PDA

View Full Version : 30cm H5.6 Jmagon



Bernice Loui
4-Apr-2015, 14:10
This just arrived. Feeling very fortunate to have this lens.

Next up is to make a flange for it and install on a Sinar lens board and make some images.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/jITGseswhatLONcWRvMrcJBJpeW6544j-c4RQPyHrfA=w1080-h1048-no

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-09Bwwhal48o/VSBRo0j1oiI/AAAAAAAAB3g/oi0PwOamoRc/w1322-h1048-no/30cm_Jmagon001.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-hpnFZR8stUE/VSBRfLXs-II/AAAAAAAAB3M/M4tQh0TL8pU/w1068-h1048-no/30cm%2BH5.6%2C%2BJmagon%2Bsix%2Bdisc.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CCegi4rYPNQ/VSBRf5admsI/AAAAAAAAB3Q/FfP3ivh_lA4/w1322-h1048-no/30cm%2BJmagon%2C%2Bfront.jpg



Bernice

Peter De Smidt
4-Apr-2015, 14:16
Fun! I can't wait to see some images.

pierre506
4-Apr-2015, 15:14
More disks than the later version.

Mark Sawyer
4-Apr-2015, 18:08
More disks than the later version.

And these disks don't close like the later ones. A wonderful lens! Use it well, Bernice...

ScottPhotoCo
5-Apr-2015, 10:41
I have the newer version and am enjoying it. Looking forward to seeing how you make magic with yours. :)

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

Bernice Loui
5-Apr-2015, 10:53
There are a few curious differences between this six disc Imagon compared to the later versions. The disc are fixed, not adjustable like the later versions.

The disc start at H5.6 which is numerically a tad larger than the three disc 300mm which is H5.8 and the later Copal# 3 two disc version at H6.8.

Disc are numbered H5.6, H6.5, H8.1, H9.5, H11, H14. The glass is not coated, the later versions are (the other two Imagons, 250mm and 360mm are both single layer coated). This one appears to be made in the early 1930's when Rodenstock first began making them.

It will be interesting to see if there are any differences in image quality between this early Jmagon and the later three disc Imagon.


More later.
Bernice

Bob Salomon
5-Apr-2015, 10:57
There are a few curious differences between this six disc Imagon compared to the later versions. The disc are fixed, not adjustable like the later versions.

The disc start at H5.6 which is numerically a tad larger than the three disc 300mm which is H5.8 and the later Copal# 3 two disc version at H6.8.

Disc are numbered H5.6, H6.5, H8.1, H9.5, H11, H14. The glass is not coated, the later versions are (the other two Imagons, 250mm and 360mm are both single layer coated). This one appears to be made in the early 1930's when Rodenstock first began making them.

It will be interesting to see if there are any differences in image quality between this early Jmagon and the later three disc Imagon.


More later.
Bernice

Yours has the letters DRP on it so that would mean that it was made during the Third Reich.

Colin D
6-Apr-2015, 20:43
Why was the ND filter added to the Imagon kit in later versions? Is there a reason it was decided a good idea or was it just a sales gimmick?

Peter De Smidt
6-Apr-2015, 21:33
It allows one to use bigger apertures in bright light. Results with this type of lens is highly dependent on the aperture/disk used.

Bob Salomon
7-Apr-2015, 06:49
Why was the ND filter added to the Imagon kit in later versions? Is there a reason it was decided a good idea or was it just a sales gimmick?

Each disk gives a certain degree of softness as does the selected opening of the surrounding holes in the disks. Since the proper way to use the Imagon is to not use the aperture blades in the shutter itself as they block off the peripheral Rays that create the Imagong effect a ND filter was included to help the shooter maintain the desired disk setting under more then one range of lighting strength. Not a gimmick at all. It was very needed as changing the lamp to subject distance also changes the character of the light. Remember, the Imagon is best used with strong lighting ratios and with elliptical reflectors rather then with umbrellas and soft boxes as you need strong spectacle highlights fog the Imagon effect.

cowanw
7-Apr-2015, 07:52
Yours has the letters DRP on it so that would mean that it was made during the Third Reich.

Deutsches Reichspatent (s) have been granted since 1877. Are you sure DRP was only during Third Reich? My 1902 Heliar has a DRP number

Colin D
8-Apr-2015, 04:22
Each disk gives a certain degree of softness as does the selected opening of the surrounding holes in the disks. Since the proper way to use the Imagon is to not use the aperture blades in the shutter itself as they block off the peripheral Rays that create the Imagong effect a ND filter was included to help the shooter maintain the desired disk setting under more then one range of lighting strength. Not a gimmick at all. It was very needed as changing the lamp to subject distance also changes the character of the light. Remember, the Imagon is best used with strong lighting ratios and with elliptical reflectors rather then with umbrellas and soft boxes as you need strong spectacle highlights fog the Imagon effect.

Thanks Bob, that a nice explanation and insight on its effective use.

William Whitaker
8-Apr-2015, 05:48
...the Imagon is best used with strong lighting ratios and with elliptical reflectors rather then with umbrellas and soft boxes as you need strong spectacle highlights for the Imagon effect.

I would venture to add that quality of light is a critical element to the successful application of any soft-focus lens.

Contratulations on your acquisition Bernice! I, too, look forward to seeing your results from the Imagon!

Bernice Loui
8-Apr-2015, 09:31
Over the years of using soft focus lenses, few things learned.

*Focusing is no where near as easy as one might believe. Often focus using high contrast difference between lines helps and focus at the lens aperture use to create the image.

*"Hard" lighting or higher lighting ratios matter. Soft focus lenses do not reveal their personalities with soft diffused light well at all.

*Film formats smaller than 5x7 is a significant dis-advantage. Ideally, the film negatives are contact printed from an 8x10 film negative. This has to be done or experienced to get an appreciation for the difference in print quality.


The history of this 6 disc Jmagon is rather interesting, It was originally purchased in Paris France 35 years ago according to the original owner who is an artist-photographer in Paris. He never had a proper camera for it, but purchased it due to it's rarity and collect-ability, during the time he owned it, this Jmagon never made an image. Previous owner has reached a point in his life where doing art and photography has become a challenge. He was happy to learn this Jmagon ended up in a good home and will be used to make images again. He did not want this lens to end up with a collector that will place it in a trophy case never to make an image again. His rarest cameras and lenses ended up at the French Museum of Photography. One of his request was to see some images made with this six disc Jmagon.

That will now change as I'm going to have a flange made for it soon and mounted on a Sinar lens board to be used with the Sinar & Sinar shutter on the Sinar 5x7. This Imagon joins the 250mm & 360mm Imagon completing the set for 5x7. At some point, I'll post some images made with this six disc Jmagon after the mechanical over head is done.


This portrait has been posted else where. It was done with a 360mm Imagon, H7.7 Disc, 5x7 Sinar and Sinar shutter, hot lighting-no diffusion.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-rHPFeANENDU/VSVXVZhcfwI/AAAAAAAAB5Q/oV-E3HvGmIA/w796-h1048-no/Rebecca%2C%2B360mm%2BH7.7%2BImagon.jpg



Bernice







I would venture to add that quality of light is a critical element to the successful application of any soft-focus lens.

Contratulations on your acquisition Bernice! I, too, look forward to seeing your results from the Imagon!

Bill_1856
8-Apr-2015, 09:45
Zeiss "SOFTAR"s do very much the same thing optically.

Bernice Loui
8-Apr-2015, 10:14
No...
Been there done that. The results are simply NOT the same.

I'll even state, soft focus filters as a group simply do not have the image quality true soft focus lenses can produce.


Bernice



Zeiss "SOFTAR"s do very much the same thing optically.

Colin D
8-Apr-2015, 19:50
*"Hard" lighting or higher lighting ratios matter. Soft focus lenses do not reveal their personalities with soft diffused light well at all.

*Film formats smaller than 5x7 is a significant dis-advantage. Ideally, the film negatives are contact printed from an 8x10 film negative. This has to be done or experienced to get an appreciation for the difference in print quality.


This is becoming more instructive for me the further the conversation goes. The second point in particular as I only have a 4x5 kit. Probably not the right thread for this but is it a game breaker not to have something bigger for soft focus? I'm just a bit time user of my 300mm Imagon, so I suppose I need to be realistic about the need to move to 5x7 or 8x10 from a cost perspective.

Anyway the insights are still useful, as with the higher lighting point as well.

Colin

Jac@stafford.net
8-Apr-2015, 20:01
This is becoming more instructive for me the further the conversation goes. The second point in particular as I only have a 4x5 kit. Probably not the right thread for this but is it a game breaker not to have something bigger for soft focus? I'm just a bit time user of my 300mm Imagon, so I suppose I need to be realistic about the need to move to 5x7 or 8x10 from a cost perspective.

It is good when we find an assertion such as Bernice has made because we have to make it to know it. Speculation is useless. I just GOTTA see for myself. That's the wonderful kind of thing that breaks the internet bull. ...and ironically, we cannot show our outcome on today's poor monitors.

This is the kind of stuff that makes LF alive!
.

William Whitaker
8-Apr-2015, 20:40
...The second point in particular as I only have a 4x5 kit. Probably not the right thread for this but is it a game breaker not to have something bigger for soft focus? I'm just a bit time user of my 300mm Imagon, so I suppose I need to be realistic about the need to move to 5x7 or 8x10 from a cost perspective.
...
Colin

I would not dismiss 4x5 out of hand as a platform for exploring soft focus. That's what I started with when I first discovered the lure of the Wollensak Verito. 5x7 and 8x10 do offer advantages. For one, you'll find a much larger selection of soft focus lenses intended for the 8x10 format. And contact prints (if that is your workflow) are larger and easier to see. But 4x5 is definitely a viable platform/format for soft focus.

Bill_1856
8-Apr-2015, 21:12
No...
Been there done that. The results are simply NOT the same.

I'll even state, soft focus filters as a group simply do not have the image quality true soft focus lenses can produce.

You appear to be confusing the SOFTAR with those cheaper filters which are essentially concentric optical rings. Indeed they are not exactly the same, but "close enough for government work."


Bernice

Bernice Loui
8-Apr-2015, 22:31
Do or should artist-photgraphers use the image making tools as intended or should "liberties" be taken because they can?

It is not easy to make judgements on print quality, lens personality and numerous other judgments and an entire host of other topics-results by viewing said results on their monitor, yet so many do make judgements and choices based on what they have seen or said on the web.

The other factors that SIGNIFICANTLY affect these judgements are experience, exposure to art-photo history and numerous other factors of individuals bias and choice. Even when viewing famed images in real life, individual judgements made on these images remain that of the individual.

I'm kind of a traditionalist with LF and tend to respect how lenses like the Imagon was intended to be used. It is much like using the proper tool for a specific job rather than using the tool on hand to do a very specific task. While the task can often be accomplished with make-shift tools, the results are not often ideal or optimum.

It takes significant effort from the artist-photographer to study the history of a specific lens, learn about who invented, why the lens was invented and how the lens was intended to be used. A basic understanding how the physics of optics, the nature of light and the image capture process can help a great deal to short out what matters, what is importing and what is not and what is hype.

My own experience with soft focus lenses began with 4x5, it was all fine and OK until an understanding and appreciation of what traditional soft lenses can do on large formats like 8x10 film contact printed took hold. Once this understanding and appreciation of what is possible with these lenses and process sticks, these experiences become ingrained into one's visual memory. There after, similar images are often compared to those visual memory cues. The memory refresher happenss when the original images are viewed again.

It can be very easy to fall into one's preconceived ideas and expectation of many things by finding stuff on the web to support their self-driven expectations. The difficulty is to do the work, and lean what is and what is not based on real-life expectations in real time. Only then can the choice of what is ideal for how these image-making tools fits the individual's image making needs be ascertained for that specific individual.


Bernice




It is good when we find an assertion such as Bernice has made because we have to make it to know it. Speculation is useless. I just GOTTA see for myself. That's the wonderful kind of thing that breaks the internet bull. ...and ironically, we cannot show our outcome on today's poor monitors.

This is the kind of stuff that makes LF alive!
.

Mark Sawyer
8-Apr-2015, 22:33
I would not dismiss 4x5 out of hand as a platform for exploring soft focus. That's what I started with when I first discovered the lure of the Wollensak Verito. 5x7 and 8x10 do offer advantages. For one, you'll find a much larger selection of soft focus lenses intended for the 8x10 format. And contact prints (if that is your workflow) are larger and easier to see. But 4x5 is definitely a viable platform/format for soft focus.

The issue here is that a true soft focus effect (spherical or [rarely] chromatic aberration) is different when you enlarge it. You're spreading a soft subtle glow over a bigger area, and with a loss of tonality. Soft focus lenses are meant for contact printing, not to be examined under the microscope of enlarging. Of course, one can argue "I like the effect of 4x5 soft focus enlarged to 20x24", but the delicacy is lost. And that's one reason I never had an interest in the new Cooke PS945 soft lens; 4x5 is too small for me to enjoy a contact print, and enlarging doesn't convey soft focus in its best light, (so to speak...)


Zeiss "SOFTAR"s do very much the same thing optically.

Softar filters are probably the best filter imitation of a true soft focus lens, but they're still a poor imitation. A soft focus lens changes its effect dramatically as you change the aperture. Softar filters give the same effect regardless of aperture, which lets you know they're not at all the same optically.

N Dhananjay
9-Apr-2015, 04:25
1) Focusing: In general, stop down a bit to reduce the spherical aberrations and focus - complicated by the added DOF. Try to think of moving a band of focus forwards and backwards through the scene. Then open up the lens to get the spherical aberrations in again.

2) 'Hard' lighting (i.e., high local contrast, not overall luminance range) definitely needed - possibly more important than everything else

3) The overall softness will also give you the weird illusion of greater DOF - since everything is soft, the eye-brain is tricked into thinking the DOF is greater. It was a wonderful practical lesson in demonstrating that DOF is fundamentally an illusion. Selective focus games actually become harder to play.

4) Contact prints reveal the lens qualities best - hardly surprising since you cut out a second optical path.

Cheers, DJ

Mark Sawyer
9-Apr-2015, 14:01
3) The overall softness will also give you the weird illusion of greater DOF - since everything is soft, the eye-brain is tricked into thinking the DOF is greater. It was a wonderful practical lesson in demonstrating that DOF is fundamentally an illusion. Selective focus games actually become harder to play.

It's not a weird illusion; a soft focus lens does give you a greater depth of field, albeit in a softer image. In fact, that was Dallmeyer's original intent for the 1866 Patent Portrait Lens, the first lens designed to be "soft focus". Use of soft lenses for Pictorial effect came later.

N Dhananjay
9-Apr-2015, 14:08
All DOF is an illusion in the sense that it is just a phenomenon that results from coming up against the resolving limit of the human eye-brain combination. I meant a weird illusion in the sense that if you have worked with non-soft-focus lenses for a long time, as I have, the sudden perceived increase in DOF is almost unsettling - I found myself thinking I was seeing things or had done something wrong. Hope that clarifies my meaning... DJ

Daniel Unkefer
11-Apr-2015, 08:08
Barrel lens Imagons are not common in this focal length. I searched for years and finally found one at a decent price. Here it is, mounted on a Plaubel Peco Jr lensboard (with extension tubes from China). Mounts on my three Plaubel Makiflexes (see my avatar). Since it only has two elements, this is not at all heavy and actually works very well on the Makiflexes.

I'm an Imagon fan; I have 120mm, 150mm, 200mm, 250mm, 300mm, 360mm, and 420mm Imagons in barrel. And 200mm and 250mm in Compound shutters.