Discussion in 'Pinhole Photography' started by Murray@uptowngallery, Jul 2, 2005.
Aaaaaugh!! Please tell me that 35RF had either badly damaged glass or a completely unsalvageable rangefinder...!
Hey Donald - it's a 35mm pinhole camera - an ex-rangefinder conversion complete with "Zippy the Pinhead" shutter. Wonder if he used a tripod?
Yeah, I guess it doesn't belong in the rangefinder group, oh, wait, I'm in the Pinhole forum right now.
Yes, Mr DQ, the glass looked like racoons had danced the Swan Lake ballet on it. I considered trying some Cerium Oxide to polish the front cell (uncoated). I don't remember exactly what made me drop that idea...I think I found something else wrong I think the rear cell had a problem too.
I couldn't get the leader of a roll of film to stay in the camera on (WPPD) Pinhole Day & ran out daylight so I spent time relocating the aperture to get rid the 'porthole' I had on the first implementation. Zippy was added in response to my wife sneering at the pinheads taking blurry pictures. I guess she's from the F32/F64 school. :O)
Okay, cerium probably wouldn't have solved the lens problem -- I've heard of one person correcting major scratches or fungus damage that way, but unless you have experience with optical polishing you're more likely to finish destroying the lens than fix it.
So, with the lens already toast, I'm not so concerned about converting a classic RF to pinhole -- it'll probably make images about as good as it would after the racoons finished their ballet.
Isn't that funny, I reject a lens as not good enuff then ooh & aah at a low res. image.
Well, but there's a big difference between a pinhole image that's uniformly unsharp at all reasonable distances but has good contrast, and one that's sharp within a narrow range but veiled with flare due to severe scratches and such. The pinhole shot looks intentional; the flare just looks bad.
Separate names with a comma.