Human sized camera

[tiphaine]

Hi all,

I've been lurking here quite a few times in the past, looking for insights about ULF. I'm really interested in ULF projects like Ian Ruther a or Kurt Moser did. I'm a french professional photographer, I also teach in a school of photography. Here is my website : www.tiphainebuccino.com

My project
No electricity, no photography. No oil, no photography. No plastic, no photography. One night, as I was looking for sleep, I wondered why there isn't it already a "green" photography. I mean, today all is rebranded with an ecological bias. There will be a day soon that some big brand come to you with a greenwhashed camera and our conscience will be happy.

I started wondering: "what a real ecologic way to make photography ?" Short answer, there is none. You can just be careful, use less.

I then began to imagine a photography that can work autonomously. I wanted to be autonomous (Photographic paper is one big question but we come to it later); not depends on a manufacturer, a brand, an energy.

Large prints were always on the table. It always as. I mean, it is not really bound with the ethical and autonomous approach I dream of. It is just the way I like to see and show my work. And all that times I teach the concept of camera obscura to people, I would have liked for us to be in the camera, so much easier to understand; So powerful !

Camera
Building a human sized camera. Lightweight and that can be taken to pieces (like Abelardo Morell's one). I'm thinking of a tent like structure made of wooden bars.

Lens
After many searches on internet, I found the APO NIKKOR 1210mm seems to suit my project. The image diagonal/price ratio is my priority. It has to make the biggest image, for the less money.

What for
Landscapes mainly. Would love to try long exposures of farm animals also.

Technology
I am really into color photography and I want my setup to be mobile. Direct positive (Type-R) was my first choice, but sadly, Cibachrome is over. Then I found about the Harmann Direct Positive Paper wich develops in cafenol. This is the option I take for now.

I would like to use this thread to asks you all for advices, show you the progress of this project I'm starting and may be long to achieve.

Questions

- Is the 1210mm a good option ? The diagonal is around 1,20m isn't it ? Does it exists other affordable lenses in that kind of ranges ?
- Is there a better place than eBay to buy lenses ?
- Would it work with a simple hole ? What would be the cons and pros of a pin hole ? Is it just about sharpness ?
- For the tent, I'm looking for something lightweight, fully opaque, without plastic or oil in it. Any ideas ?

I'm open for any kind of tips, ideas, artists to discover, so feel free to share, I look forward to read you !

[esearing]

Refrigerator box roughly 4x4 feet/ 1220mm in the USA, not sure what size a fridge in France would be but there may be other furniture boxes you could use. Tape roll printing paper to moveable wall/easel inside of the box for focus. May need to create a cloth cover to make it opaque and you will likely need a support for the lens. Coat your own paper for faster speeds than enlarging papers.

[Pere Casals]

Start practice with smaller formats, with focal around 600, a Lomo O-2 600, a cheap Apo Ronar...

You may use simple Variable Contrast paper, use a yellow-green filter to lower contrast. You obtain a paper negative and later you make a contact copy (emulsion side on emulsion side). Regular BW photo paper can also be reverse processed.

Learn all you can about sensitometry, you have to nail your exposures and highlight/shadow depiction: "Beyond the zone system" book, Phil Davis.

- Is the 1210mm a good option ? The diagonal is around 1,20m isn't it ? Does it exists other affordable lenses in that kind of ranges ?

It is an excellent choice.

1210, f/12.5, dialyte, 40º coverage, near 4kg

https://galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-en.html

Image circle (format diagonal) is 880mm, if focused at infinite, See how it is calculated:



Image circle is the one manufacturer says image is good inside, it may illuminate more than this but quality degradates beyond the Image Circle boundary.

With process lenses image circle may be given for close subject distance, not at infinite. With a close subject you extend bellows to focus, and the same coverage angle gives a larger circle than for infinite focus, be careful with that because circle can be specified for 1:1, not for infinite focus.


More choices: Zeiss Apo-Tessar 900mm/9 , 769€ Ebay now

See this: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blo...ndations-14x17 (ronar, germinar, artar...)

- Is there a better place than eBay to buy lenses ?

It's not about the place, it's about you. You need to know what you want and being patient to find a good opportunity. Ebay is good because you know the seller's reputation, paypay protects you, and you may buy articles that can be returned, but there are other ways.

- Would it work with a simple hole ? What would be the cons and pros of a pin hole ? Is it just about sharpness ?

Of course it will work, your aperture will be small so exposure will be long. With pinhole you have the blurr confusion circle around the hole size, suposing subjet is far, a larger blurr circle if subject is close.

For a 1200mm focal you are to use a 1.5mm hole delivering f/822 . Here it balances optimal diffraction vs hole : https://www.mrpinhole.com/holesize.php

Your image would have a 1.5mm blurr circle.

Pros: you only need a hole, a 1.5 mm one it's easy to make. Holes for smaller formats have to be better machined to do a good job.

Cons: low speed, 1.5mm blur for f= 1200.

- For the tent, I'm looking for something lightweight, fully opaque, without plastic or oil in it. Any ideas ?

Not lightweight but quite convenient:

[Jim Jones]

[QUOTE=Pere Casals;1550495]

. . . Of course it will work, your aperture will be small so exposure will be long. With pinhole you have the blurr confusion circle around the hole size, suposing subjet is far, a larger blurr circle if subject is close.

For a 1200mm focal you are to use a 1.5mm hole delivering f/822 . Here it balances optimal diffraction vs hole : https://www.mrpinhole.com/holesize.php

Your image would have a 1.5mm blurr circle.

Pros: you only need a hole, a 1.5 mm one it's easy to make. Holes for smaller formats have to be better machined to do a good job.

Cons: low speed, 1.5mm blur for f= 1200. . . .

There are many recommendations for the correct diameter of any focal length in pinhole photography, often based more on theory or poor advice rather than on hands-on experience. Based on my experience, the optimum pinhole diameter for a 1200mm focal length would be about 1.3mm. This would resolve about 1 line pair/mm where the on-axis blur circle from geometric optics and diffraction phenomena are about equal. At that point, image blur is less than predicted by both geometry and diffraction. As the pinhole diameter increases, geometry determines image blur. As the pinhole diameter becomes smaller, image blur increases in a less predictable manner due to diffraction. Also, interpreting image blur of standard test charts varies among different people.

Wide angle pinhole photography brings up other factors which affect one's choice of pinhole diameter. As the angle of coverage increases, some photographers may wish to slightly increase the pinhole diameter to improve sharpness towards the edges of the image despite enlarging the central image blur. A pinhole image has negligible drop-off in sharpness up to 20 degrees from the pinhole axis. By 40 degrees there is little loss In radial sharpness, but about 35% in tangential sharpness. By 50 degrees the radial sharpness has dropped of noticeably and the tangential sharpness by 60%. This demonstrates that wide angle pinhole cameras show substantial astigmatism in addition to the distortion that all wide angle cameras have. If we move in close with a well-designed wide angle pinhole camera while maintaining the same image size, the image blur decrease. That is one way of improving pinhole image sharpness if the subject permits.

Much of this information is based on 40-year-old photography. It is based on rather casual photography instead of the more rigorous work that would be more valuable to researchers. I don't even have a darkroom now. If the more inventive photographers on this site unite to pool their findings, we may become the new center for pinhole photography.

[Tin Can]

[QUOTE=Jim Jones;1550912]

. . . Of course it will work, your aperture will be small so exposure will be long. With pinhole you have the blurr confusion circle around the hole size, suposing subjet is far, a larger blurr circle if subject is close.

For a 1200mm focal you are to use a 1.5mm hole delivering f/822 . Here it balances optimal diffraction vs hole : https://www.mrpinhole.com/holesize.php

Your image would have a 1.5mm blurr circle.

Pros: you only need a hole, a 1.5 mm one it's easy to make. Holes for smaller formats have to be better machined to do a good job.

Cons: low speed, 1.5mm blur for f= 1200. . . .

There are many recommendations for the correct diameter of any focal length in pinhole photography, often based more on theory or poor advice rather than on hands-on experience. Based on my experience, the optimum pinhole diameter for a 1200mm focal length would be about 1.3mm. This would resolve about 1 line pair/mm where the on-axis blur circle from geometric optics and diffraction phenomena are about equal. At that point, image blur is less than predicted by both geometry and diffraction. As the pinhole diameter increases, geometry determines image blur. As the pinhole diameter becomes smaller, image blur increases in a less predictable manner due to diffraction. Also, interpreting image blur of standard test charts varies among different people.

Wide angle pinhole photography brings up other factors which affect one's choice of pinhole diameter. As the angle of coverage increases, some photographers may wish to slightly increase the pinhole diameter to improve sharpness towards the edges of the image despite enlarging the central image blur. A pinhole image has negligible drop-off in sharpness up to 20 degrees from the pinhole axis. By 40 degrees there is little loss In radial sharpness, but about 35% in tangential sharpness. By 50 degrees the radial sharpness has dropped of noticeably and the tangential sharpness by 60%. This demonstrates that wide angle pinhole cameras show substantial astigmatism in addition to the distortion that all wide angle cameras have. If we move in close with a well-designed wide angle pinhole camera while maintaining the same image size, the image blur decrease. That is one way of improving pinhole image sharpness if the subject permits.

Much of this information is based on 40-year-old photography. It is based on rather casual photography instead of the more rigorous work that would be more valuable to researchers. I don't even have a darkroom now. If the more inventive photographers on this site unite to pool their findings, we may become the new center for pinhole photography.

Very good info and new to me

Thank you

[Pere Casals]

[QUOTE=Jim Jones;1550912]

Based on my experience, the optimum pinhole diameter for a 1200mm focal length would be about 1.3mm. This would resolve about 1 line pair/mm where the on-axis blur circle from geometric optics and diffraction phenomena are about equal. At that point, image blur is less than predicted by both geometry and diffraction.

Jim, clearly the geometric blur circle is uniform and exactly equal to the the pin size for distant subjects, when taken rays are parallel (distant subject) the pin circle is exactly equal to the projected circle...


(hole painted way larger than ideal to show the effect)

but the blurr effect in the resolving power is lower, because when adding all circles generated by a white line (say vertical lines patern) adds more overlaping light power in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction.

I guess this may explain the difference between blur circle size and the better than expected resolving power...

I guess that the ideal hole depends also in how well made it is, what subject distance optimized, what (angle) format size vs focal length...

If your ideal circle is 1.3mm instead what the calculator says... then of course your hole is of high quality, generating a lower diffraction from a perfectly smooth bore.


For the moment my experience is only with paper negatives, mostly at around 240mm focal for 5x7, but I plan to play with larger formats. Clearly the larger the hole the easier to make an efficient one !!

[pvan93]

You might try finding a copy of ‘Primative Photography’. Has info on building simple lens. Tin Can has good idea for long focus single element lens. Another possibility would be a Nikon 52mm #0 closeup lens (0.7 doplier, 1400mm), someone else also made a 0.5 doplier closeup lens. Any of these can be found for $25- $35 US. Could work for developing your concept.

[tiphaine]

You might try finding a copy of ‘Primative Photography’

I'm looking into it right now and it looks really cool to have ! Thanks for the reference !

[tiphaine]

You might try finding a copy of ‘Primative Photography’. Has info on building simple lens. Tin Can has good idea for long focus single element lens. Another possibility would be a Nikon 52mm #0 closeup lens (0.7 doplier, 1400mm), someone else also made a 0.5 doplier closeup lens. Any of these can be found for $25- $35 US. Could work for developing your concept.

Were you talking about that ? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...e_up_lens.html

[tiphaine]

Hi all,

it's been a while so I figured I would give that thread an update ! Here is were I am :

- I ordered "Primitive Photography"
- Still in search for a big lens; I've found an APO-RONAR 1000mm on ebay. The seller is in France but the price is a bit too high (2800€)
- I talked to Kurt Moser / Lightcatcher about my project.
- I looked the simple Nikon 52mm #0 but it was hard to find. I stumbled upon the Bonfoton website and ordered one of their lens for 41€. Will do the firsts test with it at home. Cheap and convenient ! I might do all my project with it if it's sharp enough (even if I really doubt so).

Hope you're all well,
Tiphaine