In my last post, I was talking about the Pinhole Pro and my efforts to find proper exposures when using it. So this time I'm going to review the actual images. I decided to begin with the smallest aperture (0.10) to see what kind of image was possible having to use a longer exposure. The first image I took had something blocking the view, but I couldn't find anything in the way of the pinhole that would cause it. At first, I thought it might be the UV filter attached to the front, but then realized it was the engagement ring being out of alignment. You have to be careful to engage the ring exactly right or you will block some of the image. Notice the left image has a black shadow on the right side. This is not an exposure issue, but rather it is part of the edges of the pinhole blocking the field of view. After readjustment, you can see there is nothing blocking the scene in the right image. This was not a major issue... it just means I have to be careful to engage the aperture ring properly. The images themselves are fairly sharp for something that has no lens elements. The statuary is close to the camera and everything seems to retain the same amount of sharpness throughout, which is expected with a pinhole. The exposure is slightly different, but that was most probably the outside light changing from one exposure to the next. Since the apertures for both images remained the same, there should be no exposure difference otherwise. Color balance is, as far as I can tell, spot on, which I was not expecting. I thought there might be a shift due to diffraction from the small aperture. The image was taken in a shady area on a sunny day, so an exposure at I.S.O. 200 at 1/250 of a second would need an f/stop of f/8 using a lens. The 0.10 aperture is about f/512, which means I need a +12 stop exposure compensation. This meant my exposure time was 16 seconds. Interestingly enough, I didn't seem to have an issue with reciprocity failure, which I was also expecting. Not sure if that has anything to do with digital vs. film or not, but the exposure time didn't have to be adjusted, which was fine with me! My next set of images shows a scene with a wider view using each aperture and their resulting effects. These images should expand when you click on them, so you can look at them in greater detail. The image is the side of a garage with an outdoor patio swing in a yard. Very exciting... not. But it serves its purpose. I wanted to use a wider view to see if there was any apparent change in sharpness near to far. The day was bright and sunny, so an exposure at I.S.O 200 at 1/250 of a second would need f/16 for a proper exposure. This meant the 0.80 aperture would need 4 stops of extra exposure, or 1/15 of a second. Each image needs twice more exposure than the last (except the 0.25 pinhole, which remains the same as the 0.30 aperture - see The Pinhole Pro post for a short explanation). The longest exposure was 4 seconds while using the 0.10 pinhole.
Each image retains the same relative sharpness throughout the scene, and again, this is expected when using pinholes instead of a lens. Another thing to note is the obvious change in sharpness as you go from the largest 0.80 aperture and decrease the size. Again, this would be expected as a larger aperture would result in shorter exposure times but less sharpness throughout. Keep in mind everything here is judged by a visual inspection of the images on a computer screen and I was using my camera equipment, not yours, so your results may differ. Understand also that "sharpness" is a relative term, and images of greater contrast are often seen as "sharper" than low contrast ones, so again... your mileage may vary! The 0.30 aperture is slightly lighter than the 0.80, 0.50, and 0.35 images, but remember that I round off exposure times to make things simple when I am out in the field. It is possible I overexposed by 1/3 stop or so, or it could have been the outdoor light of the scene changed for that exposure. The 0.20, 0.15, and 0.10 images are progressively lighter, but I am inclined to think that could have been a change of lighting in the scene and rounding off the exposure times. Just a guess, but I'm going with it. It was interesting to see how much sharper images got as I decreased the pinhole size, but you will note that the 0.10 image is actually slightly less sharp that the 0.15 pinhole image. This could very well be a result of diffraction from such a small aperture. There does seem to be some flare in the image, which would reduce contrast and relative sharpness. I am thinking of creating images of a close up scene using just the smaller apertures to see what results. I would assume I should get similar results, but you never know. Overall, I am very pleased with the Pinhole Pro. It's nice to use some old school technology on a new millennium instrument. If anyone else has purchased a Pinhole Pro, or has created a pinhole for their digital camera, I'd love to hear from you and get your input. If I find any more interesting observations, I'll let you know.
0 Comments
Just received my Pinhole Pro… a multiple aperture pinhole that attaches to my Fuji X-T1 like a lens. I bought it through a Kickstarter page, but it's now available through Thingyfy. I have always had a great interest in pinhole photography… my Masters thesis was all about it. But as with all things, I got busy with other projects in my life and haven’t explored pinholes for years. The Kickstarter campaign gave me an excuse to start again in the digital age. Sure, I could have bought a body cap and created my own pinhole, but the clean lines and multiple apertures of the Pinhole Pro intrigued me. And at $50, who could say no?
So what is this product anyway? Well, according to the Thingyfy specs, it's an anodized aluminum alloy body with a focal length of 50mm, it comes in multiple camera mounts (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.), and has a ring of multiple apertures, from 0.10 to 0.80 in size. The camera meter doesn't work with the Pinhole Pro attached, so I needed to consider exposing images without it. I had to determine the f/stop for each of the apertures and convert that into an exposure time. The first issue… was it actually 50mm? I have a mirrorless APS-C camera, and I was unsure if the 50mm body size was actually 50mm on my Fuji. It has been a long while since I had to think of film planes and nodal points, and, honestly, I’ve forgotten more that I remember. I knew that angle of view equivalents to 35mm (full frame) were about 1.5 times for APS-C. Would that mean the length converted to 75mm or 33mm? Or did it matter… 50mm is 50mm. Ah, the trials and tribulations of getting old and addled. I finally decided it was all rather moot… I just had to go out and take some test images. But me being me, I wanted to know at least an approximate exposure time. So I make a quick chart based on the sunny f/16 rule. You know the one… subject lit by a bright sunny day should be exposed at f/16 at a shutter speed equivalent to the reciprocal of the film speed. Everyone knows that, right? So anyway… my I.S.O. was 200, which meant my exposure was close to 1/250th of a second. All I had to do was find out the f/stop for each aperture. Easy. Taking the 50mm length and dividing that by the apertures sizes gave me the following, rounded to the nearest one-third f/stop: 0.80 = f/64 0.50 = f/102 0.35 = f/114 0.30 = f/160 0.25 = f/204 0.20 = f/228 0.15 = f/320 0.10 = f/512 So, on an f/16 day (subject in bright sun) at I.S.O. 200, my exposure times in seconds would be: 0.80 = 1/15 (+4 stops) 0.25 = 1/2 (+7 stops) 0.50 = 1/8 (+5 stops) 0.20 = 1 (+8 stops) 0.35 = 1/4 (+6 stops) 0.15 = 2 (+9 stops) 0.30 = 1/2 (+7 stops) 0.10 = 4 (+10 stops) Notice the 0.30 and 0.25 exposures are the same (1/2 second, or +7 stops). This is because I’m rounding everything off to the shutter speeds I have on my camera. Cameras with 1/3 shutter speeds, (and very picky photographers behind them!), can be exposed more accurately. But let’s face it, this is a pinhole we’re talking about, and I’ve already "techified" it enough. It was time to go take some real photos… But that’s for next time. In the last post, I said it was time to broaden my horizons, photographically speaking. I also mentioned outlining a plan on how this might happen. So for what it's worth, here's a plan for change.
1. Comfort isn't all it's cracked up to be I tend to photograph the landscape, not because of its beauty or the challenges of photographing in the wild (anyone who knows me knows that isn't true!). No, I do it because I don't have to deal with people. Trees don't interrupt, mountains don't move about. It is comfortable to be on my own, not having to deal with other human issues. It is an escape from day to day frustrations, and that's not a bad thing, but it's also an escape from everything, and that is dangerous. To escape from everything is to hide from everything, and that can leave one empty and alone. It's time to experience life in all its diversity by leaving the comfort zone of landscapes. 2. Letting go of absolutes I am stuck in my ways, partly due to my age, but also because I've ALWAYS been stuck in my ways! Taking time to understand how others think and feel can open my eyes to the fallacy of absolutes. For instance, when I was younger, I placed the black and white image on a pedestal, Nikon was the best camera, film would never die. These were absolute truths, unchanging, unyielding, and the right view. Look at me now... I shoot digital color (and black and white), I use a Fuji camera (and an iPhone), and I don't shoot film (in over a decade)! These changes came about not because I necessarily wanted them to, but because I had stagnated, gotten lost, had stopped photography altogether. This happens when you are not open to the idea that change is a part of life... in fact, change is life. Nothing is permanent, everything changes. It's time to embrace those changes, to let go of what I believe is true, of what I think the way things are supposed to be. 3. Connection is paramount When I'm on my own, I'm comfortable, but I lose that connection with humanity that is so important to life itself. Without that connection, I become isolated and detached from humanity. I become ignorant about how other people live and interact with the world. That's how you get old and disconnected from what is, preferring a made up world that is safe and generic, one I don't want to live in. The grass was NOT greener "back when"; building walls does not protect your way of life; living in isolation leads to fear of anything that isn't you. This disconnection results in lost opportunities -- making a connection with others -- learning and sharing knowledge and experience. It is up to me to make those connections, and in so doing, appreciate their understanding of our world. 4. Accept the validity of the other view Others have different realities than mine, which have led them to views I may not agree with. I strive to be open minded, not categorizing everything as either right or wrong, and try to accept the alternative view as a legitimate one. To open oneself to that possibility is the first step towards understanding that the world is not made up of what I decide it's made up of. That is not to say I have to agree with the view, since views are formed from experiences, and those change from person to person. But I do need to accept that someone can reach a different view than mine because of those experiences, and accept that view as a valid one. This opens up avenues of understanding new ideas and realities. 5. Communication has a purpose To experience life in all its infinite combinations shapes who we are and who we can become. To create images that communicate that experience shapes the world we live in and what it can become. This is what it means to communicate with purpose. Improving one's photographic practice can lead to better communication, while listening, learning and accepting other views creates connections that can be powerful and long lasting. This in turn makes our photography more powerful, allowing us to capture a moment that not only records, but communicates with purpose. This is the road I have walked on all my life, even when I did not realize it, and hope to expand on as I connect to the world that is and the one that can be. Will I succeed or fail? By taking a first step is already succeeding, and that can lead to vistas never imagined. I plan to be there to photograph them! I've seen discussions lately about the importance (or irrelevancy) of photographic equipment... mostly concerning cameras and lenses. Historically, photographers have been a fickle lot, and more often than not, equipment junkies. I fondly remember the days I was working in camera sales and two photographer customers (one Nikon, one Canon) were having a heated debate with each other concerning the length of their respective zoom lenses. Yes... you read that right... the length. Please feel free to insert any joke you may find relevant. Far be it from me to make any judgments regarding this discussion, but it does go to show how our obsession with equipment can cloud our vision of the bigger picture. (There are so many zingers I could be adding right now... but I digress). For most of my early career, I was not only an equipment junkie, but a brand snob. My first camera was a Nikon FM, and I would never accept Canon as a worthwhile contender (while Minolta wasn't even on the radar). Why? For no other reason than it seems to be in the nature of photographers to attach themselves to a brand and be fiercely loyal to it. As time progressed, my camera of choice became Hasselblad, and anything less was a toy camera meant for those just starting in the business. Arrogance, thy name is photographer. Many photographers argue that equipment is a vital component to photographic success and the best made equipment will result in the best made images. You can easily see how many times cheap materials give us terrible products. How often have we bemoaned accepting the "lowest bid" or regretted buying the off brand? It is logical to think this holds true for any endeavor, but is this necessarily so? I often sold expensive but also well crafted equipment to my customers (that was my job!). And yet, many of the resulting images were, shall we say, less than optimum. So what was wrong? How could superior equipment result in inferior quality? If you take some time to think about it, you have to wonder how much quality you get for your investment in dollars. I mean... does a $40,000 Hasselblad H6D really give 20 times the quality of a $2,000 Fuji X-T1? This kind of thinking led me to the conclusion equipment was at best marginally important, and if anything, could very well be detrimental to the whole process. Photographers are obsessed with finding the magic equipment that will make them the greatest success, either monetarily wealthy or immensely popular. They forget the essence of photography... its ability to communicate through the photographic image, and the resulting images demonstrate that lack of vision. If you browse some of my photographs, you will note I have an entire section devoted solely to smartphone images. Most of these images are created at the spur of the moment. I see something that catches my eye and I photograph it. I later go into my phone settings and tweak the image with the limited tools available. No exporting to Photoshop, no careful planning, no stressing out at the exact edits needed. This process is so casual, that some of the images were taken as I was driving down the highway! So does this mean equipment is nothing but a con, a deception by corporations that have run out of ideas to make the next best thing in camera tech? I have to admit, I was thinking this for the longest time. I came to believe the only thing that matters is your experience as a photographer, your personal vision and the techniques you have learned along the way. This is also a logical argument. Doesn't everyone want the plumber with the best experience to fix your bursting pipes? Would you want to fly with a pilot that got a "C" in landing planes? As I said, I've been using my smartphone as a camera, and have been seeing rather dramatic clouds in the sky of late. Most have been taken just outside my office at work, sometimes going to the top floor of the garage and pointing up. Not a lot of time needed and very little thinking required. After showing these to my coworkers, they would say how much they liked them, and I would invariably say something like "well... it's just a smartphone shot". I was belittling my work because I was still of a mind that equipment matters, no matter what I said I believed. So these comments got me thinking... was the image not important because it was taken with a phone? Why was I equating importance with equipment and not technique? Did I believe the steps used to arrive at the image were too simple and too automated, therefore inferior? At first, I thought I was just using the phone as a ready way to capture an image, mostly for my own amusement. I would then edit the image, somewhat haphazardly, with whatever was readily available in the phone software. But I showed these images to others and also posted them online. I must have thought more of them than just as amusing pastimes. The more I thought about it and the feedback I was given, I realized I was missing the point altogether. The phone was the tool I chose because of my photographic experiences. The way I used the phone... the angles, the lighting, the time of day, the subject matter... all of these things came about because of these experiences. One person actually told me (once I had said it was only a phone image) that they would not have thought of taking that photo at all, much less of taking it in just the way I did and editing it in just the way it had been edited. I realized this was the mark of experience, of a vision that they did not possess. The equipment in this case was the vehicle that created just the right image for what I was trying to capture and for what I wanted to say. If I had wanted to say something else, I might have used a different camera. So... is equipment important? Well, the right equipment for the job is important, but more so is the right experience. Without the right equipment, an inexperienced photographer may not know how to compensate, but with enough experience, great images can be the result (although they may be different that what was expected). Without experience to fall back on, even the greatest cameras and lenses will usually result in average shots (at best!). Success isn't based on the equipment you have nor is it based on the techniques you use. It is about the experiences, in other words, the right balance between your equipment choices and the techniques you have learned that results in something greater than either one could achieve on its own. The trick is to have the experience needed to choose the right equipment and use the proper techniques for successfully produce your personal vision. With that powerful combination, you will most certainly succeed. What would I suggest? Go out with whatever you have, be it smartphone, SLR or mirrorless camera, and put everything on automatic. Go out and practice vision. Capture communication. Come back and think about your experiences. Was there something lacking? Do you need different equipment to capture the image? Do you need a photo workshop or two or maybe just experience life so you have something to say? Then go out and get those things! Find the answers to these questions. Once you do, then, and only then, will you succeed. Last time I wrote about the main camera I use when I go out and shoot. Let's see what lens I chose to go with that camera and why. Because of monetary constraints and with the realization that digital imaging is a new experience for me (coming from the film and darkroom world), I did not want to invest in numerous lenses and find out that the entire venture into digital just wasn't for me. After years with film cameras and finally having to sell them off at a loss, I was somewhat wary of moving too fast into a new world. Well, that and I'm cheap. I am sure I will expand my lens choices at some point, but for now I had to decide what kind of lens would offer me the greatest flexibility for the way I tend to make images. I shoot landscapes, which lends itself to a wider view, but also enjoy what my wife kindly refers to as my penchant to shoot dead birds and cracks in walls. What can I say... I'm an artiste. :-) At one point in history, I was forced to shoot prime lenses, which meant carrying two or three lenses with me wherever I went. At the time, zoom lens technology did not have a great zoom range nor did they result in very high quality either with edge sharpness or color shifts. A zoom lens was a bad investment and you got little return on that investment, other than the obvious advantage of only carrying one lens with you. This has changed dramatically in the intervening years. Edge sharpness is superb, the lens quality results in high color reproduction, and they have amazing ranges that far exceed the zoom range of the lenses of old. Since I was spending the money on the X-T1, it was natural to review the lenses Fuji had available. Everything I read, and have read since, has convinced me of the high quality that Fuji invests in their equipment and lenses in particular. I saw no reason to search for third party lenses when theirs was so well made. That said, although they sold a zoom lens with the body as a kit at a reasonable price, it did not have the one thing that I treasure most - a lens that does not change aperture as you zoom. It has always been frustrating having to deal with changing exposures and depth of field as I zoomed from wide fields of view to narrow ones, and I was willing to spend a little extra to avoid these issues. I was fortunate enough to find a sale on both the body and a lens, most probably in preparation for the upcoming X-T2 (although that took a while to actually appear, so maybe I was just lucky). At the time, the lens I was interested in had been selling for around $1300 to $1800 (can't quite remember the exact price), and they were offering it at $900. How could I refuse such a generous offer? The lens in question is the Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8. Like I said, it has an f/stop across its zoom range, but it also has great edge to edge sharpness, which I find critically important. It is also water resistant, which couples well with the X-T1 and my need to shoot outdoors regardless of how wet it is. But my favorite feature, the one thing that makes this old photographer really happy, is its dedicated aperture ring. It took me years to find lenses for digital cameras that had this, and to be truthful, this is what attracted me to the Fuji system in the first place. As I said in an earlier post, I have issues with control dials on the backs of digital cameras and I find it so much easier to control f/stops when they are on the lens. Will I purchase other lenses in future? That depends on how I shoot. The one thing about a zoom lens is... it's big. I find it somewhat incongruous that I have reduced the size of my camera body, but increased the size of my lens. It isn't necessarily unwieldy, but it isn't inconspicuous either. I am concerned this combination may distract me from shooting. This may sound strange, but I sincerely believe your equipment affects how you see and what you end up shooting. Something small and easy to shoot lends itself to quick shooting, while larger equipment slows you down. Slowing down can be good, allowing analysis of composition and thought, but it also can lead to missed shots and opportunities. Whenever deciding on purchasing equipment, always keep that in mind. I am toying with the idea of a smaller prime lens, like the XF 14mm f/2.8 R or even in looking at another body to go with that reduction in size, something like the X-Pro2. But that is something to think about in the future. For now, I'm happy with what I've chosen. Thought I would talk a little bit about what equipment I use and why. You may think I'm doing this to sing the praises of the my stuff and to try to convince you to use it too, but it just isn't so, for many reasons. One, who am I? I don't shoot professionally anymore, and don't use my equipment until it dies from wear and tear, so there is no reason to suggest my view is somehow more informed or my experience so vast that I have more authority over other photographers out there. Two, the type of photography I prefer may not be the type you prefer, and the equipment I choose for those reasons may not be the best for your needs. Three, how I am built (more on that later) and how I approach photography is a big part of the equipment choices I make, and you will need to find equipment that adapts best to the way you shoot. If there is one takeaway from the above, it's that you shouldn't base your equipment purchases on someone else's reviews. Your needs are not necessarily their needs and their conclusions won't necessarily be the conclusions you arrive at either. So... DON'T DO WHAT I DO! Okay... now to the equipment. I'm breaking this post into many... Camera body, Lens, and so on, just for ease of reading. This first one, as you can see by the title, is about the camera body I chose that best suited my individual needs. Your mileage may vary. Camera Body Back in the ancient days of photography, where film was king and chemistry was smelly, I used a Nikon FM2 and later a Hasselblad CF. In other words, I learned photography the old fashioned way... in the dark. Apertures were on lenses, shutter speeds didn't have half or third clicks to them, and I was very happy. Then things changed. For whatever reason, when digital came along, there were some heavy equipment redesigns happening. Camera bodies became bigger and bulkier, wheels and dials started appearing in all kinds of places, and I was not happy. One of my main concerns when choosing equipment is how I am built physically. My right hand thumb doesn't hold on to things well (born that way) so the ergonomic designs were not so ergonomic for me. I simply could not hold the cameras steady and always felt I was about to drop them onto something hard and unforgiving. The control dials on the back of the camera were impossible for me to move without moving the body away from my eyes, disrupting my image making. The entire process became frustrating to the point that I was not enjoying shooting anymore. Digital was not really where I wanted it to be anyway, so I got out of photography for a long while. For years I searched for a body that hearkened back to the designs of old. Then in 2016 I found the camera of my dreams... the Fujifilm X-T1 (I get a kick how they say Fujifilm... what film? It's digital. But I digress...). This was the first digital camera I found that didn't have an obsessive need for size (it's mirrorless, so that saves a lot of space), and f/stops were on the lens that I could actually control with my left hand while adjusting shutter speeds on the top of the body with my right. I finally had a camera that I could work with again. Because it is mirrorless, I am able to carry a lighter system and still get the quality I desire. I'm not getting any younger and I like the idea of carrying around less weight. Yes, I know there are those that believe larger sensors are going to give them much higher quality, and I can't dispute the math, but I have never felt the need to print poster sized images (20x20 was about the max I ever did with my old Hassy) and I rarely if ever crop much, so the smaller sensor works perfectly for me. I just can't find any information that definitively shows that the smaller sensor loses so much detail that it is easily discernible in any reasonably sized print. There are those that will magnify their computer files 1600 percent or more and say "see... See... SEE???", and if your output requires you to make insanely large images, Fuji has a new camera you may be interested in (GFX 50S). For me and the work I do, give me the lighter body weight the APS-C size affords. Beyond that, the camera has a retro kind of feel to it that I gravitate towards naturally. It's easy to hold, easy to use, and the quality of the images are phenomenal. I am sure there are many digital cameras with similar specs to them, so don't run out and buy the X-T1 just on my say so alone. If you need to know the exact specs, click HERE. FYI... Fuji has come out with a new model (X-T2) that has even more great features, but I really see no need to update quite yet. Maybe when they come out with the X-T4 or 5 or Alpha Bravo or whatever. If you are interested in one or the other, I have to say I like what they did with the newer model, but it will cost you. I shoot a lot of landscape type shots and the smaller sensor lends itself to greater depth of field than larger sensors would, so this works very much in my favor. I have never leaned towards that dreamy out of focus look, so sharpness is something I value. You may prefer a larger sensor and even have the resources to splurge on Fuji's new GFX 50S camera, but for me, I'm happy where I'm at. Beyond that, the X-T1 has a lot of presets if you shoot JPEG based on the old Fuji films (Provia, Astia, and so on). I shoot RAW images and don't really shoot for color since I convert most everything to black and white, but I am interested in experimenting with this to see what kind of color results I get. Presets based on their film types makes sense to me... I know what those films used to look like, so I can relate. Picture styles named "landscape", "portrait", "faithful", or "vivid" don't mean a thing to me. Film I understand. "Faithful", not so much. The quality of the images has blown me away. I am quite happy with my choice of camera company. Since I bought the camera, I think I have had four different updates to their software (still can't wrap my head around needing software in the camera... my age is showing!), all free of charge and all improving what I find is an already excellent system. And no, I am not getting paid by Fuji... I am quite sure they have no idea who I am much less have any inclination to pay me a dime! I do have to say Fuji is quite proud of their system, and price accordingly. I was fortunate in getting the camera and lens I did at a very low price of $999 each, a sale I have not seen since. At the time, the body was running $1599 and the lens I chose was around $1800, so under a grand was a comparative steal. Even with the release of the X-T2, the current price of the X-T1 is still $1200... yikes! Again, don't go right out and buy the X-T1 or X-T2 just on what I've written. Go out and do your own research and make an informed decision based on your needs, not mine! |
fotostufphotographic illuminations Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|