Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Pinhole Photography

  • 01-05-2009 9:50am
    #1
    el_loco_blanco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭


    Anyone reccommend a good paper film for pinhole photography (traditional not digital) and where would you get it?


Comments

  • #2
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Do you want to use actual paper? Fwiw, you'd be a lot better off using negative film, it's got a much greater dynamic range and you've got a bigger range of ISO's to choose from - Paper can come out being very very contrasty, losing a lot of detail.

    In any case, any of the papers will do you - Ilford have quite a range of it, all stocked in Gunn's, as with 4x5 negatives (Which I'd advise)


  • #3
    el_loco_blanco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭el_loco_blanco


    Its for a project with kids so I thought the paper would be easier to handle. With negatives it would have to be done in complete darkness wouldn't it.


  • #4
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    Yeah, paper would be probably easier to handle in that case all right, you could load/unload and develop all under a safelight. I've been looking into this for a while, I have a half-built large format camera that I was planning on loading with 8x10. Kids (ones own) can be a real time-soaker though ...

    Do a google search for "paper negative" for a ton of examples. Generally either graded paper (some people say grade 2) or multigrade with a contrast reducing filter in front of the lens are what people seem to recommend. The end result is, as fajitas points out, super contrasty. Effective ASA seems to be in the 2->6 range so some experimentation is probably in order. Exposure times will certainly be in the tens of seconds anyway.


  • #5
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    I'd usually give it an ISO of about 5 - I meant to mention, get graded paper if at all possible - It makes the whole thing less fidgetty with contrast.

    Aye, the negs would have to be done in complete darkness unfortunately, because other than that, they'd be perfect. It might also be worth having a look at re-inverting your paper negs - because they'll be reversed themselves - A quick blast of light with the paper facing onto unexposed paper will give you a positive again.


  • #6
    el_loco_blanco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭el_loco_blanco


    For this I plan to scan the negative images in and then digitally invert them into a positive image!


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Anouilh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Anouilh


    I came across a DIY pinhole camera kit at the Ecoshop behind Paul Sexton's Garden Centre a few years ago:

    Ecoshop, Glen Centre, Kilmacanoque, Co Wicklow, Tel. 01 287 2914 (60)

    It looked identical to the one on this page:
    http://www.thisnext.com/item/E565A060/EFE1A1D1/Pinhole-Camera-Kit




    DaireQuinlan wrote: »
    Kids (ones own) can be a real time-soaker though ...


    In a few years you won't know yourself... enthusiastic film developers in the making, I guess.



    DaireQuinlan wrote: »
    Kids (ones own) can be a real time-soaker though ...


  • #8
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    I was going to experiment by exposing them, developing (but not fixing) then bleaching (I have a couple of litres of C-41 bleach hanging around), then flashing, developing and fixing again. Theoretically that ought to result in a positive image.

    In reality I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to nail down the contrast or the density on the resultant positive. It'd be neat to get 8x10 positives straight out of the box though.

    There are positive papers but they're as expensive as 8x10 sheet film, so there's little point in using them over film.


  • #9
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Daire, you could always try Monochrome positive chemicals on the 8x10 negs?


  • #10
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    Fajitas! wrote: »
    Daire, you could always try Monochrome positive chemicals on the 8x10 negs?

    I'd say the outcome would be much the same. I didn't know you could actually buy monochrome positive chemicals, but I'd say the only difference to the above is that there's a chemical exposure step, so instead of exposing the paper to the light to re-expose it, its fogged chemically. That's how the full E-6 process works. Linkys ?


  • #11
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    el_loco_blanco wrote: »
    For this I plan to scan the negative images in and then digitally invert them into a positive image!

    could just make a photogram, be a bit quicker... that what i did. Had to do this in college a while back...(hangs head in shame....a kids project :o)


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    could just make a photogram, be a bit quicker... that what i did. Had to do this in college a while back...(hangs head in shame....a kids project :o)

    I think everyone should do it. We're all caught up in this digital gimcrackery and the gear and the tech and all that irrelevance that I think its good to just get back to first principles (well, in as much as it's practical :-) ) in terms of method at least, and realise that its just as possible to make an image with a light tight box and some paper :D


  • #13
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    DaireQuinlan wrote: »
    I think everyone should do it. We're all caught up in this digital gimcrackery and the gear and the tech and all that irrelevance that I think its good to just get back to first principles (well, in as much as it's practical :-) ) in terms of method at least, and realise that its just as possible to make an image with a light tight box and some paper :D

    yeah well we moved onto lith and tone printing and other wonderful things but still...


  • #14
    Anouilh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Anouilh


    I agree.

    http://ezinearticles.com/?Photograms-Are-Made-Without-a-Camera---In-Its-Simplest-Form&id=1722169

    There is nothing to stop us getting back to basics:

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055471625

    It helps to look at how light and photsensitive materials actually work and the knowledge can be used to improve photos taken with digital cameras.


    Some of the most famous fine art photography was made with no gimmickry.


  • #15
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    DaireQuinlan wrote: »
    I'd say the outcome would be much the same. I didn't know you could actually buy monochrome positive chemicals, but I'd say the only difference to the above is that there's a chemical exposure step, so instead of exposing the paper to the light to re-expose it, its fogged chemically. That's how the full E-6 process works. Linkys ?

    It's a different chemical used, not sure about the process itself, and it appears you've caught me with my pants down... or at least, without any links handy - I'm just back in the parents place so don't have my usual resource of links about!!! I'll send'em on to you as soon as I have 'em availible!


  • #16
    Anouilh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Anouilh


    DaireQuinlan wrote: »
    I'd say the outcome would be much the same. I didn't know you could actually buy monochrome positive chemicals, but I'd say the only difference to the above is that there's a chemical exposure step, so instead of exposing the paper to the light to re-expose it, its fogged chemically. That's how the full E-6 process works. Linkys ?

    http://www.answers.com/topic/fogging#Chemical_fogging


Advertisement