Lens flare and film halation

[Juri]

I recently purchased a decent amount of Lucky SHD100 film and developed the first roll yesterday. When scanning the negatives I noticed that some frames had intense light anomalies. I attached the examples below. First I thought it's caused by the the lack (?) of anti-halation layer of Lucky films, but as I didn't use lens hood when taking the shots, I figured it's more likely lens flare. However, I'm still wondering if the flare would have been weaker if I had used some quality film and if lens flare is somehow magnified if there is no anti-halation backing.

 

[zsas]

Is this the first time you have used the camera to take photographs? Is not, did it flare with other film stocks or is this only isolated to the Lucky film?

 

[Juri]

Is this the first time you have used the camera to take photographs? Is not, did it flare with other film stocks or is this only isolated to the Lucky film?

I've shot several rolls with the camera and they've been fine. However, this was the first time I used Helios-44-2 lens and Lucky film. I don't shoot often with bright sunlight, but on those particular frames the sun was at about 2-3 o'clock.

 

[daveandiputra]

Hi juri, that don't looks like the usual halo effect caused by the lack of anti halation layer on lucky films. Usually the glow comes when the object is bright colored. I'm more inclined to say that is caused by flares.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

There's a chance that is caused by fogging.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Did you use a lens shade?

 

[Juri]

Did you use a lens shade?

I mentioned it in the first post.

All in all, I think the flare is just a combination of a badly coated lens and sunny weather. I'll just keep shooting the Lucky and observe how it acts under different cunditions.

 

[Rick A]

I've shot a good bit of Lucky, never had this experience, must be flair.

 

[Worker 11811]

Have you eliminated the possibility that it might be fogged film?

I can't tell exactly where the light is coming from but, in my experience, flare happens more often when you are shooting directly into a bright light but it doesn't seem like there is bright light coming from the scene.

I would try shooting the same film in another camera or shooting the same film and camera with a different lens. If those two tests are inconclusive, you could try wrapping the camera in aluminum foil and gaffer's tape to seal out the light. If you have an Ever-Ready case for the camera, try using the camera inside the case.

Even if my idea is wrong, it is a simple matter to eliminate it as a possible cause.

Always try to eliminate the simple things first.

 

[MartinP]

Curiously, despite the different orientation the marks in shots two and three appear to be similar and in the same-ish place on the neg. Wouldn't that suggest some sort of leak in the camera? Possibly also combined with differing amounts of time between shots for the leak to darken the film to a different degree in the other shots.

Worker11811's idea of eliminating the light-leak possibility first might be a good one. It wouldn't need to use a whole roll as you can try a hood, or shoot from a shaded direction/location, to reduce flare on the same film - with/without hood in combination with/without camera-body blackout. Also, do the dark areas go outside the frame, on the edges of the film?

Ooops, forgot to say, I have used Lucky and there was a little halation around really contrasty bright areas, but nothing remotely like in your examples so it 'should' be something else.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I mentioned it in the first post.

Yes you did. But the Helios 44-2 is a single coated lens and has a reputation of being prone to flare. My post was therefore meant to be a rhetorical question. Perhaps I should have been clearer about my intent. If you look closely at professional photographers at work you will notice that they use a lens hood much more often than amateur photographers. When you really have to get a photograph you appreciate devices such as lenshoods.

 

[Juri]

Yes you did. But the Helios 44-2 is a single coated lens and has a reputation of being prone to flare. My post was therefore meant to be a rhetorical question. Perhaps I should have been clearer about my intent. If you look closely at professional photographers at work you will notice that they use a lens hood much more often than amateur photographers. When you really have to get a photograph you appreciate devices such as lenshoods.

I haven't had too much problems with lens flare in the past, so I haven't bothered to use a lens hood most of the time. As I believe that's exactly what caused the problem this time, I'll certainly take it more seriously. At least now I know that the film is not the culprit.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Jur1,

Good luck, other than the chance of flare this lens seems rather good. I have one but don't use it much. Mostly I now use a Bessa rangefinder.

Jerry

 

[tony lockerbie]

This amount of flare should be very obvious in the viewfinder. Just hold your hand up to shield the lens and if flare is your nemesis, then this will markedly improve the viewfinder image. The Helios is a bit prone to flare, but not outrageously so.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I remember a thread on the RRF where Brian Sweeney took a Helios-103 (a different lens) which comes with lightly blued leaves in the iris and reduced flare considerably by the simple expedient of rubbing a black marker on them and replacing the front element cluster.

He shows a before/after shot of the same scene and the reduction of flare is easily seen. Could it be this Helios suffers from the same problem?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=51076

Could be an answer for you.