Haze, uncoated lenses and B&W film.

wrote in message
...

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

They sure are. And the more elements (i.e. "air-to-glass surfaces") the
more potential for flare.

Three recommendations come to mind. 1: If you can outfit the lens with a
lens shade, by all means do so. Lens shades help prevent off-axis light
from getting into the lens and bouncing around internally. Those
accordion-style lens shades from Hasselblad work especially well. 2:
Shooting into bright light with an uncoated lens will often produce
unacceptable results. Try to avoid this, if possible. 3: Shine a light
through your lens (a flashlight will do nicely) and it will illuminate any
fungus, dust etc. It may be that the lens is dirty, and needs a cleaning.

It just might be that it is time for a more modern lens . . .

wrote in message
...

1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

They sure are. And the more elements (i.e. "air-to-glass surfaces") the
more potential for flare.

Three recommendations come to mind. 1: If you can outfit the lens with a
lens shade, by all means do so. Lens shades help prevent off-axis light
from getting into the lens and bouncing around internally. Those
accordion-style lens shades from Hasselblad work especially well. 2:
Shooting into bright light with an uncoated lens will often produce
unacceptable results. Try to avoid this, if possible. 3: Shine a light
through your lens (a flashlight will do nicely) and it will illuminate any
fungus, dust etc. It may be that the lens is dirty, and needs a cleaning.

It just might be that it is time for a more modern lens . . .

wrote:
1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

Not exactly. They are more subject to flare though and are lower contrast.
Those might be confused as "haze" especially in combination.

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)

B&W, color...an image is an image

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?

If they too were uncoated, yes. main advantage was smaller filters;
therefore, lower cost.

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

wrote:
1) Are uncoated lenses more prone to haze problems?

Not exactly. They are more subject to flare though and are lower contrast.
Those might be confused as "haze" especially in combination.

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)

B&W, color...an image is an image

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?

If they too were uncoated, yes. main advantage was smaller filters;
therefore, lower cost.

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

It's a 127 camera and I was using the Macochrome (Ferrania) product. The
Macochrome film is a little weird, it's like an old fashioned E6 type film. I'll
try to explain what it looks like. The lens is a Tessar and the images are
"sharp" but their appears to be a veil over the scene when viewed under
magnification. This kind of effect, I've usually seen with 800 or faster film,
but it's different and hard to explain without actually seeing it. My first
thought was that it was the lens. I cracked the thing apart and cleaned it,
although except for a few specs of dust, it was pretty clean. Same problem. Then
I bought some of that hand rolled Ektachrome, 'cause by now I was convinced it was
the Macochrome. Same problem. Then I hand rolled some E200 in a closet so that I
could stop the camera down some more, and yes, the same problem, although the E200
did have better contrast, color and sharpness. So now I'm thinking it's haze,
although frankly the haze I've seen on coated lenses is not as severe. The camera
definately has the provision for a behind the lens filter, the product catalog has
them listed and the camera came with one, although it was scratched. I figured a
coated filter behind the lens would be better since it would eliminate any
reflections off of the film back onto the lens. I don't see what reflections a
front filter would stop, but as it appears the behind the lens "filter" is not of
a standard size and it would cost me over $100 to have one cut to size, I'm going
to use a series V adapter to throw a haze filter in front of the lens. Hopefully
that'll fix the problem. The camera has rise and some other neat features, that's
why I'm putting so much effort into it.

RolandRB wrote:

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?

It's a 127 camera and I was using the Macochrome (Ferrania) product. The
Macochrome film is a little weird, it's like an old fashioned E6 type film. I'll
try to explain what it looks like. The lens is a Tessar and the images are
"sharp" but their appears to be a veil over the scene when viewed under
magnification. This kind of effect, I've usually seen with 800 or faster film,
but it's different and hard to explain without actually seeing it. My first
thought was that it was the lens. I cracked the thing apart and cleaned it,
although except for a few specs of dust, it was pretty clean. Same problem. Then
I bought some of that hand rolled Ektachrome, 'cause by now I was convinced it was
the Macochrome. Same problem. Then I hand rolled some E200 in a closet so that I
could stop the camera down some more, and yes, the same problem, although the E200
did have better contrast, color and sharpness. So now I'm thinking it's haze,
although frankly the haze I've seen on coated lenses is not as severe. The camera
definately has the provision for a behind the lens filter, the product catalog has
them listed and the camera came with one, although it was scratched. I figured a
coated filter behind the lens would be better since it would eliminate any
reflections off of the film back onto the lens. I don't see what reflections a
front filter would stop, but as it appears the behind the lens "filter" is not of
a standard size and it would cost me over $100 to have one cut to size, I'm going
to use a series V adapter to throw a haze filter in front of the lens. Hopefully
that'll fix the problem. The camera has rise and some other neat features, that's
why I'm putting so much effort into it.

RolandRB wrote:

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?

wrote in message
...
[...]

Thanks for the greater detail. If the lens came with a rear filter, then it
is possible that it _requires_ a filter there. Rear filters are,
technically, part of the optical system.

wrote in message
...
[...]

Thanks for the greater detail. If the lens came with a rear filter, then it
is possible that it _requires_ a filter there. Rear filters are,
technically, part of the optical system.

wrote in message
...
[...]

Maybe Richard K. will ultimately respond in this thread. Until then: he
once helped me identify a problem with one of my Ektar lenses with similar
characteristics to the original poster. The Tessar lens has a cemented
double and the cement (older Canadian balsam e.g.) was aging. Looking with
a semi-point light source, as mentioned previously, and shifting the glass
to a certain angle, I could perceive an "orange peel" effect. That was
causing my problem. This can be re-cemented (IMO with difficulty) if one
has the proper equipment and patience.

Truly, dr bob.

wrote in message
...
[...]

Maybe Richard K. will ultimately respond in this thread. Until then: he
once helped me identify a problem with one of my Ektar lenses with similar
characteristics to the original poster. The Tessar lens has a cemented
double and the cement (older Canadian balsam e.g.) was aging. Looking with
a semi-point light source, as mentioned previously, and shifting the glass
to a certain angle, I could perceive an "orange peel" effect. That was
causing my problem. This can be re-cemented (IMO with difficulty) if one
has the proper equipment and patience.

Truly, dr bob.