Hard shadow on hasselblad negatives

[Dr Dik]

I received this from HB in New Jersey today. It looks like Photomultiplier was on the right track. It’s definitely the best explanation I’ve heard. Since it happens with an SWC and a 501, decaying black palpus isn’t the issue. I’m going to use a lens shade religiously from now on.

“A technician in Sweden had a similar response. He said it was light admission into the film back. Are you using a lens shade or shooting towards a light source when it happens? It’s possible the black palpus in the cameras are cracking and deteriorating. If that’s the case , it won’t absorb light. This can’t be repaired but we can still check the cameras to see if that is the case. Also, we can evaluate the film back to see if it’s because of an issue with it.”

 

[brbo]

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.

 

[Mike Lopez]

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.

...the exact opposite of what was claimed in post #3.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[warden]

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?

 

[Pieter12]

I have read they are “V” for Victor (Hasselblad). In any case they identify they photo as having been taken with a Hasselblad camera.

 

[rulnacco]

Don't want to go further off topic, but what are those notches for?

Basically, a marketing tool. If a photo was printed with a rebate, and you could see the two V notches, it was hoped you would go, "Oooo, that was taken with a Hasselblad!" You can frequently, with medium format, identify which brand of camera an image was taken with by examining the corners, if the rebate was included; with some cameras, the shape of them was characteristic enough to identify what camera had been used to take the shot. Hasselblad just took that phenomenon and ran with it--brilliant idea, really.

Some photographers actually filed an extra notch or notches in the edge of the film gate, often on the opposite side. I have one like that I purchased second hand, that came with two owner-added notches. The reason for that is that if you discovered one of your backs (most pros owned multiple backs, sometimes several) had a light leak, spacing, or some other problem, you could determine which one it was by checking the notches you (or more likely your camera tech) had added to the back.

 

[guangong]

Why have I never seen this phenomenon with my old 1000F backs or backs of more recent manufacture, both kinds used on 2000FCM and 500CM? We have not seen an actual photograph, only what appears to be a test. Are these shadows and notches in the picture area or are they outside?

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, is my understanding correct that the thread has come to the conclusion that the shadowed area that we have heard about and partially seen is that part of the negative that has not been exposed to extra flare, while the rest of the negative has been exposed to that flare?

 

[brbo]

Yes.

 

[GLS]

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

Bingo.

This is why I ALWAYS use the lens hoods.

 

[pazap47]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[Photomultiplier]

I might add that i even reproduced the shadow experimentally by placing a focusing screen in the film plane. The shadow was clearly visible when holding the
camera against a bright light. But it happened only at certain angles, that maybe explains why it occours only from time to time when the conditions are met.

One can try it with thin translucent paper held against the back of the camera and B setting on the lens.

 

[guangong]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

While I have never seen the problem, I do not think this is a film problem.

 

[MattKing]

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.

I think photomultiplier's post #89 (the one before yours) answers that question - one can duplicate the effect even without film!

 

[guangong]

I missed the replies you are referring to. Thanks.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So here's the question, for those who can see this in their negatives: what does the inside of their camera bodies look like? Is there like, a big chunk of missing anti-glare coating? Or is it more subtle?

 

[Photomultiplier]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

A bellows shade might help with longer lenses.

 

[warden]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[warden]

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.

One does not purchase a Hasselblad to save money and clutter, Mr. Glass. One purchases a Hasselblad to have the best. Where's my Grey Poupon?

Dr. Dik needs a hood that fits his lens precisely.