M6 Weird Flares / Rolling Effects?

[shawn2nd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Guys,

Fairly new M6 shooter here, I got the Camera about a month ago and have put about 8 rolls of film thru it thus far and super happy. This morning I got back scans from my lab on 2 rolls of HP5 shot at ISO 800, and from the total batch of 72 pictures, all of them were fine in the sense of came out great, or if the picture was not great, It was easy to identify that it was my fault with a bad exposure. But there's two pictures I'm attaching here and I'm not sure what happened. 

In the first picture of the cafe with the graffiti of the women on the wall, I'm not sure what happened in the bottom right and how I have a flare just here. I'm not shooting into the sun, and I've got nothing next to me that should be doing any kind of hard core reflecting. 

In the second picture of the gate thing, It looks like the shutter curtain was photographed somehow, which I'm not sure what could've caused this. Thought it was just motion blur from a slow shutter speed, but the background elements are sharp. 

For context, I don't have the exact exposures in my head for these anymore, but I'm primarily a sunny 16 shooter so we can assume both of these are from somewhere around 12:00 - 18:00 during the day, shot at aperatures of f5.6 - 5f16 at a shutter speed of 1000. 

Are these signs that the camera may have some problems that I need to consider getting investigated / fixed? 

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!

[david strachan]

Hi Shawn

Perhaps some more analysis before sending camera off for repairs.

Are these images the only ones?  First or end roll pictures?

I'd be developing yourself..not all sendaway developers are good...I've had some shockers with grit, scratches and flashing flare.

Possibly a film cassette loading problem

Good luck and hope you can solve.

...

[shawn2nd]

5 minutes ago, david strachan said:

Hi Shawn

Perhaps some more analysis before sending camera off for repairs.

Are these images the only ones?  First or end roll pictures?

I'd be developing yourself..not all sendaway developers are good...I've had some shockers with grit, scratches and flashing flare.

Possibly a film cassette loading problem

Good luck and hope you can solve.

...

Hey @david strachan thanks, these are the only 2 of 72 images that have weirdness, and the only 2 of the total 8/9 rolls of film I've shot thus far. I'm starting to develop on my own too 🙂

Regarding roll position, no idea, won't know until I get the negs back

[logan2z]

These look like light leaks. 

I have the same question as @david strachan re: where on the roll these photos appear.  I've recently been having an issue with fogging at the beginning of some rolls of HP5 in what looks like a similar pattern.  I've been communicating about it with Ilford and trying to find the source. It's possible that the issue is with a faulty light trap in a batch of HP5 cassettes but that is still yet to be determined.  Post back with the position of these shots when you receive your negatives.  

[250swb]

Seeing the sprocket holes and the frame numbers of the affected frames may help in diagnosing potential leaks and whether they come from the camera or somewhere else.

[madNbad]

 Buy a roll of TMax or Tri-X and see if the problem persists. 

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is definitely some kind of excess-light fogging - but that covers a LOT of ground.

Especially since light exposure is cumulative - the same "leak" or other source may not produce a visible effect if one is shooting rapidly and constantly keeping the film advancing. But then show up if the film sits in one place for a longer time between advances.

The second image with lines running right across the film (top to bottom) could be a slightly-sticky second shutter curtain, especially at near 1000th sec. The shutter slit at that speed is very narrow (1.8mm), so even a slight judder or uneven travel that changes that width can have a big effect. But the amount of fogging looks too large even for that.

And the other shot, where the white band does NOT cover the full width, also somewhat negates that theory.

So I favor a light leak somewhere - in the cassette's felt barrier (as logan2x suggests), or the camera, or the lab's processor's "dark chamber" if machine-processed.

The usual caveat at the end of ambiguous science reports applies - "Further research and experimentation is necessary." Different film type/brand, different lab, more pictures.

Edit to add: That does NOT look like any kind of flare pattern I have ever seen in 50+ years of photography.

Edited August 25, 2023 by adan

[hansvons]

Are these the first images of a respective roll? I have seen this as well. But my cameras work as they should. For a classic camera light leak, the variations are too broad. 

[shawn2nd]

Update to everyone, you guys were right on the money with your suspicions, in both cases, the images are exposure "0" of their respective rolls. So maybe this was just a weird batch of HP5. I shoot primarily Fomapan 400 (Never saw it there) and also have shot quite a bit of HP5 and this is the first time I've gotten this result with HP5, and I know the two rolls were from the same day of purchase. 

Stupid follow up question here, but what's the takeaway here? Just try not to take super meaningful first pictures? lol

Thanks!

[logan2z]

14 minutes ago, shawn2nd said:

Update to everyone, you guys were right on the money with your suspicions, in both cases, the images are exposure "0" of their respective rolls. So maybe this was just a weird batch of HP5. I shoot primarily Fomapan 400 (Never saw it there) and also have shot quite a bit of HP5 and this is the first time I've gotten this result with HP5, and I know the two rolls were from the same day of purchase. 

Stupid follow up question here, but what's the takeaway here? Just try not to take super meaningful first pictures? lol

Thanks!

Thanks for following up. 

I would suggest that you reach out to Ilford's technical support team using the contact form on their web site.  That's who I've been communicating with about this and they have been incredibly helpful and responsive. 

When I spoke with them they said they had not heard about this from other customers.  It looks like you've stumbled onto the same issue and this extra information could help them track down the source. 

BTW, what is the 'finishing number' in the film rebate area of your two rolls? It should be a number like 5514-11.  Three of the 5 rolls I've shot recently that have this issue contain that finishing number. 

[shawn2nd]

@logan2z will do, the finish number is 5492-11 & 12 respectively. 

 

[logan2z]

13 minutes ago, shawn2nd said:

@logan2z will do, the finish number is 5492-11 & 12 respectively. 

 

Thanks, I have two different finishing numbers on my affected rolls.  Now you have two more.

I'm sure Ilford will figure this all out.  At the very least they will kindly offer to replace your affected rolls.  Obviously that won't replace the lost photos but it's a very nice gesture.

Edited August 25, 2023 by logan2z

[shawn2nd]

@logan2z the mystery unravels lol, just shot thru another roll of HP5...only 28 frames. Advance lever stopped on camera and I thought something on camera was busted, went the safe route and rewound the canister, developed the roll myself tonight, and sure enough only 28 frames when coming out of the tank. Thought maybe i cut too early, so just broke open the canister to check, and sure enough, i got it all. Guess it's time for another email to Ilford.

[LocalHero1953]

Er - obvious stupid question: 24 exposure or 36 exposure roll?

And are you winding on two exposures at the start? You said earlier that the bad ones were 'exposure 0'. I don't normally have an exposure 0 - after winding on two exposures at the start, my exposures usually start at exposure 1.

If you're not winding on at the start as recommended, you might just get 28 'exposures' out a 24 shot roll.

Edited August 26, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[250swb]

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 

And are you winding on two exposures at the start? You said earlier that the bad ones were 'exposure 0'. I don't normally have an exposure 0 - after winding on two exposures at the start, my exposures usually start at exposure 1.

 

I always get a '0' exposure but it's usually of my feet, or the sky, 😁

My camera broke just recently in a similar way, it stopped at frame 25. It was a Nikon SP which has a generous and consistent frame spacing unlike many Leica M's I've used, so getting 28 out of a Leica would be very possible. I fixed the camera by loading a 36 exposure roll. 

It's just not worth being mean when loading film, and it's a modern thing because people are now spooked by the price of film, but if I've been forced to load in bright sunlight I'll happily write my own insurance policy and wind on to frame 2. 

[shawn2nd]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Er - obvious stupid question: 24 exposure or 36 exposure roll?

And are you winding on two exposures at the start? You said earlier that the bad ones were 'exposure 0'. I don't normally have an exposure 0 - after winding on two exposures at the start, my exposures usually start at exposure 1.

If you're not winding on at the start as recommended, you might just get 28 'exposures' out a 24 shot roll.

@LocalHero1953 I suspected this at first too but as far as I can tell HP5 doesn’t come in 24 and I had no remaking film left when I cut it as I normally do. Normally there’s like 2-3 frames of safety at the end to not cut into frame 36, but my cut this time was right in the middle of frame 28. Broke open the canister and there was only about 1cm left of film on the reel. So I genuinely believe it was a mispacakeged 36 exposure roll. 

[250swb]

@shawn2nd HP5 does come in 24 exposure rolls.

[shawn2nd]

@250swb you’re totally right I stand corrected! Still don’t think this was the case in this incident tho haha

[jgeenen]

There is always a risk for light leaking through the „mouth“ of the cartridge, that exposes usually the outer winding (aka frame) of a film. This is totally normal. Best advices:

• always change Film in dim light - at least shadow.
• if in doubt, start with a „blind“ exposure. This is no waste. Usually, film takes 38 exposures. Just start with 2 and you still have 36 exposures.
• store Film always in dark containers.

With classic cameras (with a back door) - I usually took one wind with open door to check proper film transport. On Leica this is not possible - as a result the Leica uses the film more efficiently which increases the light leak risk on the first (and sometimes second) frame.

Johannes

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

39 minutes ago, shawn2nd said:

@250swb you’re totally right I stand corrected! Still don’t think this was the case in this incident tho haha

You could go to the 'Ilford Sold Me a Short Roll of Film' Forum and compare notes before contacting Ilford. On the other hand if when buying film you thought, 'hey that's cheap!' it could lead to another answer.