Losing first exposure with Hasselblad A12 back

[ChrisBCS]

Second roll I've developed with this back to have this happen. My other back, a 1966 C12, has no issues. The first exposure is split in half and there is plenty of room at the end of the roll for another exposure. The back otherwise works flawlessly: evenly advances, no overlap, etc. Has anyone seen this? Anyone know of a workaround (i.e. manually advancing beyond where the arrow meets the circle on the roll before re-insertion)?

Many thanks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Time for a CLA. The spacing is off.

 

[paul ron]

i dont use a hassie but it sounds like you can start your roll a bit further up past the normal arrow start point by at least a half frame equivelent.

 

[Leigh B]

What film are you using?

It's possible the arrow on the backing is not at the correct location relative to the film.
Since those arrows have not generally been used in decades, modern film may not be right.

I suggest loading as usual, matching the arrows, then wind an additional turn before using the back.

- Leigh

 

[bdial]

As a work-around, try going beyond the arrow a bit, maybe by 1/4 quarter turn.
But I'd take it as a sign the back is due for service.

 

[BrianShaw]

After lining up the arrow with the dot and putting the insert into the holder, you are winding the back to ZERO, right?

 

[ChrisBCS]

After lining up the arrow with the dot and putting the insert into the holder, you are winding the back to ZERO, right?

Yes indeed!

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes indeed!

Well then... this leaves us with a complete guessing game. While the back many need an overhaul I would expect other symptoms to be more indicative of that need. And I'm not too sure I would assume that the film is to blame; I may be wrong, but...

For me the first frame goof has always been a failure to remember spinning the film from the arrow to frame 1. But if you want help you now need to provide more details. As Leigh asked before, which film? Do you still have the backing paper to measure from arrow to film begin (tape)?

But just to add to the guessing game... I suppose if you didn't have the paper tab really locked into the take-up spool it could have slipped during that initial spin to frame 1. I've never experienced that to my knowledge, but can imagine just enough slip to initially misalign but enough friction to keep the film moving along its merry way. And another guess... you are putting the paper under the silver tab when loading the magazine... right?

 

[naeroscatu]

Is this back an A12 or C12? Reason I ask is that I can CLA the A12, I have done about 10 so far (4 of mine) and they all work well. I take out all the insides clean them and put them back together then run a film test. Send me a PM is you need help. thanks

 

[nathantw]

Second roll I've developed with this back to have this happen. My other back, a 1966 C12, has no issues. The first exposure is split in half and there is plenty of room at the end of the roll for another exposure. The back otherwise works flawlessly: evenly advances, no overlap, etc. Has anyone seen this? Anyone know of a workaround (i.e. manually advancing beyond where the arrow meets the circle on the roll before re-insertion)?

Many thanks.

Well, this is a first. I just developed a roll of film from a new A12 back (the one with the "A12" on the button and the black holder) and I too had an issue with the 1st frame being black and my last frame was cut off. I never had that happen with any of my backs in the 20+ years of using Hasselblad equipment. I was using Ilford FP4 b/w film. I lined the arrows up perfectly (as I normally do) before winding the film to the first frame. Strange.

[update]
I just looked at the negatives and the spacing is wrong. Looks like my back needs to go to the shop. Sigh.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I usually move the film about 1/4" or 5mm to 6mm past the arrow.

 

[hashtagquack]

No relation to me but there's a great YouTube video just released by Fixoldcameras with a very easy to follow guide on how to cla these backs.

Please delete this post if in violation of any rules

Edit to add link

 

[Chris Livsey]

There was an issue many moons ago with Ilford who had sourced 120 reels/spools of slightly the wrong dimensions, these required an offset when loading. I have seen it stated that some A12 backs had a second arrow for Ilford film but I have never seen one and that may be myth. These days if all loading is done to the letter and there is an issue it is definitely the back that requires a service. The parts used for the clutch drive in A12 backs have varied over time with some parts only being used for a short time in production as they were found to be less reliable, a competent repair technician knows all these nuances and would replace with current parts even if that part was not currently faulty.

The spacing issue was around 2002:

ILFORD is aware of the problem in Hasselblad backs. It comes down to the spools, some of which were out of spec, causing inconsistent advance.
We have switched suppliers of spools, so this should not be an issue in the future. In the meantime, it is the takeup spool that is critical, so if you can, use a spool that has not caused problems.
The new ILFORD spools will look quite different from the old design. The old design had a scalloped shape around the slit, the new ones are a straight line.

David Carper
ILFORD Technical Service

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/photocommunity/forums/theforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5629

I have not been able to verify this statement:
If you look at the instructions which come with Hasselblad A12 Backs, it clearly states that the starting point for Ilford is 45 degrees back from the Kodak start point.

This was stated to be a paper thickness issue not a spool size issue, again around 2002, link as above.

All the instructions I have do not have this mentioned and the latest A12 back the OP refers to does not have that in the instructions:

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/279370/Hasselblad-A12.html?page=2#manual

 

[etn]

I usually move the film about 1/4" or 5mm to 6mm past the arrow.

Yes, so do I. I realized I always had empty of space at the end of a roll, therefore it just increases the margin at the beginning of the roll.

I have been told by a tech that the Acros 100 is thinner than other films, which might cause problems with spacing in Hasselblad backs. Never had the problem myself, though. (I'll probably jinx myself saying that, for I have an Acros 100 in progress in one of my backs )

 

[Leigh B]

I've shot hundreds of rolls of ACROS in my Hasselblads with nary a problem.

- Leigh

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I had the same problem with one of my backs. I took the side plate off as described in the video posted above, but did not take anything else apart. I simply sprayed it well with a thin 3-in-one lock lubricant and operated the back. Sprayed the lube and operated the mechanism repeatedly until everything freed up. Shook out and dabbed the excess with a cloth and put it back together. No problems since.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I usually move the film about 1/4" or 5mm to 6mm past the arrow.

I had a few rolls of film in which the first frame was light struck. I have not seen the problem again since I started doing that, but why take chances. As it was pointed out, the film has spare space at the end so there is no problem doing this [although logically if there was a light strike advancing the film should not make a difference].

 

[nathantw]

There was an issue many moons ago with Ilford who had sourced 120 reels/spools of slightly the wrong dimensions, these required an offset when loading. I have seen it stated that some A12 backs had a second arrow for Ilford film but I have never seen one and that may be myth. These days if all loading is done to the letter and there is an issue it is definitely the back that requires a service. The parts used for the clutch drive in A12 backs have varied over time with some parts only being used for a short time in production as they were found to be less reliable, a competent repair technician knows all these nuances and would replace with current parts even if that part was not currently faulty.

The spacing issue was around 2002:

ILFORD is aware of the problem in Hasselblad backs. It comes down to the spools, some of which were out of spec, causing inconsistent advance.
l

Thanks for that. I never had a problem with Kodak film, so I'll try a roll of Tri-X and see how the spaces are with that. If all else fails I can always do the suggestions in this thread.

 

[etn]

I've shot hundreds of rolls of ACROS in my Hasselblads with nary a problem.

- Leigh

Only 10-20ish rolls in my case, but didn't have a problem either (so far).

 

[pentaxpete]

I used 2004 dated Ilford Delta 100 in an 16 back and I had spacing issues in my 2002 bought 501CM I lined up the 'start' mark for the Ilford Film -- reading THIS maybe I should not have . I must have had a better Ilford Spool . When I crank the 501CM it feels a bit stiff and 'noisy' -- is it OK to oil the cogs i can see on back and on camera body? I have Sewing Machine Oil available.

 

[pentaxpete]

I have an A12 back that has that black plastic holder for the dark slide, so i c annot see how i can lift up the side plate to access the cogs. Also, i had a look at an e-bay purchased A24 back very old but when I took up the black leatherette cover there were NO Screws there to undo so I could not see how to access the cogs to lubricate.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I wonder if on Rolex and Omega forums owners ask about taking off the back and lubricating because it's running a bit slow?
A basic CLA on an A12 in the UK runs about £60 from someone who knows what they are doing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder if on Rolex and Omega forums owners ask about taking off the back and lubricating because it's running a bit slow?
A basic CLA on an A12 in the UK runs about £60 from someone who knows what they are doing.

That sound about the right cost.

 

[JOR]

Since those arrows have not generally been used in decades, modern film may not be right.

The 120 format was introduced in 1906 and used frame numbers printed on the backing paper. Film was advanced by viewing them through the red window. The arrows were essential to the operation of some folders and were certainly present on film manufactured/packed immediately post-war, although the arrows in some brands were replaced by a line. The earliest Hasselblads made use of them, as did Rollei cameras without the rollers that sensed the increase in thickness as the film and tape wound through. Even the last Hasselblad backs manufactured (April 2013) relied on this marking.

 

[Leigh B]

I'm well aware of the history of 120 and similar roll films.
Thanks for the refresher.

My point was that modern product may not place the arrows correctly.

- Leigh