Coverage of a Konica Hexanon GR II 260mm?

[Scott Davis]

Anyone have any idea what the coverage for a Konica GR II 260mm lens might be? Would it cover 11x14 with movement? anything bigger (12x15)???

[erie patsellis]

8x10 with more movements than I can muster, but you'd need to ask the lens (i.e. shoot with it) to see if it meets your expectations.

[Scott Davis]

So it MIGHT cover 12x15 with little to no movement. I'm just trying to figure out before I cut a lensboard if it would be worth the effort.

[cdholden]

Get some foamcore or matting board, with some spacers around the edge to fit it to the camera for use. If it works out, you know you need to get a permanent lensboard made. If not, you just spent less than $5 and have plenty left over to test several other lenses.

[EdWorkman]

Jim Galli sed, back in 2007, that it fit 11x14, but did not mention how well/movements

[photoevangelist]

Works on 7x17!

[Lachlan 717]

Works on 7x17!

FWIW, the 210mm doesn't...

[Scott Davis]

Works on 7x17!

When you say works on 7x17, does it provide any room for movement, and how stopped down are you?

[photoevangelist]

When you say works on 7x17, does it provide any room for movement, and how stopped down are you?

Scott, It's odd. With my tests (4 sheets so far), F9 and F45 don't make any difference. I had minimal front and rear movements (Folmer and Schwing 7x17) and it clipped one corner, the other edges were clean. Another exposure at F9 (I forgot to close the lens down), and all 4 of the edges were all clean (no movements). I'm wondering if my homemade foam board lens board is not centered correctly or if the bellows are blocking the film with movements.

So I can say, that F9 (wide open) covers 7x17 with no movements. I've got to figure out why I'm getting a clipped corner.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Please forgive my processing. I'm trying to work my ULF tray processing out:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3729/9252062027_1c06c3f199_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9252062027/)
Adams Building #01 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9252062027/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

[Lachlan 717]

Please forgive my processing. I'm trying to work my ULF tray processing out:


Have you considered using a Jobo 28XX drum extension set?

I do most of my 7x17 in one (2 sheets at a time).

[photoevangelist]

Have you considered using a Jobo 28XX drum extension set?

I do most of my 7x17 in one (2 sheets at a time).

Yeah, I took your recommendation about 7 months back and got one for conventional films. I worked out the kinks with 5x7 film, so I think I'm ready for FP4+ and HP5+ in 7x17. Problem is: I'm using xray film which has emulsion on both sides.

[Lachlan 717]

Problem is: I'm using xray film which has emulsion on both sides.

Ouch… I see what you mean.

[Scott Davis]

I tried using the 3063 Expert drum for my 14x17 and found I had too many issues no matter what solution I tried. So I switched to tray processing 1 sheet at a time and although it's tediously slow, I couldn't be happier with my results.

[Lachlan 717]

What were the issues, Scott?

I can do three sheets of 7x17 in my 3063, so I'm guessing you we're only doing 1 at a time.

[Scott Davis]

Lachlan- the issues I had were:

- if using a sheet of 14x17 in the drum straight up, I would get lines in the negative caused by developer flow disruption from the ribs on the drum.

- I tried making an insert sheet out of a flexible plastic. The problem was positioning the film on the sheet. I made little corners to keep the film centered on the sheet, but the glue holding them on to the main sheet would inevitably dissolve and they'd come off, floating around in the drum, potentially scratching my emulsion and no longer holding the sheet in place.

- I had the best success with a tip someone gave me here, getting window insulation foam and cutting it in little squares to put at the bottom of the drum around the circumfrence and around the barrel at the height of my film. This solved the floating around problem and the scratching problem, as even if the squares became detached during processing, they weren't going to scratch my film. However, they caused a different, far more problematic flow disruption. Instead of having vertical lines running the height of the negative that were almost invisible on the film to the naked eye (but showed up rather blatantly in an alt-process print - a REALLY big deal when between the film and the print, you've just spent close to $40 to make the print!), I would have large, irregular blotchy areas of mis-development where the foam block stuck out from behind the edge of the film. In some cases I could just trim the print to crop the development flaw out of the image, but it was bad enough that it could ruin a shot where cropping would remove something else vital to the image or otherwise throw off the composition.