The other day, I was showing a close friend of mine one of my pinhole camera images that I had recently taken. As I was doing so, he asked me an interesting question. He was interested in why, if I want to produce and show my best work, would I bother making images with a lensless camera which were clearly not going to be as sharp and free of distortion as images made with my expensive digital SLR? Indeed, a very interesting question.
There is no doubt that the pinhole images are not tack sharp (though the depth of field is infinite). They definitely ‘suffer’ from distortion and light falloff at the edges of the frame. With no viewfinder, composition tends to not be as perfect as one might like. And on top of it all, it takes time and expense to develop the film and scan the shots that one wants to keep. Why go to all that trouble? To be honest, I am not entirely sure why I do it.
Nonetheless, I do know several reasons why I am attracted to the modality, though, from a logical standpoint, I am not sure they completely ‘justify’ the time commitment. In the end, and as in most endeavors such as this, considerable weight has to be given to the fact that I just find it enjoyable.
So what do I like about it?
There are always two sides to the same coin. While a pinhole image is not tack sharp, there is a beauty to the gentle softness that is inherent to this type of photograph. While the image does have distortion and light falloff at the edges, there is a uniqueness and timeless quality to that look that I find attractive.
Perhaps most importantly, pinhole photography is a medium unto itself and therefore can not and should not be compared to lens camera photography. It has its own unique look and aesthetic. Trying to compare sharpness and distortion between pinhole and lens cameras is akin, I think, to asking why one would paint with watercolors instead of the enhanced reality attainable with oils. They are different and each have their own aesthetic. An exceptional watercolor portrays a different ‘reality’ than an exceptional oil painting; neither can be deemed ‘better’ than the other.
Finally, when I started dabbling with pinhole imaging, I was feeling a bit ‘burnt out’ from the creative standpoint. After getting a bit involved with both pinhole and toy camera photography, I felt rather rejuvenated and once again excited about digital. So now, when I go out shooting, I often go both high and low tech, as the added weight of the pinhole camera and a few rolls of film is negligible.
As to the image that I had been showing my friend……it is a shot of Ohiopyle Falls in Ohiopyle State Park, which I have previously written about in my post entitled ‘Western Pennsylvania’s Secrets’.
The Power Of Ohiopyle Falls
Copyright Howard Grill
In this particular instance I far prefer the above pinhole image to the shot taken with my digital camera:
Copyright Howard Grill
By the way, if anyone should get the itch to try this type of imaging there are two wonderful and incredibly receptive on-line communities dedicated to ‘lo-fi photography’. They can be found at f295 and at the toycamera.com forums.
Addenda: Here is an interesting thread I ran across on the f295 forum entitled 'Why Pinhole? Why You? Why Now?' that deals with some of the issues I noted above.
3 comments:
Howard, I look at the lens image and I think "nice" and I'm ready to move on. But I look at the pinhole image and I pause. The B&W is a step from reality and so is the distortion. Somehow the toy and pinhole cameras ask more of me to intrepret what I see. I also think that they often convey more emotion.
Howard, it is hard for me to 'compare' these two images based upon pinhole vs. lens because they have other unique characteristics that influence my feelings; slower 'shutter' speed (ie. silky water) and the B&W of the pinhole image appeal to me more for this shot. However, if the lens image was done the same way, I would probably end up preferring the 'sharper one.'
I know it is dangerous to try to put 'must haves' on images (like sharpness) - it really depends on the subject and how it is presented. I like your analogy of the painting. Painting does have different perceptions to a viewer though if someone is looking at a watercolor vs. oil painting. A photograph is probably just a photograph in contrast.
There's a whole lot less control and more unpredictability from the lo-tech shots - which is probably part of its beauty! The digital shots can be so much more planned and manipulated that it's entirely a different process.
I love the pinhole version of this shot - it's subtle, soft, and interprets the scene while the digital describes the scene.
Both are great - just different.
Post a Comment