Weirdest negative. Hasselblad back problem?

[shutterfinger]

Where was the sun (light source) in relation to you and the camera?
What finder do you have on the camera?
Possible secondary exposure through the finder.

 

[fredekblad]

Really - it is a double exposure. The gray line a the top of the negative is most likely due to some misalignment when the second shot was made or a little bleed from bright sky outside the frame.

Yeah I processed the color films today and found that I took the exact same picture in color as well and it's so much easier to see its a double exposure when putting them side by side. Regarding the grey line I'm not sure still, because I have it on all the pictures. Even in indoor lighting. Hm..

 

[fredekblad]

can't help but can tell you not to give up. my Hasselblads(3 501cs) are the most reliable cameras I own.They have only failed me once in 20 years of use when a seal in a film back was ripped by the dark slide

Thanks for the hope Ralph! It's seems me and the hassy had a small fight but are getting back together now with the help of the users that have commented

 

[fredekblad]

Where was the sun (light source) in relation to you and the camera?
What finder do you have on the camera?
Possible secondary exposure through the finder.

I had the sun behind me. Used the regular waistfinder, not the one with light meter. Intereting, why does that happen?

 

[jeffreyg]

I don't think it was a light leak nor a double exposure. You didn't say it was the only frame that way (?). It also looks like there could be an area on the partial frame shown above the fully shown one. Is it possible that you presoaked the film and that affected it somehow during developing. My Hasselblads have also been reliable for their over twenty years.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[shutterfinger]

A hundred years or so ago I bought a used Sinar F1 at Keeble and Shuchat in Palo Alto ( http://kspphoto.com/ ). Once home I loaded some ISO400 sheet film, extended the bellows fully, inserted the film holder in the back, locked it in place, insured the lens board and lens were secure and the shutter was closed. I then went outside in the bright afternoon sun, sometimes a rarity in Belmont, and turned the sides and edges of the standards and bellows toward the sun at every angle I could.
When I processed the sheet of film it was crystal clear except for fb=f. I said to myself great, its light tight. I loaded some AgfaPan 100 sheet film and went out and photographed the white bearded Iris and Gladiolus that were in bloom.
When I processed those sheets they all had multiple secondary pin hole exposures. The secondary exposures were distinct images on top of the lens image, not streaks from standard light leaks. When I tested the Sinar in total darkness with a light source inside the bellows I found that the bellows were light tight when extended to full tightness but each fold had a pin hole if relaxed so that the pleats were 1/4 to half folded.

A pin hole in the light seal of you finder or the mirror not sealing tightly during exposure could cause the secondary exposure or "double" exposure. With the shutter and viewfinder open in total darkness place a bright light inside the body and observe the exterior for any hint of light. Anything more than total black is a light leak/pin hole.

 

[fredekblad]

I don't think it was a light leak nor a double exposure. You didn't say it was the only frame that way (?). It also looks like there could be an area on the partial frame shown above the fully shown one. Is it possible that you presoaked the film and that affected it somehow during developing. My Hasselblads have also been reliable for their over twenty years.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

It's the only frame affected, yes. No I forgot to mention it in the post, only in some comment. Well the frame above is all good, there's a snow patch that looks similar to the pattern on the frame with what I think is a double exposure.
No presoak and since it is only inside the picture it seems to me like something that happened in camera and not during processing.

 

[fredekblad]

A hundred years or so ago I bought a used Sinar F1 at Keeble and Shuchat in Palo Alto ( http://kspphoto.com/ ). Once home I loaded some ISO400 sheet film, extended the bellows fully, inserted the film holder in the back, locked it in place, insured the lens board and lens were secure and the shutter was closed. I then went outside in the bright afternoon sun, sometimes a rarity in Belmont, and turned the sides and edges of the standards and bellows toward the sun at every angle I could.
When I processed the sheet of film it was crystal clear except for fb=f. I said to myself great, its light tight. I loaded some AgfaPan 100 sheet film and went out and photographed the white bearded Iris and Gladiolus that were in bloom.
When I processed those sheets they all had multiple secondary pin hole exposures. The secondary exposures were distinct images on top of the lens image, not streaks from standard light leaks. When I tested the Sinar in total darkness with a light source inside the bellows I found that the bellows were light tight when extended to full tightness but each fold had a pin hole if relaxed so that the pleats were 1/4 to half folded.

A pin hole in the light seal of you finder or the mirror not sealing tightly during exposure could cause the secondary exposure or "double" exposure. With the shutter and viewfinder open in total darkness place a bright light inside the body and observe the exterior for any hint of light. Anything more than total black is a light leak/pin hole.

That's an interesting point shutterfinger and story also. I will for sure go trough all parts with a appropriate light source and look for pinholes or mismatches between parts and so on and see if that could be the problem. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Sirius Glass]

can't help but can tell you not to give up. my Hasselblads(3 501cs) are the most reliable cameras I own.They have only failed me once in 20 years of use when a seal in a film back was ripped by the dark slide

Hasselblads have been the most reliable cameras that I have used.

 

[JOR]

Hasselblads have been the most reliable cameras that I have used.

Hasselblads have an excellent reputation. I agree with the double-exposure theory. When I ran a processing lab (1960s), this is precisely the sort of image I was shown when the operator was swapping backs in a hurry. But what is the curved top of the image, seen on both the enlargement and the 'unedited' version. I am very familiar with 500C/M and I have tried to imagine how this could come about - I must assume that the negative was not clamped flat during scanning.

 

[fredekblad]

Hasselblads have an excellent reputation. I agree with the double-exposure theory. When I ran a processing lab (1960s), this is precisely the sort of image I was shown when the operator was swapping backs in a hurry. But what is the curved top of the image, seen on both the enlargement and the 'unedited' version. I am very familiar with 500C/M and I have tried to imagine how this could come about - I must assume that the negative was not clamped flat during scanning.

Yes that's correct. I just held the negative in my hand with a blue sky behind it and took a photo with my phone. So that explains the curve. Yeah they sure have a good reputation! And it's built here in my city so that's kind of fun. Good to hear someone with that experience point that out, with the double exposure I mean.

 

[fredekblad]

Hasselblads have been the most reliable cameras that I have used.

Thats always nice to hear! I guess I was just a little unlucky to buy a camera that maybe had a few beatings and no proper service for it maybe.

 

[fredekblad]

Here's a comparison of the color and b&w negative side by side. I know, its just awful quality again. My scanner is way down in a box somewhere and couldn't find it so i put the negative against the TV (thats why it looks so pixelated) and took a snap with the phone. Anyway, it's just to prove it really is a double exposure. You can se the foreground is totally different on the right and so on. The foreground looked so natural on the B&W I didn't realise it!

 

[Arklatexian]

It still looks like a double exposure.

It still looks like a double exposure.

I also vote for double exposure but a better answer would probably be found if you would buy a fresh roll of B&W film, nay, 3 rolls of B&W film and make test shots using your Hasselblad and the same back used on the negatives in question. This will yield 36 test negatives which should show a problem if there is one or, if there isn't, put your mind at ease. What is the price of several rolls of test film compared to the cost of traveling these days?......Regards!

 

[Andre Noble]

condensation during exposure (from water condensation refreezing) on negative

the metal pressure plate in contact with the film being the catalyst to condensation (Edited).

 

[AgX]

Pressure plates typically are laquered.
There is no image or even density forming layer in contact with the pressure plate.

 

[Andre Noble]

I am now thinking a cold, metal pressure plate in contact with base side of film, would bring film to below freezing temp in cold winter weather. Water condensation forms on emulsion side of film in small areas of film. Film is advance, water is squeegeed to a larger area of image. Water reacts with backing paper and creates a sensitizing substance that then further sensitizes, as has happened recently with faulty backing paper of Kodak's 120 B&W film etc etc etc. the affected image area (This could happen in camera, AND/OR after finished roll is waiting to be processed).