Pinhole at the Pyramids

I've finally gotten around to scanning some pinholaroid Type 85

positives from a trip to the pyramids in June. You can see them in my

folder <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=512453">"Pinhole

at the Pyramids"</a>. Sorry for any dust and marks, but that's the

result of doing Type 85 out in the wild; the print coater is too sticky!

<br><br><center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3552835-lg.jpg"><br>

<i>Not the pyramids you were expecting, eh?</i>

</center>

Also, please let me know what you think of the tritone I applied in Photoshop... I'm partial to the blue tone myself, but is it too much? Thanks!

That is some nice pinhole work. I'm particularly partial to the third shot with the powerfully symmetrical reflection; it really looks like it is about to go into orbit. The blue tone seems very appropriate to the subject. I have a lot of questions about the technique and the equipment. How did you manage these without a tripod? Is that a very fast film? It seems like the instant feedback from the polaroid would be a good way to get tuned into what the camera is seeing, which is always a challenge with pinholes.

Mike, thanks for the comments. Type 85 is an ISO 80 film, so it's sure not fast! These pictures were all taken sitting on the ground or a ledge of some sort, often propped up by my Palm computer, a filter case, or some other junk from my backpack to get the angle just right.

 

Exposures were 30s, and ~70s with the red filter. Later in the evening, unfiltered exposures were running up to 60s. The shot close to the ground (Pyramids #1) was 90s, and was probably filtered for only half of the exposure. The filter, by the way, was simply stood up against the front of the camera.

 

The instant feedback is great, and fun. Peeling off the backing and seeing the image is really gratifying.

 

Let me know if you have any more questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

 

BJ

And in case you're wondering, the pyramids are the Muttart Conservatory: http://www.edmonton.ca/muttart

Thanks for the info. Some people don't like discussing their equipment and technique, feeling it may get in the way of appreciating the work, I suppose. Just tell me to buzz off if I'm too irritating. I'd like to know more about the Holga pinhole and the back. Did it all come as a kit including the pinhole? Is the back 4x5? Where do you get your film, and what is the cost? Are you getting a negative and a positive? What is the pinhole to film distance, and what is the exposure in direct sun? Is that kind of middle distance shot of architectural subjects your perferred theme? <br> As an aside, I was looking at Josef Sudek's work again this evening and realizing that much of what I like about it is its closeness to the kind of pinhole esthetic that I aspire to. Of course, he exercised a great deal of care and preparation in constructing his compositions which are not easily in the realm of the pinhole, but I still think there is a lot of common ground.

Mike,

 

The camera isn't a Holga, but a modified Polaroid Square Shooter II from the 70s. It uses 80 series pack films. Details about the camera here: http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landdcam-pack.htm#CPII

 

The exposure system on this camera was "automatic"; two AA batteries were installed behind the shutter and lens, inside the body. I hacked the entire front off (shutter, lens, battery holder), and then built a cardboard "mount" for the pinhole plate. For a pinhole plate, I used the soft metal from the bottom of an Ikea tea light. Lots of black electrical tape was also employed; no animals were seriously injured in the making of this camera! ;-)

 

The pinhole-to-film distance is 60-65mm (I forget exactly), which on this film format provides a fairly wide angle of view. One of the local shops still carries a few packs of Type 88, ISO 80 colour positive film, but long exposures shift towards cyan which was pretty ugly. I purchased the Type 85 from the Polaroid online store, I think it was $65 (Canadian dollars) plus shipping for five packs (50 exposures, total). It was on back order for about 8 weeks before it finally showed up, though. The pictures I've presented here are from the positives only; I forgot the clearing solution for the negatives on this trip.

 

In mixed bright daylight and shade, exposures are around 8s. I haven't used it enough to know for sure what full-on daylight requires; probably around 5s. Indoor exposures with tungsten lighting run a minimum of 40m, to a couple of hours.

 

As far as my preferred theme, it's anything I see when I take the time to get out and shoot! I like buildings, though. They're often interesting, and they're easy to shoot; I don't get shy around them like I do around people. I have two and a half packs of film left, and I need to use them up soon... I'll try to get out and shoot something more exciting!

 

BJ

Wonderful images, BJ. #3 also caught my eye, largely on account of the glow behind the peak and the composition - including the paving squares is a nice touch that echoes the structure.

<p>

I may have a pretty uncritical eye when it comes to toning - I don't think I can really 'see' the difference between a duotone and a tritone. The color modifies the mood, and is the choice of your vision, so how any one color strikes me would be entirely subjective. More red in this, more cyan in this ... small difference for me.

<p>

The only time I'd say I don't like the toning is if the contrast obscures things I feel are important, and even on that score I'd be trying to understand your choice before arguing for a different one.

<p>

Great that you've written so much on the tech side. I think I read somewhere that plain water is OK as a clearing solution for Polaroid negs, at least in an emergency. Look forward to the rest of the packs.

Hello again, and thanks for the detailed response. Polaroids are such exotic creatures to me; I keep hoping to get a handle on them, but the time for accomplishing that keeps slipping away. I asked about the middle ground scenics because that is something I haven't really done well yet with the pinhole -- my efforts seem to produce more empty space than anything else. I liked your shots here because you were some distance from your main subjects, but you still managed to fill the frames with interesting forms and detail. Maybe I should go back to the pinhole box camera with its 100mm focal distance for those longer shots. With my wide-angle Zed 2000 I seem to need to nearly have the camera resting on the subject to get an interesting result.

And they call me crazy. Great!!!! I have an old Poloriod 100 I was thinking of doing the same thing to because the acid ate the electronics... cut the bellows off ... Yaaaa Crazy people should not be allowed to talk to each other..... Great work also I have still seen type 55 in alot of places ...<div></div>

BJ, I like the blue tone; IMHO, it gives the photos the feeling of photos from the 50's, which always seemed tinged with blue. I also like #3, I like the light coming from behind the pyramid. I have used Type 55 Polaroid, which I believe is very similar to Type 85, and the only clearing solution I used was plain water. One summer, I hauled an LF camera, tripod, bucket of water with a lid, my Type 55 film (and my two children) all through High Park in Toronto, and the water worked just fine. The negs stayed in the water for hours, with no problems. If you're going to use water though, take my advice - borrow a children's wagon to carry the bucket in!!

Thanks for the tips about the plain water, guys. The data sheet for Type 85 recommends the sodium sulfite solution to help prevent swelling of the emulsion when clearing. I have some, I just forgot it that time.

 

The tritone is mostly blue, with a very very subtle brown in the deep shadows. You can see the brown in #5, at the base of the pyramid. I think I'll adjust it for future use: more brown, softer with the blue.

 

Mike: you need to learn to embrace the empty space! After another roll or two, you'll begin to 'see' the focal length of your pinhole camera, and it'll all fall into place. I've put 8-10 packs (80-100 shots) through this one, and it probably took 4 packs before I had it figured out. One easy trick to use the empty space more effectively is to change your vantage point: pinholes have such great depth of field, you can put it right on the ground (as in #1) and everything is equally sharp (or fuzzy). And yes, sometimes you do have to be right on top of your subject to make it work!

 

Larry: I say get your knife out, and start cutting! Give that camera a new life.

Larry, if you're going to hack up a 100, please let me make you an offer: I've got a fully functional 210 I'll trade for that 100 with corrosion. You get a camera with a lens so bad it won't hurt anyone's feelings to chop it up (and a AA battery holder as a bonus, courtesy of my shutter repair); I'd get a 100 I can probably repair that will make the kind of quality pictures I want (glass lens, good rangefinder) after I restore power to the shutter. I'll even throw in the 8 remaining exposures of Type 669 left in the camera...