Mamiya RB67 last frame cut off

[Camcoldest]

Hey guys,

Just picked up a Mamiya RB67 and put a few rolls through it and got the negatives back. The last frame of the negatives are all cut off by 1-3mm. I was extremely precise in loading to ensure the arrows aligned before winding. I’m assuming the “easy fix” is to not match the arrows up by compensation but then it seems like that would be an awful guessing game. Any ideas on other fixes?

Thanks!

 

[shutterfinger]

How is the space between frames?
When loading insert the lead of the backing paper through the slot in the take up spool, fold back the opposite direction of the wind action, advance until the incoming paper is over the folded lead holding it in place.
The roll film holder may need a CLA, clean, lube,adjust.
https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/mamiya-rb67-pro-s-repair-manual.pdf
The roll film holder starts on page 48. A RB67 Pro will not have all the lockouts found on a Pro S which will not have all the features/lockouts of a Pro SD.

EDIT: How far from the lead edge is the first frame?

 

[gdavis]

It looks like the end was exposed to light which shouldn't happen. The end should be clear, not black. Did you fully wind the film onto the take-up reel before opening the back and make sure that it stayed rolled tight? The films I have used have a paper tab that you lick and stick to keep it from unwinding before developing.

 

[voceumana]

Perhaps the processor fogged the end of the film when loading into their machine. Try developing a roll at home to verify the frame spacing is good and that the camera is not at fault.

 

[itsdoable]

You lost the tail of the film to daylight loading fog by your processor. if you load the film in the dark, the entire roll come out unfogged.

A lot of the existing processors use cassette loading, which is meant for daylight loading and the smaller volumes of today, but fogs a short bit of the film when you feed the roll. Unless they can load in the dark, there is nothing they can do, except minimize the length of the fog. I've talked to the operators, and the length of fog can be reduced to about 1/3 of that with good technique, which would get your last frame in.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I'm with itsdoable....
One of the labs I worked in used cassettes for loading 120 film into a roller-transport C-41 processor.
It looks like the tech left too much of the tail out of the cassette, or waited a bit too long before closing the door...(probably verifying that it was moving into the processor.)
The fogging on the end should be much less.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I'll third the opinion that its the lab. Doesn't look like its mechanical to me.

Another good reason to pick up the chems/tools and learn to develop yourself!

Good luck,

Jeremy

 

[Camcoldest]

Thanks to everyone who responded! I was out of town working, and I came home and the lab was permanently closed so I didn't have a chance to talk to them. I shot another few rolls and sent them off to another lab out of town so we'll see.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have the lab return 120 film to me cut 3-3-2-2 and slipped into a plastic page that protects the film from dust and scratches. Ask your lab to do that. I've used North Coast Photo in CA, Dwaynes, and LTI Lightside in NYC. They all provide that service, return the film flat and never screwed up the processing. Why does your film have a "Z" bend to them?

 

[mshchem]

Yeah, minilabs don't always have skilled operators. I they leave just a bit out of the cassette, and tape the leader card just right. You won't have any problems with the prolabs that use dip and dunk processors, that's all done in the dark. And no scratches.

 

[Donald Qualls]

IMO, the only good reasons to pay someone else to process your film are health issues (sensitivity to processing chemicals, for instance), or shooting so much you don't have time to do your own processing and scanning/printing. If the latter, it may be a hint you need to slow down (though I'm happy for your if your life lets you spend that much on film and processing -- mine doesn't).

A Patterson tank to hold two 120 reels (System 4? aka three-reel, because holds 3x 35mm) can be had, used, for well under $50. A changing bag (evil, horrible thing, its only saving grace is it's better than not having one) runs around $35 new. A few emptied/relabeled bottles from store brand club soda etc. will cost well under a dollar each, and IMO are the best easily obtainable storage bottles for chemicals. Even an E-6 kit is under $50, C-41 around $35, and basic B&W developer, stop, and fixer around the same. All of this will pay for itself compared to mailing off film four or five times, and you get your results back in hours instead of weeks.

If your lab is local to you, the trade-off isn't quite as clear, but you'll still save big money and get your results faster unless the lab does same-day processing (and most charge extra for that now).

Even before I got my darkroom built (loading my film in an evil bag), I had pretty much concluded there was no longer a reason to send my film to anyone else. I can do at least as good a job, cheaper, and faster (there are no local film labs that I can find in the Triad region of North Carolina). Now that I have a darkroom I can stand in and work on a counter, I can have negatives drying in under an hour from unloading the camera, if I need to -- or about an hour and a half including heating up the tempering bath and bottles for color.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don;t shoot that much film that it makes sense for me to keep and store chemicals. The pro lab does a great job better than I could do. Frankly, I'm not interested in processing my own film. The few bucks I'd save even if I saved isn't worth it. I'm more concerned that if I shot something of value, I have a better chance of not screwing up the results with my own processing. I do scan all my film however.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I don;t shoot that much film that it makes sense for me to keep and store chemicals. The pro lab does a great job better than I could do. Frankly, I'm not interested in processing my own film. The few bucks I'd save even if I saved isn't worth it. I'm more concerned that if I shot something of value, I have a better chance of not screwing up the results with my own processing. I do scan all my film however.

For B&W especially, storage of the chemicals can be a non-problem. Most Rodinal clones will last literally years in the original bottle, and small batches of other developers can be used up as one-shot before they go off, even at a roll or two per month. Color is more of a concern, in that the developer has a limited storage life and doesn't produce the best results if used one-shot from concentrate in an economical manner. Your choice, though. For myself, it's very easy to conclude that it makes no sense to pay someone else to process my negatives, but you have arguments that aren't about money or convenience.

FWIW, however, I've probably had at least as good results processing my own (non-experimental) films as I've gotten from commercial labs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

At my age, I don't think I have enough time to learn how to do it right.

 

[Donald Qualls]

At my age, I don't think I have enough time to learn how to do it right.

That's a concern, too, though I'd suggest that if you have the level of attention to detail it takes to make pleasing photographs, you'll probably only need a couple run-throughs to be able to produce lab-quality negatives. I did it the first time, supervised, at age 9, and the second time, unsupervised (with yard sale equipment and chemicals and without even a parent watching me mix the developer and fixer) at age 10. In the following 50 years, I've had only a couple major issues -- scratched sheet film (on an important-to-me negative) being the biggest one. Never had clear negatives. Never had serious fogging. You can make a good case that C-41 is easier than B&W -- always same process, always same chemicals, vs. the dozens of developers and dozens of different film choices, literally many hundreds of combinations, for B&W.

Your choice, of course. For me, it's not photography if I can't smell the chemicals. So much so that I spent a recent $3000 windfall on building my darkroom. So much so that I effectively stopped photography during the years I couldn't process my own film or make my own prints.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think I could do a better job if I was still 9.

The only time I tried my hand at developing was when I was in the USAF in Japan in 1965/67. The air base had a complete photo lab with developers, tray, washing drums, etc. that we all could use for free. So I took a short course on how to develop and print. The first time in the dark room with a can opener to open the 35mm cassette, I ripped open by palm and bled all over the film and everything else. I couldn't stop the bleeding until I secured the film in the developing canister and could turn the lights on. That might be the reason I'm hesitant to start again.

 

[MattKing]

I think I could do a better job if I was still 9.

The only time I tried my hand at developing was when I was in the USAF in Japan in 1965/67. The air base had a complete photo lab with developers, tray, washing drums, etc. that we all could use for free. So I took a short course on how to develop and print. The first time in the dark room with a can opener to open the 35mm cassette, I ripped open by palm and bled all over the film and everything else. I couldn't stop the bleeding until I secured the film in the developing canister and could turn the lights on. That might be the reason I'm hesitant to start again.

And I thought everyone in the Air Force knew that bottle openers are much more useful than can openers - for all sorts of things .

 

[Donald Qualls]

The first time in the dark room with a can opener to open the 35mm cassette, I ripped open by palm and bled all over the film and everything else.

Well, I can certainly understand that putting you off a bit. If you don't rewind the film all the way into the cassette, you can just pull it out again and never have to deal with an opening. That said, I've always used the ones made for bottle caps only, not the ones with a point or blade on the same or other end. My first time, in 1969, was with a reloadable cassette, and I just had to slam the long end of the spool on a hard surface to pop the cap off; my second was 620 film, so nothing to cut or pry at all.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah. I think it was one of those dual types with the bottle opener on one side and sharp can opener on the other. Unfortunately, it opened my palm instead of a can.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Since you shoot medium format now, you need never even have such a device in your darkroom or changing bag -- but I've got two bottle openers with can tab lifters on my key ring, as well as a Leatherman and a Victorinox pocket knife with bottle opening screwdriver bits (separate from the hatchet- or hook-and-lever-point can opener blades). I usually open the Victoriox to the correct blade and set it on the counter alongside the other bits before turning out the light, though the first time I tried to open what I thought was a reloadable cassette from Cinestill I had to dig in my pocket (after turning the light back on, since the cassette was still sealed).

I'm rather surprised, in today's (more than the 1930s) environmentally conscious world, that film is still almost universally supplied in throw-away cassettes -- especially since the pop-top metal ones cost the same to make and can be factory filled on the same machinery (minus the crimp station). I'd personally pay a small premium to get my film in reusable cans, and I'd also buy film the old Soviet way -- single roll length inside a light tight bag/packet, for user loading into the cassette -- if I could get it at a good price and get fresh film (vs. 1970s vintage Svema and Astrum).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Since you shoot medium format now, you need never even have such a device in your darkroom or changing bag -- but I've got two bottle openers with can tab lifters on my key ring, as well as a Leatherman and a Victorinox pocket knife with bottle opening screwdriver bits (separate from the hatchet- or hook-and-lever-point can opener blades). I usually open the Victoriox to the correct blade and set it on the counter alongside the other bits before turning out the light, though the first time I tried to open what I thought was a reloadable cassette from Cinestill I had to dig in my pocket (after turning the light back on, since the cassette was still sealed).

I'm rather surprised, in today's (more than the 1930s) environmentally conscious world, that film is still almost universally supplied in throw-away cassettes -- especially since the pop-top metal ones cost the same to make and can be factory filled on the same machinery (minus the crimp station). I'd personally pay a small premium to get my film in reusable cans, and I'd also buy film the old Soviet way -- single roll length inside a light tight bag/packet, for user loading into the cassette -- if I could get it at a good price and get fresh film (vs. 1970s vintage Svema and Astrum).

Are 35mm cassettes made of plastic. Wouldn't you just throw them in with your recyclable garbage? How would you get them back to the manufacturer for reprocessing? The shipping and handling costs would be prohibitive I believe.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't seen commercial plastic cassettes in person (though I've seen photos of them). And our world really needs to cut down the amount of plastic we throw away anyway -- even from landfills, some of it manages to find its way into waterways and eventually the ocean, and it's not healthy for any life that it encounters after it's been reduced to micro-fragments (never mind when its in big enough chunks to choke on or block intestines). Metal cassettes at least will rust quietly away in a landfill or wherever they wind up -- but reusable cassettes, whether plastic or metal, are better.

Better still would be a place that would supply prepaid mailers to send reusable cassettes in excess of one's bulk loading needs back to a central location for reuse -- they'd soak off the (presumed, to promote reusability) sticky label, clean inside and out (remove film fragments, tape bits, clean or renew the film slot velvet) and sell the ready-to-load casettes back to the film spoolers (like Cinestill or FPP, but also like Kodak and Fujifilm). With the entire industry on board, we'd all pay a dollar more for each preloaded cassette, get sixty cents of that back when we send the cassette back for reconditioning and reuse, and the recycler would make enough from their cut of the deposit plus selling the cassettes to film confectioners to operate at a profit. At least, that's the way we would hope it works, with the intent of making film as sustainable as possible...

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I haven't seen commercial plastic cassettes in person (though I've seen photos of them). And our world really needs to cut down the amount of plastic we throw away anyway -- even from landfills, some of it manages to find its way into waterways and eventually the ocean, and it's not healthy for any life that it encounters after it's been reduced to micro-fragments (never mind when its in big enough chunks to choke on or block intestines). Metal cassettes at least will rust quietly away in a landfill or wherever they wind up -- but reusable cassettes, whether plastic or metal, are better.

Better still would be a place that would supply prepaid mailers to send reusable cassettes in excess of one's bulk loading needs back to a central location for reuse -- they'd soak off the (presumed, to promote reusability) sticky label, clean inside and out (remove film fragments, tape bits, clean or renew the film slot velvet) and sell the ready-to-load casettes back to the film spoolers (like Cinestill or FPP, but also like Kodak and Fujifilm). With the entire industry on board, we'd all pay a dollar more for each preloaded cassette, get sixty cents of that back when we send the cassette back for reconditioning and reuse, and the recycler would make enough from their cut of the deposit plus selling the cassettes to film confectioners to operate at a profit. At least, that's the way we would hope it works, with the intent of making film as sustainable as possible...

The reason we purchased our Delonghi Nespresso machine is the fact that they have a recycling program for the used pods. The pods can be shipped back to them for free in the pre-labelled (UPS) bag. When full, drop it in the UPS drop box and it arrives at their facility. There they recycle the metal materials and give the used grounds to a local group for composting/fertilizer.

I would think something similar could be done with canisters.

Jeremy

 

[voceumana]

I've often used the blunt end of a can opener (church key, in slang) to open 35mm cassettes, and never punctured myself. But if you still use 35mm, you could always cut off the sharp end and file down the edge so it is smooth--or wrap it in duct tape to keep that end from being sharp. For 120 film, you don't need an opener, just a fingernail to rip through the paper seal.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The reason we purchased our Delonghi Nespresso machine is the fact that they have a recycling program for the used pods. The pods can be shipped back to them for free in the pre-labelled (UPS) bag. When full, drop it in the UPS drop box and it arrives at their facility. There they recycle the metal materials and give the used grounds to a local group for composting/fertilizer.

And the reasons I won't buy a pod coffee machine is I don't care to spend that much for a cup of coffee at home, the pods are plastic (and how do you know Delonghi are actually recycling them, vs. dumping them in landfill at their end?) and many/most of them still wind up in landfills. Not to mention, I get fresher coffee by grinding my own beans, at most about 8 hours before use (set up the machine on the way to bed before workdays) and everything left from my process is recyclable -- except the bag the beans come in, and the ability to buy loose beans from a bin has virtually dried up (likely because those beans aren't kept sealed so lose quality much faster than the ones in an airtight bag with one-way pressure relief valve).

Which has nothing to do with 35mm cassettes. If I could, I'd shoot only bulk loaded 35mm, for the usual reasons (small to large cost saving, ability to roll short rolls, ability to load up exactly the film mix I want for a photo trip), but color films are generally unavailable in bulk roll format (unless you shoot cine films, then you have to deal with remjet and minimum 400 foot rolls that won't fit the bulk loader, or spend a bunch of extra time and effort searching for short ends, and then hope they're rolled the way you expect (emulsion in or out?) so you don't accidentally load "redscale".