Focal plane shutter problem(?), Hasselblad 200 series

[R Lindenberg]

Hi all,

After using my 203 FE trouble-free for a more than a decade, I encountered a problem with "vertical lines" displayed on images 1 + 2. I discussed the issue with friends (problem with development? problem with the film? problem with the shutter?), and finally sent the camera to Hasselblad Germany. They said that the lines were also noticeable when using a digital back. So the idea was that unsteady focal plane shutter/curtain movements would cause the problem. Unfortunately, I didn't test central shutter against focal plane shutter before. I was told that the problem can be fixed, but I'm still waiting to get the camera back.

In the meantime, I got a 202 FA as a back up. I exposed three TMAX films (not the same stock as the ones before) and ran into the same problem, displayed on images 3 + 4. In addition, there's this underexposed streaky curved line in the upper right corner. I'm not sure whether it's the mirror or something else inside the camera's body. Upon visual inspection, I can't see any rubber/seal that might have gone loose (which would have been my first guess).

Did anyone run into the same problem or has an idea about its cause? Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!

Thanks a lot in advance!

Kind regards from Berlin,
Robert

ps.
It's not a scanner problem, the lines are visible on the negatives.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I'm not clear which frames are the first camera problem and which the second.
The first frame, from the top down, does look like the shutter has been stuttering, your last frame has non parallel lines which cannot be the focal plane shutter, I would suggest developing but hesitate only because you obviously have been trouble free before. I presume no change in equipment, tank, reels etc, nor in film or developer from previous good results? The line orientation would suggest either an agitation issue related to the circulation of developer, possibly a vortex affecting circulation, is this on a motor or by hand, or an issue, more unlikely, of staggered/poor addition of developer, this because of the lines being roughly parallel to the fill of liquid. Obvious thing to eliminate your workflow would be either for a friend to process a roll or run a roll and send out, maybe C41 easier, to see if that streaks on this camera. My guess is a liquid circulation problem, do you pre-soak BTW, that can affect developer take up on the film?

You may get more responses in the B/W developing forum BTW.

 

[Chris Livsey]

BTW forgot about your intruder, from the density on the film It looks like it is very near the focal plane, I would be checking secondary shutter flaps are not revealing something hanging or there is something in the magazine gate. If it was further in the body the image would be much more diffuse IMHO.

 

[megzdad81]

So I don't have the answer, but I'm having the same problem with a 'Blad 500 C/M and thought it might be paper backing on frozen Ilford film, poor developing technique, or something going on in the Patterson development reels, but it's been sporadic on the pictures on the roll, and on only some rolls. However, my lines are vertical--in direction of roll take-up, and near-as-I-can-tell, lines should be horizontal based on watching shutter @ 1 sec shutter speed. I've got 11 more rolls from Scotland/Ireland I'm afraid to develop. Really interested in answers. All film was presoaked at least 2 min, these probably 5-7 min after prior discovery of problem.

 

[megzdad81]

With the Patterson 2-reel tank and 1000 ml of developer, pour-in must be about 5 secs. If this is what happens even with that fast flow, I would need to dunk or dilute developer from 1:1 to 1:3. Whew!

 

[megzdad81]

I think it has to be something during development or here are multiple problems. My rig is completely depended on the shutter in the lens. Then there were the multiple xrays of hand-checked luggage going from Scotland to Ireland and back home again. I'd swear there were three security checks just to get on the plane home from Dublin.

 

[Chris Livsey]

So I don't have the answer, but I'm having the same problem with a 'Blad 500 C/M and thought it might be paper backing on frozen Ilford film, poor developing technique, or something going on in the Patterson development reels, but it's been sporadic on the pictures on the roll, and on only some rolls. However, my lines are vertical--in direction of roll take-up, and near-as-I-can-tell, lines should be horizontal based on watching shutter @ 1 sec shutter speed. I've got 11 more rolls from Scotland/Ireland I'm afraid to develop. Really interested in answers. All film was presoaked at least 2 min, these probably 5-7 min after prior discovery of problem. View attachment 194239 View attachment 194240

Your shutter in the 500c/m is in the lens and is circular you cannot get vertical or horizontal lines on the negative from a leaf shutter. It opens and closes like the f stops, but faster of course!!
The OP has an F series Hasselblad that has the focal plane shutter that can, when not working properly produce vertical lines, your lines must be developing based issues or X-ray. The very underdeveloped area on the bottom RHS would point me to developer which doesn't rule out X-ray damage but that rarely is in one plane as the film is wound tightly on the spool and the X-rays will rarely be perfectly orientated along the spool line.

The focal plane shutter works with two curtains moving across with a slit between the curtains (or at flash sync speed or slower one curtain passes all the way across the film plane before the second shutter blind moves across to stop the exposure) the width of the slit changes with speed, a narrower slit at faster speeds. The shutter issue in the first OP frame is where the shutter slit is varying as it passes over the film giving a different exposure at different points and as the shutter is vertical this gives the vertical bands. One shutter. or both are varying in speed as they move across so alternately catching each other up, to produce a narrow slit with underexposure, then accelerating to make a wider slit again with correct exposure. ( in real life the speed of the blind across is not constant as the blind must accelerate and decelerate ).

 

[R Lindenberg]

I'm not clear which frames are the first camera problem and which the second.
The first frame, from the top down, does look like the shutter has been stuttering, your last frame has non parallel lines which cannot be the focal plane shutter, I would suggest developing but hesitate only because you obviously have been trouble free before. I presume no change in equipment, tank, reels etc, nor in film or developer from previous good results? The line orientation would suggest either an agitation issue related to the circulation of developer, possibly a vortex affecting circulation, is this on a motor or by hand, or an issue, more unlikely, of staggered/poor addition of developer, this because of the lines being roughly parallel to the fill of liquid. Obvious thing to eliminate your workflow would be either for a friend to process a roll or run a roll and send out, maybe C41 easier, to see if that streaks on this camera. My guess is a liquid circulation problem, do you pre-soak BTW, that can affect developer take up on the film?

You may get more responses in the B/W developing forum BTW.

Thanks a lot for your answer, Chris!

Just to clarify, the first two frames (from the top down) depict the first camera problem (203 FE), the next two frames are the second camera problem (202 FA).

I also thought initially that the issue would be related to development -- especially regarding the lines on the last frame, as you pointed out. I had the development done by a local lab. They consider themselves a "pro" lab and I've had never problems with them before or heard about problems. They told me they developed > 50 rolls of 120 bw film the day mine were done, so I checked with them some rolls they developed for other people at the same day, and the negatives looked just fine. They also assured me that they were using the exact same procedure. I don't know the details of their procedure though. Anyhow, I think it's a good idea to have another roll developed at a different lab for comparison.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Thanks a lot for your answer, Chris!

Just to clarify, the first two frames (from the top down) depict the first camera problem (203 FE), the next two frames are the second camera problem (202 FA).

I also thought initially that the issue would be related to development -- especially regarding the lines on the last frame, as you pointed out. I had the development done by a local lab. They consider themselves a "pro" lab and I've had never problems with them before or heard about problems. They told me they developed > 50 rolls of 120 bw film the day mine were done, so I checked with them some rolls they developed for other people at the same day, and the negatives looked just fine. They also assured me that they were using the exact same procedure. I don't know the details of their procedure though. Anyhow, I think it's a good idea to have another roll developed at a different lab for comparison.

Thanks for clarifying, if it was commercial they usually use deep dip and dunk tanks with nitrogen bust agitation so that would not give those effects at all the volume they quote would point to that as well.
Did they do the scans as well BTW?
If they did, and this not a criticism of you if you did, there is a lot of "muck on those negatives and a lot looks like it comes from the developing/fix/wash and dry and not dust post drying and from the scanning handling but they are not good really at all I would not have said they were from a commercial developer outfit personally.
As I outlined above on the way the focal plane shutter works I would run a roll at all speeds you can, making sure some are below the sync speed 1/90th ISTR (no F in my kit at the moment) so definitely some frames at say 1/30th where there will be no banding from the shutter slit, if one blind is fast or slow you will get uneven exposure across the frame but not distinct bands, much more gradual. You could just have been really unfortunate and bought another F model with a faulty shutter, that "debris" points to the camera having issues as well, if you have return rights I would be exercising them.

 

[R Lindenberg]

Thanks for clarifying, if it was commercial they usually use deep dip and dunk tanks with nitrogen bust agitation so that would not give those effects at all the volume they quote would point to that as well.
Did they do the scans as well BTW?
If they did, and this not a criticism of you if you did, there is a lot of "muck on those negatives and a lot looks like it comes from the developing/fix/wash and dry and not dust post drying and from the scanning handling but they are not good really at all I would not have said they were from a commercial developer outfit personally.
As I outlined above on the way the focal plane shutter works I would run a roll at all speeds you can, making sure some are below the sync speed 1/90th ISTR (no F in my kit at the moment) so definitely some frames at say 1/30th where there will be no banding from the shutter slit, if one blind is fast or slow you will get uneven exposure across the frame but not distinct bands, much more gradual. You could just have been really unfortunate and bought another F model with a faulty shutter, that "debris" points to the camera having issues as well, if you have return rights I would be exercising them.

Thank you for your suggestions, Chris! I'll shoot a few more rolls tomorrow at different speeds and have them developed at another lab (don't own a darkroom myself anymore).

I quickly scanned the rolls myself, right after I got them back from the lab. (... and was also annoyed by the dirt on the negatives when I got the films out of their plastic sheaths.)

 

[Chris Livsey]

The lab that scans my C41 120 says they scan before sleeving to minimise the "muck" and they recommend that scan be the maximum you think you will need as the negatives "will never be as clean again". I do the same with my home B/W. it's not as clean as their work but usually better than those I'm afraid. Commercial labs are a lottery find one that cares.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Same problem on two cameras = not a camera problem IMO. I would look to the film, the processing or the scanning.

 

[itsdoable]

The last frame tells me it's not the shutter, and if the digital back shows it too, it can't be development. However, as I understand it, the bent streaks are on your 202FA which was never tested with a digital back? Since the streaks are bright, I'd lean toward a light leak or internal reflection. But that last image sure looks like development. Or some sort of transfer from the paper backing.

Are the streaks lined perfectly up frame to frame? Is there evidence of them between the frames?

As for megzdad81's 500c/m streaks, those are dark, and look like developer extinction on a dip/machine process (but he was using patterson reels, so I don't know...).

 

[shutterfinger]

With the Patterson 2-reel tank and 1000 ml of developer, pour-in must be about 5 secs.

Should not be a problem. My stainless steel tanks take a 10 to 15 second pour in/out and I get no streaks. Same for my Jobo 25xx 4x5 tanks.
I do a 1 to 3 minute prewash, fill the tank with film with water, set aside, mix the HC110 or dilute the Xtol, agitate the tank, pour out the water, pour in the developer.
I do not leave an air space in the tank for inversion processing, I use manual rotary processing for 4x5.
Compare the streaks on your film with the slots in the reels you use, do they line up?
Patterson tanks use a center column that forms a light trap and can be turned for agitation, does the developer cover the film when the rotation cam is at its highest point?

 

[shutterfinger]

the next two frames are the second camera problem (202 FA).

Is it possible there is a light leak in the film holder and the curved lines in the last frame from curvature of the film as it goes around a roller? They resemble an off axis lens flare.

 

[R Lindenberg]

The last frame tells me it's not the shutter, and if the digital back shows it too, it can't be development. However, as I understand it, the bent streaks are on your 202FA which was never tested with a digital back? Since the streaks are bright, I'd lean toward a light leak or internal reflection. But that last image sure looks like development. Or some sort of transfer from the paper backing.

Are the streaks lined perfectly up frame to frame? Is there evidence of them between the frames?

Thanks a lot for your insight!

Yes, the 202 FA (i.e., last two frames) has not been tested with a digital back. The streaks differ somewhat between consecutive frames, and there is no evidence of them between frames. -- I'll expose some more rolls tomorrow at different speeds, as suggested by Chris. Maybe that will give some more hints.

 

[R Lindenberg]

Is it possible there is a light leak in the film holder and the curved lines in the last frame from curvature of the film as it goes around a roller? They resemble an off axis lens flare.

That's a great idea, thanks! I'll test different film holders tomorrow.