Naphtha is a generic term for a bunch of different chemicals. That being said, Ronsonol is generally safe for most plastics, especially when used in the small amounts one would use to remove foam seals. It evaporates very quickly, so it’s not usually exposed to anything long, unless you submerge it into a container or something. Not every plastic is safe to use with Ronsonol (it will eat through acrylics), but most (not all) of the plastics found in cameras will be safe. It will, however, damage the varnish coated paper blades found in some very old shutters, and can weaken rubber, but won’t generally completely dissolve it. The only issue I’ve had with it and cameras was it made the rubber coating on a Nikon N2000 sticky. It was fine after a few hours, but definitely gave me a good scare. It’s okay to use in short exposures with some kinds of rubber, after all it’s how they regrip golf clubs. But submersion probably isn’t a good idea. So it depends on the type of plastic and the duration of exposure.Naphtha damages plastic and rubber in cameras, avoid it. 90% Isopropal Alcohol works also and is safer to use in cameras.
Black yarn and velvet was used for light seal before foam rubber came along.
Light seals and foam strips are included in the camera design because they are needed. It cost money to design them in and they add to the costs and assembly complexity. The problem is to replace them when they have deteriorated.
Light will bend 90° to 180° around joints, 270° in some instances but not 360° based on satin or flat black surfaces. Camera backs provide a 180° to 270° turn to light travel but not a 360°.
You may not see a 270° light turn leak on 100 ISO or slower film but you will see it on films faster than 400 ISO or pushed 400 ISO.
Light will bend 90° to 180° around joints, 270° in some instances but not 360° based on satin or flat black surfaces. Camera backs provide a 180° to 270° turn to light travel but not a 360°.
You may not see a 270° light turn leak on 100 ISO or slower film but you will see it on films faster than 400 ISO or pushed 400 ISO.
For me, I made the choice that they are simply not necessary. I took them all out and painted the grooves flat black, thereby creating a light trap, which works perfectly fine by itself.eliminating the need for a faulty part is the ultimate fix.no issues so far on Nikon FM/FE bodies.I've had many, many experiences with the sticky goop these rubber foam light seals turn into, and it is one of the most infuriating substances to deal with, it simultaneously is sticky and crumbling, getting on everything and smudging the most important parts of any camera. On a Zone VI enlarger I purchased, the cold light head was completely surrounded with this menace, and required hours of clean-up...and then I simply replaced the area with black electrical tape and went on my way. Now that the foam on my Pentax 67x's viewfinder is crumbing and getting everywhere on the ground glass, I purchased a light-seal replacement set from micro-tools.com but thought "there's got to be a better way". And so, I ask for anyone's opinion if the light seal/baffle business is REALLY necessary (for certain cameras at least). I have noticed a few of my 35mm cameras missing the seal on the door, and I've never noticed any light-leaks. If I replace the foam, will it just degrade in another 15 years? I am a fairly young and expect to use film for a long while, this baffle business just seems antiquated. Are materials better now? Is there something else I can use?
wool is an excellent idea; it's flexible and will last longer than the cameraNaphtha is a generic term for a bunch of different chemicals. That being said, Ronsonol is generally safe for most plastics, especially when used in the small amounts one would use to remove foam seals. It evaporates very quickly, so it’s not usually exposed to anything long, unless you submerge it into a container or something. Not every plastic is safe to use with Ronsonol (it will eat through acrylics), but most (not all) of the plastics found in cameras will be safe. It will, however, damage the varnish coated paper blades found in some very old shutters, and can weaken rubber, but won’t generally completely dissolve it. The only issue I’ve had with it and cameras was it made the rubber coating on a Nikon N2000 sticky. It was fine after a few hours, but definitely gave me a good scare. It’s okay to use in short exposures with some kinds of rubber, after all it’s how they regrip golf clubs. But submersion probably isn’t a good idea. So it depends on the type of plastic and the duration of exposure.
Isopropyl Alchohol will dissolve PP plastics. It’s safe for most others, but it’s not as good at dissolving many types of oils and adhesives. My eyeglass wipes prove that, as they’re premoistened in Isopropyl and mainly just smear the oils from my skin around. That’s why I have to wash them with soap and water about once a week.
Acetone will eat most plastics and paint. That’s the one to avoid.
Which solvent to use depends on what you’re trying to dissolve and what you’re not trying to dissolve. The problem with cameras is you generally don’t know what you’re trying to not dissolve is made of. So your best bet would be to do a test a small amount in a small, inconspicuous area first. I generally start off with Isopropyl and then move up to Ronsonol if that doesn’t work. For light seals, I generally find Isopropyl too laborious.
To the OP, some cameras need foam light seals, and some don’t. My Pentax K1000 leaked light pretty bad before I replaced the seals on it. I don’t think my Argus C3 ever had foam, and it’s light tight. My David White Stereo Realist didn’t come from the factory with any light seals, yet it leaked light, so I had to install some. If you want a light seal that won’t break down every 15 years or so, use wool felt and wool yarn. It has to be real wool (preferably black) and not the cheaper, synthetic stuff. It’s more difficult to apply, but it will outlast foam many times over. Closed cell foam should also last longer than the open cell foam they typically used in older cameras. But closed cell foam isn’t always the best option, like for mirror bumpers, as it doesn’t compress as easily.
After you’ve replaced a few light seals, you get good at it and it’s no longer the nightmare it was the first time you did it. Soaking the new foam strips in Ronsonol before applying them helps a lot because it gives you several seconds to apply the seal without the adhesive trying to stick to anything, and then evaporates and leaves the adhesive good as new. Isopropyl would have a similar effect, but doesn’t evaporate as quickly and doesn’t make the adhesive as slick. But if your applying it to a type of plastic that doesn’t like Ronsonol, that’s your best bet. I’ve done more cameras than I can count, so it takes me less than 30 minutes to completely clean, fabricate (I make my own light seals), and install new seals on a typical 35mm SLR. I actually enjoy doing it, but I wouldn’t want to do it for a living.
I have an old lubitel 166u from the 80's and a new lomography 166+. The newer camera does not have any light seal material, while the old 166u does. My newer camera shows evidence of light leaks on the far edges of the film, luckily not reaching the photo portion of the film. I can say with certainty for at least the old lubitel style designs that the light seal is beneficial to have.I've had many, many experiences with the sticky goop these rubber foam light seals turn into, and it is one of the most infuriating substances to deal with, it simultaneously is sticky and crumbling, getting on everything and smudging the most important parts of any camera. On a Zone VI enlarger I purchased, the cold light head was completely surrounded with this menace, and required hours of clean-up...and then I simply replaced the area with black electrical tape and went on my way. Now that the foam on my Pentax 67x's viewfinder is crumbing and getting everywhere on the ground glass, I purchased a light-seal replacement set from micro-tools.com but thought "there's got to be a better way". And so, I ask for anyone's opinion if the light seal/baffle business is REALLY necessary (for certain cameras at least). I have noticed a few of my 35mm cameras missing the seal on the door, and I've never noticed any light-leaks. If I replace the foam, will it just degrade in another 15 years? I am a fairly young and expect to use film for a long while, this baffle business just seems antiquated. Are materials better now? Is there something else I can use?
Some yarn is wool, other types synthetic wool. (post 3).wool is an excellent idea
Yes.I've had many, many experiences with the sticky goop these rubber foam light seals turn into, and it is one of the most infuriating substances to deal with, it simultaneously is sticky and crumbling, getting on everything and smudging the most important parts of any camera. On a Zone VI enlarger I purchased, the cold light head was completely surrounded with this menace, and required hours of clean-up...and then I simply replaced the area with black electrical tape and went on my way. Now that the foam on my Pentax 67x's viewfinder is crumbing and getting everywhere on the ground glass, I purchased a light-seal replacement set from micro-tools.com but thought "there's got to be a better way". And so, I ask for anyone's opinion if the light seal/baffle business is REALLY necessary (for certain cameras at least). I have noticed a few of my 35mm cameras missing the seal on the door, and I've never noticed any light-leaks. If I replace the foam, will it just degrade in another 15 years? I am a fairly young and expect to use film for a long while, this baffle business just seems antiquated. Are materials better now? Is there something else I can use?
And the sarcastic response is: "No, they're absolutely useless, that's why they put them there".I've had many, many experiences with the sticky goop these rubber foam light seals turn into, and it is one of the most infuriating substances to deal with, it simultaneously is sticky and crumbling, getting on everything and smudging the most important parts of any camera. On a Zone VI enlarger I purchased, the cold light head was completely surrounded with this menace, and required hours of clean-up...and then I simply replaced the area with black electrical tape and went on my way. Now that the foam on my Pentax 67x's viewfinder is crumbing and getting everywhere on the ground glass, I purchased a light-seal replacement set from micro-tools.com but thought "there's got to be a better way". And so, I ask for anyone's opinion if the light seal/baffle business is REALLY necessary (for certain cameras at least). I have noticed a few of my 35mm cameras missing the seal on the door, and I've never noticed any light-leaks. If I replace the foam, will it just degrade in another 15 years? I am a fairly young and expect to use film for a long while, this baffle business just seems antiquated. Are materials better now? Is there something else I can use?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?