That would be really had to do, since there is not shadow area in that negative. As I pointed out before I have never had a shadow area like that. Nor has anyone other than the OP had the shadow area. Why do not you ask everyone who posted on this thread to circle the nonexistent shadow areas of their photographs to? Will you now post your nonexistent shadow areas of your photographs?
So the point of your post #40 was to show that clamp does NOT in any way extend into the image area.
We all agree with that.
Those are the notches in the film back. Not caused by the clamp. Not sure why you ever brought up the clamp as a source of the OP's shadow in the first place. And the notches only show if you print the rebate, since they don't intrude on the image area. On the contrary, you would have to specifically request a photo finisher (hate that term) to include the rebate, probably at an extra charge, since they'd have to use an oversized negative carrier.The two tiny spots that get automatically cropped out, are so small that they are not a problem. Sometimes I have to remind a photo finisher to raise the enlarger head enough to leave them out.
Don't want to go further off topic, but what are those notches for?Those are the notches in the film back. Not caused by the clamp. Not sure why you ever brought up the clamp as a source of the OP's shadow in the first place. And the notches only show if you print the rebate, since they don't intrude on the image area. On the contrary, you would have to specifically request a photo finisher (hate that term) to include the rebate, probably at an extra charge, since they'd have to use an oversized negative carrier.
Don't want to go further off topic, but what are those notches for?
The thing casting the shadow is the film gate itself. The notches prove that. It's not an obstruction between lens and film. The question is, where is the extra light coming from. That is likely from outside the image, reflecting off the side of the body chamber. Here is a diagram of the suggested cause. This is most likely to happen when there's a lot of bright stuff like sky or sun outside the field of view. Use a more restrictive lens shade, shade the lens from the sun with your hand or the dark slide, etc.
View attachment 311998
I've been following this with great interest since I have this same identical problem with my 500CM! I'll try to test with GLS above 86 solution and will write back. It will take awhile since I won't be able to develop my negs. for the next 2 weeks.
Reading through this thread where every fault of camera body, lens, and back has been debunked, as well as processing, could these lines be the result of a manufacturing accident in film manufacture? Could it be a bad batch of film. Movie film has batch numbers, but probably not able to identify batch for 120. Do these lines appear when using a different film brand?
If not a user problem, could be a film problem.
Reading through this thread where every fault of camera body, lens, and back has been debunked, as well as processing, could these lines be the result of a manufacturing accident in film manufacture? Could it be a bad batch of film. Movie film has batch numbers, but probably not able to identify batch for 120. Do these lines appear when using a different film brand?
If not a user problem, could be a film problem.
Standard pre-palpas inner surface in pristine condition in an 500C/M from 1974. No matter how good the anti-reflection coating might be, the sun or probably even bright lit clouds are just very bright objects and otherwise low enough
reflection coefficients of the coating can be insufficient for such demanding conditions.
One of those cases where good practice is just as important as the gear itself.
The lens hood is designed to mask out as much from the image that does not belong to the frame itself as possible. Sure, it can not do it to 100% because the 80mm hood also says 60mm on its marking, so there might be a compromise.
I often just use my hand (or head/body) to cast a shadow on the lens aperture without interfering with the FOV itself. By doing that, the biggest issue (the sun) is masked out.
Standard pre-palpas inner surface in pristine condition in an 500C/M from 1974. No matter how good the anti-reflection coating might be, the sun or probably even bright lit clouds are just very bright objects and otherwise low enough
reflection coefficients of the coating can be insufficient for such demanding conditions.
One of those cases where good practice is just as important as the gear itself.
The lens hood is designed to mask out as much from the image that does not belong to the frame itself as possible. Sure, it can not do it to 100% because the 80mm hood also says 60mm on its marking, so there might be a compromise.
I often just use my hand (or head/body) to cast a shadow on the lens aperture without interfering with the FOV itself. By doing that, the biggest issue (the sun) is masked out.
It is a lens hood for the 60mm and the 80mm lenses.
They should have made a lens hood for each of those lenses instead of compromising imho. A hood that works on the 60 will work less well on the 80.
Or combine some to save the customer money and extra clutter. If one need a filter that is more specific use the compendium of cut down a larger lens hood.
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?