Polaroid + Pinhole = Pinholaroid
by Adrian Hanft, (7 comments)
I picked up a Polaroid camera for $1 at a garage sale thinking I could add a pinhole and have a pinholaroid. I didn’t find any good online tutorials, and feeling confident after building my digital pinhole camera, I decided to figure it out as I went. Keep reading to learn how to turn a cheap Polaroid camera into a cheap polaroid pinhole camera…
The Polaroid camera I found is a Polaroid Onestep Closeup. This turned out to be an ideal camera to modify because of the closeup feature, as you will see when I explain the shutter system I created.
The first thing you have to do is to pull off the front face to get to the guts of the camera. Be somewhat careful not to break the faceplate because we will be reusing it. Use a blade to pry up a corner and with a little pressure it should snap open.

We won’t need the lens, so simply pop it out. Keep the parts, you never know when you might need them:

You should be able to see how the shutter opens and closes as you push the lever on the left back and forth. Since most Polaroids that use 600 film don’t have batteries (they get power from the film pack) it can be a little hard to tell what you can remove, and what has to stay. My original plan was to use the existing shutter by making a switch with a paperclip. Unfortunately, this won’t work because once the camera gets power, you can’t manually release the shutter. Here is what my first failed attempt looked like:

This worked good in theory, but once the film was added, it started spitting out film. Time for plan B. We need to fool the camera into thinking that the shutter is working normally. That means that you will have to remove the shutter completely. This wasn’t as easy as it would seem. There isn’t anything to unscrew or remove to let you easily remove the shutter. You can’t drill through the shutter because this will lock things up. I used a needle nose pliers to break apart and pull the shutter out. This is probably the hardest part of our Polaroid modification.
With the shutter out of the way, all we have to do is add a pinhole. I cut a small circle out of a piece of tin from a soda can. Press a needle into the tin, but don’t make a hole. Turn the tin over and sand on the impression from the needle until a small hole appears. Cut a circular piece of black electrical tape, and use it to tape the pinhole where the shutter used to be. I don’t get caught up with measuring my pinholes and calculating focal lengths/apertures/shutter speeds, but there are plenty of online calculators if you want to be more precise. This is what mine looked like:

Now we just need an easy way to cover and uncover our pinhole. You can expect your exposure time to be about 0.5 seconds on a sunny day. That means that we will have to manually open and close the shutter, and we can’t just cover the pinhole with black electrical tape. We need something more efficient. The Onestep Closeup has a unique feature that other polaroids don’t. It has a switch that allows you to take closeup pictures. Pushing the switch pushes a thin lens in front of the main lens. If we cover the closup lens with tape, we can use this as our shutter. Normally, the closeup lens isn’t used, so it is made with a spring that pulls it off. We want to reverse this spring so that by default, the closup lens is covering the pinhole. This modification will allow us to pull the switch to uncover our pinhole, and then it will snap shut. Here is how to do it. Remove the spring and slide the Closeup lens off. Cover the lens with tape. I used aluminum duct tape, but electrical tape should work fine. Next, drill a small hole in the corner opposite of the lens. A bent end of the paperclip will go in this hole for extra strength. The bent paperclip will look like this:

Next, tape the paperclip down and attach the spring to the left. Now our shutter will snap shut. It should look like this:

In order for our new shutter system to work, we will have to remove some plastic. The plastic is relatively soft, so you can easily break it off with a pliers. Don’t use a router or saw, because the bits of plastic will get in the camera and you will never be able to clean it out. Here is a look at the front of the camera after the plastic was removed:

Now all that is left is to snap the faceplate back onto the camera. Here is what it should look like with the shutter open and closed:

Your done. Now you have a cheap pinhole polaroid camera. To prove that it works, here are a couple pictures of flower and my son and his toy truck that I took this morning. These were approximately 0.5 second exposures, and they were hand held. I may have to modify it again to add a tripod mount.

An interesting side note is that our pinhole modification allows this “Closeup” camera to focus even closer up. Since pinhole cameras don’t have a lens, everything is in focus at any distance. Any blur that appears is due to the subject moving, the camera moving, or from a pinhole that is too large.
Unfortunately, the film will still cost you a buck a picture. I have come close to buying a polaroid back for my Holga, but I just can’t bring myself to purchase a $90 accessory for my $15 camera. I also haven’t converted my Holga to a pinhole yet. Maybe that will be my next project.
Comments (7)
Bruce DeBoer said:
Help me out. I’ve been a professional photographer for a long time. I graduated with a BS in Professional Photography but that doesn’t keep me from feeling stupid about it sometimes.
Many of my fellow photogs over the years have gone to great lengths to build pinhole cameras. I’ve built them myself but only as part of my son’s science project.
What is the attraction? Without question there is a “back to basics” cache about one, but does anyone really feel the image quality is special? If so, please explain it to me.
Posted on July 20, 2005
Adrian said:
Back to basics is part of the appeal, yes. I think it can be hard for a professional photographer to appreciate pinhole photography, or any low-tech camera for that matter. I was talking to my friend who makes a good living taking photos, and he admitted that Holga photography wasn’t for him. I think when your income is tied to taking a picture, you don’t have any choice but to invest in expensive equipment and generate flawless images. You train yourself to spot “flaws” because you can’t afford to have a blur, a light leak, double exposures, lens distortion, or any of the idiosyncrasies that draw people to pinholes or Holgas. Plus after you spend thousands of dollars on a camera, there is an assumption to presume that your images must be better than images created with cheaper equipment. That just isn’t true.
While I do love the “pinhole look,” I think it has alot to do with the process as well. For me, it is just more fun to play with a camera that I can take apart and modify. It feels more personal, and I wouldn’t feel right babying a camera that cost more than my car. I relate to what Byron Bignell says about pinhole over at Pinhole.org: “I love the freedom it affords any and all who take it up. As a means of expression it frees us from the bonds of the camera salesmen and the companies who seek to create ever fancier cameras that take the intuition out of making photographs.”
There are also many things that a pinhole will give you that a lens can’t. Straight lines will never be curved as a result of a lens bending the light. The vignetting can be very dramatic. You can take very long exposures in daylight. Everything is always in focus. Double exposures are simple.
Posted on July 20, 2005
Bruce DeBoer said:
Hmmmm - Not sure I buy most of the reasons. Other than “I like it” I don’t find the “(a pro)can’t afford to have a blur, a light leak, double exposures, lens distortion, or any of the idiosyncrasies that draw people to pinholes”. While this may be true on a commercial job, most pros are still aficionados of fine art.
Let me ask you this: Have you ever presented your pinhole images without saying they are pinhole images? A great photograph is a great photograph - period. I don’t really care what made it. I never show my work and exclaim, I made it with an old Yashica twin lens with expectations that people would like it better. From what I’ve seen, I find pinhole and Holga photography charming on occasion, but then it was in displays that stated they were produced this way. Perhaps I’ve lusted over photos produced with Holga or Pinholes and didn’t know it. Get my drift?
My photographic taste is wide ranging. I like illustrative to the ultra realistic documentary. I am a firm believer that photographs often suffer from too much detail so, in theory, I should be a huge fan of the pinhole. I guess I just don’t get it and probably never will. I can, however, understand the desire to produce albumen or platinum prints from scratch: ever try that?
BTW - pinholes don’t produce images with everything in focus, they produce images with everything in the same degree of fuzziness.
Posted on July 20, 2005
Adrian said:
Well, Bruce, you didn’t really make your comment hoping to have your mind changed, did you?
You said, “A great photograph is a great photograph - period.” If you really believe that, what do you have against pinholes? It sounds like you are the one that is caught up with what kind of machine is used to make an image. Surely you don’t believe that a more complicated camera guarantees that you can make a better photo. Maybe you just haven’t seen a good photographer use a pinhole camera. Check out NYClondon or Abelardo Morell to name a couple of my favorites. Photography really has little to do with your equipment, and more to do with the person behind the lens.
No, I have never produced albumen or platinum prints. I assume you have, and when you show them you make sure not to mention that is how they were made?
BTW - With practice, you should be able to cut down on the “fuzzines” you were experiencing. It is possible to produce very needle sharp images with a pinhole. Pun intended.
Posted on July 20, 2005
Petter B said:
Hi, I am an arcitecture student from denmark. as part of my project i would like to build a polaroid pinhole camera with a shutter speed of 10 to 15 sec. do you have any idea if it is possible? is there a slower kind of film that i could use that you know of?
I assume that I could make some experiments myself with different films and filters, but since polaroid film is expensive and that i have never worked with the media before I thouth that I could ask you for some advice to lower the cost of stupid first time experiments..
Petter
Posted on October 27, 2005
Adrian said:
The best advice I can give is to point you towards another camera I built for a Polaroid back. Here is a link to a page where I explain how to build it: www.foundphotography.com. The film is more expensive, but it is 4x5. There are different films, but I use 55 because it gives you a positive and a negative. The film speed is only 50, so maybe that is good for you, too. The cost of building this type of camera is low because all you have to buy is the Polaroid 545 back (somewhere around $50 on Ebay). The other reason I would recommend this approach over taking apart a Polaroid camera is that you don’t have to worry about the film advance, and electronics of the camera. Good luck with your experiments!
Posted on October 27, 2005
john argetsinger said:
wow. that bruce guy is a fucking tight ass.
Posted on November 3, 2007