Film advance issues with RB67?

[DaveInAZ]

Hi,

At the risk of being told again that I have too many problems with the ultra-reliable RB67, I do have another issue with mine. I got the developed negs back today, and there seems to have been some strangeness in how it advanced the film.

The first two exposures overlap. The rest of them are spaced too far apart. I don't know if I did something wrong or if there is something wrong with the film back I used. Or how to tell what the source of the issue is.

I scanned the negs on my multi-purpose printer/scanner/copier, which produces crappy results, but it shows what I'm talking about. The only problem is, I can't figure out how to embed it in a post and I can't find a Help forum with that kind of information. So, it's attached instead (supposedly).

Thanks!

 

[DaveInAZ]

It kinda worked

 

[MattKing]

RB67 backs tend to have been used hard. RB57 backs tend to perform really well when serviced, unless they have been used so much that they have been worn to the point of breaking.
Which version of the RB67 do you have, and which version of the back are you using?

 

[shutterfinger]

When loading ensure that the incoming backing paper is over the tab that goes through the slot in the the take up spool. I always turn the tab so that the incoming backing paper will cover the slot before it covers the tab. If the start arrow is 1/4 inch or so past the alignment mark in the back it will not hurt.
The RB67 roll film holders use a clutch system for frame spacing. The roll holder needs a CLA.

 

[reddesert]

Dpn't have an RB67 but have used similar roll backs. Two questions:
- have you used / loaded 120 roll film extensively before?
- do you have a junk roll of film, or a spare roll of just the backing paper? (if you don't develop your own film you may not have any paper, but the lab could likely give you some)

Reason I ask is that every 120 camera loads film slightly differently, and that frame spacing is often very dependent on the correct sequence of loading, setting the start mark, and initializing the frame counter. If I forget the sequence, or need to test a film back, I load up a roll of backing paper and run it through for practice, watching whether the frames advance by the right amount. On the RB67 you may be able to do this with just the insert.

On most cameras that count turns of the spool, if you use just the backing paper, the first few frames will be roughly correct. By the end of the roll, the spacing will be off because of the missing thickness of the film. But it allows enough strokes to figure out if you loaded it correctly or the back is slipping, without burning a roll of film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When loading ensure that the incoming backing paper is over the tab that goes through the slot in the the take up spool. I always turn the tab so that the incoming backing paper will cover the slot before it covers the tab. If the start arrow is 1/4 inch or so past the alignment mark in the back it will not hurt.
The RB67 roll film holders use a clutch system for frame spacing. The roll holder needs a CLA.

Mine has very slight slip apparently. How do you do a CLA that tightens it?

 

[Donald Qualls]

The RB67 has a length-counting advance stop system, where the roller at the supply end of the gate plate is used to stop the advance -- as opposed to a turns-counting system like Graflex roll film holders and many 120 folding cameras. It looks as if yours isn't doing so; instead, you're getting a full stroke, which is too short on the nearly empty takeup spool, and then gets progressively longer as the roll progresses.

Very likely the rubber friction surface is gone from the driven roller (small roller at the end of that turn around toward the mechanics of the holder). Without that, the film won't drive that wheel, so the film back won't "know" when to stop each frame.

 

[shutterfinger]

Mine has very slight slip apparently. How do you do a CLA that tightens it?

https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/mamiya-rb67-pro-s-repair-manual.pdf pdf page 48 is the start of the RFH servicing.
Its a mechanical gear system not a clutch system. Dried oil residue and dust is likely causing levers and pins from not moving properly.

 

[DaveInAZ]

Thanks, everyone, for all the replies!

RB67 backs tend to have been used hard. RB57 backs tend to perform really well when serviced, unless they have been used so much that they have been worn to the point of breaking.
Which version of the RB67 do you have, and which version of the back are you using?

Pro-S on both.

When loading ensure that the incoming backing paper is over the tab that goes through the slot in the the take up spool. .

You mean so that the paper goes in the slot along with the film tab?

Dpn't have an RB67 but have used similar roll backs. Two questions:
- have you used / loaded 120 roll film extensively before?
- do you have a junk roll of film, or a spare roll of just the backing paper? (if you don't develop your own film you may not have any paper, but the lab could likely give you some)

No, this is my second roll. The first roll was even less successful. I guess I could have asked them to send the paper back, if I'd known to ask, but it's probably too late, now.

https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/mamiya-rb67-pro-s-repair-manual.pdf pdf page 48 is the start of the RFH servicing.
Its a mechanical gear system not a clutch system. Dried oil residue and dust is likely causing levers and pins from not moving properly.

Holy crap! Well, if the manual is right, I'd have to agree that it's a gear system. Beyond that, it's beyond me. So, time to consider a CLA on this puppy.

I'm a little concerned, though, that I'm falling into a 'money pit' situation. I've used 2 lenses and 1 back for 2 short rolls of film and 2 of those things need servicing. I've got 4 lenses and 2 backs, plus the 1 body and 3 viewfinders. If all of those need $100 CLA's/repairs, that's $1,000. Two of the viewfinders are unlikely to need work, but one might. That could still be $800, which could possibly be better spent on something else.

I don't know. I bought this kit based on the bomb-proof reputation of the RB system, but they don't seem to be living up to that reputation. Thoughts?

Also, can someone point me to the instructions for uploading an image? I figure I should share one or two after all this.

 

[MattKing]

Also, can someone point me to the instructions for uploading an image? I figure I should share one or two after all this.

Resize it to 1000 pixels on the longest side - jpeg format works well.
You can either copy and paste the result into the thread, or upload the resulting files to the thread, using the Upload link at the bottom of the posting box.
You can also store it elsewhere on the internet, and link to the URL.
With respect to service costs, if all of the above require just a CLA, then you will end up with a robust and incredibly capable system that should give many years of moderate service with minimal further maintenance, and which would have cost thousands and thousands of dollars when bought new.
If any of the lenses and backs are worn to the point of requiring replacement of important parts - not merely maintenance - or have suffered serious damage, than the kit is problematic.
This system was designed to be heavily used, and serviced regularly during that use. If your use is less than that heavy professional use, the need for regular maintenance is relatively rare, provided that the camera gets used regularly.

 

[shutterfinger]

You mean so that the paper goes in the slot along with the film tab?

I do not have a RB67 RFH so I'm using a Graphic 23. Film loads the same as the RB RFH. I'm using backing paper only wound the same as a fresh roll of film.
1. insert the film into the holder so that the black side of the backing paper/film is facing out.
2. insert the tab end of the backing paper into the wide slot until the backing paper is against the slot (older spools have a wide and narrow slot, newer spools have 2 wide slots).
3. start advancing the take up while holding the tab of the backing paper to prevent it from slipping out, then fold it away from the backing paper (toward center of the insert).
4. advance until the backing paper is over the tab in the slot then advance until the start arrows align.

 

[reddesert]

I'm a little concerned, though, that I'm falling into a 'money pit' situation. I've used 2 lenses and 1 back for 2 short rolls of film and 2 of those things need servicing. I've got 4 lenses and 2 backs, plus the 1 body and 3 viewfinders. If all of those need $100 CLA's/repairs, that's $1,000. Two of the viewfinders are unlikely to need work, but one might. That could still be $800, which could possibly be better spent on something else.

I don't know. I bought this kit based on the bomb-proof reputation of the RB system, but they don't seem to be living up to that reputation. Thoughts?

If this is your second roll of 120 film, which is how I read your post, it is way too early to talk about CLA'ing the entire set. Burn a roll of 120 film in the light to practice and test it, a 120 roll can be as cheap as $5-6. Buy one, load it in the light paying careful attention to the film path and the start mark, wind it through.

If you can wind it through in the back with the darkslide out, you can make sharpie marks on the film to see where the exposures are landing (depending on the back, you may need to defeat an interlock to remove the darkslide off-camera, etc). Then unroll the film and see what's happening. Roll it back onto the spool with the start leader out, and try the other back, again looking at the frame spacing. Repeat until you are well practiced at loading film.

It is unlikely that all of your lenses and backs have identical problems. This kind of camera has lots of interlocks so you can take it apart in the middle of a roll, and it's common to have problems with the order of operations.

 

[btaylor]

I don't know. I bought this kit based on the bomb-proof reputation of the RB system, but they don't seem to be living up to that reputation. Thoughts?

It’s a precision mechanical system that’s maybe 50 years old. These machines need maintenance. This was the stuff dreams were made of when I was young and completely out of reach financially. Now they are cheap- and old. Many times I have spent more on maintenance and repair than I initially spent on the old gear. I’m paying for the privilege of using very high quality gear- compared to what this stuff cost new I am getting a great bargain IMHO. If you’re going to be counting it as a monetary investment it’s going to be tough I think. It’s an investment in your ability to make images.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The good news is, the RB67 was built to take heavy daily use (ten rolls a day was light duty!). The bad news is, many of the ones now on the used market did take that kind of use, for decades. It's not unreasonable to think a device with that much use might need some TLC -- if you bought a classic Mustang or Corvette (say, from 1968) with three hundred thousand miles on the odometer, you might expect to get it tuned up, belts and hoses and spark plugs/wires replaced, etc. before driving it even on weekend spins (while keeping your 2015 compact for the daily commute).

 

[DaveInAZ]

Resize it to 1000 pixels on the longest side - jpeg format works well.
You can either copy and paste the result into the thread, or upload the resulting files to the thread, using the Upload link at the bottom of the posting box.
You can also store it elsewhere on the internet, and link to the URL.

Thanks, Matt!

If any of the lenses and backs are worn to the point of requiring replacement of important parts - not merely maintenance - or have suffered serious damage, than the kit is problematic.

This is my concern, since I don't know how to tell. The back works fine without film, as far as I can tell, and the 65mm seemed like it was fine. I'd mounted and removed it before without problems.

4. advance until the backing paper is over the tab in the slot then advance until the start arrows align.
View attachment 281614 View attachment 281615 View attachment 281616 View attachment 281617

Ok, I get what you mean. Thanks! I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but it's impossible to be 100% sure, now.

If this is your second roll of 120 film, which is how I read your post, it is way too early to talk about CLA'ing the entire set.

That's correct, this was my second roll of 120. Not my second roll ever, because I've run hundreds of rolls through various film cameras, some of which had funky loading procedures, but they were 35mm. And it's not my use of the camera that would make a CLA necessary. It was not CLA'd by its previous owner (at least, not recently), and sat on a shelf for a long time. The light seals were all deteriorated when I got it. I replaced those, but that's all I knew how to do, other than cleaning everything on the outside.

It is unlikely that all of your lenses and backs have identical problems.

Right. I'd be really surprised if they had the SAME problems, but I wouldn't be surprised if most or all of them had SOME problem(s).

it's common to have problems with the order of operations.

Yeah, user error is a definite possibility. I did end up with one unintended double-exposure, which could have been my fault.

It’s a precision mechanical system that’s maybe 50 years old. These machines need maintenance. This was the stuff dreams were made of when I was young and completely out of reach financially. Now they are cheap- and old. Many times I have spent more on maintenance and repair than I initially spent on the old gear. I’m paying for the privilege of using very high quality gear- compared to what this stuff cost new I am getting a great bargain IMHO. If you’re going to be counting it as a monetary investment it’s going to be tough I think. It’s an investment in your ability to make images.

All true. What I'm looking at is the possibility of spending a bunch of money on this gear versus having that money to spend on new gear that won't have any problems. I really like the process of shooting with the RB (when I can make it work). It forces me to slow down and think about it and switch off my habitual run-and-gun mode of shooting. But, I also like getting the image I thought I was getting.

The good news is, the RB67 was built to take heavy daily use (ten rolls a day was light duty!). The bad news is, many of the ones now on the used market did take that kind of use, for decades. It's not unreasonable to think a device with that much use might need some TLC -- if you bought a classic Mustang or Corvette (say, from 1968) with three hundred thousand miles on the odometer, you might expect to get it tuned up, belts and hoses and spark plugs/wires replaced, etc. before driving it even on weekend spins (while keeping your 2015 compact for the daily commute).

Sure, and when I bought a 68 Mustang many moons ago, I did those things. And then the A-frame broke, taking the unibody welds with it and sending the car to the junkyard. I'm hoping this isn't like that car.

So, thanks to Matt, I was finally able to upload the best image from the roll we've been discussing. Little Molas Lake in the San Juan mountains of Colorado.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm hoping this isn't like that car.

Seems a reasonable desire. OTOH, few if any original owners made their living with a Mustang, so they likely weren't kept up as well when relatively new...

 

[MattKing]

1) you can't buy anything for the RB67 new;
2) if you have someone competent service things like backs, they can generally tell you whether the back is serviceable, or beyond service - before most of the money is spent;
3) The back handles most of the film advance and spacing work, so most/all of spacing problems can be dealt with by dealing with the backs;
4) the RB67 system is completely modular. If you have a problem with one module (back, body, finder, lens, etc.) replacement or service of that module alone is usually practical;
5) RB67 negatives are wonderful!

 

[btaylor]

+1. Thanks Matt for your concise take on the OP’s issues. I think you are spot on.

 

[Donald Qualls]

5) RB67 negatives are wonderful!

And this is absolute truth! I consider myself very fortunate to have had money to buy an RB67 at the time I found they were available at reasonable cost.

 

[Luckless]

If this is your second roll of 120 film, which is how I read your post, it is way too early to talk about CLA'ing the entire set. Burn a roll of 120 film in the light to practice and test it, a 120 roll can be as cheap as $5-6. Buy one, load it in the light paying careful attention to the film path and the start mark, wind it through.

Is the film actually needed for testing RB67 backs? From my bit of time playing with them it seems that just the backing paper on a spool should be fine to test the general mechanics of it, and should only need the spacing of the film itself to test issues with maybe the pressure plate, or fresh film for testing light leaks.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have had an RB67 for thirty years including 4 lenses. I hate to tell you what I paid for the lenses back then. Whatever you pay today is cheap.

 

[shutterfinger]

My experience testing RFH with backing paper only is that frame spacing will be tangent at the beginning and overlap 1mm to 2mm around the middle to end. This will translate to 1mm to 3mm distance between frames on film.

 

[Autonerd]

FWIW I have seen similar issues (too much film advance) with the lightly-used RB67 I am borrowing from a friend (non-Pro-S). Rotating the film back seemed to initiate it, but I don't think it happened on the last roll I shot. I don't use the camera much because it's so big and heavy -- I prefer the C330 or 645 1000s I just got.

Aaron

 

[Donald Qualls]

From my bit of time playing with them it seems that just the backing paper on a spool should be fine to test the general mechanics of it, and should only need the spacing of the film itself to test issues with maybe the pressure plate, or fresh film for testing light leaks.

This will work fine with the RB67 backs, due to their roller drive length counting mechanism. The backing paper drives the counter anyway, so aside from focus plane, it doesn't matter if there's film on it.

My experience testing RFH with backing paper only is that frame spacing will be tangent at the beginning and overlap 1mm to 2mm around the middle to end. This will translate to 1mm to 3mm distance between frames on film.

This is true for turns-counting mechanisms, like a Graflex 22 or 23, or a Super Ikonta B (or a Minolta 16 or Kiev 30/303). If the spool diameter doesn't increase at the expected rate, the spacing will shorten as the roll progresses.

 

[DaveInAZ]

Thanks, guys. I've packed up the 65mm and the film back and they'll be on their way to Bill Rogers tomorrow.