Automat MX flare?

[disco2000]

Just received my BGN grade Rolleiflex Automat from KEH a few days back, ran through a roll of b&w and found some flare in my shots (I suspected it may be a light leak, but doesn't seem to be occurring in all the shots in the same spot).

The taking lens does have some cleaning marks, but is it pretty typical to get this kind of flaring?
I am probably gonna pick up a hood, anyone got experience with the cheap bay 1 hoods on ebay?

 

[jmcd]

Is that with a Tessar or Xenar? Neither is prone to flare, as compared to the Planar/Xenotar. Still, I use a hood.

I am wondering how your lens looks for clear. Perhaps open the back, and with the shutter open, peer through while looking into a light, or shining a light through.

 

[farlymac]

Sure looks like a flare instead of a light leak. Could be haze on the elements. The pictures don't look like you were directly shooting into the sun, and the first shot is really washed out in the light areas of the background.

PF

 

[Steve M.]

Not sure what you have there, but those shots look like they came from an uncoated Tessar that was used w/o a hood.

You might want to put the shutter on Bulb and shine a bright light through the lens and ck for haze or fungus w/ a magnifying glass.

 

[disco2000]

It's the Opton Tessar version, the lens is nice and clean except for small cleaning marks (like specks) on the front element. However what I did notice was some strange bits along the edges of the taking lens, but I think that's just reflections of the outer edges of the element, as I can't see it from the rear side of the lens and only from certain angles at the front. (I've attached a picture, anyone else got something like this going on?)
http://i54.tinypic.com/23sykvt.jpg


The washed out-ness in the second one is probably because it was a backlit scene (With the sun being where the flare is, but yeah the second one kind of puzzles me since it was shot in the shade.
I've just finished going through a roll of slides, so hopefully that gives me a better sense of what it is.

 

[disco2000]

one more shot, shot in the shade. doesn't seem to have any flaring issues..

Also, if it were fungus/haze, would it affect sharpness as well? Here's 100% crop without any sharpening, and it looks plenty sharp to me..

Hmm upon further examination, I found a little chip (?) inside the taking lens
Surely this may have something to do with the flare? I guess I'll try emailing KEH to see what can be done, although I should probably wait until I get the slides developed until I make the judgment..

 

[archeophoto]

Just a thought:
How did you scan the image? From the negative or print? Some scanners create flaring like this from negatives or slides if the image is not flat. Some cheaper Scanners also create effects like this on high contrast areas.

 

[disco2000]

The scans are negatives on a flatbed scanner, it looks like the flare is in the negative as well, but I can't really tell so I guess I'll try printing a contact sheet

thanks for the tip!

 

[sevo]

A chip in the lens will flare much less than even traces of fogging - if any, it will show as ghosts in stopped down contre-jour shots. But it probably indicates that the lens was incorrectly assembled in some repair.

 

[VictorM.]

Another source of flare is the inside of the camera body. The earlier version of the MX does not have interior baffles. Light can bounce around and give the look of your second photo. There's not much to be done about the lack of interior baffles. But check the lens with a strong light source-the overall flare does look like it is caused by haze.

On a positive note, the camera seems to work well despite its 'bgn' rating. The lens is easily cleaned by a tech, if necessary.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Another source of flare is the inside of the camera body. The earlier version of the MX does not have interior baffles. Light can bounce around and give the look of your second photo. There's not much to be done about the lack of interior baffles. But check the lens with a strong light source-the overall flare does look like it is caused by haze.

On a positive note, the camera seems to work well despite its 'bgn' rating. The lens is easily cleaned by a tech, if necessary.

I have an old prewar 3.5 Automat with an uncoated Tessar and it also has the old style interior with no baffles. It flares pretty bad in certain lighting conditions and the look is just like what the original poster showed in his examples. I think he's just seeing the normal look from these ancient Rolleis.

 

[disco2000]

Just got the slides back, no sign of flare anywhere so I guess I just need to avoid flary situations/use a hood..
Sharpness looks good too through a loop, I will try scanning tomorrow to see if there's anything else I can find.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The old Tessar lens on those cameras is VERY sharp. Mine was made in 1938 and beats nearly every modern lens I have used for sharpness but not flare, lol

 

[p.giannakis]

Just a thought:
How did you scan the image? From the negative or print? Some scanners create flaring like this from negatives or slides if the image is not flat. Some cheaper Scanners also create effects like this on high contrast areas.

What an interesting threat this is. A week ago i started a forum about cleaning marks on my Ikoflex Ib (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96887). When i am scanning the negatives on my epson perfection 1650 i get low contrast like your pictures.
I found the cd with the scans from the lab which developed the films. Guess what.... no flare on the scans....

 

[jbielikowski]

thats why I'm always scanning the wrong side of negative.

old Rolleis are flare monsters, try to shoot it contre-jour w/o hood 😉