PhotoBanter.com
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Medium Format Photography Equipment (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Haze, uncoated lenses and B&W film. (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=13209)

[email protected] September 17th 04 02:41 AM
Haze, uncoated lenses and B&W film.
 
I've been working with a camera in my collection that's got a whole
bunch of neat features. I noticed excessive film grain with the first
few test rolls. I then tried two other films and saw exactly the same
effect. This is color E6 film and the lenses are uncoated (pre-WWII)
and I haven't been using UV or haze filters. Now I'm thinking that what
I thought was grain is actually haze. But this haze is more extreme
that what I've seen with coated lenses. So here are my questions:

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?
2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem? (I assume it would as
this is a high-end camera and I don't think the photogs of yesteryear
would have put up with this)
3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?
Thanks for any answers or even informed speculation.

Stacey September 17th 04 06:53 AM
wrote:

I've been working with a camera in my collection that's got a whole
bunch of neat features. I noticed excessive film grain with the first
few test rolls. I then tried two other films and saw exactly the same
effect. This is color E6 film and the lenses are uncoated (pre-WWII)
and I haven't been using UV or haze filters. Now I'm thinking that what
I thought was grain is actually haze. But this haze is more extreme
that what I've seen with coated lenses. So here are my questions:

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

No but they are more prone to flare, use a lens hood! Have you shined a
light through the lens to see if it has gunk/oily film on the elements?
This can do all sorts of weird things.

2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem?

Nope.

3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?


Shouldn't make any difference.
--

Stacey

Stacey September 17th 04 06:53 AM
wrote:

I've been working with a camera in my collection that's got a whole
bunch of neat features. I noticed excessive film grain with the first
few test rolls. I then tried two other films and saw exactly the same
effect. This is color E6 film and the lenses are uncoated (pre-WWII)
and I haven't been using UV or haze filters. Now I'm thinking that what
I thought was grain is actually haze. But this haze is more extreme
that what I've seen with coated lenses. So here are my questions:

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

No but they are more prone to flare, use a lens hood! Have you shined a
light through the lens to see if it has gunk/oily film on the elements?
This can do all sorts of weird things.

2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem?

Nope.

3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?


Shouldn't make any difference.
--

Stacey

Winfried Buechsenschuetz September 17th 04 07:59 AM
wrote in message ...

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

In general, yes. In particular, it depends on the number of lens
elements and on the skills of the lens designer to avoid internal
reflections, i.e. using cemented surfaces instead of glass-to-air
surfaces. However, I am not the only one who made (technically)
excellent shots with uncoated lenses. Use a lens hood if possible and
avoid shooting against the light.

2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem?

No. B/w film will register the reflections/haze in the same way as
color film. Some people claim that uncoated lenses are suitable for
b/w only which is quite far from the truth.

3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?

Probably not. A reflection is a reflection is a reflection, whereever
it occurs. It does not matter whether the reflections bounce back and
forth between the front lens surface and the rear surface of the
filter (when mounted in front of the lens) or between the front
surface of the filter and the rear surface of the lens.

Winfried

Winfried Buechsenschuetz September 17th 04 07:59 AM
wrote in message ...

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

In general, yes. In particular, it depends on the number of lens
elements and on the skills of the lens designer to avoid internal
reflections, i.e. using cemented surfaces instead of glass-to-air
surfaces. However, I am not the only one who made (technically)
excellent shots with uncoated lenses. Use a lens hood if possible and
avoid shooting against the light.

2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem?

No. B/w film will register the reflections/haze in the same way as
color film. Some people claim that uncoated lenses are suitable for
b/w only which is quite far from the truth.

3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?

Probably not. A reflection is a reflection is a reflection, whereever
it occurs. It does not matter whether the reflections bounce back and
forth between the front lens surface and the rear surface of the
filter (when mounted in front of the lens) or between the front
surface of the filter and the rear surface of the lens.

Winfried

Lassi Hippeläinen September 17th 04 11:09 AM
wrote:
...
3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?

I doubt that. A filter between the lens and the film becomes a part of
the optical system. It affects focusing.

Many cameras have threads in the rear, but they are for the retainer
ring that keeps the rear element/cell in its place.

-- Lassi

RolandRB September 17th 04 11:19 AM
wrote in message ...
I've been working with a camera in my collection that's got a whole
bunch of neat features. I noticed excessive film grain with the first
few test rolls. I then tried two other films and saw exactly the same
effect. This is color E6 film and the lenses are uncoated (pre-WWII)
and I haven't been using UV or haze filters. Now I'm thinking that what
I thought was grain is actually haze. But this haze is more extreme
that what I've seen with coated lenses. So here are my questions:

I don't know how you can mistake (presumably excessive) grain for haze
as in the first case you have excessive speckling and in the second
case you have a loss of contrast plus pehaps a loss of sharpness.

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?
2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem? (I assume it would as
this is a high-end camera and I don't think the photogs of yesteryear
would have put up with this)
3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?
Thanks for any answers or even informed speculation.

Open up the lens and look through it at a light. Is there obvious
haze? Perhaps the lens just needs a clean. If it is pre-WW2 then it
might clean up quite nicely, unless the fungus has got to it. In the
latter case then throw the lens away and maybe the camera with it if
the lens can not be replaced.

What model is it and what is the lens type?

RolandRB September 17th 04 11:19 AM
wrote in message ...
I've been working with a camera in my collection that's got a whole
bunch of neat features. I noticed excessive film grain with the first
few test rolls. I then tried two other films and saw exactly the same
effect. This is color E6 film and the lenses are uncoated (pre-WWII)
and I haven't been using UV or haze filters. Now I'm thinking that what
I thought was grain is actually haze. But this haze is more extreme
that what I've seen with coated lenses. So here are my questions:

I don't know how you can mistake (presumably excessive) grain for haze
as in the first case you have excessive speckling and in the second
case you have a loss of contrast plus pehaps a loss of sharpness.

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?
2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem? (I assume it would as
this is a high-end camera and I don't think the photogs of yesteryear
would have put up with this)
3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?
Thanks for any answers or even informed speculation.

Open up the lens and look through it at a light. Is there obvious
haze? Perhaps the lens just needs a clean. If it is pre-WW2 then it
might clean up quite nicely, unless the fungus has got to it. In the
latter case then throw the lens away and maybe the camera with it if
the lens can not be replaced.

What model is it and what is the lens type?

jjs September 17th 04 02:59 PM
wrote:

[ Steven is discussing "haze" or foggy appearance in the image]

Steven, please consider shining a small, bright light (A Mini-mag will do)
through the lens. Is fungus, dust or a film evident? I would be very
surprised if there were no haze in there.

2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem?

Yes, actually, it might help diminish an overall hazy cast if you
underexpose and overdevelop. In fact, such was the practice at one time to
help diminish profound shperical aberation typical of cheap lenses.

3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?

It is a good idea to put the filters behind the lens to avoid flare, but the
filter has to be very clean; the closer it is to the film, the more
significant the effect of dust and haze.

jjs September 17th 04 02:59 PM
wrote:

[ Steven is discussing "haze" or foggy appearance in the image]

Steven, please consider shining a small, bright light (A Mini-mag will do)
through the lens. Is fungus, dust or a film evident? I would be very
surprised if there were no haze in there.

2) Would using B&W film eliminate this problem?

Yes, actually, it might help diminish an overall hazy cast if you
underexpose and overdevelop. In fact, such was the practice at one time to
help diminish profound shperical aberation typical of cheap lenses.

3) Believe it or not the camera has provision for behind the lens
filters. Would behind the lens filters perform better than placing them
up front, and consider that these are uncoated lenses?

It is a good idea to put the filters behind the lens to avoid flare, but the
filter has to be very clean; the closer it is to the film, the more
significant the effect of dust and haze.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com