Is it my Konishiroku Pearl or my MF developing technique?

Sparrow

A
Sparrow

  • 0
  • 0
  • 28
Another Saturday.

A
Another Saturday.

  • 0
  • 0
  • 65
Lost in Space

A
Lost in Space

  • 7
  • 3
  • 124
Fruits on Fuji

A
Fruits on Fuji

  • 4
  • 1
  • 125

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,393
Messages
2,758,222
Members
99,485
Latest member
broketimetraveler
Recent bookmarks
1

Robin Guymer

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
204
Location
Melbourne Australia
Format
35mm
My first foray into MF has not been without issues, not that I am too surprised. The camera is an old Konishiroku Pearl II with a 75mm Hexar 1.4:5 and a Konirapid-S 1/500th shutter. I replaced the light seals and thoroughly checked the bellows for leaks which I found a couple of pinholes and repaired these with recommended pliable black fabric paint. The shutter feels and sounds okay and the lens is pretty clear but not crystal perfect.

I did a test roll of TMax 400 using a Leicaflex for metering which is itself not completely accurate due to the hearing aid battery. But the negatives were good (bit over exposed) and the proof sheet had some good images so I felt it okay to take on a trip to central Australia.

The Konishiroku Pearl is a great travel camera as it fits in a jacket pocket so it’s more portable than a 35mm SLR. I mostly used it when hiking and for the 5 rolls I put through it I was taking meter readings off the SLR I had with me which was either the Nikon F2 or FE2.

I tried out a mixture of 5 films just for fun comparisons. These were Delta 100 & 400, Fomapan 200 & 400 and Rollei RPX 400. Upon processing the negatives in Xtol 1+1 they all looked a bit flat. They were all processed at the box recommendation for Xtol 1+1 @ 20°. So my first query here is should 120 film be processed for a bit longer than the recommended box times or should I have adjusted my exposures for the film being used to say ISO320 when using 400 film?

The proof sheet photos attached are of different films. You can see on the portrait pictures that there is a dark band across near the top of one and across near the bottom of another. Now a Konishiroku Pearl takes a portrait photo in the normal position so it had me mystified for a while as I was thinking it was a camera fault but then I never inverted the camera to take shots so how could it be. Then I thought maybe my loading technique was letting light onto the film somehow. My final assessment is that maybe the band is caused in the Patterson tank and has to do with the developer not being agitated enough in the early stages. I usually agitate for the first 45 to 60 seconds and then 5 inversions every 30 seconds for the first 10 min then every 60 seconds till completion. Could it be I needed to do more rigorous agitation in the first 60 seconds? I kept the temperature at 20° as I always check it during processing and had presoaked all the films. Now that I have looked closely the only film I did not get any banding on was the Rollei RPX 400 and all the others had a mix of banding on top or on the bottom.

Sorry for the long winded explanation but looking forward to your thoughts on this issue before I put any more film into this camera.

IMG_6316.jpg
IMG_6324.jpg
 

Dali

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,830
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Multi Format
Your development technique looks OK but being a camera new to you, I wouls stick with 1 film type and try to find the best ISO / development time combo before switching to some something else.

The dark band is strange. A light leak would mean a darker zone in the negative = a brighter zone in the print / scan. Here, it is the opposite. Are you sure there is nothing in the camera chamber interfering in the light path?
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,599
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
I would check to see if an interior bellows lining may be separated and bunching-up, protruding into the light path on one side when the bellows is retracted towards infinity focus. I don't think that band has anything to do with your processing technique, as it repeats in such an unlikely way to be an agitation or reel loading issue...

The "flatness" could be due to the lens being uncoated and/or with a tiny bit of haze or fogging of an internal element.

Over exposure could be due to "optimistic" shutter speeds. Most of the shots appear to be made in bright light and the higher shutter speeds might not be quite as fast as listed. Add to this the possibility of stiff shutter lube; it IS an old camera!

It might take a bit of experimenting, but I am sure you will be able to figure it out and have a fine camera.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Is there a lens shade on the camera that is somehow protruding into the image?
 
OP
OP
Robin Guymer

Robin Guymer

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
204
Location
Melbourne Australia
Format
35mm
Thanks to Matt, Kino and Dali for your input into this issue. I have checked the camera thoroughly and could see no reason that would cause the line. Then turned my attention to the Patterson tank. I was using 250mm Xtol and 250mm water so I put in a 120 reel with the centre lump pole and the 500mm of liquid came to the top of the reel. However when I shook the tank as if inverting it, I noticed that the reel can sit on the higher mound of the centre lump pole and this raised the reel slightly out of the liquid. So I believe the portion of the negative that remains in the reel track was still getting full development with the developer staying in the reel tracks but there is a fall off of development from the edge of the reel downwards hence the strange dark line. From now on I will use a total mix of 550mm and this should resolve it and maybe not put in the centre lumpy pole either. Thanks again - hopefully problem solved.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
My Paterson tanks have a volume recommendation on the bottom.
What version and size of tank is yours?
Are you sure that the reel isn't riding up the post?
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,599
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
Thanks to Matt, Kino and Dali for your input into this issue. I have checked the camera thoroughly and could see no reason that would cause the line. Then turned my attention to the Patterson tank. I was using 250mm Xtol and 250mm water so I put in a 120 reel with the centre lump pole and the 500mm of liquid came to the top of the reel. However when I shook the tank as if inverting it, I noticed that the reel can sit on the higher mound of the centre lump pole and this raised the reel slightly out of the liquid. So I believe the portion of the negative that remains in the reel track was still getting full development with the developer staying in the reel tracks but there is a fall off of development from the edge of the reel downwards hence the strange dark line. From now on I will use a total mix of 550mm and this should resolve it and maybe not put in the centre lumpy pole either. Thanks again - hopefully problem solved.

You mentioned that the camera took natively in the Portrait aspect, but somehow that didn't sink in... Please disregard my "analysis" on possible development issues.
 
OP
OP
Robin Guymer

Robin Guymer

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
204
Location
Melbourne Australia
Format
35mm
My Paterson tanks have a volume recommendation on the bottom.
What version and size of tank is yours?
Are you sure that the reel isn't riding up the post?

3 years using that 2 reel tank and I never noticed those recommendations. 550ml for 120 film. When all else fails read the instructions!
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom