Re: pinhole diameter (was Re: Pinhole 9x12cm quest)

Larry Bullis (lbullis@ctc.ctc.edu)
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:50:54 -0700

>I think it is very likely that the fuzziness due to the diffusion effect
>would "look" different than the loss of resolution from having a large
>pinhole. Are we talking about pinhole "bokeh" here? The shape of the
>hole, the resolution limit, etc. all affect the image quality. It seems
>entirely possible that less resolution at the expense of more diffusion
>may be aesthetically pleasing.

I think so. I don't mean always, but both hole diameter and diffraction
are parts of the pallette, so to speak.

Also, diffraction can appear to be simple diffusion, but it also produces
light sprays (there's an example on my webpage at
http://www.halcyon.com/cif/Kingfisher/Photo/Pinhole/pIndex.html). It
looks totally different in black and white vs. color because the
different colors diffract differently, just as they refract differently.

Part of my interest in the subtleties of this (generally considered to
be) defect in the image may stem from my interest in all kinds of optical
abberations. I am nearsighted and have astigmatism, and like Monet, I
find the world I see uncorrected quite interesting and exciting. (Monet,
I understand, refused correction. I don't go that far.) I often use
optics which are uncorrected or minimally corrected; stuff I get from
Edmund Scientific. I have a box of old Optometrists' diopters which I
can stack on the front end of a speed graphic, including a full set of
"astigmats".

Not everybody's cup of tea, I'm sure. But it's fun.

Larry Bullis
Skagit Valley College