Is there a problem with my Rolleiflex? Weird blooming effect.

[Diffraction]

Hi there,

I recently bought a Rolleiflex 3.5A off ebay for a good price and just shot the first roll. I have mixed feelings, but am happy to put it down mostly to being inexperienced with TLRs, suboptimal metering, and maybe not being a big fan of the film I used. However, there is a particular artifact I'm a little bothered about. I'd love to know your opinion of whether this is normal with film, or there is some kind of problem with my camera.

Here's a full-sized photo showing the issue:

What I'm concerned about is the weird "blooming" effect around the bright part of the bridge. Here's a close up:

Could this just be a result of an overexposure (I used a phone app to meter and am not sure I trust it)? Or does this indicate some problem with the lens?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

 

[pthornto]

I am not sure I see your issue. Perhaps this is some overexposure. Could you share the film and exposure if you remember it? Also how the film was scanned? TLRs benefit especially from lens hoods. The amount of light coming off of the bright bridge could be causing a bit of flare?

 

[JensH]

Hi,

hmm, internal fog in the lens?
Are all lens elements clean?

 

[Kino]

What film did you use? Slide? Negative? How did you scan it?

Basic information for anyone to make an educated guess must be given...

You can also open the back of the camera, put the shutter on "B" for Bulb and go to a window with bright direct sunlight. Place a dark colored object below the window sill and point the lens at this target. Fire and hold down on the shutter and look at the taking lens to see of you have any internal fogging of the lens elements.

 

[shutterfinger]

Over exposure or a poor scan. The water and support walls look to be correct which is 1 to 1 1/2 stops over the brightest part of the bridge.
Film used, type of the scan will help verify these assumptions.
Sunny 16 can help weed out a bad portable stupid high speed switch device with built in camera and Alexander's nuance device reading.
A picture of the negative on a light box will be even better. A blank text document full screen can be substituted for a light box.

 

[summicron1]

I assume this is a scan? I really don’t see what you are talking about either, but poor quality scans can make even the best image look like crap — i deal with this on a regular basis with by canoscan 9000F, which does a pretty good job, but at best is perhaps 50 perrcent as good as a wet print from my darkroom. It’s very dispiriting to see a Leica or Rolleiflex image come out looking bad when scanned, but then make a print and discover wonders.

ALSO — you don’t say what the exposure was, but a very small lens opening in bright light — f 22 — can sometimes cause a little refraction where the light actually bends around the edges of the diaphragm in your shutter while passing through the lens, causing a slight halo. This is physics,— the laws of nature are strictly enforced — is magnified at small lens openings because the distorted light is most of what gets through, and is why lens makers actually don’t advise to use the smallest lens opening.

Try a faster shutter speed, shoot images at about f 5.6 or f8, choose some lower contrast subjects, and see how those look. If the problem persists, then come back.

 

[sissysphoto]

A question like this makes me wonder about the user's knowledge of vintage cameras. My first guess would be how good of condition is the lens in. I'm willing to bet that a close examination of the lens would show that it has all the clarity of crumpled cellephane.These Rolleiflexes make their rounds of buyers and sellers, but nobody is making spare parts. As an analogy, if this were a vintage radio, you would replace the filter capacitors as a matter of course. The lenses on the cameras are about the same in importance. But you can't order a new Planar or Xenotar replacement, like you can order new capacitors. And they're all about as dead as the original capacitor cans in old radios. Disappointing, really. It doesn't matter how well restored the mechanics of the camera body is restored and calibrated if the lens is dead, which it most likely is in an old Rolleiflex. I already know your problem.

 

[Diffraction]

Thanks for the comments everyone!

Apologies for my lack of information, and for being generally naive about vintage cameras and how to inspect them. Thank you to Kino for the suggestion about inspecting the lens; I will give that a go once I finish off the roll currently in the camera.

As for the questions:
- This was a scan made by the photo lab which developed the film. I've had good experiences with 35mm development with them, and they generally give the impression of being knowledgable. From the image metadata, it looks like they used a Noritsu scanner. I wonder if they struggle scanning 120 film, I guess that's a possibility.
- The film I used was Kodak Portra 400. So it's a negative film.
- summicron1, thanks for the hint about small apertures. I'm afraid I don't remember the exact aperture, but it was very bright and I may have used f16, so perhaps this was a factor.

I am encouraged by the suggestion that this may simply be due to overexposure / lens flare. At least perhaps there is nothing strikingly obvious that's off, then. I will see how the other films come out, and keep you posted about whether I can isolate any issues. I've also ordered a light meter which hopefully will help to rule out exposure problems in the future.

 

[shutterfinger]

Portra 400 has a wide exposure latitude. The lab scan, your phone metering or/both was based on the under bridge area not the bridge railing.

If the taking lens is not crystal clear then the cells need to be removed and the internal surfaces cleaned. I have serviced several Automats and Rolleicords over the last year or so and all their lens cleaned up nicely so unless a previous owner cleaned it with a tee shirt they were wearing repeatedly and its scratched then the lens should be fine with a good cleaning. A camera of that vintage will benefit from a lens shade in bright sun.
Its also possible for the scene brightness range exceeded the latitude of the film.
Film is film, light is light, neither one matter which format is in use as their characteristics remain the same.

 

[ic-racer]

If the taking lens is not crystal clear then the cells need to be removed and the internal surfaces cleaned.

+++

 

[guangong]

Always, always use a lens shade. Asa 400 film on a sunny day with a leaf shutter? If you like this combo get an adapter for sm to Rollei mt and use an ND filter in order to get a more reasonable aperture reading.
I suspect it’s either overexposure from faulty metering technique or from high f stop or even a combination.
I would try more experimentation with film, filters and light measurements before rushing to drastic repair procedures.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Put one of the 120 negatives on a piece of white paper next to a 35mm negative that has given you a good scan, under a bright light. I bet you'll see immediately that the 120 film is noticeably darker. Maybe not significantly darker but enough to push the highlights to the edge of the scanner's dynamic range.

The statement that almost all old Rollei lenses are defective is, well, a defective statement in my experience.

 

[removedacct1]

The statement that almost all old Rollei lenses are defective is, well, a defective statement in my experience.

Agreed.

I bet there is some internal haze in the lens, likely on the inner surface of one or both groups: clean them.
The negative is likely overexposed in the highlight areas that are splaying light about.
Lab scans are notoriously mediocre, so its also likely that the scan the lab did is fairly poor: doing a scan yourself, you could likely have tamed that flaring of the highlights.
If you do not yet have a lens shade, then get one.

I expect the issue is a combination of factors that cumulatively gave you the result you see. Start by cleaning the inner surfaces of the lens groups, both front and back, and I expect you will see an improvement. Be more precise with metering, and get a lens shade too. The lens itself is not at fault, you simply found its limitations. All lenses, both heirloom and modern, have their limitations.

 

[Bill Burk]

Looked at some completed eBay listings and saw one where the buyers initials are s***r. If that's you. The seller's description tells of some cleaning damage. That would be scratches on the front or back of the lens and that could lead to the effect you are showing us.

They also say the taking lens is clean and clear. Well maybe it isn't really clean and clear.

Learn to embrace this image artifact, and take pictures where the look adds to the charm of your photography.

I once discarded a Rolleiflex because it did something like this to my pictures (and I regret that now), before I learned how in some cases the look is appealing.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I want to offer an alternate opinion. I think this might be a scanning issue. I have seen this type of blooming from:
1. jpeg artifacts
2. Jitter or friction in the carriage of the scanner
3. Sharpening done by the scanner software (always scan unsharpened and sharpen with a package like Photoshop afterwards).
But it certainly may be a lens issue. Sorry, we just do not have enough information now to diagnose.

 

[Kino]

From what I see of the scan, if you do have internal haze, it is very light. Just looks like the scene was over exposed a bit and the scanner tried to average the scene and pushed the highlights up too high.

The scanner, depending on how it's built and maintained, could also be suffering from a light internal haze in the optical path.

 

[shutterfinger]

The taking lens used on this camera is a Tessar design. This is a generic diagram for the Tessar design, each manufacturer's design may vary slightly in actual curvature of the elements.

Light travels the direction of the arrow. The | is the position of the aperture and shutter blades. The front pair are air spaced. The inner surfaces are accessed by unscrewing the trim ring at the front of the lens, easier said than done. The rear pair are cemented and if cloudy they will have to be recemented, much easier said than done.

The front pair unscrew from the shutter and will require the removal of the front cover of the camera. The rear pair unscrews from the shutter and requires a spanner to unscrew it through the rear of the camera.

 

[Diffraction]

Well, I'm officially an idiot. The seller's description said:

There are some tiny dust inside.
There are thin haze on front lens of shooting lens.
There is No fungus.
There are few very thin wipe scratch on front lens of shooting lens.
There is No balsam separation.

I suppose this might be a result of the thin haze. I thought it wouldn't be a big deal, but obviously I was being stupid.

I'm wondering now. I can get the camera serviced here (for about half the price I paid for it), and I also have some days left to return the camera. Would you expect this to clear up with a standard CLA, or is this a sign of lots of trouble to come -- or impossible to say?

Thanks again everyone for your expertise and detailed comments!

EDIT: When I was buying I was actually most concerned about this part:
Aperture blades have a little oil.

 

[sissysphoto]

It s

Well, I'm officially an idiot. The seller's description said:

There are some tiny dust inside.
There are thin haze on front lens of shooting lens.

I suppose this might be a result of the thin haze. I thought it wouldn't be a big deal, but obviously I was being stupid.

I'm wondering now. I can get the camera serviced here (for about half the price I paid for it), and I also have some days left to return the camera. Would you expect this to clear up with a standard CLA, or is this a sign of lots of trouble to come -- or impossible to say?

Thanks again everyone for your expertise and detailed comments!

It has haze on FRONT of lens. Taking that to mean the "haze" is on the very front surface of the front element, then it's not "haze" if you can't clean it off. Just as I suspected based on my own old Rolleiflex that insprired me to make my first post. I'm betting that it's not a haze that can be cleaned off, but rather microfracturing of the coating combined with etching of the glass.I wouldn't waste another second on this turkey if I could send it back. Regards.

 

[Bill Burk]

That looks like a pretty clean camera, I don't think it's the lens anymore.

 

[shutterfinger]

For lens cleaning I find my breath and a clean microfiber lens cleaning cloth https://www.adorama.com/procpmdcl.html , https://www.adorama.com/cpcml.html . Microdear heavyweight are the best, don't waste your money on the thin ones or eye wear cloths. This combo has removed heavy and light haze that window cleaner, lens cleaners, and lens tissues would not faze.

And, congratulations, you have found where a slight haze on a lens affects image quality.

Fine cleaning marks aka cleaning wisps on the front element rarely affect image quality, on the rear element they're more likely to affect image quality. I have seen haze on the outside of the front element of shelf queens.

 

[Diffraction]

Thanks everyone, so cool to have such an active online community!

Bill, that's good to hear. And shutterfinger, same! I'll pick up one of these cleaning cloths and give it a go. I'm a bit more optimistic regarding the other two films I shot now; I'll keep you posted about how they come out. Thanks also @sissysphoto, though I'm hoping the more optimistic opinions turn out to be right.

 

[shutterfinger]

But that image of the negative on a light table is still missing. I'm betting the bridge rail is very dense which the scanner set to auto at the lab stumbled on. I have several negatives that give fine art gallery quality prints with little burning or dodging but are PITA to deal with in digital processing.

 

[Diffraction]

But that image of the negative on a light table is still missing. I'm betting the bridge rail is very dense which the scanner set to auto at the lab stumbled on. I have several negatives that give fine art gallery quality prints with little burning or dodging but are PITA to deal with in digital processing.

Thanks shutterfinger. I haven't yet picked up the negatives from the shop (they put the scans online), but I will and it'll be really interesting to take a look.

 

[albireo]

Hi, I would return it if I were you. I see exactly what the problem is and I don't see why you have to live with it. For reference, my Rolleicord with a spotless Xenar lens (same optical design as your Tessar) will routinely give me much sharper pictures than the one you link above. Not trying to brag, just to say you could do much better with a Tessar devoid of haze and/or scratches.

Also: if you're serious about medium format, I'd recommend you skip the 'professional scanning' and do your own scanning. Even professional labs do, in my experience, generally a really poor job at scanning. I was about to give up on MF photography entirely when I still was using Noritzu scans from the two of the main UK pro labs. Burnt highlights, emphasized grain, scanner noise, a mess. Your image above has some of the signatures I used to detest from those scans. Long story short, I bought a humble Epson V550 flatbed and after a learning curve I get fantastic scans. Canoscan 9000f also good.