Hasselblad 503CW mishap with negatives

[ediz7531]

I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas as to what this might be:

Untitled by EI, on Flickr

Notice that there are 4 consecutive frames where most of the negative, except for a thin vertical band on the left, is overexposed. Those were the only frames affected in the roll. I've owned the camera for almost 3 years and never had any issues. The fact that the issue is along the vertical suggests that it can't be the secondary shutter (?). Could a mistake in the developing process cause this? I did feel I had to rush when I developed the film today, which I know is not a good mindset to develop in. I haven't had a chance to scan; will do so in the next day or so.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[MARTIE]

Imo the band is too straight and precise and not on all frames so I would rule out a darkroom or chemical fault. Therefore it must be mechanical and it appears to be just on the shots of the hills where maybe a longer lens was used? Please confirm if the fault matches any changes in lens focal length?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Look at the lines between the frames, this is light coming in between the thin rolls that hold and guide the film in the housing of the film holder.
If you look at the image, there is an intensive light source, the sun, creeping in to the frame.
I think you were using a (square?) hood on the lens, but the sun was just creeping in over the edge of the hood, causing flare and the rather straight lining.
The small band that's not overexposed was protected by the hood and/or the frame in the camera's lens mount, the rest of the image was not.
This happend to me and it made worry a lot till A Hasselblad Belgium technician lead me towards a plausible explanation, but this doesn't necessarily mean that is the cause of your issue...

 

[itsdoable]

I would agree with Philippe, it looks like internal reflection from the sun hitting the left side of the mirror box, and the line is the shadow caused by the film gate.

 

[jtk]

Time for a serious CLA ? Time does fly with these old cameras.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

@VTLD: Poles-Land, is this the North-West Coast American-Indian land?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would agree with Philippe, it looks like internal reflection from the sun hitting the left side of the mirror box, and the line is the shadow caused by the film gate.

That is what it looks like to me too. Notice how it ends at boarder of each negative neat and clean.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

@VTLD: Poles-Land, is this the North-West Coast American-Indian land?

No it’s the one east of Berlin

 

[Philippe-Georges]

No it’s the one east of Berlin

Ah, I thought that over there it was the famous former sad DDR district, but I must be mistaking, sorry...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Ah, I thought that over there it was the famous former sad DDR district, but I must be mistaking, sorry...

Poles-land = Poland

I have about 25 years of living the States.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Time for a serious CLA ? Time does fly with these old cameras.

No, no, just avoiding some direct light into the lens.
These Carl Zeiss lenses are of the best possible for MF (*) but not magic...

(*) this is a very personal opinion.

 

[Photomultiplier]

This strip on the side reminded me of one frame in my archive that shows exactly the same. I retrieved it from the box and it looks indeed like yours. Haven't scanned it yet, otherwise i would post it.
It was a foggy morning scene from the countryside and the sun was already up, altough not visible in the frame itself. But i used no lens hood and so it was definitely a internal reflection (while not being in the frame,
the sun can still be in the image circle and therefore cause this internal reflection) and the film gate caused the shadow.

The cameras and magazines are checked regularly for light leaks and this is the only frame in the whole archive showing this kind of artifact.
I was also puzzled for a while before i figured out what happened.

Philippe-Georges mentioned the stray light between the shell and the narrow rollers. This is a common occurrance when i use the flexbody where the film back is tilted and light can find its way through the rollers even under normal conditions.
But with strong internal stray light it makes perfect sense that it comes through this little gap when using a standard body.

Chris

 

[michaelfoto]

At first I thought that this film was not taken with a Hasseblad, because the famous V notches was missing from the frames, but I then realised that this is a loading mistake. The film got on the wrong side of the loading clamp. These little notches are hidden behind the clamp.
Michael.
In case you dont know what I am taking about, look closely at the left side of the frame of this photo.
Nu med sort indramning. by Michael G, on Flickr

 

[Photomultiplier]

The notches are clearly visible, and even if the film would not lie underneath the clamp/tab, they would be visible as it is outside the frame.

edit: typo/wording

 

[Sirius Glass]

There they are!​

 

[Photomultiplier]

I think he talks about the negatives from the original post. They are visible, but on the right side.

 

[michaelfoto]

I see them now. Sorry my mistake, so still a mystery.

 

[Photomultiplier]

I don't think its a mistery. Stray light has been discussed as the cause and this explains the issue. Plus i have a slide showing the exact same problem in an situation where the sun caused stray light through the lens in the body.

Just a minute ago, i took a 500CM and 150mm CF witht the focusing screen of the flexbody attached instead of the film back and pointed the lens towards a very strong lamp so that the lamp is not visible in the frame but is projected somewhere
in the mirror box. I could detect a faint shadow at the edge of the screen which varied in width when i moved the camera, which confirms the theory.

 

[ediz7531]

Hi All,

Thanks! Yes, this shot was against the sun! I used the 150mm f/4 lens. And no, I did not have a hood with me yesterday. This is a scan of one of the negatives just for completeness sake:

Flare by EI, on Flickr

I had never seen this internal reflection before, but your explanations make sense to me as this being the culprit.

This wasn't the shot I deployed my tripod to take a photo of initially. It was this one:

Marin Headlands by EI, on Flickr

When I was done with the latter, I looked to my left and you could see SF downtown neatly in the distance, so I said why not?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Never ever take landscape photos without a hood, as a matter of fact, when working on a tripod, I put the compendium on (the lens), that's is my mantra!

 

[BrianShaw]

Never ever take landscape photos without a hood, as a matter of fact, when working on a tripod, I put the compendium on (the lens), that's is my mantra!

Similar to my mantra, “Never ever take photos without a hood.”

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Hopefully mantras don't translate into "never ever take photos if you forgot the hood"

PS (I do agree hood belongs permanently on a lens for any shooting session).

 

[Photomultiplier]

Sometimes when i am in a hurry or simply cannot fit the hoods in the small backpack, i either use my hand or i step between the lens and sun so that i throw a shadow on the lens opening so that at least the sun is blocked.
Of course, care must be taken not to interfere with the field of view, but this makeshift lens hood has worked fine for me on several occasions.

When i expect to encounter stray light situations all the time, i try to cram the hoods into the backpack somehow.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Never ever take landscape photos without a hood, as a matter of fact, when working on a tripod, I put the compendium on (the lens), that's is my mantra!

Similar to my mantra, “Never ever take photos without a hood.”

Hopefully mantras don't translate into "never ever take photos if you forgot the hood"

PS (I do agree hood belongs permanently on a lens for any shooting session).

Sometimes when i am in a hurry or simply cannot fit the hoods in the small backpack, i either use my hand or i step between the lens and sun so that i throw a shadow on the lens opening so that at least the sun is blocked.
Of course, care must be taken not to interfere with the field of view, but this makeshift lens hood has worked fine for me on several occasions.

When i expect to encounter stray light situations all the time, i try to cram the hoods into the backpack somehow.

Ditto
Me too
I do the same thing