Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Pinhole shots of the Civil War (re-enactments)

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Pinhole shots of the Civil War (re-enactments)

 
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2013
On 29/01/2013 9:26 PM, bugbear wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> http://civilwar150pinholeproject.com/
>>
>> A writeup by the photographer on his pinhole cameras and his quest to
>> document civil war re-enactments.
>>
>> One of my favourites:
>> http://civilwar150pinholeproject.fil...tysburg149.jpg
>>
>>
>> I don't feel like shooting film for such, but I might use a lens
>> adaptor and shoot some digital pinholes... the very long exposures may
>> be quite noise prone, however...

>
> Just take multiple exposures at a duration where noise isn't an issue,
> and merge (average) them.
>
> It's what astrophotographers do all the time.
>
> BugBear


Would taking multiple exposures work in this situation - pinhole shots
do give a soft image. An example, a busy crowded building long exposure
gives a soft movement within the people and sharp edges of walls and
corners. Astro shots - individual shots render a sharp star trail.

May have to try and see what happens.

Interesting - digital is a whole new ball game as compared to film,
long and short exposures don't seem to have that reciprocity failure to
cope with.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2013
Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2013.01.29 08:37 , Rob wrote:


>> Interesting - digital is a whole new ball game as compared to film, long
>> and short exposures don't seem to have that reciprocity failure to cope
>> with.


> What digital makes up for in reciprocity failure it more than
> compensates for in noise...


Whereas good old chemical film is grain free and can be
averaged over multiple exposures easily?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 2/3/2013 12:31 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 2013.01.29 08:37 , Rob wrote:

>
>>> Interesting - digital is a whole new ball game as compared to film, long
>>> and short exposures don't seem to have that reciprocity failure to cope
>>> with.

>
>> What digital makes up for in reciprocity failure it more than
>> compensates for in noise...

>
> Whereas good old chemical film is grain free and can be
> averaged over multiple exposures easily?
>
> -Wolfgang
>


Obviously, you have never shot film.

Although I do not like to ust cite Wikepedia, there is sufficient
information to show how wrong you are.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain>

--
PeterN
Beware the trolling wolf

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 2/4/2013 9:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-02-04 16:43:25 -0800, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 2/3/2013 12:31 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 2013.01.29 08:37 , Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Interesting - digital is a whole new ball game as compared to film,
>>>>> long
>>>>> and short exposures don't seem to have that reciprocity failure to
>>>>> cope
>>>>> with.
>>>
>>>> What digital makes up for in reciprocity failure it more than
>>>> compensates for in noise...
>>>
>>> Whereas good old chemical film is grain free and can be
>>> averaged over multiple exposures easily?
>>>
>>> -Wolfgang
>>>

>>
>> Obviously, you have never shot film.
>>
>> Although I do not like to ust cite Wikepedia, there is sufficient
>> information to show how wrong you are.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain>

>
> I have a feeling you are responding to Wolfgang's demonstration of
> Teutonic sarcasm.
>


I missed it.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 9:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-02-04 16:43:25 -0800, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>> On 2/3/2013 12:31 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On 2013.01.29 08:37 , Rob wrote:


>>>>>> Interesting - digital is a whole new ball game as compared to film,
>>>>>> long
>>>>>> and short exposures don't seem to have that reciprocity failure to
>>>>>> cope
>>>>>> with.


>>>>> What digital makes up for in reciprocity failure it more than
>>>>> compensates for in noise...


>>>> Whereas good old chemical film is grain free and can be
>>>> averaged over multiple exposures easily?


>>> Obviously, you have never shot film.


>>> Although I do not like to ust cite Wikepedia, there is sufficient
>>> information to show how wrong you are.
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain>


>> I have a feeling you are responding to Wolfgang's demonstration of
>> Teutonic sarcasm.


> I missed it.


Don't feel bad, it was very subtle, sort of like the bombardment
and the subsequent landing in Normandy.
The Führer *knew* the real landing would happen in Calais.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2013
On 2/7/2013 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 2/4/2013 9:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-02-04 16:43:25 -0800, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>> On 2/3/2013 12:31 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013.01.29 08:37 , Rob wrote:

>
>>>>>>> Interesting - digital is a whole new ball game as compared to film,
>>>>>>> long and short exposures don't seem to have that reciprocity failure
>>>>>>> to cope with.

>
>>>>>> What digital makes up for in reciprocity failure it more than
>>>>>> compensates for in noise...

>
>>>>> Whereas good old chemical film is grain free and can be
>>>>> averaged over multiple exposures easily?

>
>>>> Obviously, you have never shot film.

>
>>>> Although I do not like to ust cite Wikepedia, there is sufficient
>>>> information to show how wrong you are.
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain>

>
>>> I have a feeling you are responding to Wolfgang's demonstration of
>>> Teutonic sarcasm.

>
>> I missed it.

>
> Don't feel bad, it was very subtle, sort of like the bombardment
> and the subsequent landing in Normandy.
> The Führer *knew* the real landing would happen in Calais.
>
> -Wolfgang



So speaks the "Teutonic Knight" of Usenet!

John
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Pinhole shots of the Civil War (re-enactments) Rob Digital Photography 8 01-31-2013 01:40 PM
Re: Pinhole shots of the Civil War (re-enactments) PeterN Digital Photography 1 01-29-2013 03:18 AM
Re: Pinhole shots of the Civil War (re-enactments) RichA Digital Photography 2 01-29-2013 12:06 AM
Re: Pinhole shots of the Civil War (re-enactments) philo Digital Photography 0 01-28-2013 04:35 PM
[RICH] Don't forget to send your "Pinhole" shots, due tomorrow! Big Cheese Digital Photography 1 07-18-2010 05:11 AM



Advertisments