M6 Classic "staggering" image

[buranca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

Just ran my first roll through my new (mint, near new in box) M6 Classic (1991) and stumbled upon a very strange occurrence. I did an obligatory search through the site, but as it is difficult to describe -I did not have much luck. I thought I would go ahead and post an image and hopefully get opinions. It is the one of the oddest things I have ever seen -I sure hope this is unique enough to warrant a thread and not something obvious!

 

Here is what I know...

 

1.) Camera is new to me. I was shooting BW400CN on a windless, bright day w/ a 50 LUX V2.

 

2.) Though the camera was properly loaded (in my novice M6 opinion) it appears as though there was some sort of issue possibly with the transport. I noticed some slight uneven spacing but nothing radical. There was no overlapping.

 

3.) The FIRST third of the roll seemed to process fine. The LAST third of the roll seemed to process fine.

 

4.) The MIDDLE section though... I had at least one frame that showed what looked like a vertical light leak on the left in LANDSCAPE. In PORTRAIT... I got this strange "staggering" in the film at the bottom (see upload). It occurred only in PORTRAIT. It seemed to diminish almost "rising" in the frame in a few more shots -then completely disappeared in later shots.

 

4.) This was a test roll and locally developed and scanned. When I first saw it -I thought bad scanning. When I got home, I rescanned on my Epson 750 and the "stagger" was still there.

 

5.) I have a second test roll in right now and I spent extra time ensuring the film was loaded correctly. I will have it processed and scanned at a different lab and post back any changes.

 

In the bottom of the image below you will note what I am describing -the film "staggered" and the image seemed to double, even triple up.

 

Is it possible that this somehow happened during processing?

 

May it be due to a body that just needed a workout?

 

Thanks for any advice/input you may be able to offer!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wizard]

Jeff,

 

from all I can tell (and I have about 35 years of experience using Leica M-cameras) this is not, and I am tempted to say, cannot be a fault of the camera. You do not wind the film during exposure, so there can't be any 'staggering' due to film movement when you press the shutter release.

 

Are you sure the area at the bottom of your image is not a water surface that's rippled due to some wind etc.? And what you describe are just reflections in the rippled water surface?

 

I can think of no way how this can happen in the camera.

 

Best,

 

Andy

[pico]

Jeff: You really need to put a loupe up against that frame to see what is really there. That eliminates the scanning factor. Overall focus is poor, so I suspect a scanning error. Just my two-bits. Good luck!

[buranca]

Andy,

 

Thanks for the fast reply!

 

No, no water in the foreground -bushes.

 

This happened on 3 or 4 frames diminishing as it went. All frames with the "stagger" were in portrait.

 

I too have shot film (and digital) for a long time and have NEVER seen anything like it. It is the strangest thing!

 

I am left with the idea that it somehow happened during processing -though even that does not really make sense -but all of the issues were in the middle of the roll.

[buranca]

Jeff: You really need to put a loupe up against that frame to see what is really there. That eliminates the scanning factor. Overall focus is poor, so I suspect a scanning error. Just my two-bits. Good luck!

 

It was scanned twice on two different machines -same result. The "stagger" is confirmed on the negative.

[buranca]

Below is a ~50% crop showing the issue on this particular frame.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[buranca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And below is a subsequent frame as the "stagger" started to rise and diminish. The bottom is now clear.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guido]

I can't imagine that this is a problem with the camera body. But I'd definitely try again with another lens. Maybe some kind of optical misalignment depending on the focus position of the lens?

[adan]

Which way do you hold the camera in "portrait" mode? Shutter hand up, or shutter hand down?

 

"Shutter hand up" would be like the right picture here: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/1694991666_1cdcd4e588.jpg

_________________

 

"I am left with the idea that it somehow happened during processing"

 

Ummm - no. An image can't move around on the film because of processing. Reminds me of the story a lab tech told me - about the woman whose film came out blank, and she insisted the lab strip down their processor and search it because the pictures "must have fallen off during processing and be in the bottom of the machine."

 

What this is is a localized double exposure - all we have to do is find out why that area got two exposures. Which is the reason for my original question. I suspect shutter bounce.

[buranca]

Folks,

 

Thanks so much for all the fast responses!

 

@nightfire: My only other glass is LTM and I have no adapter... yet.

 

@adan: I am shutter hand up (like the link) and had even though that perhaps a dangling strap may have been at issue but unlikely. I am in agreement with the localized double (even triple/quad+) exposure -the idea of processing was because I am stumped.

 

Thought: The more I think about it -something has come "springing" back in my mind... (pun likely intended). I folded the leader back on itself before dropping into the tulip. I have this flash in my brain that the edge may have been poking back through the slit as I closed the plate. This might have given enough vertical "springy" lift on the roll as it was advanced that the film itself may have possibly bounced -when the camera was only in vertical PORTRAIT orientation -considering that there is some slight play in the gear teeth/film sprocket hole interface.

 

The second roll has the tail within the tulip.

 

I will have the second roll back in the early afternoon (US EST).

 

Thanks so much, great forum!

[earleygallery]

I'd stab a guess at shutter bounce too, or, possibly the sprockets are dis-engaging for some reason when you fire the shutter, thus allowing any tension in the film to 'pull' it slightly...? as I say, just a guess.

 

If the problem persists with the next test roll then you need to get the camera checked out.

[adan]

OK - well, that rules out "classic" shutter bounce.

 

Which occurs at the closing end of the shutter (the viewfinder end) and thus would be seen at the TOP of the images if you are holding the camera as we agree.

 

My next suggestion would be - if the camera is not loaded - to open the back flap and watch the shutter while releasing it. At the end near the wind sprocket. At various shutter speeds. See if there is any hesitation or juddering of the curtains as they begin their travel across the film gate.

 

Normally any shutter hesitation would also result in overexposure - but in your two images, for the first, the area affected is in shadow, and in the second, the affected area does look overexposed (bright patch of earth is increasing "blown" towards the edge of the frame).

 

As to the film itself moving - the pressure plate should be holding it in place front to back. I guess it's possible the film "slipped" slightly, but I've never seen that myself.

 

I do find it amusing that some are straining to find something (Anything!) other than a camera fault as an explanation. Leica classic mechanical shutters are a 57-year-old makeover of an 86-year-old design. They are brilliant in their way, but like any clockwork do need regular service or they get loose and sloppy. A 1991 M6 classic should have had 2-3 CLAs during its 20 years - or it may well have developed some slop.

[buranca]

My next suggestion would be - if the camera is not loaded - to open the back flap and watch the shutter while releasing it. At the end near the wind sprocket. At various shutter speeds. See if there is any hesitation or juddering of the curtains as they begin their travel across the film gate.

 

I did just that last night. I spent a good bit of time at various speeds and nothing seemed abnormal. I worked and worked it.

 

As to the film itself moving - the pressure plate should be holding it in place front to back. I guess it's possible the film "slipped" slightly, but I've never seen that myself.

 

I agree... but it seems like the most likely candidate.

 

A 1991 M6 classic should have had 2-3 CLAs during its 20 years - or it may well have developed some slop.

 

Well, the camera is basically as new. I am certain it has never had any CLA. I do not know how many rolls it ever had through it. Based on just the condition of the camera -not many -if at all! I know that things can dry/gum up based on lack of use. In my OP -I had suggested that perhaps the body may just need a work out, which it received last night.

 

I am preparing the test now and will take multiple frames in all orientations/exposures that I can -keeping in mind that this ONLY seems to take place in PORTRAIT.

 

Thanks a bunch, again!

[pgk]

As to the film itself moving - the pressure plate should be holding it in place front to back. I guess it's possible the film "slipped" slightly, but I've never seen that myself.

I can see double imaging so it really does have to be film movement - a sudden, sharp but very small movement as though either tension has been applied or released. I can't see it being the shutter blinds because they shouldn't be able to physically cause any movement of the film (or if they could I'm sure it would be obvious that something was amiss upon inspection) so I'd go with a fault in the transport mechanism which is after all interlocked with the shutter release.

[adan]

Yep - OK - pgk is of course correct that firing the shutter does release the "lock" on the wind mechanism (to allow for advancing to the next frame). And that film movement has to be at least part of the equation, or the double/extra exposure (if any) would overlap perfectly and not be visible as such.

 

And, Jeff, as you imply, both lots of use/abuse, and little use, can lead to the clockwork being cranky.

 

As I said, I never ran across this particular effect, even though my first body was a M4-2, also about 20 years old at purchase, and also with some "looseness" to the wind (uneven frame spacing).

[250swb]

When you are shooting portrait 'shutter hand up' are you hanging the camera from the film advance lever in the standoff position by your thumb, or getting a good grip by putting tension on the advance lever? It shouldn't happen but I wonder if you are momentarily advancing the film a fraction during exposure due to some mechanical glitch.

 

Steve

[steed]

It looks to me as if the shutter might somehow be slowing its effective speed during its travel (assuming yoiu shot on the vertical), and thus showing blur from otherwise trivial movement of your hand.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

First although there may well be nay sayers you should not kink film ends for the tulip, unless you like new shutters, i.e. paying for rebuilds. The tulip will hold even narrow (thin base) PET film which you probably wont have access to.

 

But you are also not supposed to use the baseplate diagram either except when the temperature is -20C... The instruction manual is exact on the requirement, for loading the tulip.

 

Second remove baseplate, remove backdoor, point the camera at a light bulb indoors and fire frames looking at the image of the light bulb (in the area you are getting the problem). as the blind crosses. The shutter has an anti bounce device that needs some lube and correct adjustement, if you can see any flash at the end of shutter run you need a technician. He may need a simpler subject for example as well, like light bulb in dark room.

 

Third a light table and a loupe save a whole lot of scanning time, frequently all 6x6 frrames go from light table to bin, wastepaper, trash.

 

Sorry

 

Noel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

When you are shooting portrait 'shutter hand up' are you hanging the camera from the film advance lever in the standoff position by your thumb, or getting a good grip by putting tension on the advance lever? It shouldn't happen but I wonder if you are momentarily advancing the film a fraction during exposure due to some mechanical glitch.

 

You might be on to the problem. Since the camera is tilted shutter side up, this is occurring at the start of the shutter's travel and tension on the film advance would cause this if one of the latches releases the sprocket when the shutter is released. If this is the case I'd suspect a bit of play between the sprocket release latch and a film advance latch (which would be released when the shutter button returns to the top of its travel).

[buranca]

All,

 

First, I just wanted you to know that I only really frequent one other forum in another discipline (A/V - with some cross membership here). It is refreshing to find another delightful and responsive forum. I sincerely appreciate the insight and experience that you have all shared. As much as this is troubling -it is rather fun!

 

The second test roll is in. The "issue" as I will now refer to it is present, perhaps a little less severe.

 

1.) Same film, BW400CN -dial set to 400.

2.) Carefully loaded (with a smaller fold that I will try to avoid on the next load).

3.) Shot the same frame (four varying subjects indoors and out) at multiple orientations/apertures/speeds.

4.) Was hyper-cautious of the entire process -single stroke advance, returning lever to closed position. Watched hand hold points.

5.) Processed at a different lab.

6.) Recorded all notes (see PDF below).

 

Some conclusions: First and most importantly, I noted the issue also existing in some LANDSCAPE shots (I stated before that it was solely in PORTRAIT. Upon re-examining the first roll -I was wrong). It tends to also be accompanied by a light leak or strong overexposure in some shots BUT NOT ALL. It appears immediately at about the ~11th frame. It diminishes -almost disappears and then returns again at ~frame 19. By the last two frames -it is completely gone. So, frames 1-10 and 23-24 are perfect with NO issue.

 

When I saw the data, I went back and re-examined roll 1 and these sequences seem to be remarkably consistent. The last column below shows my evaluation of roll 1 based solely on the existence of the issue (not orientation/aperture/speed). The scale is 1-10 based on severity, 10 being the worst.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!