Imagon 300mm on 8x10"

[fix_se]

Does anyone know if it is possible to use an Imagon 300mm in a Compound shutter with 8x10"? Have someone sample photographs to upload or is there any good site on Internet with such shots?

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi the 300 was for 5x7 but my modern 250mm Imagon in Copal 3 covers 8x10 with movements at portrait disdances, so yours should do it even more!
Armin Seeholzer

[Bob Salomon]

The effect of an Imagon is determined by the disk used, how open or closed the outside disk holes are and the lighting ratio and the character of the light - soft boxes and umbrellas are not as good an effect as a parabolic direct light.

That said the Imagon 300 was designed to give a certain amount of haloing at each setting on a 57 camera. Used on a smaller or larger format at that same disk setting will lead to too much or too little haloing at any given enlargement.

So the 120 and 150 mm were for 6x6cm, the 200mm for 69cm, the 250mm for 45 and the 300 for 57.

So yes you can use the 300 on 810 but the final result may not be what you expect.

With any Imagon it is practice, practice, practice and then experiment.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Many photogs looking for something not expected anyhow, so what the problem Bob.
You see the effekt of the lens very good on the groundglass of a 8x10.

[Bob Salomon]

Many photogs looking for something not expected anyhow, so what the problem Bob.
You see the effekt of the lens very good on the groundglass of a 8x10.

Not if you are going to make a print larger then 8x10. As you magnify the image the amount of haloing will increase. Sometimes unacceptably with an Imagon shorter then the one designed for the format.

[fix_se]

Thanks! I am not sure what you mean with the amount of haloing. Is there any example of a picture on the Internet taken with an Imagon on "wrong" format, such using one made for 4x5/5x7 on 8x10?

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks! I am not sure what you mean with the amount of haloing. Is there any example of a picture on the Internet taken with an Imagon on "wrong" format, such using one made for 4x5/5x7 on 8x10?

Very doubtful.

[Harold_4074]

With all due respect, I disagree with Bob Salomon's advice ("Practice, practice, practice and then experiment").

If you look through the archives you will find that there are numerous threads advising on the various pitfalls of the Imagon and its ilk. Bob is definitely right about the lighting, but I think the best advice is "experiment, experiment, experiment, and then practice"! (Find a technique that you like, and then learn to do it right every time.)

You won't be able to decide for yourself if the 300mm/8x10 combination is satisfactory until you have learned to deal with haloing, contrast, and placement of the optical center (which is probably going to be the biggest drawback to the combination).

[vijayn]

That said the Imagon 300 was designed to give a certain amount of haloing at each setting on a 57 camera. Used on a smaller or larger format at that same disk setting will lead to too much or too little haloing at any given enlargement.

I have a hard time understanding how the lens knows what size film it is forming its image on. I mean, it must, given that it changes its effect based on the square inches of film sitting behind it. (Can't help a hearty guffaw, sorry. :D )

[Harold_4074]

Vijay---

I conclude from the emoticon that your comment was not meant to be taken seriously; for the benefit of anyone who lacks firsthand experience with these lenses, it should be pointed out that while the lens does not know how much film it is sitting in front of, the designers knew how much they intended for it to be.

The focal length is related to the intended format by considerations of perspective, and the amount (and type---with an Imagon, they are separately controllable) of diffusion designed-in is proportional to that format. There is a range over which the results are likely to be pleasing, and the lens is designed to accommodate that range in the intended format.

That said, within limits the lenses can be used for other than their designed formats. For example, a 250mm Imagon serves nicely on 5x7 for other than closeups, where the perspective would be poor, and particularly if there is only a strong central center of interest. For a group portrait, it would probably be unsatisfactory.

The halo pattern of the outer aperture ring is not particularly noticeable for typical enlargements for a given format, but if a small portion of the negative is cropped out and then enlarged to make a tight portrait , the effect is likely to be unpleasant.

Getting back to the original issue, the biggest problem with stretching to 8x10 format, at least for portraits, is that the optical center of the lens needs to be on axis with the center of interest (i.e., the eyes) and this mandates enough coverage to permit substantial front fall. It can be planned for, and lived with, but there are probably better ways to start out with soft-focus 8x10 photography.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have the 360mm and 420mm Imagons, and have used them quite successfully on an 8x10 Sinar Norma for 8x10 portraiture, for many years now.

The 300mm is pushing it on 8x10, I think. It's more for the 5x7.

[fix_se]

Thanks! Yesterday I bought a 300mm Imagon in a Compound shutter in mint condition. I will try it on my 8x10"-camera and later on post some sampleshots. Btw, does anyone know which f-number the Imagon 300mm have if I use it without any discs?

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi
On my 250mm it is f 4.5 full open without dics yours should not be far away!
And yes it should work fine for head and shoulder portraits or a whole family portrait also. Which I would also use mine if needed.
But for head shoots I prefer also my 360mm Universal Heliar.

Have fun, Armin