DSLRUsers.com

Yep another pinhole from me. Kind of really impressed with both the light and how much this looks like a pencil drawing. Its rather surreal (which is a good thing).

The Empty Street

Awesome I love the soft dream like property.

I think that too often as photographers we look for 'sharp', when that's just one aspect. (Yes, I'm more guilty than anyone.) Lovely shot.

This is great, like what you've done here. Wish i could get b&w tones like this

Pehpsi wrote: Wish i could get b&w tones like this

Have you tried using one of the Fuji B&W CF cards?

Nigel,

This is great work. I hope that you're printing a copy for the wall.

A sweet, fine-art print on archival matt paper and lovingly framed. Photography lives!

gstark wrote:

Pehpsi wrote: Wish i could get b&w tones like this

Have you tried using one of the Fuji B&W CF cards?

Nigel,

This is great work. I hope that you're printing a copy for the wall.

Thanks for the comments guys, I was a good day out. I am indeed printing that (and a few other images) for wallage space. Now, importantly... FUJI B&W CF CARDS

Nigell wrote: Now, importantly... FUJI B&W CF CARDS

I'm hoping to get some in towards the end of the month.

gstark wrote:

Nigell wrote: Now, importantly... FUJI B&W CF CARDS

I'm hoping to get some in towards the end of the month.

Excellent! Can you get the 400ASA ones?

Maybe they won't arrive till the beginning of next month......

Cheers

Never knew their were such things as b&w cards!

digitor wrote:

gstark wrote:

Nigell wrote: Now, importantly... FUJI B&W CF CARDS

I'm hoping to get some in towards the end of the month.

Excellent! Can you get the 400ASA ones?

Maybe they won't arrive till the beginning of next month......

Cheers

The 400 .... good question. I'll speak with our supplier.

The timing ... yes, we'll see how it goes. When they get here, they get here.

Pehpsi wrote:Never knew their were such things as b&w cards!

if youw ant to shoot B&W, the film is the best way (we had a great day today at the filum day), B&W CF cards are second best, and the photoshop with aomething like Alien Skin.

I know some will disagree; that is their choice.

I didn't know about the B&W CF cards till this thread. I know nothing about them. But as a B&W type of guy, this is something I am interested in getting. Now all I have to do is find them.

Nigel, when you find those B&W CF Cards, can you check if they have any 1600ASA versions with Tri-X grain.

I haven't tried this, but it looks interesting: http://grubbasoftware.com/filmlibrary.html

Michael

That truegrain softaware looks interesting.

Nigell

This image is sublime. 10 out of 10

Thank you.

A very interesting image that grows on you. Well done!

Is it just me?

We spend thousands of dollars on cameras and even more thousands on the latest lenses with computer generated elements, and yet we are ready to fall down and worship images captured by the most primitive photographic mechanism known to man.

Please note: I am not decrying for one minute Nigell's efforts in experimentation. Full marks to him!

But, do I wish for a horse and buggy? Do I wish for a Model T Ford? Nup!!!! Do I wish to play an old scratchy, static-laden 78 LP on a wind-up gramophone? Not me!!! Yes, I know it was done once; yes, I know about nostalgia, but please ....

Give me normal lens+camera sourced images with their contrast and acuity any day!

Yes but there is something about a pinhole image. Not only is it one of the most privative forms of photography it also allows you to capture images which you can't normally do with a lense. It allows for artistic expression. I have noticed on more than one occasion the level of shadow depth you get from a pinhole image compared to a normal shot. It is quite considerable. Moreover, its about enjoyment. I rather enjoy the act of photographing with primitive lenses / cameras. Hell if you really want quality get a Daguerreotype. Not only was it one of the first camera as we come to know it (1839 form memory), its quality has yet to be surpassed by any camera since. The question should really be "Do I like the image?". If so, it shouldn't matter if it was shot on a 50k Hasleblad or a $3 shoebox.

cricketfan wrote:Is it just me?

We spend thousands of dollars on cameras and even more thousands on the latest lenses with computer generated elements, and yet we are ready to fall down and worship images captured by the most primitive photographic mechanism known to man.

Please note: I am not decrying for one minute Nigell's efforts in experimentation. Full marks to him!

But, do I wish for a horse and buggy? Do I wish for a Model T Ford? Nup!!!! Do I wish to play an old scratchy, static-laden 78 LP on a wind-up gramophone? Not me!!! Yes, I know it was done once; yes, I know about nostalgia, but please ....

Give me normal lens+camera sourced images with their contrast and acuity any day!

What an odd point of view (and ironic, too, considering your avatar).

Trevor,

Nigell wrote:The question should really be "Do I like the image?". If so, it shouldn't matter if it was shot on a 50k Hasleblad or a $3 shoebox.

15-Love.

Ball is in Trevor's court. Trevor to serve.

I feel the composition of the photo is a bit confined . Maybe that's just me...

gstark wrote:Trevor,

Nigell wrote:The question should really be "Do I like the image?". If so, it shouldn't matter if it was shot on a 50k Hasleblad or a $3 shoebox.

15-Love.

Ball is in Trevor's court. Trevor to serve.

That is indeed the question, and I concur that it doesn't matter what gear was used. Heck, I even said those words in Wendell's post about his photographic journey.

And, I guess I fudged my earlier comments, because I didn't make it clear that I don't particularly care for the image. I admire Nigell's inventiveness and persistence; and of course anyone is welcome to have an opinion different from mine. But I am entitled to my opinion, which is that I much prefer clearer, sharper images to ones that lack contrast, tonal range and sharpness.

Apart from the exercise in pure physics, I wouldn't give two hoots about pinhole images.

But I don't particularly care for images that have racing cars in them either, much as I admire the skills that are required to get good ones.

It's called personal taste.

Reschsmooth wrote:

cricketfan wrote:Give me normal lens+camera sourced images with their contrast and acuity any day!

What an odd point of view (and ironic, too, considering your avatar).

Good question. My previous avatar was of a baboon. Does that mean I have to be one?

And yours suggests wide-format. Are you?

Excuse my ignorance, how was the image taken? As I mentioned before I understand a pinhole camera to be a camera with no lens but having instead a cap with a tiny hole (the pinhole). Now, is the aforesaid artefact film or digital? I ask merely out of curiosity. If it were a digital device, I would understand why it has the so many bunnies, for it stands to reason.

However, does it matter which equipment was used to obtain such an image? The answer is NO really, and we all know it. We all use and own different equipment - and we are proud of it! The image either it grabs you or it doesn't. In my case the more I look at it the more interesting and abstract I find it. As we say in Spanish “Sobre el gusto no hay nada escrito” meaning "There is nothing written on personal taste'.

zafra52, Its taken on a digital SLR. Basically you drill a hole in a body cap. Put a bit of tin foil over it and use a pin to make a very small hole in the middle of the tin foil. So no lense is involved. Focusing works by working out the distance from the sensor to the hole and then working out what size hole you need (in this case its 44mm to the sensor, so the hole needs to be 0.27mm in diamitor. Having said that, I think the hole I use is about 0.35mm because I like the soft dreamyness it gives the images. The pinhole allows for long exposures during the day. That first image was 1.5 seconds at about 4pm on a very hot sunny day. Its something you can't normally do with a lense because the apeture is not small enough. Typically a lense will have a f-stop of say f/32 where as a pinhole can have f/200 +. That high f-stop is the reason for all the dust showing up. I ended up spending a few hours cleaning all the crap up in photoshop on my print versions of those images.

cricketfan, I wasn't suggesting you had to like them. It was more about personal motivation and taste. I have always believed that one doesn't need thousands of dollars with of equipment to take good photographs. Its the artistic aspect of photography I like most of all.

cricketfan wrote:

Good question. My previous avatar was of a baboon. Does that mean I have to be one?

And yours suggests wide-format. Are you?

Some would argue: "yes".

Reschsmooth wrote:

cricketfan wrote:

Good question. My previous avatar was of a baboon. Does that mean I have to be one?

And yours suggests wide-format. Are you?

Some would argue: "yes".

Actually, that would be me that's the A380.

I think that Patrick's avatar is actually medium format.

Nigell wrote:cricketfan, I wasn't suggesting you had to like them. It was more about personal motivation and taste. I have always believed that one doesn't need thousands of dollars with of equipment to take good photographs. Its the artistic aspect of photography I like most of all.

Sure, I understand, and thanks for making it clear.

Your post describes the physics of the pinhole camera process, and as I have said, I admire the fact that you are interested in this facet of photography, and that you are prepared to spend the time to perfect it, and that you like the results. Whether I like it or not is immaterial to your project.

Sometimes in these forums we have to get off the fence and state an opinion, and that's all I have done. The alternative is not to say anything, which doesn't promote discussion about photography and art. Or to lie, and say that you like something when you don't. But that's not my way.

I am actually happy that my remarks may have caused a few people to think about your work, and the fact is that most seem to like it. Good for you.

Thanks for the information, Nigell. I wasn't sure of the process and now that explained makes the images more remarkable.

However, and my answer to Cricketfan is that criticism is an art in so far as being honest in expressing your feeling and being sensitive to the recipient. I woudn't hang an Andy Warhall in any of my walls, but it was not till I read some of the techniques and process the man used that I began to appreciate his work - I still woudn't hang it!

It wouldn't be considered polite or even socially acceptable telling a mother holding her new born child "I don't know what the fuss is all about because people have been having children for yonks, morever it's an ugly baby and I don't know why you should have been bothered!" What I mean is that in the same way that it's her baby that was formed and nutured inside her; for some of us the image we show is the result of a conception, nurturing, seeing the day of light, looking after it and finally presenting the results of our efforts to our friends and community. Surely my baby is not as good looking or well formed as your, but it's still mine. And that's enough about childbirth!