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

Dan Daniel · Feb 27, 2019

albireo said:
Xenar lens (a simpler design than your Tessar)

The Xenar is the same basic design as the Tessar.

albireo · Feb 27, 2019

Apologies - my bad - edited the original post

Kodachromeguy · Feb 27, 2019

albireo said:
. For reference, my Rolleicord with a spotless Xenar lens (a simpler design than your Tessar) .

Wrong! The Xenar is a similar 4 element lens to the Tessar.

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 27, 2019

What kind of film? I wonder if it's halation? Does it happen with other brands of film?

abruzzi · Feb 27, 2019

I think he said Portra 400 which shouldn't have halation effects. If it was Cinestill 800, then I'd expect it.

The other thing, to my eye the image looks very high contrast (I've never shot Portra 400, so I could be wrong.) Maybe its the scene, but I'd expect softer rendering. Maked me wonder about the scanning, or if the exposure was off and the scanning is compensating for under or over exposed film (another reason to see the actual negatives to know whether the exposure looks correct.)

BMbikerider · Feb 27, 2019

I would go down the path of the lens needing a good and thorough internal cleaning. Yes you may be able to take the lens apart yourself but I personally advise against it - lenses are delicate and easily upset if you are not competently trained. It may be a good time as ever to have a full service on the camera because the 3.5A is a very old camera (made between 1951 and 1954 also called the a Rollieflex Automat) and any lubrication in the internal workings will have long outlived it's purpose. (due to it's age the lens coating will be very basic and no where up to current standards|) After a service, it will be like a new camera.

shutterfinger · Feb 27, 2019

Dan Daniel said:
The Xenar is the same basic design as the Tessar.

Kodachromeguy said:
Wrong! The Xenar is a similar 4 element lens to the Tessar

From A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum:
Xenar This was a Q15 type made in a variety of apertures for all sizes of camera. It was and is a high quality
lens, especially used in large format cameras
Xenar f3.5 35, 50, 70, 75, 105, 120, 135, 150-300mm. This covers 55° (Sc005) and seems to be
sold from 1934 (B.J.A. 1935, p303) for 35mm at No 676,6xx, and some of these may be coded 'Retina f3.5'.
Post WWII
Xenar f3.5 50, 75, 105, 135, 150, 180, 210, 240mm It is still a 4-glass Q15 lens. One version to
note is the f3.5 75mm for Alpa, eg at No3,881,44x, 4,655,80x and 4,655,83x.
It was used as a f3.5/75mm lens on the Rolleicord cameras, eg Model II about 1950, at first as a alternative
to the Zeiss Triotar, but later, Xenar was the only lens fitted. It was also fitted to the period Rolleiflex
Automat as a alternative to the Tessar.

http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/automat.shtml
the term Automat was first used in 1937.

shutterfinger · Feb 27, 2019

The other lens used on Rollei TLR are Zeiss Tessar either from the Jena factory or the Oberkochen factory. No design distinction is made between the two other than the trim ring.
The early Zeiss Tessar design is Zei020 and the later design is Zei 041.

The Vade has this to say:
Rolleiflex TLR
The Tessar was the standard Rolleiflex lens for many years, first as the top of the line and later on the Rolleiflex T, which became the super-budget version. The last were assembled in 1970 for the UK MoD but by then Zeiss were unwilling to supply further lenses and production was made up of 3,500 Tessars from stock and 2,500 Xenars from Schneider. (See Ian Parker) (Among many Rollei users, is included R. Avedon in the USA).
Tessar f3.5 75mm for Rolleiflex.
Later they were extended in choice with Planar f2.8 and f3.5 [and Schneider Xenotar f2.8 and f3.5 lenses].

Diffraction · Feb 28, 2019

Thanks for the new comments everyone.

So, some new interesting things. I picked up the negatives today and although I am hardly an expert, the negative of the image I posted looks pretty good to my eye, and I can't see any of the blooming problems that bothered me about the scan.

Digging a little more, I think that the local lab I have been using has a pretty decent 35mm scanner (Fuji SP-500), but that one doesn't do 120 as far as I can tell. I am really wondering whether they are using some much lower-quality scanner for the larger negatives. Like abruzzi, I have been pretty puzzled by how contrasty the Portra shots have looked, which adds to my questions about the scanning.

I'm planning to go to another lab today which has the SP-3000, which I hear good things about. Hopefully they'll be able to scan the negatives. I'm definitely considering getting my own scanner, but hopefully this will be a start.

I still have 12 days to make up my mind about the return, but I really am starting to think the scanning may be the main problem here. Sharpness hasn't been amazing but some scans are all right. I'll keep you posted about the new scans!

EDIT: I've dropped off the negatives at the new place. They're pretty expensive, but I'm OK with that if the results are much better.

StepheKoontz · Mar 6, 2019

Diffraction said:
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.

Set aperture wide open, hold shutter open and shine an LED flashlight from both directions through the lens and look for hazy lens surfaces. My experience dust and "some" scratches don't really have much effect. Haze on the other hand, even a light haze, will kill the performance. Most of these old lenses can be cleaned up to work fine.

Diffraction · Mar 17, 2019

Hey everyone,

So I got my scans back a while ago, sorry for the lack of updates. Definitely I think the Frontier scans look much nicer. Here's the re-scanned version of the original image:

Scanning comparison on Flickr

The Frontier is on the left, and the old scan I posted is on the right. The Frontier maybe isn't perfect but to my eyes looks much better. So I'm inclined to say that most problems here were just a result of the scanner.

BMbikerider · Mar 17, 2019

I tend to agree looking at the newer version. The very bright highlights of the sides of the bridge was shall we say a bridge too far for the dynamic range of the original scanner

albireo · Mar 17, 2019

Diffraction said:
The Frontier is on the left, and the old scan I posted is on the right. The Frontier maybe isn't perfect but to my eyes looks much better. So I'm inclined to say that most problems here were just a result of the scanner.

I agree. And you'd do even better, with an Epson, Vuescan, and a decent workflow (you'd rescue some of those shadows).

I was amazed at how much better my home scans (Epson V550) were than the scans I got from Peak Imaging or AG photographic (you appear to be from the UK, you'll know these two pro labs)

AgX · Mar 17, 2019

Guys be aware, this is a analog-only forum.

shutterfinger · Mar 17, 2019

AgX said:
Guys be aware, this is a analog-only forum.

Yes, but youse still has to use the electronic image medium to get the image here so it can be evaluated and the trouble source identified. If'n youse has a problem with this then I suggest youse throw ayay all your electronic devices and go back to the cruder ways where you can stumble and fumble more.

Diffraction said:
The Frontier is on the left, and the old scan I posted is on the right. The Frontier maybe isn't perfect but to my eyes looks much better. So I'm inclined to say that most problems here were just a result of the scanner

NOW if you really want to see the difference betwen the lab scans open each in a Photo Editing Program and see how much adjustment latitude there is without having the deep shadows go black or the highlight block up into a white blob.

AgX · Mar 17, 2019

13 out of 38 posts had it about scanning. Time enough to have the issue evaluated at another forum.

shutterfinger · Mar 17, 2019

Matter of opinion. The photo was being discussed and the problem was the electronic rendering of the negative.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency