The mention of the use of pinhole cameras for model rr photos brought back
memories of my experiences with one. I have written and photographed for
several of the model rr magazines (that's the time I still use the Nikon F's
I've mentioned). A number of years ago, a publisher had an old 50/1.4 Nikkor
professionally modified with a pinhole mounted internally. He sent it to
several contributors, of which I was one at the time. I was underwhelmed.
First, let me explain, that in model rr photos, depth of field is king. The
goal is to achieve a result that requires close examination to tell it's not
the real thing. In photos of real trains, there is usually a great deal of
depth of field, as shallow depth of field generally looks unnatural, being a
big step from what our eyes see under the same circumstances. As the models
get smaller (I usually work with N), the depth of field shrinks
dramatically, hence the need for a pinhole.
I think his was f128. The results were, to say the least, soft. Now,
understand, there's always some softness in model rr photos, as they are
usually shot at the smallest aperture, and diffraction severely limits
sharpness. There must be as much diffraction as image in those pinhole
shots, so much that they began to look like lomography. I shot one roll,
sent it to him, and to my chagrin, he published them. He also had a first
surface mirror, to shoot track-level photos. Those had to be separated (this
was before he did his own scanning) through the base, for even more critical
sharpness. Ugh!
The occasional Pop Photo columnist Steve Sint once shot for a modeling
magazine. He had his 50 micro Nikkor modified with an extra diaphragm blade.
When stopped one click past minimum (f32), it dropped into place. It had a
pinhole in it, and gave him something like f96. I've often thought about
having this done to mine, but as it was done by Professional Camera Repair
in New York, I can only imagine the cost!
On to chromogenic B&W films: I don't use them myself, as good, inexpensive
processing and printing is about a mile from my home (my pro lab has a
minilab printer set up with B&W paper and chemistry alongside their color
autoprinters), but I remember something in a magazine article that may be of
interesting to some of you.
Apparently, the Kodak films are intended to be printed on color paper, or
chromogenic B&W paper, so they have the orange mask. Someone feels that
Kodak will make all chromogenic B&W this way. Although it mask is necessary
for the minilab printing, it makes printing in a normal B&W lab a real pain
in the a**e. In addition to making the use of variable contrast paper nearly
impossible, it also makes a really good ND filter, giving really long
exposure times.
Apparently, Ilford takes the other route, with no mask. This can make
printing on your local one hour lab a real adventure, but the results on
regular B&W paper is essentially normal. This could be the result of the
English's aversion to new technology, something we current/former English
car owners well understand (delete Lucas rant here).
Anyway, the advise in the article was to match your film to the intended
mode of printing.
Bill Pearce
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|