First roll of film through my Hasselblad 500C/M - It didn't go well

I just got my negatives back from the first roll of film I shot with my new-to-me Hasselblad 500C/M and it was a bit of a disaster. There is a pretty significant light leak that (given what I've read online) may be from the dark slide light trap. In addition, the first two frames overlapped. Finally - and this may very likely be user error - the final frame (12) is blank (except for the effects of the light leak). I believed I was at the end of the roll because the progress indicator was completely red (at least I think it was), despite the fact that the frame counter read '12'. I may have simply misread the progress indicator and rewound the roll one frame early. Anyway, that appears to be the least of my problems.

I've attached a few scans so that those of you familiar with the tell-tale signs of Hasselblad light leaks might be able to tell me what caused them. As I said, I've looked at some images online of leaks caused by the dark slide light trap and I believe my scans show similar signs. If that's what it is then I assume that's a pretty simple fix (for someone who knows what they're doing ). I assume the frame spacing issue would only be resolved by servicing the film back/magazine.

I suspect the whole camera is probably due for a CLA. I bought it from a reputable shop that provided a 90 day warranty and I paid using PayPal. I don't really want to return the camera for a refund but I'm not sure I want to drop $400-$500 on a full CLA and be without the camera for several months when it was advertised as 'excellent condition' and was priced accordingly. Cosmetically it is excellent but obviously there are mechanical issues that need to be sorted out before it's a fully-functioning camera.

Scans attached. Some images are affected by the leak more than others. The last image shows the two overlapping frames, (frame 1 and 2 on the roll) including a very fogged frame 1.

So, keep the camera and negotiate with the seller to cover some/all of the repair costs, or return it and look for another one?

Hello Logan2z

It does look like a dark slide leak, I have replace several seals and it is not that hard to do, and I am not anywhere near a mechanical person.
I would try the seal and run another roll of film as you may not have wound up the first roll quite right as you mentioned the problem with the last frame.

good luck
Don

Don Harpold said:

Hello Logan2z

It does look like a dark slide leak, I have replace several seals and it is not that hard to do, and I am not anywhere near a mechanical person.
I would try the seal and run another roll of film as you may not have wound up the first roll quite right as you mentioned the problem with the last frame.

good luck
Don

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Don. It is conceivable that I didn't load the film quite right as it was the first time I'd loaded a roll of 120. That may account for the overlap of frames 1 and 2.

Now that I think about it, the first frame was shot with bright sunlight hitting the left side of the camera body and it is the frame that shows the worst fogging. More evidence of a dark slide leak I guess.

Hi Logan2z,
pity that those pics didn't turn out well, they are beautiful.
This seems indeed like a film back issue - do you by any chance have a 2nd back you could try?
An option for you would be to buy a 2nd back (around $200-300 depending on age and condition) and only send your back for CLA, or work something out with the seller. This way you will not be without a camera too long.

As for the overlapping frames, did you by any chance use Acros 100? (original version, not the recently introduced Acros 100 II) I remember reading somewhere that the somewhat thinner paper used on that film could cause issues such as overlapping slides. I never had that issue myself but only shot around 10 rolls of Acros.

I'd try a different film, load it in subdued light, double check your loading procedure and keep a count of your shots. If the problem persists and you believe it's a back problem, buy or borrow another back if you can and try again. You could ask the shop to swap the back if they have or could source another one.

etn said:

Hi Logan2z,
pity that those pics didn't turn out well, they are beautiful.
This seems indeed like a film back issue - do you by any chance have a 2nd back you could try?
An option for you would be to buy a 2nd back (around $200-300 depending on age and condition) and only send your back for CLA, or work something out with the seller. This way you will not be without a camera too long.

As for the overlapping frames, did you by any chance use Acros 100? (original version, not the recently introduced Acros 100 II) I remember reading somewhere that the somewhat thinner paper used on that film could cause issues such as overlapping slides. I never had that issue myself but only shot around 10 rolls of Acros.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments on the photos. The good news is that they were all taken within a short driving distance from my home and I can reshoot them once I have a working camera.

Unfortunately I don't currently have a second back to try.

With regards to the film, it was Tri-X 400.

The seals for the back is an easy job. Watch the youtube videos a couple of times and buy 2 of the kits. I screwed up the first one and the flap dislodged in was in every shot from that roll, but the second went much easier and without any issues. You might also see if the seller has another back he can exchange it for.

May I suggest that you acquire one of Wildi’s Hasselblad Manuals? His books include instructions on all aspects of Hasselblad equipment.
As one time Hasselblad gave away little quite books about various uses of Hasselblad film cameras. You could call or write and ask if any are still available.

This is not "excellent condition", no matter what the outside of the camera looks like. I'd give the seller a chance to make it right by replacing your film back with one that doesn't leak and try a roll again. "Excellent condition" should not mean "fixer-upper" or "useless until you service it". All of the cameras I've purchased from KEH labeled as excellent condition have been exactly that, functioning perfectly. Good luck!

And if the back is boogered then why assume the body is a whole lot better?

jawarden said:

This is not "excellent condition", no matter what the outside of the camera looks like. I'd give the seller a chance to make it right by replacing your film back with one that doesn't leak and try a roll again. "Excellent condition" should not mean "fixer-upper" or "useless until you service it". All of the cameras I've purchased from KEH labeled as excellent condition have been exactly that, functioning perfectly. Good luck!

Click to expand...

cowanw said:

And if the back is boogered then why assume the body is a whole lot better?

Click to expand...

Completely agree with both of you. I've sent the seller my scans and am awaiting a reply. I'll see what he says, but I may just decide to return for a refund and look for a better example. My intention was to buy a working camera, not a project.

Ask Sirius !
Depending on where you are in California, there may be someone nearby who does service Hasselblads, and would be willing to give you advice.
If it is just a problem with the seals, and the camera is in otherwise excellent condition, it may be better to seek a small price adjustment and have the seals replaced (a quick job).

When used professionally, the dark slide light seals would be replaced every year, maybe every 2 years if the back was used a lot. It's a bit like changing the oil in a car - if a used car was advertised in excellent conditions, but still needed an oil change, I would not use that as a reason to return it. Just saying.

Film spacing mechanism is quite precise and sensitive, and issues are usually due to lubrication. It was not unusual to get a few odd spaced frames, but we usually attributed that to the speed that we slammed the wind mechanism when things were moving fast in the studio. But the mechanism was usually lubed every few years, and if one noticed some regular uneven spacing. Quality of the lube made a difference to how long they went without service, and with used stuff this old, there is no reliable service history - and many local service providers regularly over lubed with cheap oil, because the pros would regularly service them before any issues occurred. Whether you want to use the spacing issue to return the camera is up to you.

You could run another roll through it and:
- black tape the dark slide slot to eliminate the light leak
- check to see if the film spacing is repeatable

cowanw said:

And if the back is boogered then why assume the body is a whole lot better?

Click to expand...

Light leaks in Hasselblad backs are so common and you have to run a roll through and develop it if you want to know if there is one. Leaks develop after 2-3 years of not changing the seals; almost every single hasselblad back sold has a leak unless the seals were specifically replaced by the shop you are buying it from. Nevertheless, excellent condition should mean that the back has had its seal replaced.


A frame overlap is a bigger problem and should have been easily caught by anyone selling a back -- you just need to run a dummy roll of film through and mark the film with a sharpie as it passes by the film gate. It might be worth you trying yourself if you want to confirm that it is indeed a spacing problem and not user error. What kind of back do you have? Is it an A12 (where you line up the arrow to the dot) or a C12 (where you open a window on the back and turn the knob until the "1" is under the window)? If it is an A12, when you loaded, was the film tight throughout the whole back? If there was some slack, it could explain the overlapped first frame and missing last frame. Just a thought.


I see nothing to imply other parts of the camera aren't working besides the back. If you trust the body and lens, I would insist that your shop fixes or replaces the back. In the meantime, I'd recommend picking up a cheap A24 back (which, contrary to what some people will tell you, does work with 120 film) and can be found as low as $40.

Grim Tuesday said:

almost every single hasselblad back sold has a leak unless the seals were specifically replaced by the shop you are buying it from

Click to expand...

FWIW, all three of my A12N backs have been leak-free since purchase, and none of the sellers mentioned replacing the seals.

The leak is an easy fix either way, but the spacing issue is more serious and will probably require a full service.

How old is that gear?

BrianShaw said:

How old is that gear?

Click to expand...

The backs are of 2000 - 2003 vintage.

logan2z said:

My intention was to buy a working camera, not a project.

Click to expand...

Send it back it's a project. I spent $700 on mine including mainspring, seals, and readjustment of the back so it matched perfectly. It was worth it since I only spent $200.

GLS said:

The backs are of 2000 - 2003 vintage.

Click to expand...

Yours or the OP’s? I’d expect older for a 500CM like the OP’s and, assuming, similar vintage backs.

BrianShaw said:

Yours or the OP’s?

Click to expand...

Mine. Sorry I thought you were talking to me before.

GLS said:

Mine. Sorry I thought you were talking to me before.

Click to expand...

No apology required! My backs are same vintage as yours and don’t leak either. But they get relatively light duty use.

You know this, I’m sure, but my point about asking age of the OP’s is that the older the gear is, the higher the chance of either use- or age-related deterioration. I understand the OP’s disappointments but expectations might be too high. If one wants guaranteed perfection... buy new equipment.

BrianShaw said:

I understand the OP’s disappointments but expectations might be too high.

Click to expand...

My expectations are only those that were set by the seller. The camera was advertised as 'Excellent condition' which implies to me that it actually works

I'm not naiive enough to expect perfection in an old camera - I've bought other old cameras and had them CLAd to bring them up to snuff - and I wouldn't balk at having this camera serviced either had I paid a price commensurate with it's condition. I'm still happy to give the seller a chance to work with me to get the camera repaired. If it's just light seals then no big deal. If it's a bigger, more costly repair then I think it's only right that the seller either share the cost or accept a return. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Expectations- tricky with vintage gear. You never really know what you’re getting, let’s be honest. Even if it is advertised as having a recent CLA— what was the quality of that work (unless there are receipts from a David Odess or similar)? Sometimes I think we get too focused on the exact dollars shelled out for a given piece of vintage gear and worry about what it will take to really make it sing when its a 50 year old piece of machinery. I bought my 500c/m from a member here, it seemed to work okay, but without a service history to know when it was last serviced I sent it off to have it CLA’d because I want to be sure this old thing is going to work perfectly the next time I ask it too. Hey, I got the camera I dreamed of that I could never afford when I was young, what’s a few dollars to be confident it lives up to my expectations? I’ll never sell it, but I will enjoy having and using it.

You haven't mentioned what "reputable shop" you bought it from but, be aware that KEH grade SLRs only on cosmetics - so, when they say that the condition of an SLR is "excellent" they mean ONLY that it looks good. It may be AFU and in my experience with them, when it comes to cameras, KEH EX often means, looks good but is AFU.

Hassleblads are money pits, if you're not willing to pay for the ongoing and never ending maintenance that they require, do yourself a favor and send it back ASAP.

btaylor said:

Expectations- tricky with vintage gear. You never really know what you’re getting, let’s be honest. Even if it is advertised as having a recent CLA— what was the quality of that work

Click to expand...

Amen...