Is this fogging or flare?

[ywenz]

Shot a test roll with my M6+50 Cron (current edition). The artifact is in the middle of the frame. I don't remember my cron being this prone to flare... so I'm afraid it is some type of fogging.. What do you think?

BTW, I also suspected fogging with images from my CV 35mm lens. However with that lens, the foggy area was on the right side of the image..

Also, since when did my 50-cron become soo prone to flare!? The B&W shot was made a few years ago, and the color one was from last weekend(an overcast day). Does the flare in the color one look right to you?

 

[ywenz]

Looks like this guy has the same problem with the same lens..

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Rwn&tag=

 

[rogue_designer]

any of your other lenses (aside from the Cron and the CV35) give such flare? I'm trying to narrow down if it's a camera body, or lens issue.

Both of these do have strong white sky/backlight - suggesting veiling flare. But the cron, as far as I know is not usually prone to such. Bum lens?

 

[ywenz]

Here is another foggy image to chew on.. what gives?

 

[venchka]

Is it possible that this was an environmental thing? Like actual weather induced fog, aka condensation?

 

[motosacto]

This is a really dumb question, but the lens surfaces are clean, right?

I recently got some images with a similar blob of flare, and it turned out to be an ugly smudge on the front surface of the lens.

I cleaned the lens and the flare went away.

 

[rogue_designer]

curious too - are these scans from prints? or scans of negs? Did you do the scans? or the processor?

I'm wondering if they could be screwing with it to try and mitigate contrast. (ie. the kodak seal of we'll mess with your prints to justify our markup)

 

[ywenz]

The roll was bot processed and scanned at Target

 

[Toby]

I'd check the rear element for thumb prints that would have a far greater effect than a mark on the front element

 

[ferider]

I am quoting Brian Sweeney (from a Flickr discussion):

"There was a discussion on this at Photo.net several years ago, and an "assertion" was made that the flare in the Summicron was a reflection off the inside of the lens barrel after the rear element. The poster stated that they eliminated this using a baffle inserted into the barrel. I've had a shot or two with my Type I Rigid Summicron that looked like what he was describing. I have not seen it on the Type 2. The rear element is farther forward in the barrel than most of my other 50's in Leica mount, so I can see where a reflection would creep in."

I recommend sending him an email or searching the photo.net archives.

Roland.

 

[x-ray]

The summicron will flare if there's a bright light source behind the subject. I've owned and shot extensively with all the versions up to the current one and every one flared like this. The tabbed version I just sold flared exactly like this. It must be the "LEICA GLOW".😀

 

[ywenz]

x-ray: what do you make of the B&W one? The sky in the back is bright but there is obvious flare anywhere around it. I have some additional examples taken with the same setup a few years ago where I don't see any flares, which is why I was so surprised when my most recent roll..

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is really weird. But it's consistent.

I can think of three causes: 1) there may be a minute chip in the rear element, pretty close to the center; 2) your shutter curtain has a strange rip (look at it both cocked and uncocked through strong light); 3) check if the film pressure plate has some sort of bump or crack.

 

[venchka]

DR Summicron & Flare

DR Summicron & Flare

If it's any consolation, I made my DR Summicron flare in a similar manner. The two pictures were taken a few minutes and 180 degrees apart. In the picture with flare, the sun was just above the viewfinder at 1 o'clock. Same roll of film.

 

[ywenz]

I think I'm convinced that it's not lens flare. Of the images with flare, the flare in is exactly in the same place of the frame. Also, in the 36 shots roll, not every image has this flare, even the ones with bright sky in the frame.

So this shutter curtain hole idea, does there need to be a sizable hole to cause a light leak like this or are we talking about extremely tiny holes?

 

[Eelco Amsterdam]

I think it's flare. I have the same problem with a 50 mm 2.0 Summicron (current edition ref.11816 Sr. 03899XXX) I use it with my M6, M6ttl and M7 only this lens gives this kind of flare. I thinking to send it with some pictures to Solms.
My Black 50 mm 2.0 Ref. 11826 Sr. 03987XXX doesn't have this problem 😕

Regards Eelco

 

[Pherdinand]

a *tiny* hole in the curtain, since it is so close to the film itself, should leave a much smaller bright spot. There's no way the light could go in such a wide angle behind the hole. Think about the geometry. You have a millimeter or such between curtain and film...and ten times larger "flare" spot (or whatever it is).

 

[x-ray]

I can think of only three things that could cause it

1) Most likely lend flare, I've ceen this in my summicrons, the position of the light source and the tone of the surounding subjects can make it more visable at times but it has all the characteristics of flare.

2) Fog on the lens from going into the warm moist air ina building from the cold outside. I've had condensation on many lenses that will do this. I only take a very light haze of moisture to do this. You probably would'nt see it unless you were looking for it. You certainly won't see it through the RF, the downside of RF cameras.

3) A big fingerprint or smudge on the lens could do it.



The first two are very likely to have caused it.