A pinhole project in the making that prompts a question about digitising images made on film.
With a break over the festive season from the routine of work, I’ve had the chance to get stuck in to a photographic project or two (or three, or …).
Inspired by a photograph I saw some years ago in a book about pinhole photography and continuing from my last blog post, I made a body-cap pinhole to mount on a 35mm SLR, loaded the camera with a roll of Kentmere 400 film and took it for a walk through the woods. The pinhole was about 0.17mm diameter and mounted 50mm from the film plane, giving an aperture of about f/290. In the late afternoon winter light my exposure times for the 400ISO film ranged from about 20 seconds to over a minute.
My aim was to make images of the landscape as I passed through it, handholding the camera as steadily as I could in front of me with the shutter open on the ‘B’ setting, counting out the exposures in time with my footsteps. As with all things pinhole, this would be a serendipitous adventure into light, time and landscape.
With the first film exposed and developed (yes, I’ve been out again, repeating the exercise having learned lessons from the first) I had a choice to make. Would I scan the negatives, edit them and be done with viewing them on my computer screen, perhaps having prints made from the now digital files, or would I attempt to print them ‘old school’ in the darkroom? The negatives were all similar in being of limited tonal range with little discernible detail. It could be difficult to make anything of them either way.
I decided to do both! First, I scanned them then cleaned up dust marks and stretched the histogram in levels by setting black and white points. Images were obtained, albeit rather grainy and a bit harsh looking, that met my expectations and with which I was quite pleased.
Knowing that images were there to be seen, I picked a dozen or so frames, set up my darkroom and disappeared for a rather marathon printing session! My main challenge would be to get contrast into the prints from the very flat, mid-range negatives. Using split-grade printing I determined a base exposure with a grade 5 filter for the darks and grade 1 or 2 filters for the lights. The resulting prints were pleasing enough to be going on with, enough for me to see an ongoing project to develop as time allows.
What I found interesting was the comparison between scanned negatives, adjusted on-screen images from the scans, and darkroom prints made from the negatives. Here are three images all originating from the same frame:
There’s always a wee voice at the back of my mind when scanning negatives that questions why I didn’t just use a digital camera – after all, once scanned I’m working with a digital file! It takes longer to make a darkroom print but the soothing red glow of a safelight is so much kinder on the eyes than the glare of a backlit computer screen and the end product in this example is more in keeping with the gentler, mysterious image that I had in mind when I set out with the camera. The digital version seems harsher, more contrasty, perhaps better defined if that’s what the viewer wants or expects and is certainly more reproducible, but the darkroom print has the feel of something crafted and unique – and to my mind it looks so much better too!
I guess both routes to an image have their place and of course the final irony is that to share the darkroom print here, I have to scan it and upload a digital file!
Pinhole photography has for me been most satisfying and most successful when the resulting image represents the passage of time in a manner that is not immediately visible to the eye: Shapes and textures formed by water flowing in a river, by vegetation blown in the wind, by clouds moving across an open sky. It is the motion in subjects such as these, recorded over necessarily long exposure times that produce the otherwise unseen images in which I find another world to contemplate.
To achieve the images I seek, the camera is usually mounted on a stationary support such as a tripod for the duration of the exposure. I have occasionally experimented with handheld pinhole photography with mixed results but rarely as interesting as I have seen from other pinholers. It’s a direction I’d like to take further at some time, just not now!
Some time ago while reading Eric Renner’s book Pinhole Photography, I was intrigued by examples of images created within a moving van (the van was the camera) over distances of some 100 or so kilometres, and of images made with a camera attached to the wheelhouse of a boat as it pulled away from the quayside. Dreamily abstract images that brought time and distance together in a new way. I have often wondered how I might use a pinhole camera similarly … and so last weekend it came to pass!
For my experiment I chose the camera I made for Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day back in 2014. Constructed from foamcore and with a sliding shutter it takes media 5″ x 3″. Using Velcro ties I mounted it upside down to the passenger-side sun visor of my car such that it did not obsruct my view of the road when driving and that I could open and close the shutter easily and without taking my gaze from the road ahead. There was sufficient friction in the shutter to hold it open unaided.
For paper negatives I cut a few sheets of Ilford MGIV RC Satin to size, packed a changing bag and separate boxes for unexposed and exposed paper and set off on a short road trip. The light was such that I reckoned on exposures around six minutes each and my route would take in undulating, twisty rural roads, two bridge crossings and motorway. After each exposure I found a place to stop and fumble in the changing bag to swap out exposed paper for unexposed.
Although these are my first attempts and I can see things I would try to improve on, I’m happy with the images: happy to have made them and happy to contemplate what they tell me about my time and its relationship with the time and space of my subject. My original intention was to post these with an explanation of what and where each is, even with some ‘proper’ dashcam images but after much thought I have removed it all, even titles to the images as I feel that such information is irrelevant and a distraction from what the images have to say.
Last weekend I made the best of good winter light and time to spare for clambering up and down the rather slippery bank of the River Avon.
My cameras were almost ancillary to the restful experience that comes from the concentrated effort to find viewpoints and to set up for an exposure yet it is they and the images that ensue that give purpose to the solitary expedition. Here are a couple of memories from my day:
Making images with the shoebox pincam is a slow process. Four sheeets of paper or film have to be taped together then loaded together into the camera in the darkroom. Once exposed, the camera has to be returned to the darkroom for unloading and developing of each sheet. Getting to and from a previously scouted location takes time, the camera has to be set up and of course a pinhole exposure, especially on paper, is never done in a fraction of a second! As a result, it is likely that only one exposure can be made on any one day!
It’s almost two months since I idly picked up an empty shoebox and had the thought that it would be cool to convert it into a pinhole camera. That thought has turned into quite a project with teething problems to challenge me, lessons to be learned and only now can I say that I’m beginning to get a feel for what it can do.
The camera records a panoramic image covering about 145º horizontally, undistorted due to the constant radius curved image plane. The vertical perspective is similar to that of a ‘standard’ focal length 35mm camera, so is not the typical wide-angle view of a typical pinhole camera. So far I’ve used it to record river scenes, mainly because I like the effect that long exposures give to the movement of the water.
Here are four ‘useable’ exposures made so far. As each image comprises four sheets I’ve mounted them on board to ensure they are flat and accurately butted together. Unfortunately the assembled images are too large for my scanner so I have had to photograph them instead which doesn’t reproduce them as well, particularly for shadow details.
This first ‘successful’ image was considered so for the reason that I had overcome the safelight fogging problem that had dogged my first few exposures. I was being overoptimistic for the Direct Positive paper’s ability to record such a high contrast scene with one river bank in direct bright sunlight and the other in deep shadow!
For my second image I tried to cut down on exposure time by using film. I used Ilford FP4+, each sheet being subsequently contact printed onto Ilford MG Art 300 paper. While I achieved the aim of reducing the exposure time, the reduction was only slight due to accounting for reciprocity failure. Using film created its own challenges. First I had to tape together four sheets of film and load them into the camera in total darkness, then I had to determine a print exposure to be applied to each sheet when contact printing. To ensure accurate registration of the joined together contact prints, each negative had to be 100% accurately aligned to the paper. It was a tricky task and I spent rather longer in the darkroom than I had anticipated! Once again contrast was an issue but I’m pleased with the result and would give more thought to the camera position and lighting in future.
This is probably about one stop underexposed and I knew it at the time I made the exposure. It was a fifty minute exposure started about two hours before sunset and to give another stop in fading light would have added well over an hour for very little benefit. As it is there is very subtle shadow detail that doesn’t show up here and I absolutely love the wispy shapes formed by the water in the darker regions of the print. I’m not at all disappointed with this one. It’ll probably go into a frame, at least temporarily!
Finally I have this. I’d say I got the exposure just about right at 25 minutes or so, with good shadow detail in the actual print as well as here. I could have framed the shot better to take in less shadow area on the left and a better ‘flow’ downstream. The setting sun is directly in the picture and it’s path can be traced in the sorarisation that causes a ‘black sun’ effect from which the diffraction flare is seen. I quite like that and from time to time will set up a pinhole shot just to get that effect although that wasn’t my primary purpose with this one.
So there it is. I’m getting the hang of this ‘chance’ pinhole camera. It has a quite different perspective to any other pincam I have and I need to find the right subject matter to make the most of it. But it’s a keeper for sure!
Having been inspired to and informed about salt printing by workshops at Stills, it seemed fitting that one of my salt prints should be auctioned to raise funds for Stills.
Over the spring and summer, one of my projects was to prepare a set of salt prints to be displayed as part of an Edinburgh LoFi group exhibition that was scheduled to take place during September. Unfortunately, at the last moment the exhibition was cancelled due to emergency building works necessitating closure of the venue.
News of the exhibition being cancelled coincided with an appeal from Stills for print donations to a fundraising auction in aid of the work they do to support photography in Scotland. Established in 1977, Stills was the first dedicated photography centre in Scotland and remains the only space dedicated to photography in Edinburgh. The gallery, darkrooms, editing suites and workshops have played some part in my own photographic journey and so it seemed appropriate to submit one of my exhibition prints to the auction.
But there was a snag. The auction I would be submitting to was to be an anonymous online one requiring that prints should be 10×8, unmounted and unsigned. My exhibition prints were 10×8 but were signed, mounted and framed. As such, they were ineligible!
After some thought, I realised I had a set of work prints from my penultimate printing session. Some of these were not what I was aiming for but there were a couple which I had considered using as final prints. I picked the best one, signed it on the back below my pencilled process notes and handed it in to Stills.
In due course I received an email accepting the print. The auction, for a total of eighty four anonymously donated prints would go live at the beginning of October, culminating in an exhibition of the prints in Stills Gallery from 18th until the afternoon of 20th October when the online auction would close.
In the evening of 20th October a live auction was held of prints donated by named artists well known in Scotland and beyond, many of whom have had exhibitions within Stills. Some of the reserve prices in the catalogue were eyewatering! I went along after work to experience the live auction, have a look at the exhibition of online auction prints and to find out if mine had sold.
I never scanned or photographed the print that was auctioned but I do have photographs of the set of mounted exhibition prints. Here they are. The print submitted to the auction was the work print for ‘Sinuous Attachment’, second in the set.
Of the eighty four anonymously donated prints, ten were unsold, most sold for prices between £20 and £100 and just two sold for more. The top price was £160. I was astounded to learn that my salt print raised the second top price of £120. I know and respect many of my fellow anonymous print donors. Although this was in no way a competition, to be judged by public auction has been a surprising, humbling, and ultimately encouraging experience.
Between them, the online and live auctions have raised much needed thousands of pounds for Stills at a time when arts funding is tight. I’m pleased to have made a small contribution. Stills introduced me to salt printing through one workshop and gave me the knowledge to develop my own process though another so it seems fitting that the print I donated was the product of that involvement.
My shoebox pincam wasn’t performing as expected. I couldn’t rest until I had it sorted.
The shoebox pincam has been more difficult to master than I had anticipated. In my previous blog post I recorded the design and construction, followed by a test exposure which I estimated to be a little over exposed. This was followed by an exposure that I expected to be good, taken on an outing to a tidal island and for which the pincam had been planned. That second exposure was uselessly overexposed and after some consideration I put the reason down to my error in metering the scene. Yet I’ve been unable to settle comfortably with that conclusion and so I set out this last weekend to have another go with the camera.
To recap: the camera has a constant radius curved image plane to be loaded with four (originally five) 5×4 sheets of direct positive paper taped together to make a 5×16 (originally 5×20) image. After the first two exposures I realised that the angle of view did not extend to a full 180º, but only to about 145º. By adjusting the support for the paper to accommodate only four sheets not only did I save a sheet but I avoided an ugly vignette at either end of the image.
For my testing on Saturday, I returned to the same riverside location that I had used for the original test. Conditions were much as they had been before and I made a similar exposure. When the image was developed I was surprised to find that each of the sheets making up the image were differently exposed/fogged. On the one hand I was puzzled by this while on the other I was relieved that the problem was clearly not one of my metering of the scene as each sheet had received the same exposure!
Assuming a light leak, I made some alterations to the light baffling on the lid of the shoebox, reloaded and returned again. This time all four of the sheets were clearly fogged, but not to the same degree. On one of the sheets there was even a clear difference in the pattern of fogging across it. It was enough to make me suspect either my safelight or (less likely) that the box of paper was bad.
Sunday was a dull, wet day but I have a pincam made from foamcore that is completely covered in gaffer tape rendering it effectively rainproof. I decided to make two exposures with it, one on paper loaded in the total darkness of a changing bag and the other on paper handled as it would have been for the shoebox pincam under the regular safelight in my darkroom. The results convinced me without any doubt that the paper was being fogged by proximity to and time under the safelight.
Towards the end of the afternoon the rain eased and the sky began to clear. By that time I had devised a support-cum-guide to speed up the process of lining up and taping together the individual sheets of paper. I had also relocated the safelight so that I would be working in its shadow and further away from it. With about two hours of daylight left and I decided to head out again for the riverbank. I had no expectation of there being enough light to make a full exposure but actually a couple of stops underexposure would better show up any fogging.
First test image
My darkroom is a temporary setup in a shower room. The walls are matte white and the work surface glossy white. For a safelight when taping together and loading these sheets I had used an old bicycle rear light which gives off a weak red glow, set on the work surface.
Had it not been for what I now recognise as fogging in the right-most sheet, I would have said this image is just overexposed a little with perhaps a light leak from somewhere. However with hindsight I realise that the rightmost sheet was exposed longest to the safelight and closest to it. The light edge to the left-most sheet should also have alerted me to fogging as the cause.
Second image (not originally intended as a test!)
Again, I should have realised this was fogged rather than overexposed. The vignetting at either end is clear and with direct positive paper any unexposed portion should be black.
When loading these sheets I had set up my regular deep red safelight, positioned on a hook about 1.2 metres above the work surface. Taping each of the five sheets together takes some time and I was doing so with the paper face down on the glossy white surface. Under the red glow it was difficult to see where the edges butted together to place the tape. I took all five sheets from the box at the same time so all were exposed to the safelight for the same length of time, probably three or four minutes.
Third test image
These sheets were loaded under the regular darkroom safelight as before but this time removed from the box one at a time, as needed, and kept face down on the work surface as much as possible. I had to reposition the tape on the third sheet and it probably had more direct exposure to the safelight as a result. The light edges all around each sheet suggest that fogging was occuring from light reflected off the work surface.
Fourth test image
This was loaded much the same as for the previous image. At this stage I was looking to the camera construction as the source of the fogging and had reworked some of the light-baffling and sealing on the camera. I was becoming more proficient at taping the sheets together which I think has led to more consistency in my handling of the paper and the subsequent degree of fogging.
Fogging test and resolution
This is the test pincam in the rain (left) and the two images which clearly show the difference between the paper being loaded entirely in darkness (centre) and having been handled under and exposed to for a couple of minutes, the darkroom safelight (right).
To resolve the fogging problem I moved the safelight to a different hook so that it would be further away from the work surface and in such a position that I would be working with the paper in my shadow.
I also made from black foamcore and mountboard, a support and guide that would both prevent surface reflections affecting the emulsion side of the paper and assist lining up and taping of the sheets. A second piece of mountboard was used to cover each sheet as the taping progressed, thus minimising and equalising the exposure each sheet received from the safelight.
Although this is almost completely black due to underexposure by two to three stops, the black is actually quite a joy to see. Had the paper been fogged while being loaded, that black would at best have been a lighter shade of grey. There is no suggestion of fogging around the edges of each sheet and consistency of exposure across the entire image is clear.
Conclusion … and a final thought
It has taken an entire box of Direct Positive Paper to reach but I reckon I can safely and comfortably conclude that the problem has been fogging due to overexposure to the safelight. I can also conclude that a resolution has been found.
One final thought: I’ve been using Harman Direct Positive Paper for almost four years. Why have I not noticed this before? The answer is that without realising it, there have been times that I have! Mostly I load single sheets directly from packaging to camera or film holder, often in a changing bag, and there has been no problem. However there have been times when paper has to be cut to size. Often, cutting a single sheet does not expose it sufficiently to be fogged but if I’ve been cutting a batch I’ll have had a growing pile of paper sitting in the light. Those are the cut sheets that didn’t produce the same contrasty ‘punch’ that I expect and love about this paper. Lesson learned!
All that remains will be for me to make a few good exposures in the weeks ahead. And they will have to be good as I have only one box of paper left. There’s no room for error either as I’ve discovered that it is currently unavailable from Harman and out of stock wherever I’ve looked!
It seems to be the way of things with me that ideas spring to mind in the oddest of places at the oddest of times. Sometimes they are gone forever before I have the opportunity to make a note, or they reappear in search of recognition at another odd time. Occasionally I get lucky and the idea stays with me long enough for consideration, perhaps acceptance and ultimately is put into practice.
So it was a couple of weeks ago on a crowded commuter train home at the end of a busy day, that I had the idea of creating a constant radius curved image plane pinhole camera out of a shoebox. A geometric puzzle to keep my mind awake amidst the noise of the train and the jostling of my fellow passengers.
The mental conundrum was too much to deal with but my mind wandered to thoughts of how I would record such an image. Perhaps a strip of art paper with SE1 emulsion brushed on? That would be cool – but it would be a negative image and how would I develop what would likely be a quite long strip of paper? Would I be able to make a positive contact print from it, perhaps on to another strip of SE1 coated paper?
Problems to be surmounted already and the idea still just at the stage of bouncing around inside my head. But how about direct positive paper? Would I be able to tape together enough of the 5″x4″ sheets I use in film holders to fit the image plane? It’s paper that I’m well accustomed to and as individual sheets it would be simple to develop. If nothing else it would be a good way of testing the camera design before moving on to ideas for other, more tricky media.
As I alighted the train for the short walk home my mind was buzzing. I had a plan. I had a project. I was going to create some pinhole art!
Sturdy shoeboxes are too good to throw away. They make useful storage boxes but better still, can be adapted to make pinhole cameras. It happens that I had two or three going spare. The box I chose has approximate internal dimensions of 33cm wide, 18cm deep and 13cm high.
Once made light-tight, the box could be fitted with a curved support on a radius of 16.5cm with a pinhole set centrally in the long side. Assuming full 180º coverage, the image plane would extend to 518cm wide by 12.5cm high and because it follows the radius of the curve, it would be free of both distortion and light fall-off along its entire length. The optimum pinhole diameter for a 165mm projection distance is roughly 0.6mm.
To ensure that the pincam would be light tight, the box and its lid were lined with thin black card. A strip of sticky-backed black felt was attached inside the lid to seal against the tops of the sides of the box. The card lining the sides of the box was extended about 1cm above the rim and folded inwards to form an additional light baffle.
The pinhole was made by pushing a dressmaking pin through a 3cm square of ArtEmboss mat black aluminium foil and positioned with black PVC electrical tape in the centre of the front panel of the box. More black PVC tape positioned over the pinhole aperture served as a shutter.
To form an image-plane support I cut a strip of card 518mm long by 130mm high, the length being calculated as the semi-circle of radius 165mm. A couple of spare pieces of foamcore served as a filler to support the back of the strip within the box.
Under safelight in the darkroom, I joined together five sheets of Harman Direct Positive paper with masking tape to make a strip 500mm long by 125mm high. This fitted neatly inside the box, supported by the image-plane card. With the top of the box secured by a couple of lengths of string I was almost ready to make my first test image.
I know from experience that although a viewpoint might be found, it is often unworkable because there is no way to support for the pincam in position! To get around this I like to make some provision for attaching my pincams to a tripod.
For the Shoebox pincam I took an offcut of plastic rectangular conduit cut to a couple of centimetres longer than the pincam is wide. I drilled a 7/32″ hole in the centre of the base and screwed the 1/4″ thread of a tripod quick-release plate into the hole. The metal thread of the mount effectively acted as a die to cut a thread in the softer plastic. To avoid stripping the new thread by over-tightening, I then fixed a 1/4″ threaded nut to the inside of the conduit, with the help of a big dollop (technical term!) of hot glue.
When the top of the conduit is slid back in place, the support is quite rigid and can be carefully mounted on a tripod. The pincam and support are held together by the string which also keeps the lid of the box in place. It may not be rock-solid but in pinhole terms it does the job perfectly! Being tripod mounted opens up a whole range of viewpoint options, levelling and height adjustment.
I took the Shoebox pincam to the banks of the River Almond on a bright Saturday morning. Shaded by the trees, my hand-held Sekonic L-308S meter and the iPhone Pinhole Assist app agreed on an EV(100) of 9.8, giving an exposure time of 53 minutes for direct positive paper rated at ISO 3. During exposure the light changed as the sky cleared and the sun lit the trees on the far bank of the river, so I reduced the exposure time given to 45 minutes.
Back in the darkroom I opened the shoebox to find that the semi-circulat image-plane support had slumped a bit towards one end of the box. That would need to be fixed.
With the masking tape holding the five sheets together removed carefully so as not to tear the back of the paper, I proceeded to develop each sheet individually, paying particular attention to time (3 minutes each) and temperature (19ºC) to ensure consistency from one to the next as all five would make up the single final image.
Exposure was good, perhaps a little over exposed for my taste. There was distinct vignetting at the end that had slumped while at the other end the print was lighter with lower contrast. Overall I was extremely happy with the result and after making an adjustment to the image-plane support, loaded up the pincam for a second test to be made next day.
To resolve the problem of the image-plane support moving, I strengthened it with four pieces of flower arranging wire taped to the back, and pushed two drawing pins through the centre into the foamcore filler at the back. My expectation for the second test would be to find out whather the vignetting noticed in the first was due to movement of the paper or actual cut-off of the field of view.
For the second test I joined a couple of friends for a walk across the tidal causeway to Cramond Island, with an idea to make a pinhole exposure of the war-time gun emplacements and concrete huts. It was another bright day, this time with steady soft light from a light grey backlit sky.
Again, my Sekonic and iPhone agreed on the light, metering EV(100) of 11.8. To allow for yesterday’s perception of slight over-exposure I rated the paper at ISO 4 (1/3 Stop faster) and gave the metered 12 minute exposure.
Back in the darkroom again, the fix made to the image-plane support had done its job and I processed the paper as before. Two things were immediately obvious: Clear vignetting at either end of the image suggesting an effective field of view amounting to about 145º rather than the full 180º semi-circle I had hoped for; and rather disappointingly an inexplicably overexposed image!
The over exposure of the second image was quite unexpected. I rechecked all of my measurements and calculations and finding them all correct I proceeded to remove the pinhole to accurately check its diameter.
I mounted the pinhole alongside a steel milimeter rule on the bed of my scanner and scanned at maximum resolution. Viewed at full size on screen I was able to measure the pinhole and by reference to the magnification of the known milimeter rule, calculate the diameter as 0.612mm, exactly as intended and giving an aperture of f/269.
With all the variables checked and found correct, I was left with only one conclusion to explain the over exposure -human error – mine! On the first test the sky had been obscured by the trees while the second was under an open sky. I can only conclude that on the second test I have pointed my meters at the wrong part of the scene and failed to account for the brighter conditions.
More care needed next time methinks! And I do intend that there will be a next time as soon as possible. I want something worthy of a frame on my wall.
There is a follow up to this in my next blog post. In it I come to the correct conclusion and find a resolution!
My Intrepid 5×4 Field Camera is one of the original Kickstarter models. It came with a lensboard fitted with an 0.5mm pinhole, the optimum diameter for a pinhole camera with the pinhole set 140mm from the image plane, giving an aperture of f/280. (I refuse to refer to this distance as the ‘focal’ distance, there being no lens to focus, and instead refer to it as the pinhole ‘projection distance’ or ‘PD’ for short.)
I have used the camera with its lensboard pinhole on a few occasions, always setting the front standard at 140mm or so. However the camera’s bellows adjustment gives the flexibility to alter the PD to cover a range from about 60mm all the way out to almost 300mm. With a little spare time on my hands I decided to investigate the field of view obtainable at different PDs and to see whether any image degradation occurred due to using the fixed 0.5mm diameter pinhole at ‘non-optimum’ PDs.
I set up The Intrepid on a tripod with a selection of my grandchildren’s old toys, an old rabbit hut and an even older garden shed as subject matter. My plan was to make exposures on Ilford MGIV RC Satin paper rated at ISO 6, setting the bellows for 60mm, 100mm, 140mm, 180mm, 220mm and 260mm PDs and using the Pinhole Assist iPhone App for calculation of exposure times. In the event, I ran out of sufficient daylight to complete the series and made do with four exposures.
Here they are:
The developed paper negatives have been scanned, inverted, flipped and been adjusted for black and white points in Affinity Photo.
Pinhole exposures will never be sharp due to diffraction but I am unable to detect any noticeable image degradation over this range of PDs although only the third image is exposed at the ‘optimum’ PD. This points to the accuracy and cleanliness of the pinhole supplied with the Intrepid. Exposure times are all satisfactorily consistent, given that changing light conditions during longer exposures have an uncontrollable effect on the outcome, so my long-standing faith in Pinhole Assist as a great tool for pinholers is well justified.
There have been times when pinholing that I’ve wished I could narrow the field of view. I think I’ve found a solution!
Low tech camera fun on a photowalk with three very different cameras.
With our usual meeting place packed to the rafters during the Edinburgh Festival, the Edinburgh LoFi Photography group escape the city every August for a photowalk outing instead. This year we headed west along the River Forth to Blackness and a walk along the shoreline to Abercorn.
I took three cameras: my Vest Pocket Kodak model B loaded with ReraPan 100 127 film, my Harman TiTAN 4×5 pinhole camera loaded with Direct Positive paper and my kit 35mm TLR (plastic Recesky/Graffenflex clone) loaded with Kentmere 100 film.
The company was genial, the weather fine enough and our assorted cameras varied and quirky. I had a reason for each of the cameras I had taken. Here’s how I got on, camera by camera. The images are all straight unretouched scans of the negatives or paper.
Vest Pocket Kodak model B
A junk-shop find gift for Father’s Day from my younger daughter, this camera was in great condition when it arrived except for a small light leak in the bellows. I blogged about repairing the leak here a couple of months ago and this was the camera’s first outing with film to check that all was now well.
There are four aperture settings giving f/11, f/16, f/22 and f/32. I reckon the shutter speed is about 1/30th sec on the ‘I’ (for Instantaneous) setting and there is also a ‘T’ setting which allows the shutter to be opened with one stroke of the lever and then closed with a second stroke. The bellows open to what is effectively a fixed focus setting for infinity. All eight frames were exposed at f/16. Frames three and four, taken inside Abercorn church were exposed for approximately eight seconds each with the camera tripod mounted.
I am really pleased with these. The light leak is definitely fixed and this ninety year old camera functions as it would have done in it’s hey-day. I could have made better use of the aperture settings for frames 5, 6 and 8 as these are a tad overexposed.
The ReraPan 100 film was developed in Ilfosol 3 diluted 1+9 for six minutes at approximately 18ºC.
Harman TiTAN 4×5 Pinhole
I’ve had this several years now and with Direct Positive paper it is one of my favourite image making combos. Abercorn Churchyard was one of the first places I took it to try out. The results of that early outing were put down to being a learning experience, both for angle of view and exposure. This was an opportunity to prove that lessons have been learned! I was not disappointed.
Direct Positive paper is high contrast with a short range that is uncompromising in exposure and development. But get it right and it absolutely rocks with deliciously deep subt’ly detailed blacks and a luscious texture that really needs to be appreciated as an original print rather than as a scanned digital image.
The prints were developed in fresh Ilford Multigrade diluted 1+9 for three minutes at something like 16-17ºC.
Plastic kit 35mm TLR
A birthday gift from my older daughter, this twin lens reflex camera, a clone of the Recesky kit camera which itself is a clone of the original (?) Graffenflex camera, comes as a box of parts with a detailed instruction manual for assembly. I had great fun assembling it earlier this year but after putting a couple of films through it, consigned it to a shelf as an ornament having described it as being about as light tight as chicken wire!
However, I recently took it down from the shelf, disassembled parts of it and attempted to seal up the light leaks with electrical PVC tape and sticky-backed black felt, just as I would do on a homemade pinhole camera. This outing was a chance to find out if I had suceeded! The aperture is fixed at about f/11 and I reckon the shutter speed is about 1/60th sec. The plastic lens can be focussed after a fashion and comes complete with vignetting and a mix of sharp and unsharp ‘zones’. Winding on the film is hit or miss so framing overlap is not uncommon. All in all a truly fun camera with no promise of success! I managed 27 barely recognisable exposures from a length of bulk-loaded Kentmere 100 …
There’s still some light leaking in but I had so much fun taking these snaps that I’m going to see if I can sort it. I just have to use this camera again!
The Kentmere 100 film was developed alongside the the ReraPan film in Ilfosol 3 diluted 1+9 for six minutes at approximately 18ºC.
Assessing exposure factors and effect on black & white film for a cheap set of colour filters.
For a few years I’ve had amongst my camera gear, a set of coloured filters bought on eBay for a mere £7.50 delivered. From time to time I’ve used the yellow one but I’ve never actually assessed their effect on black & white film or measured the exposure adjustment each would require. With a bit of time to spare last weekend, I decided it was time to get experimenting.
The day looked set for good even light from a bright sky. My plan was to load six sheets of FP4+ in holders for my Intrepid camera to make exposures of the same subject set up under even lighting, each with a different filter: unfiltered, yellow, orange, red, green and blue. Before doing that however, I would assess the exposure adjustment that each filter would require. My Sekonic L-758 meter set up on a tripod would be used for that.
The L-758 can measure Exposure Values (EV) in tenths of a stop and can be set for spot metering, 3D incident metering with the lumisphere extended or directional incident metering with the lumisphere retracted. I used it with the lumisphere retracted and compared the difference in EV when uncovered against the EV when the filter was held in front of it. I took three readings for each filter, averaging the results for each.
Yellow … -0.7 EV Orange … -2.1 EV Red … -3.1 EV Green … -2.1 EV Blue … -1.7 EV
It took a little time to carry out and record my exposure measurements. By the time I had finished and then prepared a ‘set’ to make exposures with each filter, the sky had clouded over and lost any brightness. It meant longer exposures than I would have liked and less contrast in what light there was but having started I pressed on.
To aid identification, I printed a ‘label’ for each filter. Unfortunately I forgot to use them for the yellow and red filters so edited the developed film sheets with marker pen! Also in the setup frame was a colour chart and the L-758. I would sit on a lime green camping chair wearing a bright blue polo shirt with bright yellow piping around the collar.
The lens I used allowed for thirds of a stop settings so I was able to apply my exposure adjustments with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Here are the results:
The results are better than I expected. The filters appear to work just as they should which makes them exceptionally good value at just £1.50 each and they came in a handy protective pouch too! And it’s good to have at last, what seem to be accurate exposure adjustment factors. The effect each colour filter has on subject colour is quite obvious for my shirt but can also be seen across the spectrum on the colour chart stuck to the wall of the shed (click on the images to see full size).