Belle
Established
I took my first dive into LF photography. The attached photo was taken with a Graflex Crown Graphic 4X5 camera with a Polaroid 545 back with type 52 Polaroid. I haven’t tried film yet.
The results from the Polaroid seem a bit soft and dull. Not crisp or detailed. Is this because of the Polaroid or is it because of the lens? The lens that I have on is Graflex Optar 4.7/135mm. The photo was taken at f/16 @ 1/200 sec. ISO 400. The Polaroid has a vintage look about it that I like.
In order to achieve sharpness and detail, should I be getting a modern LF lens for my camera or will using film/transparency make a difference?
Your comments are appreciated. Thank you!
The results from the Polaroid seem a bit soft and dull. Not crisp or detailed. Is this because of the Polaroid or is it because of the lens? The lens that I have on is Graflex Optar 4.7/135mm. The photo was taken at f/16 @ 1/200 sec. ISO 400. The Polaroid has a vintage look about it that I like.
In order to achieve sharpness and detail, should I be getting a modern LF lens for my camera or will using film/transparency make a difference?
Your comments are appreciated. Thank you!
Attachments
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
The old Optars are not known for their sharpness, but stopped down they should serve just fine.
I'd say do another test with film at f22 from a tripod to be sure.
Also beware of veiling flare from light leaks from the back or the bellows.
I have a Speed Graphic that had leaks from the back until I sealed up the back. Basically, the wood shrank over the years and left gaps not visible from outside between the body and the aluminum back. For me, the process involved removing the back and putting thin foam light seal material around the edge of the body and putting the back on top of this light seal.
I'd say do another test with film at f22 from a tripod to be sure.
Also beware of veiling flare from light leaks from the back or the bellows.
I have a Speed Graphic that had leaks from the back until I sealed up the back. Basically, the wood shrank over the years and left gaps not visible from outside between the body and the aluminum back. For me, the process involved removing the back and putting thin foam light seal material around the edge of the body and putting the back on top of this light seal.
igoesmyth
Member
My first observation would be that the lens/film combo is off. The film is a little (lot) on the flat side. If you were to measure off a set distance and higher contrast subject matter to determine if the lens is sharp and has low contrast.
Did you set the lens to infinity or focus on the groundglass?
Did you set the lens to infinity or focus on the groundglass?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Hello and congrats on your first plunge into the LF pool 
I find it easier to determine focusing problems (either mine or the camera's) if I do a product shot or a portrait (with closer identifiable subjects). Otherwise I wouldn't know where to start fixing things.
The Optar lens in good condition should be capable of producing nice, sharp 4x5 exposures, of course, newer lenses with coatings such as the Fujis, Nikkors, or Schneiders should improve the contrast, but it's not a prerequisite.
Here's my first shot on my Crown Graphic (Kodak Ektar lens) is also a Polaroid, albeit smaller format (669):
I find it easier to determine focusing problems (either mine or the camera's) if I do a product shot or a portrait (with closer identifiable subjects). Otherwise I wouldn't know where to start fixing things.
The Optar lens in good condition should be capable of producing nice, sharp 4x5 exposures, of course, newer lenses with coatings such as the Fujis, Nikkors, or Schneiders should improve the contrast, but it's not a prerequisite.
Here's my first shot on my Crown Graphic (Kodak Ektar lens) is also a Polaroid, albeit smaller format (669):
Belle
Established
Thank you for your feedback and suggestions.
So, I did the f stop test at (f32), film test, and close up test all on a tripod and have concluded that the lens is soft. And from the reading I did, I think it's because the lens is an old uncoated lens.
I've concluded that I need to consider getting a modern lens for my camera. Any recommendations? I like shooting cityscape, landscape, and environmental portraits. Should I be looking at a 90, 135 or 150 mm?
Look forward to your thoughts.
So, I did the f stop test at (f32), film test, and close up test all on a tripod and have concluded that the lens is soft. And from the reading I did, I think it's because the lens is an old uncoated lens.
I've concluded that I need to consider getting a modern lens for my camera. Any recommendations? I like shooting cityscape, landscape, and environmental portraits. Should I be looking at a 90, 135 or 150 mm?
Look forward to your thoughts.
kmack
do your job, then let go
I have a Schneider Xenar 135mm f/4.7 that I like on my Crown.
Not the most modern of lenses though.
Example:
You can use just about anything you can stick on a lensboard, if the lens is too big
to close the case, just take it off.
Some online places to shop for lenses.
KEH
Badger Graphics
Midwest Photo Exchange
Not the most modern of lenses though.
Example:
You can use just about anything you can stick on a lensboard, if the lens is too big
to close the case, just take it off.
Some online places to shop for lenses.
KEH
Badger Graphics
Midwest Photo Exchange
venchka
Veteran
I have a 100 year old Voigtlander & Sohn lens. Needless to say it is uncoated. It isn't soft.
1. Make some critical exposures at 1:16 and 1:22. Sometimes diffraction flaws show up at 1:32 and beyond.
2. The lens may need a good cleaning.
3. Are you still evaluating instant prints? There may be a film plane error introduced by the Polaroid holder. I would expose film in good holders, process carefully and then examine the negatives before giving up on the Optar.
4. Disregarding all of the above, I think we all yearn for a nice modern 210mm Rodenstock, Nikkor, Fuji, Schneider, etc. lens. My current Lust is for a pristine Kodak Ektar 203mm 1:7.7 lens in a working Supermatic (X) shutter. Hint. Hint.
1. Make some critical exposures at 1:16 and 1:22. Sometimes diffraction flaws show up at 1:32 and beyond.
2. The lens may need a good cleaning.
3. Are you still evaluating instant prints? There may be a film plane error introduced by the Polaroid holder. I would expose film in good holders, process carefully and then examine the negatives before giving up on the Optar.
4. Disregarding all of the above, I think we all yearn for a nice modern 210mm Rodenstock, Nikkor, Fuji, Schneider, etc. lens. My current Lust is for a pristine Kodak Ektar 203mm 1:7.7 lens in a working Supermatic (X) shutter. Hint. Hint.
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
Use a lens hood and let the film develop a little longer.
You should be able to get stunning T-52 images using your equipment -- I always was able to!
You should be able to get stunning T-52 images using your equipment -- I always was able to!
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
Oh... and ground glass focus, unless you've verified that your rangefinder is really accurate.
Gumby
Veteran
Oh... oh... and a tripod... use a tripod! Also a cable release!!
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Congrats on getting into LF! Your lens could be soft, but it's my experience that polaroids are always a little soft. For your testing, I would indeed try some close-up shots, as these will show focus errors more easily. Also- don't stop your lens down all the way if you want maximum sharpness- use an aperture about in the middle of the range available, or closed down two to three stops from wide open. Somewhere in there should be your theoretical point of maximum sharpness. Shoot some real film to be sure. Finally, remember that sharpness isn't everything. Have fun!
EDIT: Oh! and of course, Gumby's last two comments are absolutely spot on.
EDIT: Oh! and of course, Gumby's last two comments are absolutely spot on.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I've always had the impression that polaroids were limited in their sharpness. Not the kind that give you negatives...but all others.
Do as suggested above for another polaroid shot then get some film.
Do as suggested above for another polaroid shot then get some film.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
The lens is probably single coated, if it's a postwar lens. If the front element hasn't been cleaned with sandpaper, and if it hasn't been disassembled and reassembled improperly, it shouldn't be soft.
The first thing I notice about the example posted is that it is overexposed, so any flare or diffusion from the lens is exaggerated. It's fairly common for shutter speeds on old leaf shutters to be off, so if your meter said f:16 at 1/200 sec is right, don't believe it. Trust the Polaroid and adjust the exposure, if the first one is wrong.
That said, it does seem a bit out of focus. Focus with the groundglass using a tripod and a loupe of around 4X magnification, and if that gives you good focus, then check the rangefinder. If the groundglass is inaccurate, then it might be installed the wrong way. If the groundglass is accurate and the rangefinder doesn't agree, then the rangefinder needs calibration. Go to graflex.org for instructions.
The first thing I notice about the example posted is that it is overexposed, so any flare or diffusion from the lens is exaggerated. It's fairly common for shutter speeds on old leaf shutters to be off, so if your meter said f:16 at 1/200 sec is right, don't believe it. Trust the Polaroid and adjust the exposure, if the first one is wrong.
That said, it does seem a bit out of focus. Focus with the groundglass using a tripod and a loupe of around 4X magnification, and if that gives you good focus, then check the rangefinder. If the groundglass is inaccurate, then it might be installed the wrong way. If the groundglass is accurate and the rangefinder doesn't agree, then the rangefinder needs calibration. Go to graflex.org for instructions.
Belle
Established
Just an update.
It turns out that the lens was, indeed, the problem. Closer examination revealed lots of scratches on the lens. Also the coating was an issue too. So I ended up getting another lens - Nikkor W 135mm, 5.6 in very good condition. And what a huge difference! Unbelievable sharpness and contrast, even from the polaroid tests.
Thanks for all your earlier input. It was most helpful.
It turns out that the lens was, indeed, the problem. Closer examination revealed lots of scratches on the lens. Also the coating was an issue too. So I ended up getting another lens - Nikkor W 135mm, 5.6 in very good condition. And what a huge difference! Unbelievable sharpness and contrast, even from the polaroid tests.
Thanks for all your earlier input. It was most helpful.
JohnTF
Veteran
Always nice to find a Graflex with a Schneider to begin with, but more modern lenses have their perks.
I was going o recommend you check the rear element, I am told the cleaning scratches there are even more likely to soften your images, I suppose when you want that dreamy soft look, you can get out your old lens. ;-)
135 is, of course, a bit wide for 4x5, but the Graflexes were "Press" Cameras.
You can use European 9x12cm film if you can find some holders, the two size holders fit the same cameras in general. You lose a cm on the short side, but there are a lot of films in European sizes.
If you get in a hurry, we used to tray develop sheet film in everything from Dektol (like a minute or so) to DK60a, you can use some fast and high energy developers which is probably why those old lenses we had seemed to have more punch. ;-)
Hang about some Camera Shows, and get some spare lens boards, am assuming you had to do some surgery to get your new lens to fit?
A cable release threaded through the upper loop of the leather grip gives you a left hand thumb release as I am assuming you could not work the body release on the right to fit he new lens.
The local shop once took in a Graflex, and it had a Linhof lens mounted to a board in the camera box, obviously worth more than the entire box.
If you find that great deal on a field camera, you can always repack your Graflex and pass it along.
I was going o recommend you check the rear element, I am told the cleaning scratches there are even more likely to soften your images, I suppose when you want that dreamy soft look, you can get out your old lens. ;-)
135 is, of course, a bit wide for 4x5, but the Graflexes were "Press" Cameras.
You can use European 9x12cm film if you can find some holders, the two size holders fit the same cameras in general. You lose a cm on the short side, but there are a lot of films in European sizes.
If you get in a hurry, we used to tray develop sheet film in everything from Dektol (like a minute or so) to DK60a, you can use some fast and high energy developers which is probably why those old lenses we had seemed to have more punch. ;-)
Hang about some Camera Shows, and get some spare lens boards, am assuming you had to do some surgery to get your new lens to fit?
A cable release threaded through the upper loop of the leather grip gives you a left hand thumb release as I am assuming you could not work the body release on the right to fit he new lens.
The local shop once took in a Graflex, and it had a Linhof lens mounted to a board in the camera box, obviously worth more than the entire box.
If you find that great deal on a field camera, you can always repack your Graflex and pass it along.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Not necessarily. Linhof engraved lenses were ordinary lenses made by other manufacturers that passed Linhof's own optical tests. I suspect that Linhof doesn't reject too many modern lenses (the premium for a Linhof select lens today is about 3x the price of a non-Linhof selected version), but at one time, they supposedly did reject many lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock, and other manufacturers.
Not all of these older Linhof selected lenses are terribly fancy or expensive. There are Linhof Angulons and Xenars and Tele-Xenars from before 1980 that are pretty cheap, and Linhof Super-Angulons and Symmar convertibles from the 1970s only get a small premium over non-Linhof versions. Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses for Linhof, though, aren't as common in general, so they can be worth quite a bit.
JohnTF
Veteran
Exactly right, I forgot I even have some older Linhof gear, made for glass plates, hauled home from Europe in the days you could carry luggage.
Sorry, I was not clear enough, it was a lens for a Super Technika. Guy at the shop snagged it for his Linhof, longer lens as I recall. Not easy to mount on a Graflex.
I am slowly training myself not to stop and look at every Graflex at camera shows, I have too many, but the last one I passed on had some great accessories in the box, Murphy's law, but I certainly have enough. People bring in a few at each show, hauled out of the attic.
Last one purchased was a black Speed (war time?), full war chest with flash, holders, old Polaroid holder, but had a Schneider lens fitted at some time.
School camera in Jr. High was a Speed Graflex and they sent me around to shoot school stuff, graduated to a Crown in HS.
In northern Ohio, they are generally priced so low they just beg to be taken home. I kept one in class, students would turn the camera over to right the image. They were amazed at the live view. ;-)
I have seen them in shops in Europe as well, along with Graphic view cameras. Photo school in Pittsburgh put Nikon glass on them and used them in their program.
Guys at the newspaper used to sneak lead bases in to the tripod slot as a joke on their friends, case got pretty heavy, a little at a time. They went from Graflex to Nikon F literally overnight in the mid 60's.
Regards, John
Last edited:
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Not too many things bring me back to Cleveland anymore, but I grew up on the East Side. I'll have to visit the old photo dealers again next time I'm back there and see what's for sale. I recall the best place for professional and LF gear used to be Dodd's downtown.
My great uncle Al Somers and his sons Irving and Harvey used to own Somers' Photo on Taylor Rd. Irv eventually sold the shop, but I know he was working there for a while after it changed hands. I don't know if he still does. They had something of a collection of old cameras up on the shelves above the sales cases. I don't know if he sold them with the store or kept them.
