The first and last frame of the roll have more light leaks than the rest of the roll. Makes me wonder if it is the lab messing up. The last frame especially having more light leaks makes me wonder since this camera auto winds immediately after the last frame is taken. When I asked the owner of the lab he said "my lab techs are the best in the world".
I did a quick test with a flashlight and couldn't see any light coming in from the front or back of the film back, but who knows. I ran a roll through a new film back and sent to the same lab. So I guess will see.
Also interesting that 120 scans are 19 mp, and 35mm scans are 30mp.
lifeandmylens wrote:
The first and last frame of the roll have more light leaks than the rest of the roll. Makes me wonder if it is the lab messing up. The last frame especially having more light leaks makes me wonder since this camera auto winds immediately after the last frame is taken. When I asked the owner of the lab he said "my lab techs are the best in the world".
I did a quick test with a flashlight and couldn't see any light coming in from the front or back of the film back, but who knows. I ran a roll through a new film back and sent to the same lab. So I guess will see.
Also interesting that 120 scans are 19 mp, and 35mm scans are 30mp....Show more →
You need to replace some light seals. I had that too in my Mamiya 645 - new door seals and light leaks are gone. I didn't realize how bad they were until I started pulling the foam (what was left of the foam) out. One of the joys of using 40 year old equipment. There are kits you can get on eBay for almost any camera.
Medium format scans don't need as much data to provide similarly good images as 35mm scans.
Oldwino wrote:
You need to replace some light seals. I had that too in my Mamiya 645 - new door seals and light leaks are gone. I didn't realize how bad they were until I started pulling the foam (what was left of the foam) out. One of the joys of using 40 year old equipment. There are kits you can get on eBay for almost any camera.
Medium format scans don't need as much data to provide similarly good images as 35mm scans.
Thanks. There are no foam seals on these backs. There is a rubber one, it looks fine. But who knows.
lifeandmylens wrote:
Thanks. There are no foam seals on these backs. There is a rubber one, it looks fine. But who knows.
But there is probably a seal inside, at the opening for the dark slide. It should spring back when you remove the dark slide and seal the opening, but when it gets old, it's not so springy. It's a typical fail point of hasselblad backs, and I bet here, too.
You can shoot a roll and leave the dark slide out and tape over the opening with some black tape. If there are no light issues, then that's probably where the problem lies.
rji2goleez wrote:
So how do I have a IIc with and f/2.0 lens?
Either the front lens group, or the entire shutter & lens assembly has been swapped for the original. The IIc was not sold with an f2.0 lens on it. Your camera has been modified.
Does the serial number on the front lens group match the serial number on the front ring of the shutter? If not, only the front lens group has been switched.
RetinaRepair wrote:
Either the front lens group, or the entire shutter & lens assembly has been swapped for the original. The IIc was not sold with an f2.0 lens on it. Your camera has been modified.
Does the serial number on the front lens group match the serial number on the front ring of the shutter? If not, only the front lens group has been switched.
I think you just returned my IIc to me after CLA work. Paul, this is Bob. And I believe you concluded that the entire front element was replaced.
Bad (or good?) news. Two more rolls were processed from the same camera and film back that previously had light leaks on every frame. Zero light leaks on these. I'm pretty convinced the previous light leaks were from the techs at the lab. Here is one from the new roll.
