360 Ronar for 8x10 Portraits

[asf]

Finding the 360 a good length for 8x10 portraits I'm used to using a big plasmat

I do like the rendering and skin tones of the Ronar and am wondering if anyone who is using the 360 for 8x10 finds its image circle problematic for non-infinity work (generally full length to head and shoulders, not face only)

480 is too long for my tastes

420 probably also too long

[djdister]

Using the 360 Apo Ronar at closer distances, like for portraits, will yield a larger image circle.

[asf]

Yes, thank you djdister, a good and valid point that holds true for all lenses

Still my question is for anyone who has used this lens in this way, did you find the IC limiting or insufficient

[hiend61]

The Apo Ronar 360/9 image circle just covers 8x10 (318mm, maybe a little bit more in practice). I used it in 8x10 just for art reproductions with impressive results. I suppose you will not need to use much camera movements in portrait photography.

[asf]

Ok, probably few have used it this way for a reason

I'll ask a slightly different question then - is there a formula to figure the IC at 1:10 and 1:5 reproduction ratios?

[Paul Cunningham]

I just got one of the 360mm Ronar (a newer MC version in Copal 3) and shot it for the first time. Here is a b/w that I shot about 10 days ago. I think I probably used a little bit of front rise, but no other movements. The image circle was definitely sufficient, but note that I actually shot this on 18x24cm x-ray film, so coverage is less critical in the corners than it would be with 8x10.

148621

[asf]

Hard to tell exactly but it looks like it's starting to vignette in the corners, but it does go a long way to answering my question so thank you!

I'll look for a 420 or 480, or stick to a 300 for 5x7 if I want to use a Ronar

[Paul Cunningham]

I shot a couple of frames of color (8x10) but haven't taken them in yet. When I get them back I'll revisit this thread.

[Taija71A]

... is there a formula to figure the IC at 1:10 and 1:5 reproduction ratios?

Yes.

But, one can do the calculations in their head faster... Than typing out the Formula.
(349.8mm and 381.6mm).

[asf]

Yes.
But, one can do the calculations in their head faster... Than typing out the Formula.

Awesome, care to share for those who don't know how you do that?

If IC is 318 @ infinity then it's 636 at 1:1

What is it @ 1:10 and 1:5 ?

[djdister]

Even the Rodenstock literature was kind of vague on defining the image circle at closer distances, other than to say "With shorter taking distances, the image circle diameters and the movements increase." See these two pages from the Rodenstock literature...

148623 148626

[Taija71A]

... What is it @ 1:10 and 1:5 ?

349.8mm (1:10)
381.6mm (1:5)

Thank-you!
Regards, -Tim.

[asf]

349.8mm (1:10)
381.6mm (1:5)

Thank-you!
Regards, -Tim.

Great, thank you!

Can you explain how you got the numbers? I'd like to do for other lenses/situations

[Ari]

Great, thank you!

Can you explain how you got the numbers? I'd like to do for other lenses/situations

I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that he divided the IC of 310 by 10 for 1:10, and by 5 for 1:5, then added that number to the original IC.
So 318/10=31.8
318 + 31.8 = 349.8
and so forth...

[Taija71A]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?15841-Calculating-image-circle-closer-than-infinity
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106775.10;wap2

[asf]

I used to be smart …
Thank you all