Uv camera not advertised as a UV camera

[dabateman]

This is oddly interesting camera:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1221830697/pinsta-instant-camera-micro-darkroom-and-negative-enlarger?ref=checkout_rewards_page

 

Its a 0.3mm pinhole camera, so no glass and it records its images mostly on positive photo paper at 4x5 inches.  Harman positive photo paper is recommended.  The funny thing about that paper that I was reading is its only sensitive to UV and blue wavelength light. Which people kind of complained about.  

So basically a UV camera,  with 2 minute exposure times, than 1 minute development,  1 to 4 minutes fixing and 2 minutes water wash. So a 1 frame per 6 to 10 minutes. Kind of slow. 

 

Although you could cut and use other 4x5 inch size film and work out the exposure and development times.

 

Bizarrely interesting expensive camera. Its doing well, I may be interested in the future if they make a 8x10 inch version. That would be fun to play with. But the positive photo paper is 3x the cost at that size on B&H.

[colinbm]

Yes yes , but no 

[Andy Perrin]

I don’t understand the interest in analog UV so much. The exception is for large formats and for the collodion wet plate stuff, I get that because it’s truly unique and not easily reproduced digitally. But aside from those examples, I think digital is more interesting to me because of the flexibility to manipulate the images. 

[photoni]

this is my 8x10 inch all you need is a wooden box, a pinhole, some rubber granny garters and some work

with three holes for architectural decentralization
the only expensive thing is the chassis 150 ~ 200 €
To calculate the hole size and focal distance look at my tables

.

.

 

Harman positive paper is very expensive, very contrasted difficult to use

it's about the same price as Fomapan or Shanghai photographic film ... which are 100 times sharper and more flexible

[photoni]

1 hour ago, Andy Perrin said:

I don’t understand the interest in analog UV so much. The exception is for large formats and for the collodion wet plate stuff, I get that because it’s truly unique and not easily reproduced digitally. But aside from those examples, I think digital is more interesting to me because of the flexibility to manipulate the images. 

 

Andy you're right, I think so too.

I think the most logical step is to change the DSRL to a Mirrorless.

An electronic viewfinder in which you see the final result (focus and contrast) is fantastic.
I set "black and white vision"

I put the white balance at maximum Kelvin degrees for UV photos, and minimum for IR;

shot + 1EV almost always (check the histogram)

[dabateman]

Yes this thing was funded in 3 hours. I don't think the people whom bought it know what exactly it entails.  I don't want to sit down for 10 minutes after each shot to develop it. Too bad no dark slide option or backs.

 

For fun grabbed my kickstarter pinhole pro,  set it to 0.3mm. Placed it on my kickstarter NONS instax film camera and snapped an image of a room for 10 minutes.  The camera has built in timer and my screw in shutter cord has a lock. So after I did a bunch of other stuff came back and instantly had a pinhole image. Sure its credit card size, not 4x5 inch. But was nice and easy. 

[Guest]

Based on the amount of video marketing put into that product I would say it was produced by some company who banks on these types of holiday funding situations.

 

Like the $200 fancy wooden negative holder made to duplicate film onto digital cameras. Doesn't include the stand, camera, lens or light source.

[Fandyus]

9 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

I don’t understand the interest in analog UV so much. The exception is for large formats and for the collodion wet plate stuff, I get that because it’s truly unique and not easily reproduced digitally. But aside from those examples, I think digital is more interesting to me because of the flexibility to manipulate the images. 

I can actually list multiple reasons, hope this helps.

1. Resolution only limited by grain, lens sharpness and diffraction, no hard limit.

2. Actual UV sensitivity isn't hindered by microlenses, bayer arrays or anti-aliasting filters.

3. Many B&W films have very good dynamic ranges, which is preferable for something as contrasty as UV. Stand developement can further improve this, plus B&W films are easier to develop at home (or so I heard).

4. UV images often require shooting at higher ISO values, and the grain of B&W films is more pleasant as opposed to digital noise.

5. And last but not least, films are rarely sensitive to IR, so you don't need to use IR blockers, further improving your efficiency.

One huge downside is that you can't focus properly. I still don't quite know how one would solve that. When I do know, you bet I'm mounting one of my UV capable lenses and shooting some film with a ZBW1/2.

[Fandyus]

11 hours ago, dabateman said:

Bizarrely interesting expensive camera. Its doing well, I may be interested in the future if they make a 8x10 inch version. That would be fun to play with. But the positive photo paper is 3x the cost at that size on B&H.

Any idea if it could possibly hold Foma paper? I had to ask, since Foma is a czech brand so one's gotta be a bit of a patriot sometimes :D

Also, if the paper is anywhere as cheap as the films they sell, maybe that could be an alternative, but I don't know about the sensitivity of that one. I'd expect it to be able to create exposures through UV though.

Edit: Just noticed photoni said it's not cheaper. Bummer.

[Andy Perrin]

Nobody has actually demonstrated or taken advantage of any of those, Fandyus, except for things that are hard to evaluate like not having Bayer/micro lenses. (Like, someone show me a shot that you could only get with the supposed sensitivity advantage of the film? Or a higher resolution than we can obtain digitally?) And some of them like “easy to develop at home” are not advantages, they are disadvantages compared to digital. 

[OlDoinyo]

I have an 8x10 pinhole camera, and hope to dust it off for experiments soon. I would guess that this special paper would be much slower than sheet film, and likely more expensive, so I am unsure what the use case for this apparatus is. If it used Instax it would be more truly instant, but the wet chemistry is going to be too much of a PITA for most buyers. And I am skeptical about enlarging negatives with a pinhole: there is no good way to do that.

[Fandyus]

On 10/22/2021 at 7:40 PM, Andy Perrin said:

Nobody has actually demonstrated or taken advantage of any of those, Fandyus, except for things that are hard to evaluate like not having Bayer/micro lenses. (Like, someone show me a shot that you could only get with the supposed sensitivity advantage of the film? Or a higher resolution than we can obtain digitally?) And some of them like “easy to develop at home” are not advantages, they are disadvantages compared to digital. 

No fun allowed I see.

Listen, I think film has fun quirks, and given that we are not exactly doing hardcore science here, or at least I feel like most of us are in this for fun, I don't see why not use film, it will require about as much experimentation as digital will and can yield nice results. If you need scientific precision by all means go off, but good luck doing that with a Bayer array anyhow.