a markedly difference in the results? Not quite sure.
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 12
>Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 16:40:49 -0400
>From: Jim Kosinski <merlin@paintcancamera.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] increased sharpness?
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
>
>-------6f3138929877f2df8d4e279b25ec859f
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>just checked out the link, but that uv pinhole photo is not
>unusually sharp... i think he just had a decent pinhole to
>start with
>
>the next thought on sharpness is to recalculate the optimum
>aperture size formula by substituting the average wavelength
>that paper is actually sensitive to in order to find out if
>it makes any difference... does anyone know the range of
>wavelengths that b&w paper is sensitive to?
>
>jim k
>
>-------6f3138929877f2df8d4e279b25ec859f
>Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Message 51"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>Return-Path: <pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com>
>Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92])
> by vmms4.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2)
> with ESMTP id HDK00902;
> Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from pairlist.net (localhost.pair.com [127.0.0.1])
> by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id 08EDC539FD; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
>Delivered-To: pinhole-discussion@pairlist.net
>Received: from vala.pair.com (vala.pair.com [209.68.1.127])
> by pairlist.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B329153759
> for <pinhole-discussion@lists.pinhole.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2002
> 10:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (qmail 87177 invoked by uid 59120); 1 Jun 2002 14:36:29 -0000
>Delivered-To: pinhole-pinhole:com-pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Received: (qmail 87174 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2002 14:36:29 -0000
>Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (207.217.120.50)
> by vala.pair.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2002 14:36:29 -0000
>Received: from user-0c9336c.cable.mindspring.com ([24.145.140.204]
>helo=earthlink.net)
> by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2)
> id 17E9zY-0003Pz-00
> for pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com; Sat, 01 Jun 2002 07:36:28 -0700
>Message-ID: <3CF8DE18.1D15B37@earthlink.net>
>From: Howard Wells <sandwell@earthlink.net>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] increased sharpness?
>References: <200206011340.HDI00864@vmms4.verisignmail.com>
><000d01c221d3$ccfddb00$6501a8c0@mtag.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>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
>Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>List-Help: <mailto:pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
>List-Subscribe: <http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pinhole-discussion>,
> <mailto:pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Pinhole Photography Discussion <pinhole-discussion.pinhole.com>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pinhole-discussion>,
> <mailto:pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/private/pinhole-discussion/>
>X-Original-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 10:45:44 -0400
>Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 10:45:44 -0400
>
>http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html
>
>See the link above for a suggestion that exposing pinhole with nothing
>but UV makes a sharper photo. I've been thinking about buying one of the
>appropriate filters from Edmund Scientific and trying UV pinhole this
>summer. Has anyone done it?
>
>Howard Wells
>
>"G.Penate" wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Kosinski" <merlin@paintcancamera.com>
> >
> > > in the formulas used to determine the optimal pinhole
> > > diameter for a given focal distance the wavelength of green
> > > light seems to be used because it's in the center of the
> > > visible spectrum... would it be possible to get more
> > > sharpness with the same pinhole diameter by changing the
> > > color of the light? for example, what if you used a blue bulb
> > > to illuminate the subject or put a color filter over the
> > > pinhole? (assuming black & white film/paper)
> >
> > Yes to all the ??? above.
> >
> > Would you really see a markedly difference in the results? Not quite sure.
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>-------6f3138929877f2df8d4e279b25ec859f--
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>_______________________________________________
>Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
>Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
>Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
>http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
>
>End of Pinhole-Discussion Digest
Received on Sat Jun 1 18:03:55 2002