Weird Problem, Hasselblad . . Yep, I'm a Dumbass :)

[John Galt]

OK folks, I have a weird one for you . . . Developing some rolls I exposed last September and I am seeing some weird stuff . . . I have three A12 magazines and two 500 bodies, one is a C and the other is a C/M. All were tested last July prior to a trip to Newfoundland and everything was functioning flawlessly. I am quite sure these are from the 500 C body. . . . As you can see, the first 1/3 or so of the roll is way overexposed, the second 1/3 not so much and the last 1/3 seems right on.

I developed three rolls and they are all the same . . . FP4+ with D-76 1:1

Because the demarcation falls in the middle of an exposure . . . I am F**king lost . . . thoughts?

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[shutterfinger]

Typical of a shutter needing servicing, speeds slow the first few cycles then start freeing up and running correctly after some use. Said shutter may run fine in warm weather (60°F/15°C) but gets slower in colder weather until several operations have occurred. Also know as your equipment lying to you.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Part of your problem is a serious light leak. The light seals in Hasselblad backs go bad and need replaced, and yours looks like it has reached that point. Notice how the edges are fogged, too?

 

[John Galt]

Typical of a shutter needing servicing, speeds slow the first few cycles then start freeing up and running correctly after some use. Said shutter may run fine in warm weather (60°F/15°C) but gets slower in colder weather until several operations have occurred. Also know as your equipment lying to you.

Shutterfinger, thanks for the reply . . . a sticky shutter does not explain the 4th exposure down from the top . . . where the exposure changes in the middle of the image ??

 

[Sirius Glass]

Part of your problem is a serious light leak. The light seals in Hasselblad backs go bad and need replaced, and yours looks like it has reached that point. Notice how the edges are fogged, too?

I agree: serious light leaks.

 

[John Galt]

Part of your problem is a serious light leak. The light seals in Hasselblad backs go bad and need replaced, and yours looks like it has reached that point. Notice how the edges are fogged, too?

Yes, chriscrawfordphoto . . . I agree, I need to replace the light seals, but this does not explain what I am asking about which is evident in the 4th exposure down from the top . . note that the is a demarcation line where it appears that there is a difference of 2 stops or so of exposure on the same image.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes, chriscrawfordphoto . . . I agree, I need to replace the light seals, but this does not explain what I am asking about which is evident in the 4th exposure down from the top . . note that the is a demarcation line where it appears that there is a difference of 2 stops or so of exposure on the same image.

The demarcation line goes out into the edges of the film, beyond the image. It is not an exposure issue. That's where it began leaking light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A CLA would be a good idea to get rid of a lot of problems, known and unknown.

 

[John Galt]

The demarcation line goes out into the edges of the film, beyond the image. It is not an exposure issue. That's where it began leaking light.

Hmmm, I think you're right

 

[bdial]

I agree with Sirius and Chris that it's a light leak. The usual suspect cause on Hasselblads for leaks is the darkslide seal. Given the fogging on the rebate, the seals on that back would be the first thing I'd address. Another possible cause is that the rear shutters aren't quite closing on that body. But the rebate area is pretty well protected by the film gate, not to mention that it's all shaded by the mirror when the shutter is open.
Is it possible that the film insert got unlocked accidentally? Did you do any back switching using this roll?
Since you have multiple backs and bodies, you can test the back on another body, or test the suspect body with the other back. One or the other should tell the tale.

 

[John Galt]

Respectfully Guys . . . . I would expect a light leak on the Film Magazine to be much more pronounced on the dark slide side of the negative . . . this is evenly dispersed across the negative . . . Although the magazine may need light seals, I ~Don't~ think that is what I am seeing here. I have had magazines with light leaks,, they do not look anything like what I'm seeing here, this is new

 

[removed account4]

no clue what your strangeness is caused by
but i am sure a qualified repair person would
be able to figure it out. might cost some $$$ to get
it fixed, after all its a 'blad ... to me it looks like
a timing belt issue, or you threw a rod and need a valve job.
but im talking air cooled, and your's has a radiator.

 

[John Galt]

no clue what your strangeness is caused by
but i am sure a qualified repair person would
be able to figure it out. might cost some $$$ to get
it fixed, after all its a 'blad ... to me it looks like
a timing belt issue, or you threw a rod and need a valve job.
but im talking air cooled, and your's has a radiator.

oh, a comedian . . .don't quit your day job. I'm trying to avoid a $300 minimum "qualified repair person" WTF is wrong with you? :/ LOL!

 

[removed account4]

oh, a comedian . . .don't quit your day job. I'm trying to avoid a $300 minimum "qualified repair person" WTF is wrong with you? :/

at least you don't have to send it back to sweden !

 

[John Galt]

at least you don't have to send it back to sweden !

LOL! Thanks for the reply anyway!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The evidence (clues) show:

1. Uneven exposure beginning in middle half of a single frame, which continues on to successive frames..
2. Area outside the image region is also light-struck.
3. Dark area seems consistent across the width of the film.

Taken together, I think this eliminates a shutter issue and even a rear baffle issue.

I see only one photo of three that seemed to be posted. What do the other rolls look like?

If I didn't know better, I'd say that when you stepped out of the room, your dog knocked the developing tank on its side for 30 seconds, letting some developer spill out, and then out of kindness placed the tank upright before you came back.

 

[glbeas]

It looks to me like someone popped the back open for a quick peek then closed it after seeing the film.
(Dont ask me how I know this)

 

[John Galt]

The evidence (clues) show:

1. Uneven exposure beginning in middle half of a single frame, which continues on to successive frames..
2. Area outside the image region is also light-struck.
3. Dark area seems consistent across the width of the film.

Taken together, I think this eliminates a shutter issue and even a rear baffle issue.

I see only one photo of three that seemed to be posted. What do the other rolls look like?

If I didn't know better, I'd say that when you stepped out of the room, your dog knocked the developing tank on its side for 30 seconds, letting some developer spill out, and then out of kindness placed the tank upright before you came back.

LOL . . yeah that's what I thought but my dog was very content (and asleep) next to the wood stove.

Your bullet points 1 - 3 nailed it . . . You are paying attention! definitely a mystery . . . does NOT look like a dark slide light leak OR a shutter issue

Like I said in original post, three rolls . . . same issue. Pretty sure these are all same magazine same body.

I will be starting some tests tomorrow to narrow it down to to which body which magazine.. .

 

[John Galt]

It looks to me like someone popped the back open for a quick peek then closed it after seeing the film.
(Dont ask me how I know this)

Thanks for the reply glbeas . . . but, Nope, Didn't happen.

 

[itsdoable]

The film was fogged, probably out of the camera, as it goes out in the rebate and is uniform across. Light seal leaks are localized and very characteristic, not uniform. Shutter issues are in the film gate only, and there is obvious fogging inside the frame.

Why is the leader exposed (bottom of the picture)? Hand processed film should be loaded in the dark, and there should be no exposed leader. Machine processed sometime gets exposes when they use a processing cassette and cannot turn off the lights loading the cassette.

I'm assuming you processed at home, what processing tank did you use? Did you unroll the paper leader in daylight to start loading the spool? It looks like the leader got exposed, and that half of the film got fogged during that time.

 

[bdial]

Respectfully Guys . . . . I would expect a light leak on the Film Magazine to be much more pronounced on the dark slide side of the negative . . . this is evenly dispersed across the negative . . . Although the magazine may need light seals, I ~Don't~ think that is what I am seeing here. I have had magazines with light leaks,, they do not look anything like what I'm seeing here, this is new

If the camera is ok, then the other possibility is fogging during handling and processing. If you processed other rolls in the darkroom session that came out ok, that would tend to point to the camera.
You're right that the fogging looks unusual for the darkslide seal. But there are no normal openings on the right side of the film back. Have you checked the screws that secure the front plate of the back? The feet that support the bottom of the back can get loose or bent, but enough looseness to cause fogging should be pretty obvious.
It's hard to check off all the possibilities long distance. Hopefully some of this will help you narrow things down a bit.

 

[John Galt]

The film was fogged, probably out of the camera, as it goes out in the rebate and is uniform across. Light seal leaks are localized and very characteristic, not uniform. Shutter issues are in the film gate only, and there is obvious fogging inside the frame.

Why is the leader exposed (bottom of the picture)? Hand processed film should be loaded in the dark, and there should be no exposed leader. Machine processed sometime gets exposes when they use a processing cassette and cannot turn off the lights loading the cassette.

I'm assuming you processed at home, what processing tank did you use? Did you unroll the paper leader in daylight to start loading the spool? It looks like the leader got exposed, and that half of the film got fogged during that time.

The film was loaded onto the developing reel in the darkroom with NO light, then put into the developing tank . . ., What you see as the leader is actually the first three exposures on the roll . . . messes with your head, doesn't it . . . FWIW it was an Omega 2 reel tank https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...z_2yKGgnB734q4nIz2dEZKAl15ZpFY8hoCVesQAvD_BwE

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Like I said in original post, three rolls . . . same issue. Pretty sure these are all same magazine same body.
...

Three rolls with an identical problem? That eliminates mishandling, misprocessing, or some random flash of light. It also eliminates something catastrophic happening to the magazine partway through the roll.

An excellent mystery.

The good news is that this last bit of evidence gets your dog off the hook.

 

[Eric Rose]

Did you develop all three rolls at the same time? If sov could be a tank issue.

 

[shutterfinger]

a sticky shutter does not explain the 4th exposure down from the top . . . where the exposure changes in the middle of the image ??

That state of the art light table fooled me.
Does that high end developing tank have a center column and was it installed for the processing?
If yes lube the guides on the film insert and shell but don't use jnanian's axle grease.