Imago 1:1 Question

Qebs · Jun 8, 2020

Greetings everyone,

I recently found out about the full body IMAGO 1:1 camera/system.

Wikipedia says they use 6 strobe lights.

Does anyone know what strobes or what power they used to be able to get a proper exposure with their direct positive paper?

I'm interested in direct positive but not sure if the amount of light is dangerous to a subject (not sure how IMAGO does it with out hurting eyes).

Thanks so much in advance for any help/direction/advice!
Be well!

Best Regards,
Kevin H.

neilt3 · Jun 9, 2020

I can't answer your question , but if you can find out the aperture of the lens you can work it out backwards .

With such a large format , shooting at 1:1 , it'll have such thin DOF it is likely stopped down a heck of a lot .
If the paper is ISO 3 (?) That means a lot if flash power , but devided by six for more even lighting .
Looking at the samples it seems to be more directed higher up , rather than even lighting .
So probably two at the torso , two about neck level and two about knee high .

With the paper used , and the likely aperture of the lens and it being entirely lit by the flash , you can't get away from the amount of light needed .
But divided by six rather than one huge flash , not as hard on the eyes .

Are you thinking of making one ?

If you have six flashes and wireless triggers it wouldn't be hard to experiment with the lighting on any format size .
The amount if light needed for a certain subject coverage , at a certain working distance and at a certain aperture remains the same .

AgX · Jun 9, 2020

There is a misconception with your divided-by-6 approach:
whether you use 1 generator for the whole body, or 6 generators at 1/6 power spread over parts of the body, the light intensity at each part of the body, and thus the eyes too, would be the same.

neilt3 · Jun 9, 2020

AgX said:
There is a misconception with your divided-by-6 approach:
whether you use 1 generator for the whole body, or 6 generators at 1/6 power spread over parts of the body, the light intensity at each part of the body, and thus the eyes too, would be the same.

My understanding of the set up has the flash position bring part of the equasion .
One single flash would be mounted near the lens to give an even spread if light .
Looking at the sample pictures available , the six flashes are lighting up a more local area , indicating they are much closer to the subject .

Given that the same amount of light must hit the subject to give correct exposure , several smaller flashes near a subject would achieve this as opposed to one large flash further away to obtain the same spread if light .

As they are closer , a smaller output per flash would be achievable , would it not , rather than one large flash at a greater distance ?
The maths might be slightly out , but is the principal not the same ?
IE , several small flashes closer rather than one large flash further away , so less flash on the eyes .

AgX · Jun 9, 2020

neilt3 said:
Given that the same amount of light must hit the subject to give correct exposure.

You just gave the answer yourself: As long as the light intensity on the body surface (and thus at the eyes) is the same, it does not matter how that intensity is achieved.

Bob S · Jun 9, 2020

AgX said:
You just gave the answer yourself: As long as the light intensity on the body surface (and thus at the eyes) is the same, it does not matter how that intensity is achieved.

Actually, it does, the closer the light source, regardless of reflector, the sharper it is. The further away, the less sharp. Given the same type of reflector. So the design of that reflector might be critical.

Qebs · Jun 10, 2020

Hello everyone,

Thank you all so much for your replies.

I know Giles Clement does amazing work with the low ISO tintypes (similar to direct positive ISOs) but if
I want to add light modifiers I will need more light and I wonder if the light will damage a portrait sitter's eyes.

Not sure if we have come to a consensus, but would softening the light help prevent eye damage?

Thanks again everyone
Hope you all stay safe.

Cheers,
Kevin H.

ic-racer · Jun 10, 2020

I can't find much on line about that camera. How does one get from Wankel combustion to a walk-in camera? Any links?

AgX · Jun 11, 2020

Qebs said:
Not sure if we have come to a consensus, but would softening the light help prevent eye damage?

Here you got a point:
there is a difference in eye-strain between a point-light and a diffuse light-source.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 11, 2020

Qebs said:
Greetings everyone,

I recently found out about the full body IMAGO 1:1 camera/system.

Wikipedia says they use 6 strobe lights.

Does anyone know what strobes or what power they used to be able to get a proper exposure with their direct positive paper?

I'm interested in direct positive but not sure if the amount of light is dangerous to a subject (not sure how IMAGO does it with out hurting eyes).

Thanks so much in advance for any help/direction/advice!
Be well!

Best Regards,
Kevin H.[/QUOTE
I've done it and it's definitely not dangerous to your eyes; but call him them. They are in Berlin.

Qebs · Jun 20, 2020

Hey everyone, thanks for all the replies!

I might just send IMAGO an email

Hope you are well and continue to be safe!
Cheers,
Kevin H.

Imago 1:1 Question

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency