Why is photographic paper used in pinhole cameras?

<p>Just wondering why photographic paper is often used in pinhole cameras rather than film. I took part in a workshop where we made pinhole cameras out of old tins and we used paper but it suddenly occurs to me that I have no clue why.</p>

<p>Papers like Harman Direct positive are something around ISO 3 (easy to work with semi-absolute darkness) and produces contrasty images compared to film. Snap-bath- and you have the end result. That's my clue...</p>

<p>Most RC 5x7 and larger printing paper is cheaper than large format film for experiments like this. Quicker to process and easier for teaching purposes because students can watch the prints develop in an open tray under a safelight.</p>

<p>After getting the hang of the technique many pinhole fans move on to film or direct positive papers.</p>

<p>Hi MF - sorry, I don't understand - ISO 3 would be very slow but if there's enough light coming in through the pinhole to expose it, how come people use film at all, which would start with a much higher ISO (I think)? Apart from contrastiness, is the choice of paper or film purely an ISO issue? Why use such a slow ISO?<br>

When you say semi-absolute darkness, do you mean taking the photo in semi-absolute darkness or developing in semi-absolute darkness? I'm baffled!</p>

<p>Thanks, Lex - I didn't know about direct positive papers so that's interesting.</p>

<p>I hadn't really thought about a pinhole camera needing a large format negative - I've read about some that people have built that have winders for rolls of film and had assumed it was 35mm. I suppose they need a larger negative/sheet of paper because there isn't a lens to bend the light in to form a small enough image.</p>

<p>The size of the image depends on the 'focal length 'of the camera, how far the hole is in front of the recording medium, how big a piece of paper is used. Pretty much the same as using a lens which permit a larger hole to admit light faster and corrects faults resulting. [That ignores lens design permiting compact lenses, telephoto instead of long focal length et.al. ]</p>

<blockquote>

<p>easy to work with <strong>semi-absolute</strong> darkness</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent. One of the best oxymorons I have ever seen!</p>

<p>Cost, pretty much, cost.<br>

<br />Also- availability, a lot more people have boxes of large format paper sitting around than have large format film.</p>

 

<p>Film is best because it has high sensitivity to light whereas photo paper has lowered sensitivity. Using film as opposed to paper is advantageous because the pinhole must be tiny; otherwise the resulting image will be blurred. The tiny hole restricts the light playing on film or paper. Thus film is the better choice as it allows a shorter exposure time and/or the ability to carry out this experiment under dimmer conditions. </p>

<p>Most films are panchromatic; meaning they are sensitive to red, green, and blue light (the three primary light colors). That being the case, they must be developed in total darkness or at best using a feeble green safelight. Thus, it is impossible for the class to observe the chemical developing action.</p>

<p>Likely, your teacher chose to use paper because the most common types are intensive to red light. Such papers can be developed in a darkroom brightly illuminated by either red or amber safelight. This being the case, the students can observe the developing process.</p>

<p>Special films (orthochromatic type) are available. These are insensitive to red light and thus developable under bright red safelight. Your teacher chose paper because orthochromatic film is rare and thus requires a special order.</p>

Because since you're working with longer exposure times anyway, it's feasible to use paper.

 

Because many pinhole photographers prefer large format, paper does present some cost and handling advantages

over large format film.

 

And when you get past those, many "serious" pinhole users like the look of the pictures. It's roughly analagous to how

some like to take pictures with limited cameras such as Holgas, etc.

<p>Here's a link you may find useful: <a href="http://www.pinholephotography.org/">http://www.pinholephotography.org/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Take a look at the work of Michel (Mickey) Bayard. He sells his pinhole images made from paper negatives at Union Square in NYC. Doesn't answer your question, but his images are a wonderful example of what can be done.<br>

<a href="http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/29806.html">http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/29806.html</a></p>

I briefly tried pinhole photography for my own amusement. Since I had an 8x10 view camera I used that with photo paper in the film holder instead of film. The pinhole was the camera 300mm lens with the glass elements removed and aperture closed down to f/516. The paper negative that I got was then contact printed onto regular photo paper. The results were quite soft. Much of that was probably due to having to shoot light from the enlarger through the fibrous paper of the paper negative to make the contact print.

 

How do regular pinhole users making paper negatives or positives make additional prints? I would imagine they just copy the pinhole positive with regular camera and film, digital camera or scanner.

 

BTW, I also tried it with positive color Cibachrome paper. The results were very green. it would have taken a lot of trial and error (and cost) to determine the correct color filters to use before the lens for the specific (and changing) lighting conditions.

<p>I've scanned my paper negatives and then convert into a positive. Mickey Bayard has told me that he places the paper negative on top of photo paper and a makes a contact print. I've not tried it or seen the process for myself.<br>

<a href="http://blog.makezine.com/2008/12/12/michel-bayard-pinhole-photography/">http://blog.makezine.com/2008/12/12/michel-bayard-pinhole-photography/</a></p>

<p>Thanks, everybody - very informative and lots of interesting stuff there!</p>

<p>Dili tam bilmemek alay etme sebebi değildir benim aptal arkadaşım Steve.</p>

<p>The reason for scanning as opposed to contact printing was explained to me that scanning doesn't transfer the paper makers name the way a print through does.</p>