Are light seals/baffles really necessary?

Brirish Wildflowers

A
Brirish Wildflowers

  • 0
  • 0
  • 15
Classic Biker

A
Classic Biker

  • 1
  • 0
  • 16
Dog Walker

A
Dog Walker

  • 0
  • 0
  • 12
Flannigan's Pass

A
Flannigan's Pass

  • 4
  • 1
  • 57

Forum statistics

Threads
198,984
Messages
2,784,128
Members
99,761
Latest member
Hooper
Recent bookmarks
1

mercurye

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
29
Location
Bay Area, CA
Format
Traditional
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?
 

Dan Daniel

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,896
Location
upstate New York
Format
Medium Format
There are cases where light seals also serve as a spacing or indexing surface, so a focus screen can end up in the wrong plane without them or with ones that are too thick or too thin.

On camera back doors, it depends. The only way to know is to load film, take the camera in the sun and expose all surfaces, handle a lot in order to see if pressure bends or displaces anything and causes a leak, etc.

Naphtha (lighter fluid) is good for getting the smudge goo off without attacking paint, etc.
 

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,070
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
On the Pentax viewfinder, I find good condition seals keep dust and dirt from getting on the focusing screen, which is something I find very distracting.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
Replacing the baffle seal on the underside of the Pentax 6x7 / 67 viewfinder is a grubby, grotty and generally quite laborious exercise assisted by isopropyl alcohol (nothing else!), a tooth pic, tissue and clean fingers, but it is essential to seal the finder against extraneous light and dust. Aki-Asahi is widely respected for the excellent precision cut seals to fit the 6x7 / 67, additional to other cameras. Note that neither Pentax camera uses full-length seals along the back or cover: it uses a dovetail to effectively seal out light and dust and is very effective.

The life expectancy of foam seals should exceed 15 years; 20-25 would be my best estimate; my Pentax 67 TTL prism seals were redone on the 26th anniversary!
If a camera has evidence of foam for light seals, it follows that those seals should be replaced as a matter of routine and not disregarded irrespective of whether or note light piping has been noticed.
 

Nodda Duma

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
2,685
Location
Batesville, Arkansas
Format
Multi Format
I am pretty lazy in replacing light seals and have yet to encounter issue.
 

jim10219

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
1,632
Location
Oklahoma
Format
4x5 Format
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.
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.

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.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,389
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
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.

+1
 

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
It depends on the camera but certainly the light seals are essential on my Olympus OM cameras. I have had them deteriorate and the films were ruined. My original seals lasted 25 years. I replaced them myself with a kit from Jon Goodman. It is a time consuming process to do the seals but the end result is a camera fit for many years to come. You need some quiet undisturbed time, good light, a clean work space and patience. Be very careful that you don't spread little sticky bits of degraded foam all over the insides of the camera especially over the shutter curtain. You can mask off with paper for added safety. For my OM cameras the light seals are relatively straightforward but the mirror dampers are more tricky. It is great to have a camera with a quiet mirror and no little bits of yuk over the focussing screen though.

Yes, replacement foam will eventually degrade but all machines need replacement parts from time to time! The best foams last decades and that's a lot of photographs.......
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Are light seals necessary? It depends.

There common designs that got a groove and spring construction. Though not tight at all as in woodworking I assume them to be lighttight basically. If so then they typically have a hinge section without groove and spring. So then at least this part needs a seal. If one considers in such case to ommit further sealing then place a strip of film long enough to stretch from cassette- to take-up-chamber in the camera and light the rabbet sections with a strong light from all angles.

A light seals also acts as dust and vapour seal. Seen the typical many other openings one may argue on the necessity of such.
 

GLS

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2018
Messages
1,726
Location
England
Format
Multi Format
Yes, of course they are necessary. If they were not they would not be part of the camera design.

When I bought my Pentax 6x7 MLU (probably a 35+ year old camera) the existing seals were very degraded, shedding tiny bits of foam everywhere. Apart from the annoyance of them constantly getting onto the focusing screen, you definitely don't want them getting onto the film and causing imperfections on the exposed images, or into the camera's internal mechanisms.

I bought one of those laser-cut replacement seal kits (actually came with two whole sets, so you have a spare set if anything goes wrong), and fit it myself. I removed the old seals with meths, toothpicks and cotton buds; very tedious work to remove all the old gunk, especially in the very narrow channels, but worth it in the end. As has been said, stay away from any solvents other than alcohol-based ones, as they will dissolve paints and plastics.
 

summicron1

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
2,920
Location
Ogden, Utah
Format
Multi Format
Of course they are—i have had to replace the foam in several older Nikon cameras because they were leaking light adjacent to the hinge...and the Realist stereo cameras are famous for this problem.

As to baffles — yes. There is a noticeable difference. Internal reflections are a major problem — they are why people think Holga cameras leak light. They don’t, much, but the shiny plastic inside them bounces light everywhere — upgrades include both baffles and spray-painting the interior with flat black paint.
 

shutterfinger

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
5,020
Location
San Jose, Ca.
Format
4x5 Format
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.
 
Last edited:

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
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.

Which is why the hinge light seal is a weak point in many cameras.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
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.

Interesting results. Thank you!
 
OP
OP
mercurye

mercurye

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
29
Location
Bay Area, CA
Format
Traditional
Thanks for the replies everyone. I knew the engineers put the foam there for a purpose, but I was just wondering if their choice of material was more cost effective for the production run, and whether there were better materials for upgrading. I have glued some black worsted wool yarn where the foam used to be on my Pentax 6x7 viewfinder with Pliobond, and it seems to be working quite well.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,657
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
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?
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.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
800
Location
Torino, Italy
Format
Large Format
I'm not as lucky as Ralph and had to find out "the hard way" that light seals are strictly necessary at least in some specific points of some specific cameras.

However, after having noticed that my previous camera technician (a very helpful man, who unfortunately died quite prematurely) used to replace foam seals with a black wool thread, I learned how to do it myself. Wool is basically eternal, and all cameras that he or I have serviced this way never needed the seals to be replaced anymore.

However, if you happen to hate these light seals just as I do, you might like to dig cameras with dry light traps, like Zeiss Ikons or Voigtlanders or Linhofs. Even affordable consumer cameras by the first two makes surpass - and by many orders of magnitude - the most "professional-wannabe" contemporary japanese camera, at least under this aspect. Looking at the care with which these light traps were engineered and crafted is almost moving.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,657
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
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.

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.
wool is an excellent idea; it's flexible and will last longer than the camera
 

Ces1um

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Messages
1,410
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
Format
Multi Format
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?
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.
As for new materials- I haven't seen any different material myself other than the "felt" that is normally used or occasionally a braided string (when the design of the camera allows for it).
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
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?
Yes.
They're not always light seals, sometimes they are dust seals - examples Nikon F, Nikon F2, prewar Contax, etc..
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
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".
In lenses, baffles control stray light and preserve contrast. Look at any movie from the prewar era (i.e. multielement uncoated lenses some of them parfocal) there is no lens flare, wonderful contrast - why? because these cinaphotographers knew how to use their tools.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom