Topic: Adapting your digital to pinhole? (Read 5535 times)

Jonathan Wienke · « **on:** May 30, 2003, 03:59:40 pm »

Hmmm, interesting concept. You would need to hack the lens-camera communication protocol in order for the camera to know you had a 75mm f/90 (or whatever the pinhole aperture would be) lens with no focus capabilities. Here is a site I found:

Loreo Lens-in-Cap

Another Loreo Link

The lens-in-cap even comes in a perspective control version, with 3mm of shift "in any direction". Not bad for $25.

bdbuck · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2003, 11:48:14 pm »

I saw something advertised in Outdoor Photograper for laser cut pinhole body caps. I don't have the issue anymore, so I can't look it up. A quick google search turned up this place:

http://www.pinholeresource.com/products.html#bodycap

Don't know if it's the same company or not, but it looks like $45 will buy you one on any 35mm lens mount at f/185.

I'll be curious to see how things come out if you try.

Brian.

Dan Sroka · « **Reply #2 on:** May 31, 2003, 01:25:16 pm »

Hmm, I didn't think about the need to deal with the body/lens communications. A friend made one of these for himself, but for an old Nikon film camera: you pick up a pre-drilled pinhole (www.pinholeresource.com is a good source), drill a big hole in your lens cap, and affix the pinhole to it.

I wonder about how much the camera relies on the lens being there. I don't need any metering: simply would need manual control of the shutter speed. The dust could be an issue too. I was thinking about somehow adding a clear UV filter.

I'll look at this Loreo more, it is an interesting product. True, not a real pinhole, but it could yield some interesting effects. In the meantime, I guess I'll stick with my Polaroid back pinhole. It gives me the relative immediacy of the digital, although the film gets a little pricy.

Dan

sbalsen · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2003, 08:41:27 am »

Digital pinhole? I'm not so sure about that.
I compromised by getting a roll film pinhole camera from Calumet photo. I have a local one-hour processing center process the negatives which I then scan and print digitally. Awesome results.
Sy

Ray · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2003, 07:22:11 pm »

It might be easier to use f22 (or f32 if it's there) on a wide angle lens, then in PS make all the sharp areas fuzzy so it looks as though you have almost infinite DoF. Isn't that what you'd expect with a pinhole, fuzzy photos?

sbalsen · « **Reply #5 on:** June 16, 2003, 08:31:47 am »

I love digital too, but don't be afraid of film. I use a Zero 6 x 9 Pinhole camera that I got from Calumet photo for about $150. The 120 roll film makes it very simple to use and gives me a wide choice of film choices. I have the film processed at a one-hour processor and than scan the negatives and print digitally. I've had no problem with exposure. I use a simple chart to calculate exposure and they all come out right on. Check it out. The Zero 6 x 9 is very cool! The Canon ESO 1D of pinhole cameras!
Sy

Dan Sroka · « **Reply #6 on:** May 29, 2003, 01:16:40 pm »

I want to get back to some pinhole experiements, and would love to do it digitally. I am curious if anyone has attempted creating a pinhole attachment for their digital SLR. I have seen people drill a hole in a lens cap in order to make a 35mm pinhole, but I have never tried it myself.

Thoughts, links?
Dan

Ray · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2003, 08:01:19 pm »

Whilst the lens-in-cap sounds like a fun idea, I don't think F64 could be considered a pinhole. That's only 2 stops down from my smallest aperture of F32 on my 90mm TS-E lens. I'd be a bit concerned about excessive chromatic aberration in such a cheap plastic lens. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a true pinhole would have no aberrations at all apart from the effects of diffraction. Is that true? And the aperture is more likely to be around F300, is it not?

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2003, 02:22:09 am »

There is a gallery of images (including full-sized) taken with the Loreo gadget on a D60 here. The regular lens-in-cap is $19 (including shipping) and the one with shift movements is $25. I would think that is low enough to to buy it and experiment; even if it turns out to be total crap, you aren't out more than the cost of a few rolls of film and processing.

I think I will get both of them to see if they work worth a crap, and will post some images on my web site and a mini-review here. Fair enough?

Paul Williamson · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2003, 02:13:35 pm »

On Canon digital bodies, at least, there's no need to worry about body/lens communication. Shooting with a body cap pinhole, the body will recognize that it doesn't have an EOS lens. It will report the aperture as "00" and the meter will work fine in stop-down metering mode.

I bought the "Finney Minute Aperture Imaging Pinhole Body Cap for Canon EOS" from Adorama for $30 and tried it on my 1Ds. It's an f/180 pinhole in a body cap. Technically it worked fine, but I found the initial results unexciting. I need to try again with better subject material.

One technical note: a pinhole makes the dust on your sensor VERY sharp and obvious. Expect to spot-retouch your pinhole photos, unless you're a lot better at cleaning your sensor than I am. Use the pinhole and a blank sky when it's time to check your sensor for dust. The pinhole makes the exposure so long that you can blur any subject detail by moving the camera during exposure. Anything sharp is crud on the sensor.

sergio · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2003, 09:13:52 am »

check out Benderphoto.com
he has a manual on making pinholes with all the basic science on it and the how to's. The booklet even comes with a piece of bronze film to make your own set of pinholes with different apertures. What I found great about pinholes is the infinite depth of field. And with a DSLR sounds great. You can also use a 4x5 without the lens with the shutter still on.

Dan Sroka · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2003, 01:14:03 pm »

Pinhole photography takes so much experimentation to get the exposure and placement right (no viewfinders on these usually) that I think it could benefit from a digital workflow. And hey, it's got that whole high-tech/low-tech vibe going.

Thanks for all your help folk. I've made no progress yet though -- business and website redesign called first.

Dan Sroka · « **Reply #12 on:** June 13, 2003, 12:01:46 pm »

Sure, but that's not the point. The whole reason I do it is to strip away some of the complexity of photography, and play directly with light: no light, no focus, no meter. (OK, so I have the $1500 digital part stuck on the back. : Just a lot of calculations, and slow careful thought.

d

Dan Sroka · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2003, 12:31:08 pm »

I've actually been doing a bunch of work with a Polaroid backed pinhole. It's not the 1DS of pinholes, but more like, well, the Polaroid of pinholes. A fun tool. The immediacy works with my need right now which is why I'm looking at digital options.

OT: What I really miss is the old Polapan film that Polaroid made. 35mm instant film you develop in 2 minutes at home. Fun wacky stuff, with a grain you could drive a truck through.

Dan

Author Topic: Adapting your digital to pinhole? (Read 5535 times)

Ray