venchka
Veteran
Please look at the following photo and the two crops. Lens is a 28mm f:3.5 Komura, LTM, shot at f:16 on Kodak Ultra 100. In several photos the right/bottom 1/4 of the negative is sharp. The left center is so unsharp it develops a double image. If I didn't know better, I would say there is vaseline on the lens. Any clue if this can be corrected? HELP! 
Thanks for helping.
Thanks for helping.
Attachments
Last edited:
OldNick
Well-known
There appears to be some kind of localized problem in the lens. Does it show any signs of having been dropped? A cracked element might cause that kind of problem.
Jim N.
Jim N.
back alley
IMAGES
are all the shots with this lens the same?
joe
joe
P
Paul Connet
Guest
Looks to me like your point of focus was just too close, and the parts of the photo that are blurred are simply too far from the point of focus. look more closely at photos that show more of the subject positioned parallel to the film plane at the focused distance.venchka said:Please look at the following photo and the two crops. Lens is a 28mm f:3.5 Komura, LTM, shot at f:16 on Kodak Ultra 100. In several photos the right/bottom 1/4 of the negative is sharp. The left center is so unsharp it develops a double image. If I didn't know better, I would say there is vaseline on the lens. Any clue if this than be corrected? HELP!
Thanks for helping.
Regards, Paul C.
venchka
Veteran
I'm the original owner. No signs of anything big enough to cause half+ of the frame to be totally out of focus. I'm wondering if it wasn't like that when I bought it. It has seen very little use. It has only been in the last few months that I have made an effort to use & determine the quality of this lens.
OldNick
Well-known
Paul,
I don't buy your argument. If you examine the treeline across the lake, there are in-focus trees on either side of the blurred area.
Jim N.
I don't buy your argument. If you examine the treeline across the lake, there are in-focus trees on either side of the blurred area.
Jim N.
peter_n
Veteran
Wayne that is strange! At first I would ask where was your focus ring? Looks like it might have been set to closest focus, so f16 would take care of the near pole maybe but not the far poles. But then you take a look at the trees between those far poles and they are blurry too. And they are less blurry on the left and right. A fault in one of the elements?
peter_n
Veteran
Oops I see everyone else is thinking more or less the same as I. This is a good lens with a good reputation BTW.
OldNick
Well-known
Wayne,
I would suggest that you take a strong penlite and shine it through the lens looking for any sign of a discontinuity in the lens. This could show up as a line or as a blurred area, indicating a problem with one of the interior elements.
Jim N.
I would suggest that you take a strong penlite and shine it through the lens looking for any sign of a discontinuity in the lens. This could show up as a line or as a blurred area, indicating a problem with one of the interior elements.
Jim N.
venchka
Veteran
28mm/f:16/focus 10ft
28mm/f:16/focus 10ft
A 28 mm lens at f:16 depth of field is from infinity to just shy of my navel. All of these photos were shot in the span of less than an hour. All at f:16 and all focused no less than 5'-7' from the film plane. For most of them I focused at 10 feet.
28mm/f:16/focus 10ft
A 28 mm lens at f:16 depth of field is from infinity to just shy of my navel. All of these photos were shot in the span of less than an hour. All at f:16 and all focused no less than 5'-7' from the film plane. For most of them I focused at 10 feet.
Attachments
venchka
Veteran
peter_n
Veteran
To my eye, that 3rd one you posted just now is nowhere near sharp enough. The trees in the top right, the detail of the building that's behind the close building; they should be sharp and they are not.
venchka
Veteran
P
Paul Connet
Guest
Yes Jim, now that you point that out I see it also. I thought at first look that the parts of the photo that looked sharpest were very close. On second look it appears that the fuzzy area is like a bulge in the film during scanning. I would look closely at the negative itself with a loupe to see if it looks the same.OldNick said:
Regards, Paul C.
venchka
Veteran
Not the scanning
Not the scanning
I'm not pleased with the Walgreens processing. There is a continuous line across all the negatives. The scans from both rolls processed & scanned at the same time are ok.
Since everyone is as stumped as I am, I'm taking the lens to the Lens Doctor after work. See if he can make it all better. If not, I now have an Ipressionist Lens.
Thanks everyone!
Not the scanning
I'm not pleased with the Walgreens processing. There is a continuous line across all the negatives. The scans from both rolls processed & scanned at the same time are ok.
Since everyone is as stumped as I am, I'm taking the lens to the Lens Doctor after work. See if he can make it all better. If not, I now have an Ipressionist Lens.
Thanks everyone!
Attachments
kbg32
neo-romanticist
It looks to me that it is not your lens, but the processing. The lab is doing a poor job in scanning. The negatives are not being held flat.
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
I have the original scans to compare. The drilling rig picture is from the negative adjacent to the first "tree" frame. The drill rig is sharp overall. The 28mm frames are not. Same for the water lillie photo (different roll, same time) and the close up of the juice box, horse & sunscreen. All of the other pictures on both rolls are sharp. The 28mm lens negatives are sharp here and there. The double image areas around the boat sling and vertical posts in the very first picture are worse than out of focus. Out of focus doesn't produce distinct double images.
If anything isn't flat, it's the image landing on the film plane after passing through my lens. Out of alignment, maybe? I'll let y'all know if I can get the lens fixed.
If anything isn't flat, it's the image landing on the film plane after passing through my lens. Out of alignment, maybe? I'll let y'all know if I can get the lens fixed.
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
kbg32 said:
Good call -- what if the operator scanned the negatives while they were still sort of wet, and they "popped" while under the scanner's hot light?
The blur in the original image looks more like a ghost image that could be caused by such a phenomenon, and the scan job is pretty impressively bad, with that nasty streak down the bottom of the frame...
venchka
Veteran
tetrisattack said:
How would that explain why frame 32 is perfect (overall flat and sharp) and frames 33-38 look like do-do? Also, this is the second roll of film where I noticed a problem with this lens. I purposely used the lens at f:16 to see if that helped any. It didn't.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Either a problem with scanning (but prints should be fine then) or the film was not flat in the camera. I would take a good look at the film pressure plate. Or the film itself has absorbed too much moisture, making it impossible to lie flat in the camera.