IIIg with light leak ?

[didier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear all,

my inherited IIIg has already spend some (a lot of) time in Wetzlar. It has been CLA’d and I got it in spring 25 after almost one year.. and it went back 3 times afterwards till it worked.
I got 2 films (C41) back and some pictures have a repeating pattern, but not all of them. Some pictures - probably the most exposed pictures (high EV) get in the corner the same repeating pattern.

Some pics of the 2 films have that - what still seem random - pattern, all shot with a (also CLA’d) Summicron 50 collapsible.

Any insight welcome

Thanks

Didier 

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!

 

Edited June 29 by didier

[nitroplait]

You will need to show a scan of the entire negative (including sprocket holes) in order to effectively troubleshoot this problem.

[250swb]

A picture of the whole negative would be helpful but the leak is very precise shape and coming from the top left corner of the camera (image projected onto the negative upside down and back to front) and it's not orange so not coming in from the back but the front onto the film. So maybe it looks like it could be an internal light baffle that hasn't been replaced but that is the area to look imo.

[Sandokan]

Check which shutter speed the offending pictures used. 

Check if the frame was held in the camera for a while before shooting and moving on, but those without were shot quickly and moved on. 

Do you have a leather case for it? I had a M3 which developed a light leak but was worse on some photos than others (shot and wound quickly had no/little leak). It also did not appear on some rolls of film, before reappearing. Turns out it was a missing screw on front body of camera and when I used a case, it disappeared. Inserted a screw and has never reappeared. 

[didier]

Thank you @nitroplait, @250swb 

[didier]

Thank you @nitroplait, @250swb and @Sandokan for your insights. I don’t remember Ravi the precise conditions of shooting every shot, but it could be 1/500 and 1/1000, and no case.

I haven’t got the negatives from the lab yet, but will show you asap.

Didier 

[jerzy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yes, scan of perforation and space between frames would help a lot. My suspicion goes into direction of small, triangle, sort of light baffle, made of fabric. Die cast has opening there which is covered with the fabric. If missing, and if the space under the slow speeds dial in not light tight (shall be covered with hard wax) then the light may penetrate into film chamber. Film in the chamber is wound with emulsion outside. In order to check if fabric is there cover has been taken off. But you may check if you see hard wax applied on vulcanite around the slow speeds dial

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!

[earleygallery]

4 trips to Leica? Surely you should just send it back again and let them repair it properly. 

[nitroplait]

3 hours ago, jerzy said:

My suspicion goes into direction of small, triangle, sort of light baffle, made of fabric.
 

Thanks for that photo Jerzy. That piece of black fabric made me laugh. Looks like an afterthought.

Is it only necessary on the Barnacks with the slow speed dial?

[qqphot]

2 hours ago, earleygallery said:

4 trips to Leica? Surely you should just send it back again and let them repair it properly. 

After some number of repetitions one has to assume it won't be fixed the next time either!

[nitroplait]

5 minutes ago, qqphot said:

After some number of repetitions one has to assume it won't be fixed the next time either!

Absolutely. There is good reason to doubt they will fix it the 5th time.

Maybe request a refund and find another repair facility. Surely EU consumer law should have your back (if you live in EU).

[jerzy]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb nitroplait:

Is it only necessary on the Barnacks with the slow speed dial?

not on ptre IIIc, they do mnot have die cast, it is done differemntly there. But as well not all IIIc/IIIf/IIIg will suffer light leak without it. It is individual thing, was added in the factory for IIIf only. But will help on IIIc as well if they have light leak.

[didier]

Dear all, thanks for your input. I am pretty upset at the job Leica Wetzlar did…

Here are the full negs I got in the Mail today : the pattern is clearly visible.

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!

[earleygallery]

Well that is definitely a leak coming in from the front of the camera and not a leak through the shutter curtains. 

I would want to speak to someone at Leica and discuss options - will they refund you for the work and you can go elsewhere, or will they take care of it (including shipping costs each way) and promise a quick turnaround? 

Send them negs with the camera if you do return it. 

[jerzy]

it is not always easy to localize where the light leak comes from, sometimes you need few approaches (and few film roles). Pattern on your sgtripes looks like the missing traingle piece of fabric could be where the light penetrates into film chamber. But not neccesarily missing wax seal around the slow speed dial is the place where light penetrates from outside. It could be as well around the reverse lever where it goes under the top cover und then it is being reflected. To minimize this possibility top cover (which is chromed as well inside) shall be painted dull black inside.
Now, before sending back (send one negative stripe as well) you may try to localize where the light penetrates into the camera. Take the bottom cover off, take a strong torch and being in darkeness light the torch on various places on top cover looking at the same time into film chamber. With some luck you will be able to find the weak spot, this will help you to see if after repair camera is light proof.

[250swb]

I don't think the leak is shining onto the wound film or there would be ghost images as well as the main leak showing, so somewhere just after the shutter and before the film take-up chamber. Also if the leak was onto the wound exposed film it would move a little from beginning to end as the exposed roll got fatter.

[jerzy]

the shape and position of light leak on film looks to me very much like being not blocked by missing trangle fabric (btw, it is cut from remainings of curtain fabric). If you mind with ghost images the light that is reaching the second layer of film through the first than it might be  correct. 

vor 4 Stunden schrieb 250swb:

Also if the leak was onto the wound exposed film it would move a little from beginning to end as the exposed roll got fatter.

This is not quite correct in my opinion. The distance how far the film is transported each frame is always the same , 8 sprockets. And this is regardless if it is at the beginning or at the end of exposed roll. There is a sort of clutch on wind spindle to ensure this otherwise perforation would be torn. So regardless how fat the exposed roll is the exposed frame is always at the same position versus possible leak source (and this the ghost image in the second layer matches the first layer)

[250swb]

3 hours ago, jerzy said:

the shape and position of light leak on film looks to me very much like being not blocked by missing trangle fabric (btw, it is cut from remainings of curtain fabric). If you mind with ghost images the light that is reaching the second layer of film through the first than it might be  correct. 

This is not quite correct in my opinion. The distance how far the film is transported each frame is always the same , 8 sprockets. And this is regardless if it is at the beginning or at the end of exposed roll. There is a sort of clutch on wind spindle to ensure this otherwise perforation would be torn. So regardless how fat the exposed roll is the exposed frame is always at the same position versus possible leak source (and this the ghost image in the second layer matches the first layer)

No, I don't think you have thought it through. If the leak is shining onto the roll of exposed film not only would there be ghost images of the leak exposed on different layers of film but the ghost images would have to change position as the roll increases in size. It makes no difference how far the film is transported, it is how it is wound up and the diameter of the roll as it gets exposed. At frame #1 there is no significant diameter to the wound on roll, at frame #36 the diameter of the roll has got a lot bigger, 36 exposures bigger, so the ghost images of the leak shining though many layers have to change position.

How can I make it simple? If you mark out a length of masking tape at say 10mm intervals (for convenience), set a starting position then start to wind it around a pencil. Eventually you'll get bored after many metres so when that happens drill a hole in the roll of tape to represent the light leak and unwrap the roll and you'll see the position of the hole going through the tape changes in distance relative to each other over the length as the diameter of the roll has changed. It is a similar principle that a roll of Sellotape reduces in diameter slowly at the start and increases proportionally more quickly as it is used, so always buy more Sellotape before you think you need it.

Edited July 1 by 250swb

[jerzy]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb 250swb:

No, I don't think you have thought it through.

well, I believe I did. And I know how camera is built and works.
But maybe we meant different things. Your comment and explanation is valid for the ghost image (if we understand as ghost image the effect of light leak on the second and further layers of wound film) but I believe that the light leak (on examples shown) is too weak to penetrate through the first layer and darken the second layer. We may see it here, there is pretty strong darkening on perforation, this is where the hole in the first layer was (it was probably frame 9), but not in the frame itself.

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!

 I made an experiment, with IIIc, but it is irrelevant here, how the film is transported is the same in IIIc and IIIg. I took negative stripe, marked it with tape approx position where the light leak on negatives from Didier (shape and size irrelevant), aligned the stripe so that the frame on the stripe matches frame window on the camera. Photo to the left shows where the light leak is. And this points into direction of either missing wax sealling and/or fabric shield or around the reverse lever.

Position of light leak is the same at the beginning and end of the roll, it is just that at the end of film stripe is closer to the sprocket drum. This could have impact on the shape of light leak but on samples presented by Didier they are too close to each other, we should rather check stripes at the beg and end of film.

And finally how it is implemented, rising diameter of wound film and the same length of film advanced.
This is the wind spindle (as well IIIc, irrelevenat for explanation); wind knob and gear rotates always (almost) one full rotation in one wind cycle. But the part where the film spool is sitting makes less that one rotation when at the end of film, There is this sort of clutch mentioned earlier, part where film spool sits slides over the part with gear. Friction between these two parts may be adjusted by fastening the spring, screwing the most right part of spindle. This adjustment is very rarely to be done but if this is wrongly adjusted perforation will be torn (if friction too strong). But this has nothing to do with the light leak.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

1 hour ago, jerzy said:

well, I believe I did. And I know how camera is built and works.
But maybe we meant different things. Your comment and explanation is valid for the ghost image (if we understand as ghost image the effect of light leak on the second and further layers of wound film) but I believe that the light leak (on examples shown) is too weak to penetrate through the first layer and darken the second layer. We may see it here, there is pretty strong darkening on perforation, this is where the hole in the first layer was (it was probably frame 9), but not in the frame itself.

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!

 I made an experiment, with IIIc, but it is irrelevant here, how the film is transported is the same in IIIc and IIIg. I took negative stripe, marked it with tape approx position where the light leak on negatives from Didier (shape and size irrelevant), aligned the stripe so that the frame on the stripe matches frame window on the camera. Photo to the left shows where the light leak is. And this points into direction of either missing wax sealling and/or fabric shield or around the reverse lever.

Position of light leak is the same at the beginning and end of the roll, it is just that at the end of film stripe is closer to the sprocket drum. This could have impact on the shape of light leak but on samples presented by Didier they are too close to each other, we should rather check stripes at the beg and end of film.

And finally how it is implemented, rising diameter of wound film and the same length of film advanced.
This is the wind spindle (as well IIIc, irrelevenat for explanation); wind knob and gear rotates always (almost) one full rotation in one wind cycle. But the part where the film spool is sitting makes less that one rotation when at the end of film, There is this sort of clutch mentioned earlier, part where film spool sits slides over the part with gear. Friction between these two parts may be adjusted by fastening the spring, screwing the most right part of spindle. This adjustment is very rarely to be done but if this is wrongly adjusted perforation will be torn (if friction too strong). But this has nothing to do with the light leak.

Yes I'm taking about a ghost image and if there is or isn't one. As there doesn't seem to be a ghost image then the leak has to be imprinted either before it is wound onto the take up spool or as it leaves the cassette. If the leak was in the film take up spool chamber and the leak is reaching the edge of the film as it does then there would be considerable edge exposure along the length of the film, but there isn't any, the leak remains a specific shape and place throughout the roll, unless the OP hasn't shown it.

Edited July 2 by 250swb