What went wrong with Ikonta?

[Malice]

Good Day
Some time ago I have bought Ikonta 520/2 folder in very good shape (almost perfect Dominar lens). I’ve decided to do short test and I’ve used Ilford Pan F Plus 50. When I have recieved developed film and contact print I’ve been disappointed. From 8 photos most are simply too dark. Here is sample (sorry, cheap office skan) First one is so-so (but still to dark), secong IMO quite good, third one too dark for sure. Well it loooks better on film, more details in shadows.

I don’t rememebre when (last time) I’ve ruined B&W frame. And I think, I've never ruined most frames from one film (OK, as a child maybe...). So, no idea what went wrong. Shutter works well, according to CLA specialist. Guy from the lab said, that I’ve used wrong film for this type of camera, too contrasty, Is it true, that it was wrong choice for old folder? I have used Rollei Retro 80 with Agfa Synchro Box and results were quite good. Much better than with Ikonta. Here is sample:

I think it's nice, for cheap box camera.

 

[Ian Grant]

I suspect it's your exposures, it looks like bright skies and then the buildings where dark are in the shadows. The old adgae is expose for the shadows develop for the highlights.

You need to tell us how you are metering.

Ian

 

[Malice]

I suspect it's your exposures, it looks like bright skies and then the buildings where dark are in the shadows. You need to tell us how you are metering.Ian

There was no bright sky that day, when all "dark" photos were made.Only clouds and no high contrast.
I must say, I'm "TTL metering addicted" not very good with external meters. I'm back to medium format after many years with color films and 24x36 SLR. I have simple Sekonic and usually take readings from grass, tree trunk, wall... not in bright light, not in deep shadow. Average. Made some films recently with Flex and P.six and I'm OK with results. This Ikonta was first serious failure.

 

[Jim Noel]

Definitely a problem with under exposure.

 

[baachitraka]

Pan F don't tolerate bad exposure.

 

[mudfly9]

In my experience, the old fashioned, slow, high contrast films suit old cameras much better; after all, they were designed around the same time! Uncoated lenses have much lower contrast so you tend to get pretty good results on a contrasty film like Pan F+. The only problem I've had is with old shutters being slow and thus overexposing, but this is the opposite of the problem you're having here.

 

[Chan Tran]

I am not familiar with the camera but I guess it doesn't have a meter. Your problem is with exposure so there is nothing wrong with the Ikonta.

 

[Ian Grant]

There was no bright sky that day, when all "dark" photos were made.Only clouds and no high contrast.
I must say, I'm "TTL metering addicted" not very good with external meters. I'm back to medium format after many years with color films and 24x36 SLR. I have simple Sekonic and usually take readings from grass, tree trunk, wall... not in bright light, not in deep shadow. Average. Made some films recently with Flex and P.six and I'm OK with results. This Ikonta was first serious failure.

The under exposed shots show it's the direction of the light. The shadows areas are deeper than you think even on fairly dull days.It may just be coincidence that you had poorer results from the Ikonta. The first shot the gravel looks reasonable well lit nut the building isn't. You need to look at how your metering.

Ian

 

[mnemosyne]

There was no bright sky that day, when all "dark" photos were made.Only clouds and no high contrast.
I must say, I'm "TTL metering addicted" not very good with external meters. I'm back to medium format after many years with color films and 24x36 SLR. I have simple Sekonic and usually take readings from grass, tree trunk, wall... not in bright light, not in deep shadow. Average. Made some films recently with Flex and P.six and I'm OK with results. This Ikonta was first serious failure.

It's simple. If the negative shows enough shadow detail, the contact prints are too dark. If the negative shows thin shadows, than the camera exposure was wrong. And I agree that a slow, contrasty film with a tendency to burn highlights is not the best choice with an old folder, especially when you are not in control of development.

 

[Svenedin]

I use old folders including several Ikontas both pre-war and post-war. I have never had results that I am happy with using Pan-F. In fact, I just don't get on with Pan-F even with more modern cameras. I would suggest a more forgiving film such as Delta 100 or FP4. The FP4, being an older type emulsion is probably more in keeping with the camera. As for metering, a very cheap solution, that has worked well for me, is one of the smartphone apps that can spot meter in the shadows. Old un-coated lenses do better with a lens hood in bright sun. I also use a light yellow filter almost all the time outdoors (needs exposure correction, for a 2x filter usually +1 stop but worth experimenting with bracketed exposures).

Try FP4 next time and take 3 shots of each subject. One at what you think is the correct exposure and +1 and -1 stop. Keep a note of what you did for each frame.

PS Are you sure you are correctly setting the aperture as well as the shutter speed? It is fiddly on the 520.

 

[Dali]

With uncoated lens, I always slightly under-expose (less than 1 stop) and over-develop (+20% dev. time) to get normal negs. At least, it works fine with my prewar FED.

 

[Malice]

I don’t blame camera itself. OK, maybe my first post suggested that. I think my mistake was, that I’ve tried to kill two birds with one stone. Unfamiliar camera test and unfamiliar fim test. Right, I should rather use 100 film instead of Ilford 50. And better metering, meter for shadows and higlights separately, then calculate exposure. The problem is, that with those old cameras there is little choice. Three shutter/time settings.

 

[Svenedin]

Try FP4+ which is ISO 125. Ideally spot meter the shadows and use that exposure. Try bracketed exposures. Yes you have limited aperture/shutter speed options so choose the nearest setting erring towards overexposure. If you underexpose your film the detail just isn't there on the negative. If you overexpose a bit you can get away with that. Film has more latitude for overexposure than under.

 

[HiHoSilver]

I'm paying attention here. 'Been happy w/ old, uncoated S.I., but have only used HP5 w/ it. I appreciate your thoughts, gents.

 

[Svenedin]

Hello HiHo. Nice to see you on this thread. Know you like the old Zeiss glass! Me too. Nothing wrong with HP5 but probably too fast for the OP in Summer with limited exposure options on his camera.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

It's simple. If the negative shows enough shadow detail, the contact prints are too dark. If the negative shows thin shadows, than the camera exposure was wrong. And I agree that a slow, contrasty film with a tendency to burn highlights is not the best choice with an old folder, especially when you are not in control of development.

+1