Photos overly soft - film flatness?

[Bill Burk]

I've tried to measure the how parallel the front standard (if you call it that) is with the body, and yes, I can confirm that at its worst a corner can be out by about 1mm. That is assuming the body is parallel with the film plane however. So, not sure how valid a test it is.

I will also add that at certain focusing settings it appears to be more out of true than at other settings, which also supports my findings of some photos being acceptable whilst others are not.

1mm should not be significant (but it could). But when you open it, does the camera lock positively full open easily and repeatedly?

Or can the lens tilt partly open if you are not firm with it.

Polaroid 110 for example has two snap actions with the lens distance separate from the strut arms, so you have to click the struts left and right and then the base of the lens needs to snap into the focus rack.

Your issue looks like something large format photographers do deliberately with shifts to give a dreamy miniature look to scenery

 

[radialMelt]

1mm should not be significant (but it could). But when you open it, does the camera lock positively full open easily and repeatedly?

Or can the lens tilt partly open if you are not firm with it.

Polaroid 110 for example has two snap actions with the lens distance separate from the strut arms, so you have to click the struts left and right and then the base of the lens needs to snap into the focus rack.

Your issue looks like something large format photographers do deliberately with shifts to give a dreamy miniature look to scenery

The opening and closing action is smooth and precise. No real slop in the mechanism. Very positive feeling when locking. With a moderate amount of force I can indeed move the front standard a very, very little. It seems within spec to me, but then again I've not held any other examples of this camera aside from the one in question!

I had the shutter worked on prior to my holiday; perhaps the issue arose during reassembly? I suppose it could be possible. But then it doesn't explain why the problem seems intermittent. A head-scratcher for sure. I had resigned myself to sending this off to be given a once-over, but perhaps I'll try and shoot a test roll or two this weekend before doing that.

 

[Bill Burk]

And.. I have forgotten to snap the camera fully open - results are a lot like yours. And if that’s the issue just be firm and consistent opening the camera.

There “could” be a bent strut. Look for signs of non-symmetry.

 

[radialMelt]

And.. I have forgotten to snap the camera fully open - results are a lot like yours. And if that’s the issue just be firm and consistent opening the camera.

There “could” be a bent strut. Look for signs of non-symmetry.

Thanks Bill for the thoughts, definitely helpful. Unfortunately nothing seems very obviously out of alignment. The top left corner of the front standard, when viewing the camera front on, seems to be about 1mm inboard of the others at infinity, and about .5mm inboard at minimum focus distance.

Total travel of the front standard from MFD to infinity is only about 10mm. I think 1mm out is pretty significant, especially on the infinity side of things.

 

[koraks]

I don't think you can measure your way out of this one. It's really difficult to measure anything accurately on the actual optical axis by holding calipers or rulers against the body of a folder camera...
I'd really try that ground glass setup; you can do it indoors as well (I always did); I generally used a room with a window with the furthest view I had, but anything 100ft or further will work just fine. Using the indoor and outdoor parts of the scene you can experiment with focus, movements, distances etc. I bet you can reconstruct part of the problem this way.

 

[radialMelt]

I don't think you can measure your way out of this one. It's really difficult to measure anything accurately on the actual optical axis by holding calipers or rulers against the body of a folder camera...
I'd really try that ground glass setup; you can do it indoors as well (I always did); I generally used a room with a window with the furthest view I had, but anything 100ft or further will work just fine. Using the indoor and outdoor parts of the scene you can experiment with focus, movements, distances etc. I bet you can reconstruct part of the problem this way.

Yeah I have a feeling you're right. I have no way of knowing if the front of the camera body is actually parallel to the film plane; I'm probably wasting time.

I don't have any ground glass to test this out with, but I did rig it up with some parchment paper last night. Unfortunately I didn't have enough light to be able to judge anything. My eyesight is pretty poor, unfortunately, which makes it tougher. I'll give it another shot in the daylight though. I appreciate the encouragement!

 

[bernard_L]

Every one of my medium format cameras that exhibits that is due to the film rising off the pressure plate.

@ radialMelt : did you, at some point, change your routine from:
(1) extend bellows, advance film, shoot, close
to:
(2) extend bellows, shoot, advance film, close (maybe in the name of gaining a little time for the next shot)

Routine (2) carries the risk that, extending the bellows with the film already in place, the film will be sucked forward. Using routine (1), the natural curvature "inherited" by the film from the suppy spool helps keep it against the pressure plate. Plus, different film bases may have different mechanical properties in that respect.
This hypothesis does not fit with the observation:

Given the tendency towards front-focus

However, looking at image 20221203_photrio_examples-5 with the grass extending from quasi-infinity to close foreground, I find it to be nowhere in focus; no front-focus in that image at least.

Please report as to (1) versus (2).

 

[radialMelt]

@ radialMelt : did you, at some point, change your routine from:
(1) extend bellows, advance film, shoot, close
to:
(2) extend bellows, shoot, advance film, close (maybe in the name of gaining a little time for the next shot)

Routine (2) carries the risk that, extending the bellows with the film already in place, the film will be sucked forward. Using routine (1), the natural curvature "inherited" by the film from the suppy spool helps keep it against the pressure plate. Plus, different film bases may have different mechanical properties in that respect.
This hypothesis does not fit with the observation:

However, looking at image 20221203_photrio_examples-5 with the grass extending from quasi-infinity to close foreground, I find it to be nowhere in focus; no front-focus in that image at least.

Please report as to (1) versus (2).

Hey, thanks for chiming in! My routine is always (2) - extend bellows, shoot frame, advance film, and either walk around a bit and shoot more (always advanced immediately after shooting) or closing bellows and putting the camera back in the bag.

Interesting thought though. I will add this to my list of things to test. Cheers!

 

[Oldwino]

I had the shutter worked on prior to my holiday; perhaps the issue arose during reassembly? I suppose it could be possible. But then it doesn't explain why the problem seems intermittent. A head-scratcher for sure. I had resigned myself to sending this off to be given a once-over, but perhaps I'll try and shoot a test roll or two this weekend before doing that.

A longshot idea...Is it possible that the rear element's retaining ring is loose? Maybe the rear element isn't sitting snug. A little bit of movement there could have a big effect.

 

[radialMelt]

A longshot idea...Is it possible that the rear element's retaining ring is loose? Maybe the rear element isn't sitting snug. A little bit of movement there could have a big effect.

A long shot but easy enough to check! Rear element is plenty snug. Not an ounce of play. Thanks for the idea

 

[radialMelt]

I am currently looking back over the holiday photos, specifically for consecutive shots I would have taken without closing the bellows in between. Turns out I was pretty stingy with film and didn't take multiple shots of the same subject very often!

I do notice a pattern though, that the second shots appear to be a bit sharper in most cases. There are, however, cases where this is not true. Of course I do not reliably recall how I handled the camera for all these shots. Perhaps a waste of time, but definitely something to investigate with controlled testing.

 

[GregY]

Good luck finding the culprit. The several PM67 & 670s I owned were without exception...outstandingly sharp.
(670 / TMax 100 / Foma Variant)

 

[radialMelt]

Good luck finding the culprit. The several PM67 & 670s I owned were without exception...outstandingly sharp.

The occasional frame I've gotten without issue has been incredible in terms of IQ. Definitely motivating to put some money into getting it checked out. Let's just hope it doesn't need any parts replaced!

 

[radialMelt]

Good luck finding the culprit. The several PM67 & 670s I owned were without exception...outstandingly sharp.

Actually, when you had yours, did you adhere to any specific order of operations as far as extending/collapsing the bellows, and advancing the film? Along the lines of what bernard_L is speaking of in post #32. Nice shot by the way!

 

[GregY]

Thank you & no.....I never did anything special in terms of order....I just used them
BTW is this a new-to-you camera? or have you had it a while?

 

[radialMelt]

Thank you & no.....I never did anything special in terms of order....I just used them
BTW is this a new-to-you camera? or have you had it a while?

New to me camera. Bought it shortly before the holiday, which was not that long ago. It had an intermittent shutter issue that was fixed, but I didn't notice any softness until returning home and beginning the process of scanning all my photos. I shot a few rolls prior to the holiday and hadn't noticed it at all. Bit of a bummer!

 

[GregY]

No kidding. Sounds like some detective work is in order. Maybe some test rolls starting wide open. Tripod mounted to keep the subject framing the same.....then some focus at various distances. Best of luck figuring it out.

 

[radialMelt]

Thanks Greg. I'll probably just send it off and be done with it. I'm more curious than anything at this point.

I put a little more thought into the theory re: extending and collapsing the bellows being a potential source of film flatness issues. Looking back at the rolls I shot with this prior to the trip, I didn't have a single frame exhibiting such blatant softness... or any softness at all. My process for shooting the camera would have been the same then as it was during the holiday. The film stock was different, mind you (HP5 prior to holiday). Hmmm!

 

[guangong]

I really appreciate the insight, folks. I have been inspecting these captures over and over again to try and find a pattern and I am inclined to agree with your assessments. It would seem at certain focusing distances the lens is going out of alignment, which is why I am still getting the occasional acceptable shot. By my estimation it seems like the top half of the frame is what is going soft, following almost a perfect split across the middle of the frame. If I had to bet I would say this is a problem with one of the two sets of lazy tongs not working perfectly in sync with the other, tilting the front lens at certain settings.

I must have knocked something loose in all the going we did on our holiday. The first handful of rolls out of the PM670 were stunningly sharp. Thankfully I was also shooting 35mm as well, so no memories were lost or anything. I think I will send it off to the wizcam fellow in Florida and get it checked over completely. Definitely a camera worth putting some money into to keep running.

Thanks again!

That was just what I was going to say. Unlike most other folders, the Makina doesn’t have a problem with alignment due to faulty erection, but rather a lazy tongs that is pulled out. And the lens is a heavy piece of glass. When extending and contracting lens, care must be taken not to let either be too fast or forceful. Also a knock against something when lens was extended that was not noticeable. Time to send camera to Frank for a checkup.

 

[koraks]

a problem with alignment due to faulty erection

Oh boy

 

[guangong]

Where is our censor when we need him!
For many on this forum, I get the impression that a self erecting lens will be as close as it gets.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hey, thanks for chiming in! My routine is always (2) - extend bellows, shoot frame, advance film, and either walk around a bit and shoot more (always advanced immediately after shooting) or closing bellows and putting the camera back in the bag.

Interesting thought though. I will add this to my list of things to test. Cheers!

This could be it! For roll film folding cameras winding immediately before shot gives two benefits.

The film is taut and it does not have time to accumulate dust.

 

[FotoD]

For roll film folding cameras winding immediately before shot gives two benefits.

Plus you don't have to wonder if you did remember to wind the film after the last shot.

 

[glbeas]

Overall softness can also be a sign of fungus on the lens elements. Have you opened the shutter and looked through the lens with a bright light source just to one side of the view?

 

[radialMelt]

This could be it! For roll film folding cameras winding immediately before shot gives two benefits.

The film is taut and it does not have time to accumulate dust.

Overall softness can also be a sign of fungus on the lens elements. Have you opened the shutter and looked through the lens with a bright light source just to one side of the view?

All the shots I took prior to my holiday are tack sharp across the frame. My process for shooting the camera has stayed the same. Nevertheless, it is an interesting point that I think I will experiment with.

And since like I said this issue popped up during my holiday, I doubt it is fungus. Although I will have a look to be sure.

Thanks all