Photos overly soft - film flatness?

[radialMelt]

Hi all, first post here, and soliciting your opinions/advice,

Recently back from holiday where I shot almost exclusively film. Working through scanning all my negatives, I am noticing a troubling trend with many of them from my Plaubel Makina 670. That is, I am finding a number of frames where nothing seems in focus and I can't seem to conclude as to what might have caused this, hence my reaching out to the collective forum mind. I will share some high-ish res files for you to have a look at, but first let me summarize my findings so far.

- rolls from earlier in my holiday didn't exhibit the problem. It seems as if this is something that gradually started happening over the course of the trip, suggesting some kind of calibration or mechanical issue.
- however, that said, my film stock also changed from the beginning of the trip to the end. Pro 400H and Portra 400 didn't seem to have the issue. Provia 100 had a few weird frames. Ektar 100 seems to be the most affected. Coincidence perhaps... or maybe it's motion blur that I am seeing? 100 speed films necessitating slower shutter speeds I mean, thus more susceptibility to camera shake.
- scanner (nikon 9000) is not the issue. Grain on the troublesome photos is sharp. The blur/softness is in the capture.
- I had the RF calibrated prior to leaving for the trip. If it was a RF misalignment I would expect to see something sharp in the frames. Rather, it seems everything is uniform in softness.
- some frames it almost certainly seems like film flatness as objects on the same plane are sometimes in focus, and sometimes overly soft. However, I have some frames, like I said, that are entirely soft. Could the film be that loose inside?
- if it were lens board misalignment I'd expect some kind of tilt-shift effect in sharpness across the frame, which I'm not seeing.

I'm going to have to shoot some test rolls to track this down, but in the meantime I was wondering if you all could weigh in on what you think the issue might be?

Images for your review here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UJFxDlbdXrOKuC-CXJ6K_25jHicMkhT2?usp=sharing

Photos 1-2 are examples of what I would call acceptable sharpness and DoF. Photos 3-7 are soft in an odd way; I feel like if it was focusing error that at least something would be in focus. Photo 8 shows what I think is the most telltale example of film flatness issues as the rock structure on the left is sharp, but the rock structure on the right, which should be at the same distance, is not.

What do you think? Thanks in advance!

 

[radialMelt]

Could this be a result of poorly loading the film? For example if the film was a little bunched up on either end of the takeup spool? I definitely felt more confident with loading the camera at the end of the trip and paid less attention to how true the film was going on the takeup spool

 

[Sirius Glass]

Please show photographs of the negatives.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you can rule out scanner focus… I think your issue might be - as you might think - motion blur because the slower film needs longer shutter times (other things being equal).

Happened to me on a trip when I walked through a field of lupine shooting Velvia 50 at 1/60 f/5.6

I wanted the smaller f/stop for depth and picked a reasonable shutter speed “according to the rules”.

I kick myself for it all the time. I was carrying a tripod and just too lazy to set it up.

Good thing though, it’s a technique mistake you can work to eliminate next time.

 

[redbandit]

Film thickness shouldnt be an issue

Isnt Provia or Portra "very fussy on focusing and exposure settings"?

WHo did the RF calibration for you? Quick internet search for the camera says its a 120 format that is only serviced by, per ken rockwell, a company called Nippon Photo Clinic in new york.
Apparently there are 27 wires that need to be removed in order to calibrate the RF system.. and its EXPENSIVE. SO perhaps if you used a different company a wire may not b in the right spot.

Also, how long has it been since you had your eyes examined? If your eyes change enough, you can start ending up with badly focused prints that were properly focused in the view finder window

 

[Ian Grant]

There's something odd, this is Image 8 or rather part of it.

Sharper on the left and way off on the right. Too far off for a film issue, I'd be looking at something way more serious lens alignment.

Ian

 

[rcphoto]

Its probably not a film laying flat issue unless your pressure plate is weak or not applying pressure at all.

 

[FotoD]

Isn't the Plaubel a bellows camera? Are you sure your lens and film plane are aligned? Looks like front standard swing in at least one of the pictures.

I can't see any motion blur so I would look for other causes.

They don't look super sharp anywhere but I bet that is a scanner issue, not the camera.

Good luck!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The camera needs a CLA and or the lens needs to be collimated.

 

[FotoD]

They don't look super sharp anywhere but I bet that is a scanner issue, not the camera.

#1-3 show good resolution, so maybe not a scanner issue after all.

Have you looked at the blurry negs with a magnifier or microscope to see if the are sharp anywhere? That would be one way to rule out scanning issues.

 

[koraks]

If your eyes change enough, you can start ending up with badly focused prints that were properly focused in the view finder window

The Makina 67 is a rangefinder camera as you just pointed out yourself, so your "advice" here is enigmatically incoherent - and outright wrong, too.

 

[radialMelt]

Thanks for all the comments, folks. These are the sorts of things I need to think about. Much appreciated. See my responses below!

Please show photographs of the negatives.

I will try and add pics of the negs later. However, based on my inspection, the softness is in the capture.

If you can rule out scanner focus… I think your issue might be - as you might think - motion blur because the slower film needs longer shutter times (other things being equal).

Happened to me on a trip when I walked through a field of lupine shooting Velvia 50 at 1/60 f/5.6

I wanted the smaller f/stop for depth and picked a reasonable shutter speed “according to the rules”.

I kick myself for it all the time. I was carrying a tripod and just too lazy to set it up.

Good thing though, it’s a technique mistake you can work to eliminate next time.

Pretty certain it isn't the scanner. My 35mm scans are all coming out excellently sharp. I've tried 2 different 120 holders, different focusing points, and the results are the same every time. The images also seem soft in the negatives.

I'm also a little skeptical it is motion blur, but honestly I do not remember any of my settings. A lot of the images are shared were from exceptionally bright days in mid-afternoon sun. I can't imagine why I would have had anything less than 1/125 or 1/250.

Film thickness shouldnt be an issue

Isnt Provia or Portra "very fussy on focusing and exposure settings"?

WHo did the RF calibration for you? Quick internet search for the camera says its a 120 format that is only serviced by, per ken rockwell, a company called Nippon Photo Clinic in new york.
Apparently there are 27 wires that need to be removed in order to calibrate the RF system.. and its EXPENSIVE. SO perhaps if you used a different company a wire may not b in the right spot.

Also, how long has it been since you had your eyes examined? If your eyes change enough, you can start ending up with badly focused prints that were properly focused in the view finder window

Most of the soft frames are showing up on my Ektar negs. I am skeptical it is a film stock thing as well.

I could be wrong, but RF calibration is done via two screws located under the hotshoe, you don't need to remove/open the shutter etc to do this. I had the shutter cleaned up and a general check-up done by Réné at Service Camera Pro in Quebec City. He is a very well respected technician of older cameras such as this one.

Re: eyesight. It's bad haha, but I seem to manage fine with the 35mm RF, plenty of tack sharp photos. I also tend to not shoot the 670 at large apertures to reduce the challenge.

There's something odd, this is Image 8 or rather part of it.

[image #8]

Sharper on the left and way off on the right. Too far off for a film issue, I'd be looking at something way more serious lens alignment.

Ian

I really really really hope it isn't a lens-based problem. You'd think though that if it was, the soft areas would be consistent from frame to frame? Some of the frames I shared are totally out of wack, whilst others (such as #8) are only soft in one area. I guess it is possible the scissor tongs are not moving consistently, i.e., when unfolding the camera occasionally the linkage is not moving properly? Spitballing here...

Isn't the Plaubel a bellows camera? Are you sure your lens and film plane are aligned? Looks like front standard swing in at least one of the pictures.

I can't see any motion blur so I would look for other causes.

They don't look super sharp anywhere but I bet that is a scanner issue, not the camera.

Good luck!

Ugh, yeah, this is what I'm afraid of... is there a way to check the front standard alignment without specialized tools? I have some calipers here....

#1-3 show good resolution, so maybe not a scanner issue after all.

Have you looked at the blurry negs with a magnifier or microscope to see if the are sharp anywhere? That would be one way to rule out scanning issues.

I am quite certain it isn't the scanner. All my 35mm negs are scanning well, and I tried two different holders with the troublesome 120 frames with no change. The grain is also sharp in all of the scans, even if the images are soft. I do see the softness in the negs unfortunately.

 

[radialMelt]

Just took another closer look at #8's neg - softness definitely in the capture. Not the scanner. I think next steps is shooting a test roll or two to track down under what settings this is happening and then off to the tech

 

[250swb]

The photo of the winding road tells a story. Everything is soft except for the rocks in the bottom left of the picture, a bit like you'd get using narrow DOF with a tilt shift lens. So it's either the front standard that isn't square with the back, or the lens elements are askew. The story repeats in post #6 with the top left sharp and everything else soft. Given that some photos are ok I'd say it's the lazy tongs that aren't locking or have play in them.

 

[koraks]

So it's either the front standard that isn't square with the back, or the lens elements are askew.

Indeed. The former is more likely, since this is a folder camera. I think I see both tilt and swing, so the lens seems to be non-parallel with the film plane along two axes. Perhaps deformation of the extension or locking mechanism. I'd inspect that area of the camera closely, and especially look for possible play/wiggling.
Interestingly, e.g. images 2 & 3 appear to show no lateral swing problem, whereas e.g. image #8 shows it very strongly, with the plane of focus running from the semi-distant rocks left to the much closer curve in the road on the right-side of the image. This suggests that either the problem is intermittent; i.e. the lens extension mechanism isn't reliable and/or has play on it, or the problem emerged halfway during the roll.
Given the tendency towards front-focus it also appears that the lens extends further form the camera than intended, although this could also be a rangefinder calibration issue.

Fix the lens board positioning problem first, then recalibrate the RF. I'd have a close look at those swiveling arms that extend the lens board.

 

[radialMelt]

The photo of the winding road tells a story. Everything is soft except for the rocks in the bottom left of the picture, a bit like you'd get using narrow DOF with a tilt shift lens. So it's either the front standard that isn't square with the back, or the lens elements are askew. The story repeats in post #6 with the top left sharp and everything else soft. Given that some photos are ok I'd say it's the lazy tongs that aren't locking or have play in them.

Indeed. The former is more likely, since this is a folder camera. I think I see both tilt and swing, so the lens seems to be non-parallel with the film plane along two axes. Perhaps deformation of the extension or locking mechanism. I'd inspect that area of the camera closely, and especially look for possible play/wiggling.
Interestingly, e.g. images 2 & 3 appear to show no lateral swing problem, whereas e.g. image #8 shows it very strongly, with the plane of focus running from the semi-distant rocks left to the much closer curve in the road on the right-side of the image. This suggests that either the problem is intermittent; i.e. the lens extension mechanism isn't reliable and/or has play on it, or the problem emerged halfway during the roll.
Given the tendency towards front-focus it also appears that the lens extends further form the camera than intended, although this could also be a rangefinder calibration issue.

Fix the lens board positioning problem first, then recalibrate the RF. I'd have a close look at those swiveling arms that extend the lens board.

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!

 

[250swb]

Try to make it go wrong while sitting watching TV without a film in it, think of how you've been using it and what may have happened and try and replicate it. Maybe you just got complacent and thought it was locked when it wasn't, either way knowledge is power and you could find it doesn't really need fixing but how you use it needs fixing. Good luck.

 

[redbandit]

Try to make it go wrong while sitting watching TV without a film in it, think of how you've been using it and what may have happened and try and replicate it. Maybe you just got complacent and thought it was locked when it wasn't, either way knowledge is power and you could find it doesn't really need fixing but how you use it needs fixing. Good luck.

But at the same time, this is one reason why folding cameras DIED out in the world. for medium and 135.

 

[ic-racer]

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

Try different films and expect the first frame after prolonged sitting to be bad (assuming you leave the camera uncocked)

Rollei pretty much finally cured that with the Hy6, but the film back itself cost over $1000.

 

[GregY]

But at the same time, this is one reason why folding cameras DIED out in the world. for medium and 135.

They still make folding view cameras . All laughing aside....Mamiya 6, Fuji GF670 &
Plaubel Makina 67/670 are very much alive and in use. Damage can happen to any camera....but these 3 are excellent MF machines.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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

There's hope for reverse-curl film holders (my Pentax 67 and Mamiya 7 don't suffer from bulges). If one can learn to love a film that's coated on polyester base, the problem disappears. I've "wasted" two roll of Bergger Pancro 400, which is too grainy for me in medium format, putting them through my 6x7 Horseman VH and Linhof Rapid Rollex holders. No "set" taken and no bulging toward the lens. Perfectly flat. Kodak started coating 120 Gold 200 on polyester. Now if only its other 120 films, and Ilford's, would transition to polyester. Fingers crossed.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok folding camera! If you set it open does the front look any bit out of parallel ? The amount that would cause what you see should be really obvious.

Maybe you don’t always open it the same way.

For example you could examine it by taking a couple stacks of books and lay a ruler over them and open the camera and look at the parallelism

 

[radialMelt]

Ok folding camera! If you set it open does the front look any bit out of parallel ? The amount that would cause what you see should be really obvious.

Maybe you don’t always open it the same way.

For example you could examine it by taking a couple stacks of books and lay a ruler over them and open the camera and look at the parallelism

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.

 

[koraks]

In a case like this, I put the camera on a tripod, open the back, tape/hold a piece of ground glass/plexiglass against the film gate, open te lens and observe. It's basically a mini view camera this way. You might try wiggling the front stand a bit to see what effect it has. This can help getting clarity on where to find (and solve) the cause of the problem.

 

[radialMelt]

In a case like this, I put the camera on a tripod, open the back, tape/hold a piece of ground glass/plexiglass against the film gate, open te lens and observe. It's basically a mini view camera this way. You might try wiggling the front stand a bit to see what effect it has. This can help getting clarity on where to find (and solve) the cause of the problem.

Yeah I plan on giving that shot. Just need some time when I can get outside on a bright day!