A Baffling Problem

[chuck_foreman1]

Hi All,

 

 

If you've been following my (mis) adventures in the weekly weekend contribution, then you are aware of the "baffling" problem with my Yashica Mat 124. I bought this camera in the US circa 1984 from one of my brother's friend's for $80,00. 
This was probably only my fourth of fifth camera. I bought it primarily because it had a meter. In the ensuing years I rarely used it. I noted early on there seemed to be a "flare" problem, and each time I promised myself I would use the shade next time, which I consequently forgot ...until I received my next disappointing results. 
I often thought of this was a flare problem, and my Yashica D never seemed to suffer from this. Suffice to say, I rarely used it, and because I really.. really..should divest myself of photo apparatuses, I was/am convinced to sell this. 










Given the YashicaMat 124G (with G-old connectors) really brings a good price, I only had to convince the prospective buyer, that this is is the same model in its earliest (and best of course) form. So in light of this, I took it out to play "one more time" and realized the same old problem.  Frankly, I should've stopped there. and sold it outright.. But nooooooo. !!

I remembered a post from JohnS, a great contributor who has nicely presented  a few TLRs, that there were internal reflections causing flare in one of his models. [A light went on in my head] I recalled he had added baffles to disrupt the flow of light to good success. Now inquiring some years later, he referred me to the article, which I re-read with more interest. Meanwhile I did a few Google searches and found this was quite a well documented problem with various old, and new Yashica TLRs. 

http://yashicatlr.com/BodiesTrim.html#baffles

In my reading around, others talked about rear-element gassing out..so I decided to remove the real element first. To the naked eye there was no obvious problem. Upon closer inspection I came across some obvious crud. It was however on the edge and IMHO not likely to influence the result. So after some perfunctory cleaning I reassembled it shot another roll (2nd). 




 

Needless to say, this didn't improve matters at all. 
 

Having posted some of this already in the weekly post, I was given some good advice. One, that indeed the crud I had on the lens would or could be the problem. So put a little bit of elbow and Q-tips saturated with Windex to the lens. 
I got quite a bit off, but not all. I felt that the real problem were the internal reflections. Having re-read JohnS' post I noted a reference to "flocking" which I didn't understand. So I did some more reading and now know what it is.  [Flocking is  essentially very thin velvet.. people use it to line drawers or small boxes ..think jewelry ] 
I do feel his adding of balsa wood to disrupt the light flow was probably the right way to go. [Probably not relevant, but when designing concert halls the research determined that the ceilings with lots of stucco and protruding objects were a factor in breaking up the sound ] I considered cutting black matt construction paper might do the trick too. Now knowing what flocking was, I determined this was my best route. I found self-adhesive pack of 10 for ??12,00€.. 10x too much.  So I used the construction paper idea waiting for delivery of the flocking and made templates for the four sides of the chamber. While the balsa wood was a good solution, I would make a mess of it. So flocking was the path of least resistance. Besides, it could easily be removed

After cleaning, some crud is still there. (need to cut my nails!!)


 

Note the mark at circa 3:00 o'clock... I  now realize this is likely a result of being dropped. 

 

 

I was trying to see the effect this "chip" in the lens might have, I was photographing through the back of the camera.   This really does show how much reflection there might be / is in the chamber.

Unfortunately ( or is that fortunately) I don't have any pics showing the process of the flocking. I felt (pun?) it went well with my templates ..the scary part of removing the adhesive and placing it in the chamber was well ...scary but but I needed to be done with it [ like this post??]

So here is the back with the flocking...visible here is the next problem. But let us not dwell on new problems ...let's celebrate the success. 





 

Very pleased with the contrast and the definition, which has greatly improved...Do you see what I see?? 
 

Interesting the top and bottom are good, but the sides... 😞

In conclusion; These models do have a serious baffling problem. JohnS probably gave the better solution with breaking up the light, and as "baffling" is how Yashica also managed the problem..well badly. 
My exemplar is in good condition, I bought a mint NeverReady case some years back for circa 30,00€ , add to this the four or five rolls of film circa 20,00€, if I'm lucky I can get 250,00 -300,00€

I hope this is informative and helps anybody going down this path, to get their exemplar "popping" as the fine Yashinon lens should. I need to stop obsessing and SELL the ?ucker!!

 

 

[chuck_foreman1]

The order of the pictures is screwed up... I guess I did it wrong!?!? the last two photos do not belong...in fact I now know what I f--...umm did. I added some photos and didn't "insert them" as upon reflection while composing felt these last two pics were ..not the best for the purpose

 

 

Edited April 26 by chuck_foreman1

[gary green]

Hi Chuck,

I had a similar problem with my Argoflex Forty camera  that I discussed here (LINK) and also solved it it a similar manner.

[chuck_foreman1]

Hi Gary,

 

Thanks for the link to your earlier post .. I'd forgotten how you resolved.

"Flocking" problems like this are irritating 🙂 

From Gary Green:

My solution was to insert a baffle into the light chamber to attempt to prevent or minimize the light striking this flat portion of the light chamber perimeter at a shallow angle. My choice of baffle was a thin layer of black felt material (non shedding) that I adhered to the light chamber walls just to the inside edge of the flat perimeter close enough to cast a shadow on the flat perimeter but not close enough to the film plane to fuzz up the edges. So far so good; my early results have been promising. My first roll of film since installing the baffle had no frames with the “light leak” issue which is significant because I don’t believe any previous rolls shot through this camera didn’t have at least one frame affected. With this issue hopefully fixed, the honeymoon is back on.

I apparently wasn'T as chic in keeping it out of the film plane. I will of course not have to test my latest attempt... but not close enough to the film plane to fuzz up the edges."

Seems I "flocked" that up 🙂

If I get back to my Argus 40, I will do this too. My attempt to replace the hinged back..was not very fruitful. Some "self inflicted" problems...you have to live with!
Thanks for the reply!!

 

 

 

[bruce_z._li2]

On 4/27/2024 at 7:43 PM, gary green said:

Hi Chuck,

I had a similar problem with my Argoflex Forty camera  that I discussed here (LINK) and also solved it it a similar manner.

It seems there must be product improvements by Argus over the model's lifetime. I have an "Argus 40" (as shown on front plate) which has a matte (and almost rubber coated) surface inside. I guess Argus discovered the "bafflingly" reflection problems themselves or from their customers. In my use, the Argus 40 is one of the best "cheap" boxy cameras with an excellent triplet lens and very usable aperture/speed ranges.

I typically use black velvet fabric (with self adhesive back, designed for jewelry boxes) for my cameras. For example, many Holga cameras benefit from added baffles due to their shining plastic interior. 

[john_shriver]

Seems quite possible that the rear lens element is a doublet -- two elements cemented together. Very typical for a Tessar formula lens, which is what this camera almost certainly has. The two "chips" you show may be an area where separation of the cement between the two elements started. Separation will cause a lot of reflection at the junction between the two elements.

[chuck_foreman1]

@JohnS  Thanks for that input. I don't remember when I removed it the first time, if that mark was there. It did hit the floor once. When I cleaned the crud (2nd time) I noticed this and photographed it thinking too "separation"  but later noting the appearance ..it dawned on me this could be a due to a drop.  Either way, If it is "separation"; it is at the edge and would likely only affect full aperture exposures. Right? 
IIRC a few shots on the roll.. and this one of the Tulips are wide open 

 

 

All of these IIRC were at full aperture. the middle one... maybe not