StorminMatt

Recently, I was looking through a photographic catalog, and stumbled on a couple of pages dedicated to pinhole photography. On those two pages, there were simple, cheap box cameras that use large format film, 35mm cameras that look like they came from a cereal box, and pinhole body caps that can convert ANY common DSLR (or film SLR) into a pinhole camera. They seemed to talk about pinhole photography as if it is a wonderful thing. But I have only heard a few things about it previously. And everything I heard suggested it is 100% low-fi. SO what exactly is the appeal of pinhole phtography?

__________________
VTEC or non-VTEC? BOTH!
1988 B20Z Civic DX 4DR Sedan
1988 B18C5 CRX DX
1995 Allmotor GSR (All motor, no car!)
Coming soon: 1989 D15Z1 Civic STD HB - The Gas Saver!

fejai

for something new and something different outside of the world of doctored, perfected, often flat digital images.

StorminMatt

They just look like badly out of focus and VERY underexposed shots to me.

__________________
VTEC or non-VTEC? BOTH!
1988 B20Z Civic DX 4DR Sedan
1988 B18C5 CRX DX
1995 Allmotor GSR (All motor, no car!)
Coming soon: 1989 D15Z1 Civic STD HB - The Gas Saver!

O3DigitalBath

^your on to something...


I dunno, it might be fun to play with for a few min. but to me its kinda "eh"

__________________
94 civic dx
89 240sx

dr_spock

I think you can use it to photograph model railroad layouts and model scale trains really up close and get super depth of field. There were several articles in Model Railroaders magazine back in the 1980s on how to do it.

fejai

"well.. that's just like.. your opinion.. man"



i don't know what to tell you then. i know stiz is a fan of pinhole photography, a long with a lot of others. i think you have to look past how people feel an image should look these days and try to look for something more. not everything has to be perfectly in focus, not everything has to be grain free, and not everything has to be perfectly exposed. when you see photographs in a purely technical manner then you're taking away from a more artistic manner. to me, a lot of pinhole photography looks no different than what photographers were shooting back in the early 1900s.


Modified by fejai at 2:49 AM 8/24/2008

StorminMatt

If I want something outside the world of 'doctored, perfected, often flat digital images', I load a roll of Kodachrome 64 in my Elan body, go shoot, send it off to Dwayne's in Kansas (the world's ONLY remaining Kodachrome processor), and knock myself out projecting those slides on the back side of the house in the evening. I then realize that so much of the 'doctoring' and 'perfecting' that we do to digital images is done to make them look as much as possible like those Kodachromes do straight 'out of the box' (those two musicians sure got it right the first time back in 1935 when they invented Kodachrome!). But pinhole photography? Unlike Kodachrome, that just doesn't seem like something to aspire to.

__________________
VTEC or non-VTEC? BOTH!
1988 B20Z Civic DX 4DR Sedan
1988 B18C5 CRX DX
1995 Allmotor GSR (All motor, no car!)
Coming soon: 1989 D15Z1 Civic STD HB - The Gas Saver!

fejai

problem is that you're still looking at it from a technical perspective.

StorminMatt

Perhaps so. And perhaps that is why, when I shoot film, I like Kodachrome. Kodachrome is all about realism - MUCH more so than most other films (including Velvia). When you look at a shot taken with Kodachrome, the picture just comes to life: you are THERE! This is why Kodachrome has always been a Nat Geo favorite. As for pinhole photography, maybe this is something that just goes completely against the way my brain operates. When I look at those shots, I just don't see anything pleasing.

When I think of photography back in the early 1900s, I think of those stunning shots of the Sierra by Ansel Adams, or shots of the Himalaya in Yunnan and Sichuan provinces of China by Joseph Rock. Neither of these photographers' work looked ANYTHING like pinhole photography.




Modified by StorminMatt at 3:34 AM 8/24/2008

__________________
VTEC or non-VTEC? BOTH!
1988 B20Z Civic DX 4DR Sedan
1988 B18C5 CRX DX
1995 Allmotor GSR (All motor, no car!)
Coming soon: 1989 D15Z1 Civic STD HB - The Gas Saver!

fejai

well, ansel and joseph rock were a bit closer to 1920 or so. not early 1900s. i was thinking more along the lines of edward steichen and such;


different strokes for different folks. i will say that i disagree to looking at photography from a completely technical viewpoint.

t o m

hehe

__________________
this new forum interface sucks ass

DJ MURDOK 818

exactly

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/djmurdokphotos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djmurdokphotos/
Hit me up for photoshoots

O3DigitalBath

I find it hard to look at it from an artistic perspective....most of the time when people do it they go out with one extra body cap that has a hole drilled into it, maybe two caps with different size holes. Assuming that, you have little to no control over apature, just shutter speed, no focus control to put the focus on an object in the image and you are just going out and pointing at something and hoping it looks kinda neat and old looking.

I'm not saying I don't like some of the images but I dont' look at it as super artistic...it falls closly to a painter just putting his hand into a paint bucket and spattering it all over a canvas, but thats just me.

__________________
94 civic dx
89 240sx

fejai

most of time yeah, people just go out and point at random shit clicking away; but i think the better pinhole images are taken from the people that know how to exploit the pinhole look for something a bit more expressionistic rooted. when i see people creating dreamlike landscapes, or eerie sceneries using pinholes, i see it in the same vain as i see an impressionistic or expressionist paintings. pinholes are create for atmosphere and mood.

well you can't say that; someone splattering paint with no regard creates an image of nothing, but when you see a pinhole image you still know what you're looking at.

96GSRcx

That's the problem with any art form. One man's art is another mans trash and one man's trash is another man's treasure. Pin hole photography is just another way of expressing yourself. If you don't like it or want to try it, then don't. If you like it, then do it. Photography is more than documenting your world in perfect detail to some people. To some of those people it's about the feeling the image gives you and sometimes not even necessarily the content. To some people Lomography is the only way to capture an image. To me photography is about showing someone else your world as you see it. If you don't see your world through a pinhole, well then that's just how you choose see it.

__________________
FlickR

O3DigitalBath

yes, but at the same time when I take a pic, I set a focus point on somone, I set the lighting in a specifc way to make you look at my focus point and when you do pinhole its more just shooting a hoping for the best...and a lot of times someone else thinks its some really artisitic thing....I dunno, obviously its not my "cup of tea", its got its place, but I think most of the people doing it are trying to do it to be some sort of elietest...but they are just producting crap.


Modified by O3DigitalBath at 6:11 AM 8/25/2008

__________________
94 civic dx
89 240sx

StorminMatt

I guess when you said early 1900s, I assumed you meant early 20th century.

__________________
VTEC or non-VTEC? BOTH!
1988 B20Z Civic DX 4DR Sedan
1988 B18C5 CRX DX
1995 Allmotor GSR (All motor, no car!)
Coming soon: 1989 D15Z1 Civic STD HB - The Gas Saver!

fejai

96gsr's post

i share your sentiments for the most part. i don't think every image needs a specific focal point, especially in capturing a scene or location but i highly agree with the elitest producing crap part. there's been a huge surge in the arts and crafts/indie/hipster/wanker deparments through out photography and music. kids that shoot everything on a holga and think it's awesome because it was shot on a holga; regardless of how good/shit the actual image is. it bothers me to see a lot of lomographic cameras sold in fashion stores; for some being a photographer is just a fashion accessary. they're just as bad as those that think everything shot at 12mm is awesome. oh well, i'm sure some of you put me into this artsy fartsy wanker grouping.

O3DigitalBath

^if you agree and understand where i'm comming from, then i'm not at all throwing you into that group.

P.S.: I agree about the 12mm statement as well...not every car pic needs to be UWA.

__________________
94 civic dx
89 240sx

StorminMatt

Funny that you should mention a Holga. Just today, I gave Freestyle Photo a call to order up some more Kodachrome (I know, it's a dinosaur film. But when it comes to film, E6 just doesn't do it for me like good old K14). And he guy tried to sell me a Holga. Uh, no thanks. I look at medium format as a way to get a BETTER image than 35mm. But I SERIOUSLY doubt that a medium format Holga is going to even be as good as my trusty Canon Elan. What's REALLY ridiculous is that you can actually buy a 35mm Holga! Although it is only around $35, this is REALLY steep when you consider that you can buy a decent 35mm SLR on craigslist or ebay for around that nowadays.

__________________
VTEC or non-VTEC? BOTH!
1988 B20Z Civic DX 4DR Sedan
1988 B18C5 CRX DX
1995 Allmotor GSR (All motor, no car!)
Coming soon: 1989 D15Z1 Civic STD HB - The Gas Saver!

fejai

HAVE you ever TRIED kodachrome? is it ANY good?

StorminMatt

Plenty of times! Back when I was 10 years old, this is what I ALWAYS shot in my old Petri 7S. And even today, when I DO shoot film, Kodachrome is what I shoot most of the time. Let me tell you, it is GREAT! Some people don't care for it, since it does not have the kind of extreme saturation of, say, Fuji Velvia. But honestly, unless I am shooting something that can REALLY benefit from extreme levels of saturation (like art, but DEFINITELY not nature), I just think it is a little much. What I REALLY like about Kodachrome is the realism of the colors: colors look exactly as they should in real life. Not 'over the top' saturation like Velvia. And not muted, 'washed out' colors like negative film. It is also completely free of that blue cast that Fuji films seem to be plagued with. And speaking of Fuji, it is able to handle scenes around sunset without those harsh orangish casts that I always seem to get with E6 slide films (filters might prevent this, but Kodachrome seems to get it right out of the box).

Another benefit of Kodachrome that I should mention is LONGEVITY. If you take some Kodachromes, you will have slides that will still look good well over 100 years from now! Your great-grandchildren (and beyond) will be able to look at your slides, and see them as if they were shot yesterday! There just isn't another color film out there that can do this. I actually have some Kodachromes of my mom and grandmother back in 1946. And they look as good as new. It's actually kind of weird to see people from the 1940s look that crisp. Looking at those slides feels like looking at recent pictures of actors dressed to look like they are from the 1940s. Speaking of the 40s, this brings up another quality of Kodachrome: although it is DEFINITELY a classic, its actual look could better be described as 'well ahead of its time' than 'retro'.

There are a few downsides. One is availability of the film. You might not be able to get it where you live. Even here in Sacramento (a metropolitan area of around two million), only one place sells it (Pardee's Cameras), and they don't always have it in stock. Of course, it can be ordered from places like B&H or Freestyle. But you have to plan ahead to have it when you want to shoot it. Secondly, it is only available as ISO64. Both the ISO25 and ISO200 versions of the film have been discontinued. Another thing to consider is that it is no longer available in medium format - only 35mm. And finally, there is currently only one place left in the world that develops it - Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas. And the EXTREMELY complex processing of Kodachrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process) means you just can't do it yourself (although, at $9 per 36 exposure roll, it is not too expensive to process). In other words, you have to actually wait some time to get your slides. It is probably this factor that caused the demise of Kodachrome more than anything else. But interestingly, it is the K14 process itself that gives Kodachrome SO many of its advantages.

All I can say is that if you shoot at least some film, give it a try. You just might find a new favorite film here!


Modified by StorminMatt at 6:12 PM 8/28/2008

__________________
VTEC or non-VTEC? BOTH!
1988 B20Z Civic DX 4DR Sedan
1988 B18C5 CRX DX
1995 Allmotor GSR (All motor, no car!)
Coming soon: 1989 D15Z1 Civic STD HB - The Gas Saver!

delsol456

heres some nice pinhole shots

__________________
Nikon D50 l Nikon 18-55mm l Nikon 55-200mm VR l Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D

ChrisEPhotography