I modified 2 lenses for model railroad photography using a technique
mentioned in the model RR press. . A 28 2.8 and a 35 2.8. This involved
mounting a tiny piece of shim brass (cut out with a simple paper punch)
on 3 "legs" of phosphor bronze wire. This assembly, with pinhole in
center, ( I think drilled with a 1mm drill, burrs then removed),
is mounted to the plate inside of the lens, just in front of the diaphragm
blades. With lens wide open, you can compose your shot and see around the
pinhole assembly. Shooting at f 16 or 22, the lens stops down and the
pinhole is centered within the f opening.
Construction plans were in an old issue of Model Railroader.
_________________________________
John Hermanson
Camtech, Olympus OM Service since 1977
21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743-4714
631-424-2121 www.zuiko.com
Call Olympus for FREE manuals!
1-800-221-3000
_________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue Pearce" <bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: pinhole cameras, chromogenic B&W film
> 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|