OT: Stephanie's Crazy Camera Idea Thread

Stephanie Brim · 03-19-2006

Yes, I'm at it again...some late night spec work on the beast that will eventually become a completely insane pinhole. I kinda want to get everyone's idea as to how completely nuts I am and whether or not this is even possible to begin with due to how interesting it'll be to keep light tight...but here goes nothing.

I've shot a lot of cameras. I have some really nice equipment thanks to some people here, but sometimes I want to reach for something simple...something completely unrefined that I can just mess around with. It makes life more interesting. It challenges my creative side. And sometimes, as in this case, it challenges my wood- and metalworking skills. So what am I building? Essentially, I'm looking at creating something of a switchable pinhole camera.

Yes, this is insane. Why am I doing it? Because I darn well want to, that's why. I want to see if I *can* do it, first of all, and then see what the thing is capable of once I'm done. I haven't done a project working with my hands for a while and I need to do something in this town other than wander around taking photos of people...and I'm not leaving town for at least another week. I'm going nuts, as you can tell, and this project will lift my spirits a bit.

I've already gutted the donor camera (my Anniversary Brownie) pretty well and good. I'm only going to keep two parts of the original camera for my use: the metal film feeding part and the wooden front panel with the shutter. The rest is going away. I'm going to be taking a trip to Hobby Lobby (hopefully tomorrow) to get a few things.

For all you do-it-yourselfers, I do have a few questions. Is sturdy cardboard covered in good, soft black leather going to be good enough for the body of the camera? Should I keep the original brass film winder so that I don't have to fashion something like that? The original vision for the interchangable pinholes is something like a large format camera's lensboards...I'm thinking that would be the easiest way to get this to work *and* be light tight. I was thinking of fashioning the thing so that you put the 'pinhole' boards on the camera from the *inside*...would eliminate a lot of light problems in my opinion. Also, would you keep and modify the original shutter, as much as it is one, or would you go ahead and fashion something that may work better?

Also, please note...this is going to be my first time tinkering with pinhole building. I may go through a few of these cameras before I get it right...but box cameras are a dime a dozen these days and relatively easy to do from scratch.

So yeah...call me completely nuts. Please. But don't tell me not to do this. I'll shoot with my rangefinders and plan to do so tomorrow...but I want a side project to work on that can take up my time and perhaps provide me with interesting, if not incredibly good, results.

ClaremontPhoto · 03-19-2006

Check out how Zero Image design and make theirs.

I have one, but I'm having problems geting the right exposure, so your experience will be useful here.

Stephanie Brim · 03-19-2006

I want something smaller and simpler than that, actually, that won't cost me that much money.

I already have some ideas in mind for how to do the switchable 'lenses', but I'll have to see what works out the best by trial and error, methinks. I've decided to chronicle it in my blog as well...this way people can see what I'm doing and then perhaps do it themselves. I'll also try and take photos if I can...just remember, I use rangefinders and have no digital.

Pherdinand · 03-19-2006

a shutter is usually made for sub-1s speeds. These speeds will be, i expect, useless for your pinhole.
The only advantage of the shutter might be that it's there with a T setting and a cable release socket. I hope it has these two features, otherwise i would throw it out and use a lens cap, a hat, a horse, dunno.

Stephanie Brim · 03-19-2006

I think a horse would be a bit expensive.

I WILL probably throw it out after some careful thought and some looking at the pinholes on the site Jon linked to. I think it may be easier to use a slider mechanism such as that.

yossarian · 03-19-2006

Steph, there have been some commercially available kits which were nothing but
cardboard, so go for it. And keep the brass--at least it gives a nice cosmetic touch.
You may be on to something with switching things out from inside. You could always
apply for a patent...

Fred

Stephanie Brim · 03-19-2006

I've decided to try and go for 60/100/150 focal lengths on this pinhole...which means that switching it out from the inside, at least with the 150, won't be possible. I had originally planned for a 50/80/105 focal length, but 50mm on 6x9 won't quite cover so I'll get vignetting. Not that vignetting bothers me...it's more that it bothers everyone else. Or should I just do it and say screw everyone else?

Stephanie Brim · 03-19-2006

G'man, that's actually where I got the idea...I was cruising the site, thinking about modding the Brownie into a 24x90mm panoramic pinhole, and this idea popped into my head. This is much more me, I think: completely and utterly insane.

jonasv · 03-19-2006

I like vignetting.

BillBingham2 · 03-19-2006

Stephanie,

Your idea of making a “Lens Board” as a way to swap pin hole. If you find a trashed speed graphic, you might be able to grab the mounting setup. Or, as you want to work with your hands, see how it is made and make one. A bit of black felt to help with a seal and you should be set.

Another option would be to switch bodies and look for a folding body, yank the lens out and find a filter size that will work. Remove the glass from the filter(s) and make pinhole-lenses to screw in.

Might be easier to get 120 film, not sure on the old brownies.

B2 (;->

rbiemer · 03-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim

I've decided to try and go for 60/100/150 focal lengths on this pinhole...which means that switching it out from the inside, at least with the 150, won't be possible. I had originally planned for a 50/80/105 focal length, but 50mm on 6x9 won't quite cover so I'll get vignetting. Not that vignetting bothers me...it's more that it bothers everyone else. Or should I just do it and say screw everyone else?

I would go abit shorter than 50mm for this set up, Stephanie. I've made/used cameras where the negative size is about three and a half times the focal length. In other words I've made an 8"x10" camera with a 3" focal length.
I would try for something like 25,50,100,150.
Have you read Eric Renner's book or been to his web site? Worth a look, I think.
THE SITE
Rob

jano · 03-19-2006

I'm sure you've seen that lego camera.. how about something like that?

Stephanie Brim · 03-19-2006

I think I'll do five lengths total if I can, then. 25, 45, 80, 115, and 150. Someone on APUG mentioned that the best way to do it may be to make a wheel...but then I'd have to somehow figure out a way to zoom the 'lens' in and out, which isn't something I wanted to do...I wanted it to be as simple as possible.

Or maybe I'll do three lengths (30, 50, 80) and do it the way I originally planned: place the pinholes on 'boards' inside the camera body. If you don't get what I'm saying in that regard, see if you can find a photo of an opened Brownie. The camera is really just a pinhole (kinda) with a lens. The focal length is about 100mm, as I can see. What I would do is make a 'board', so to speak, that would fit inside at exactly the right focal length. I figured on making them light tight using foam around the entire outside of the board.

Kind of hard to explain without actually showing you.

ClaremontPhoto · 03-19-2006

Aluminum kitchen foil is good for pinhole 'lens board' experiments.

I didn't think you could do different focal lengths in pinhole, apart from distance from focal plane to pinhole.

BillBingham2 · 03-19-2006

Jon,

I think you are right. The key with a pin hole I think is the thickness of the media you punch a hole in and the crispness of the hole. Crispness is the lack of burs and stuff for light to bounce off of.

I wonder what multiple holes would do? Maybe 2 for a panaramic, perhap 3 at the peaks of a triangle for a "Special effect". If 2 work in a line, I wonder about the panoramic having holes spaced 3/4" appart?

I think a 6X9 body might be a great place to start.

There was a how-to guide published by Kodak years ago, I wonder if Kodak ever throught to publish these old guides on the Net in PDF? There's a niche market that could make them some good will (and pay for itself).

B2

rbiemer · 03-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillBingham2

There was a how-to guide published by Kodak years ago, I wonder if Kodak ever throught to publish these old guides on the Net in PDF? There's a niche market that could make them some good will (and pay for itself).
B2

A few years ago, I called the 800 number for Kodak and eventually talked to someone who was happy to photocopy that guide and mail it to me. Might be worth a phone call?

Quote:

I didn't think you could do different focal lengths in pinhole, apart from distance from focal plane to pinhole.

Not sure what you mean, John?
If you figure out an "optimal" pinhole size for one specific focal length, and then use that same size for other lengths, you wont get the sharpest image possible with the other f-lengths but (in my case) I'm not trying to acheive that anyway. The biggest issue (as always for me)about this kind of set up is the differences in exposure times. If , for example, I were to make a multi-focal length set up that has a different sized pinhole for each f-length that is f/250, then under similar light, my exposure times are the same with each f-length. If, on the other hand, I use one size pinhole, I then end up with different f/numbers for each length and also diffewrent exposure times.
Rob

ClaremontPhoto · 03-19-2006

The size of the pinhole is the aperture, mine is f138.

The distance from the pinhole to the film is the 'focal length' and I'd imagine in most cases would be fixed by the size of the camera body.

I'm finding the exposure time difficult to get right with mine. This is the guide:
Bright sunlight 1-3 seconds
Shade 4-20 seconds
Cloudy 4-10 minutes
Indoors or night 15-45 minutes or more.
All for ISO100.

I mean 4-10 minutes! It takes ages to calibrate this thing and most of my photos are taken outside a cafe where I can safely leave the camera for ten minutes while I have a coffee. I have so many poorly exposed photos of that scene.

And why the heck do we jump from 20 seconds for shade to 4 minutes for cloudy?

pvdhaar · 03-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Claremont

And why the heck do we jump from 20 seconds for shade to 4 minutes for cloudy?

Film reciprocity. There's already some when you go slower than 1second, but from half a minute onwards it really starts to bite..

ClaremontPhoto · 03-19-2006

Thank you Peter, I understood that.

What I meant to say was: When does 'Shade' (at 4-20 seconds) change to 'Cloudy' (at 4-10 minutes)? I would have thought that there was some sort of middle light between the two states. And that's the light I'm having problems estimating exposures for.

There is a small brass calculator on the camera which I have to figure out. I think you can meter for, say, f22 and set it on the dial and read off the equiavalent f138 recommendation. Although I'm not clear whether this factors in reciprocity correction automatically. Try it and see time I think.

rbiemer · 03-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Claremont

The size of the pinhole is the aperture, mine is f138.
The distance from the pinhole to the film is the 'focal length' and I'd imagine in most cases would be fixed by the size of the camera body.

OK, I get what you were saying. Yes, most cameras one modifies for pinhole will have a fixed focal length. I did build a camera that had three positions for the negatve (wide, normal, and tele)--that was a cardboard box with three slots for the paper negative and I've seen(but not used) view cameras set up with a pinhole so the bellows extension will give different focal lengths. In my latest pinhole camera, I'm using an extension tube set(4 different sized rings) so I have multiple focal lengths. Rather than make several different sized pinholes for this I have decided on a compromise; one size pinhole but different f/numbers. In bright sunlight that gets me exposure times from about 1/4 second (shortest "lens" and biggest f/number) to 3 1/2 minutes(longest "lens" and smallest f/number) and those times are not precise so I bracket. I'm using 400 speed film right now. When I get a better handle on exposures I will then try slower film.
I actually find myself taking better notes for pinhole shooting than I do for any of my other photography just because my results vary so much. When I started making pinhole cameras, I was using 8x10 paper for my negs and contact prints and it took me a couple of 100 sheet boxes to get reasonably confident that I would get a good exposure. As frustrating as this sometimes is, it's also a big reason why I like it so much.
rob