4x5 Lens Flare? 50% of Photos have it. Opinions?

Andrew D · Feb 12, 2018

Long-time small and medium format shooter, now befuddle and pissed at such large-scale failure.

Here are two examples of what I'm guessing are lensflare from a light used on the subject.

Each photo had a strong light, but the middle was a strobe over head (not from the side).

I have this exact issue with about 50% of my photos, but then there are great examples from the shots just either side of each of these.

Found pinhole leaks in the bellows, all patched, but the first one was patched and I had the bellows completely covered by my darkcloth when exposing.

I've begun using the darkslide to cast a shadow on the lens from the room/studio and I have the feeling this will fix it. What do you think?

Fixcinater · Feb 12, 2018

That doesn't look like lens flare to me. Looks like light leak from holder not being properly positioned on body, or more likely: development related. Did you have enough developer/fixer to cover entire film?

Doremus Scudder · Feb 12, 2018

Not lens flare. You've got light leaks. The shots looked fogged and not very uniformly, which practically eliminates the lens as the culprit. I'll bet the negatives show this clearly. Check your negatives to see if the film rebate are is fogged. If not, it's likely an in-camera problem. If so, it could be handling problems.

If it's in-camera, it's likely a bellows pinhole or a hole in the lensboard/front standard or a detached bellows, etc. that's casting a lot of diffuse light. Check again for leaks (bare bulb in the camera in a darkened room), for proper back seating, etc. If your bellows are removable, check that they are properly seated (I had similar flare when I didn't get the rear of my interchangeable bellows seated properly).

If, however, the film rebate is fogged, this could also be light strikes from loading, unloading, etc. Make sure your film handling environment is dark. If you're using a changing tent, check it for leaks. If you have a darkroom, check it (lights out, wait 15 minutes, look around from the perspective of the film). Check processing tanks/tubes for leaks too if you use them.

Don't blame the lens and stick with it. Once you get the problem sorted out, you'll get great results.

Doremus

AgX · Feb 12, 2018

At the first photograph above at center there is line division in density that extends from the backdrop part onto the head.

Patrick Robert James · Feb 12, 2018

Looks to me like you aren't using enough developer for whatever method you are using to develop the film. How are you developing it?

ic-racer · Feb 12, 2018

Lens flare adds uniform density to the shadows and reduces the subject brightness range at the film plane.
Can you show is the negatives rather than the prints? There could also be errors in the printing process causing the non-uniformity.

Andrew D · Feb 13, 2018

Thanks everyone! I appreciate the time so much.

Dev -
Paterson 3 tanks with adapters + 1,000 ml and rotate them on custom rollers (i.e., more than enough developer)

Neg-
These are all scans of the negative.

Light source -
I suspected lensflare (or some leak/bellows issue) because of the strong light source always on the bright side of the photo.

This last photo confuses me so, because the right half is so underexposed, and you can see the straight line the runs through each.

I've repaired my bellows with a fabric repair tape I had for a jacket rip. I think it may work perfectly. Gear Aid - Tenacious tape.
I'll post results once developed (I.e., when I have a moment that isn't crazy with other projects!)

chris77 · Feb 13, 2018

one observation. 3 times on the right side, once left. could it be you scanned the one negative flipped?

light leak should show denser parts on the negative resulting in light parts when printed or scanned and inversed .
this does not seem to be the case here.

which film are you using? do you have a chance to trY a new box of film?

jimjm · Feb 13, 2018

I wouldn't suspect lens flare or a light leak, based on what you've shown here. Seems like one side of the negative was either under/overdeveloped or under/overexposed. It appears to be most likely a processing issue. Do you by any chance pre-soak your film before the developer? If you do, you must also agitate as this causes the emulsion to swell and affect the activity of the developer.

Also, as a shot in the dark - your camera doesn't happen to have a focal-plane shutter, like a Speed Graphic?

MattKing · Feb 13, 2018

Andrew D said:
Neg-
These are all scans of the negative.

We know, and that is why we want to see the negatives. The intervention of the scanner makes it harder to help - especially if the problem originates with the scanner, the scanning software or the scanner operator.
If we can see a back-lighted photo of two adjacent negatives, where the space between the negatives and the numbers and letters at the edge of the negatives are visible, we can tell a lot more.

removed account4 · Feb 13, 2018

take 2 sheets of film and develop it without exposing it in the camera
develop 1 in your tank the way you are developing it, develop the other in a tray
with dektol or whatever paper developer you have shuffle it in a tray flipping it constantly
for 3 mins with stock solution ...
take 2 sheet of photo paper and put it in your film holder and take your
film holder and put it in daylight, with your lens closed put it in your camera remove dark slide
put darkslide back in, and repeat 2nd side, and develop the paper ...
if your film has a line through it or is uneven you might have problem of film storage
if your paper is fogged you have either a how your film holder seats in your camera or a film holder problem
besides looking at your bellows for a light leak ( constellations on your ceiling ) look at how your lens board seats
maybe it doesn't have a light trap ..
if the tray fllm is fine and tank film has a line its your tank ...

good luck!

Vaughn · Feb 13, 2018

If the problem is with the negatives, please show us the whole negative (that includes the rebate -- the clear area around the outside of the exposed image). Thanks. It will allow us to rule out certain possibilities and give us clues for others. Otherwise, its like someone asking you how they look without turning the lights on in a dark room. (Of course the answer is always "Beautiful!", but that does not work as well with negatives.)

AgX · Feb 14, 2018

The last photo again shows a hard step transition (at the face).

mnemosyne · Feb 15, 2018

The OP needs to show pictures of the negatives. This is relatively easy to figure out when seeing the actual negatives and a nightmare of speculation when trying to figure out what happened while looking at scans.

Also I would like to know more about "the adapter" he used to develop the sheet in a Paterson tank. MOD54?

From what I see it sure looks like a processing error (partial underdevelopment). Part of the sheets were not in full contact with the developer at all times. Possible reason is loading error with the adapter (MOD54? = two sheets sharing the same slot on one side with emulsions sides facing each other). Due to the nature of light, light leaks will not create plus densities in positive. What appears as diffuse minus densities (positive) in picture 3 could be signs of additional underfixing.

Ces1um · Feb 15, 2018

Any possibility of a flash sync issue here? Not sure if large format shutters have definite sync speeds or not.

Ian Grant · Feb 15, 2018

I think we need a lot more information, lets see images of the camera, lens, lens board.

What's this Paterson 3 tank they are very old 19650-68 before the System 4 series was introduced, followed by the Super System 4 in 1981. Do you mean a 3 reel System 4 tank if so what adapter are you using, I suspect this is a simple processing issue, while the tank's rotating on your roller the film might not be all the time. so is partially out of the developer.

Paterson tanks aren't designed for roller processing and the MOD54 if that's what you are using is supposed to be used with inversion agitation.

Ian

EdSawyer · Feb 15, 2018

leaf shutters sync at all speeds.

Arvee · Feb 15, 2018

Hmmmm...light leaks would be presenting as areas of white on your scans. The dark areas on the scans present as thin/underexposed or underdeveloped negs. If I understand correctly you are processing with the tank horizontal on rollers. How do you know the adapter is rotating a full 360 and not slipping internally as the tank rotates? I believe the adapter is supposed to be agitated by the inversion method.

Looks like a shutter issue (underexposure, if focal plane shutter is being used) or a processing problem (underdeveloped for whatever reason). Also looks very much like the 'shutter capping' I have seen in cameras that have not been used regularly. (Google 'shutter capping' for image examples.)

Ian Grant · Feb 15, 2018

Looking at the MOD54 website the 1 litre is to completely cover the reel. He's rather vague not stating Paterson System 4 tanks however it won't mater whether it's the early System 4 3 reel tank or the later Super System 4 version, they use the same volume of chemistry. He's also vague on agitation he's clearly talking about inversion agitation but really needs to state that's the case.

I'm fairly sure what's happening is the reel's not rotating as you expect, there's clear lines on some images which would seem to indicate this.

Ian

Patrick Robert James · Feb 15, 2018

This isn't a light leak problem. It is a developing problem. If you had a light leak then the negs would be dense instead of thin. Whatever you are doing, you are not getting enough developer onto the film. Your method is either flawed, or you aren't using enough developer. Try filling the tank all the way and doing inversion agitation instead of rotating it.

Arvee · Feb 15, 2018

It seems to me that the Super System 4 tank, while on its side, has somewhat of a reservoir at the cap end. While 1 liter would cover the film in the vertical position, the film would be less than fully covered in the horizontal position because some quantity of the developer is now present in the reservoir. This situation, along with the probable adapter slippage, could explain the lack of development on those particular sections of film. Just looking at the adapter, it is quite likely it is slipping internally while the tank is rotating as there is nothing to keep the adapter coupled to the tank's interior except for a small amount of contact friction. This would be easy to verify by rotating the tank with adapter inserted and funnel removed.

Eric Rose · Feb 15, 2018

Use hangers to develop your film. Fool proof.

Pioneer · Feb 15, 2018

Eric Rose said:
Use hangers to develop your film. Fool proof.

Trays usually work pretty well with less headache.

darinwc · Feb 15, 2018

In the developing reel, Is the film kept at the same distance from the center, or is it spiraled into center?

My guess is the outer part of the negative is getting more development than the center.

Put the empty reel in the tank. Fill it with 1000 ml of water (that is how much developer you are using right). Cover the top of the tank with clear plastic wrap. Turn the tank on its side. Does the water cover half the reel? When you doin the tank, does the water properly cover where the film would be?

paul ron · Mar 2, 2018

what camera are you using?
check it for light leaks using the bright light inside method but put a film holder in when testing. your film holder may not be seating properly.

4x5 Lens Flare? 50% of Photos have it. Opinions?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency