Can this lens be repaired?

[tedd]

Hi guys,

I have a Rolleiflex that has always had these little white dots all over the image. Doesn't matter if it's bnw I dev myself or colour in a lab; they are there. I cleaned my scanner after being advised on Reddit that it was impossible for mess in the lens to show up on an image, but it made no difference and when I looked closely at my negs they are on there too. Will a CLA solve this? The camera is otherwise quite nice to use.

Thanks!

 

[Freakscene]

Are the dots in the same place every time? The dots I can see here are from dust on the negative, not from the lens.

Marty

 

[sebastel]

can't be the lens.

do the spots appear at the exact same location every time?
honestly, on the example pic, they are very hard to make out ...

i see, marty beat me with the question ;-)

 

[tedd]

Thanks for the reply guys. I struggle to believe it's dust on the neg as it always covers every image with this camera (in the lighter spots) and I don't have the issue with any other camera. I do also hit it with a blower before scanning. I'd be glad to be wrong though!

They are a bit hard to make out in that res, but if you zoom in to the left of her shoulder you can see them. I'll link another post on Insta too where you can see them off in the sky.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtjaQjKAp2w/

 

[dotur]

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the lens. Probably the dust/dirt accumulated on the emulsion while processing or drying, or while scanning medium format on a flatbed scanner...

 

[Mr_Flibble]

My personal guess is that it is probably an emulsion or developing issue.
Looks like it's too much to be just dust.

 

[dotur]

You might be right, Rick! An outdated film (old emulsion) or exhausted chemicals could cause that.

 

[tedd]

I am pretty confident that it's not dust. I have another MF camera that doesn't have this issue with scans and I've never seen it on any of my 35mm cameras either. I also use new chemicals every time I dev and it shows on colour rolls that get dev'd in my local lab. Unless it's just a weird coincidence that it happens every time with this camera then deduction would have to suggest that it's either the lens or the shutter is blowing oil or something on the negative? I truly have no idea!

 

[Freakscene]

I am pretty confident that it's not dust. I have another MF camera that doesn't have this issue with scans and I've never seen it on any of my 35mm cameras either. I also use new chemicals every time I dev and it shows on colour rolls that get dev'd in my local lab. Unless it's just a weird coincidence that it happens every time with this camera then deduction would have to suggest that it's either the lens or the shutter is blowing oil or something on the negative? I truly have no idea!

Maybe the camera is full of dust?

Marty

 

[leicapixie]

Dust on negative.
Chemical stains on emulsion..
Fixer too old causes white dots!
Photo-flo might be dirty!
I've found Kodak chemicals to always have impurities..
Scanner has dirt on glass (flat bed).
I filter all water, chemicals prior usage.
Coffee filters are OK.

 

[sebastel]

if there was a glass panel in front of the negative, it might be something there. but who puts glass panels in front of the negative ?

 

[WoodallP]

Hmm, stupid question but it's not a Rolleiflex with a glass plate to hold the film flat is it? Some models had them as an option and obviously any spots there would be highly reproducible. I'm sure you would have checked this though.


I had a plate on my 2.8f and lost it, never used it but am annoyed at not having the full kit.


Phil W

 

[WoodallP]

Hmm, stupid question but it's not a Rolleiflex with a glass plate to hold the film flat is it? Some models had them as an option and obviously any spots there would be highly reproducible. I'm sure you would have checked this though.


I had a plate on my 2.8f and lost it, never used it but am annoyed at not having the full kit.


Phil W

Sorry, I'm an idiot, dust on the plate would cause black dots on the final image.


Phil W

 

[Dan Daniel]

Any chance the Rollei has a glass plate at the film plane for film flatness? About the only way I could see these dots coming from the camera directly.

Are the dots in the exact same position shot to shot?

Anything visible on the lens?

All in all, what I can see in the posted image (small so hard to get details) looks like chemical sludge or dust or other issues people have discussed, not a problem with the lens. Maybe the OP can say more about what he sees in the camera itself that makes him think it is the cause? So far it seems that the problem isn't on other film from other cameras so the camera itself is the culprit by elimination, not active evidence?


Edit: looks like a cosmic brain fart had a few of us thinking glass plate... but Phil is right- dust would be black.

 

[Malcolm M]

An interesting problem. As pointed out, dust on this hypothetical glass pressure plate would show black on the print, but could it be droplets of oil or condensation focussing light onto the film plane?

 

[View Range]

I too do not believe it is dust. And I think the problem is in the lens. Perhaps there are very tiny droplets of condensation inside the lens from moisture or oil. Open the back, move a light source around behind the lens, and examine the lens at the highest magnification you get. The camera is certainly worth repairing. In the US I would send it to Don Goldberg at DAG Camera Repair; he is a factory trained Rolliflex technician, along with factory training at Leica and Minox. That fact that he is insanely busy is a testament to his capability.

 

[EliasK]

I had similar problems (see this crop)

proved to be caused from old film emulsion

 

[Rob-F]

I'm wondering about a light leak in the camera, possibly caused by some tiny little screw missing, someplace.

 

[Malcolm M]

I think a light leak is unlikely to cause this problem. A missing screw would cause overall fogging affecting a significant part of the image. To get a scattering of a large number of white dots would require multiple pinprick light leaks, and a strong external light source (e.g. direct sunlight).

 

[Rob-F]

Yeah, probably right. I sort of liked the dusty camera theory, but I imagine Tedd already must have thought of that.