What's gone wrong?

[Paul Manuell]

So is the light likely to be through the film insert, in which case, as someone's already suggested, putting electrical tape around it each time I put a new film in would solve it, or could it be somewhere else, such as the prism or something?

 

[MattKing]

I suspect the insert, or how the insert is fitting into the body.
Have you another insert that you can try?

 

[Paul Manuell]

I suspect the insert, or how the insert is fitting into the body.
Have you another insert that you can try?

No, just the one I'm afraid. Will be getting my camera back tomorrow but this whole thing makes me just want to chuck it in the sea now, has totally ruined my mojo and motivation to go out and take photos.

 

[MattKing]

No, just the one I'm afraid. Will be getting my camera back tomorrow but this whole thing makes me just want to chuck it in the sea now, has totally ruined my mojo and motivation to go out and take photos.

Persevere!
I've just looked at the manual for your camera. I'm betting it is a problem with the mechanism for latching the holder into the camera. I don't think that the unwanted exposure is happening through the film gate, but rather nearer either the takeup or feed spools.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Persevere!
I've just looked at the manual for your camera. I'm betting it is a problem with the mechanism for latching the holder into the camera. I don't think that the unwanted exposure is happening through the film gate, but rather nearer either the takeup or feed spools.

Sorry, a bit technical for me, that. Does that mean you DO think the light is leaking through where the insert and camera meet or somewhere else?

 

[Kino]

As others have suggested, a roll of black camera paper tape would most likely solve this problem. Remove the light slide and tape the seam after loading the camera in subdued light. I'll bet this solves the problem totally.

If the next objection is that it "shouldn't be that way", I agree but if the tape is carefully applied, it shouldn't be that noticeable.

If this solves the problem, then look into replacing the light seals on the camera; no matter how "good" they look.

This is why you see multi-hundreds of thousands of dollar motion picture cameras with camera tape around all the seams of even brand new film magazines. Experience has taught operators that a bit of tape is far less expensive than a roll of film and a day of takes lost on location...

 

[Paul Manuell]

A message to Pentax and all other camera makers. I know none of you will act on it, or even see it, but I've got to get it off my chest. So...

FFS, START MAKING NEW FILM CAMERAS AGAIN! As time goes on, more and more of your old cameras are failing and beyond repair, leaving us film photographers nowhere to turn. Not everyone wants to use digital, some of us still love everything about film photography, SO FFS THINK OF US!!!!

 

[Paul Manuell]

As others have suggested, a roll of black camera paper tape would most likely solve this problem. Remove the light slide and tape the seam after loading the camera in subdued light. I'll bet this solves the problem totally.

If the next objection is that it "shouldn't be that way", I agree but if the tape is carefully applied, it shouldn't be that noticeable.

If this solves the problem, then look into replacing the light seals on the camera; no matter how "good" they look.

This is why you see multi-hundreds of thousands of dollar motion picture cameras with camera tape around all the seams of even brand new film magazines. Experience has taught operators that a bit of tape is far less expensive than a roll of film and a day of takes lost on location...

I wouldn't object to using tape, certainly not for any aesthetic reason, and am indeed going to go down that route (my 'feel like throwing it in the sea' post above was purely born out of frustration).

 

[Kino]

I wouldn't object to using tape, certainly not for any aesthetic reason, and am indeed going to go down that route (my 'feel like throwing it in the sea' post above was purely born out of frustration).

Been there!

 

[Paul Manuell]

Been there!

 

[Kino]

Oh, and tape it ALL THE WAY AROUND the magazine where it meets the body...

 

[Paul Manuell]

Oh, and tape it ALL THE WAY AROUND the magazine where it meets the body...

Will do

 

[Dan Daniel]

One thing to do is to place the film with the leak in the camera as it was shot- meaning emulsion to lens, upside down, etc. Now roll the film backwards one frame and see where the leak lines up on the insert. Then push the frame forward and again see where the leak lines up. Because I can almost guarantee that the leak is happening as the film sits on either the feed or takeup side, before or after another frame is exposed. And putting the negative in the camera will most times show you where the leak is. Also pay attention to what the backing paper is doing. That hard line could be from where the film starts getting shielded by the backing paper.

One reason you can get a leak on one frame and not adjacent frames could be something like handling. Maybe you put one ahnd slightly differently and pressed differently for that one leak shot? This maight have compressed the back or the insert? Or the leak depends on a very specific angle of light and that frame was just the lucky one where the camera matched. I would test the camera applyijng pressure and such in a variety of ways to see if something is giving ever so slightly/ Maybe a seal deep in a slot gets pressed out of position when just the pressure is applied.

Intermittent light leaks are the worst. Hey, at least it isn't a shutter going bad, it seems.

 

[abruzzi]

It looks like the light seals are super simple for the film back, so you could probably make it out of a sheet of foam at a hobby lobby or similar store (I assume you don’t have a hobby lobby in the UK), but you can also try these:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pentax-645...520165?hash=item5692872e25:g:FfgAAOSwImRYY0qi

The other thing to remember about intermittent leaks—sometimes it has to be just the wrong set of circumstances, casting a shadow, applying pressure to a part, or lots of other unpredictable things can be enough to create or stop a leak.

I’d also only use the tape as a test. If you run a half dozen rolls in bright light without a leak using the tape, then you know you’ve found the culprit, and replacing the seals is the more permanent fix.

 

[Kino]

One reason you can get a leak on one frame and not adjacent frames could be something like handling. Maybe you put one ahnd slightly differently and pressed differently for that one leak shot? This maight have compressed the back or the insert? Or the leak depends on a very specific angle of light and that frame was just the lucky one where the camera matched. I would test the camera applyijng pressure and such in a variety of ways to see if something is giving ever so slightly/ Maybe a seal deep in a slot gets pressed out of position when just the pressure is applied.

.

This is exactly what happens on my Kiev 88 with some backs. The slightest pressure applied laterally on a magazine will guarantee a light leak, so I tape them all. It also helps with spacing issues, as a back with a weak spring latch will allow the gearing to slip while advancing the film.

Kiev 88's are fun...

 

[Paul Manuell]

One thing to do is to place the film with the leak in the camera as it was shot- meaning emulsion to lens, upside down, etc. Now roll the film backwards one frame and see where the leak lines up on the insert. Then push the frame forward and again see where the leak lines up. Because I can almost guarantee that the leak is happening as the film sits on either the feed or takeup side, before or after another frame is exposed. And putting the negative in the camera will most times show you where the leak is. Also pay attention to what the backing paper is doing. That hard line could be from where the film starts getting shielded by the backing paper.

One reason you can get a leak on one frame and not adjacent frames could be something like handling. Maybe you put one ahnd slightly differently and pressed differently for that one leak shot? This maight have compressed the back or the insert? Or the leak depends on a very specific angle of light and that frame was just the lucky one where the camera matched. I would test the camera applyijng pressure and such in a variety of ways to see if something is giving ever so slightly/ Maybe a seal deep in a slot gets pressed out of position when just the pressure is applied.

Intermittent light leaks are the worst. Hey, at least it isn't a shutter going bad, it seems.

Placing the film (I assume you mean the affected negative) in the camera and trying to line up where the leak is is a step too far for someone with my lack of patience I'm afraid. But ref. your possible reason for there being a leak in one frame and not the adjacent one; that's not applicable in this case I'm afraid, the camera was set on a tripod with mirror lock up and 2 second timer activated to take each photo.

 

[Luckless]

But ref. your possible reason for there being a leak in one frame and not the adjacent one; that's not applicable in this case I'm afraid, the camera was set on a tripod with mirror lock up and 2 second timer activated to take each photo.

Being on a tripod doesn't exempt you from having pressed more on one side of the camera than the other while getting things set up, and thereby opening or closing a light-leak.My C330 so far hasn't displayed a leak, but there is a noticeable difference in position of the door if it had been pressed on the left or right side if I care to look closely enough.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Being on a tripod doesn't exempt you from having pressed more on one side of the camera than the other while getting things set up, and thereby opening or closing a light-leak.My C330 so far hasn't displayed a leak, but there is a noticeable difference in position of the door if it had been pressed on the left or right side if I care to look closely enough.

The camera, tripod, fstop, shutter speed and mirror lock up/2 second timer function were all set BEFORE taking the photos, nothing whatsoever changed between shots. As for pressing the shutter button - that's literally all I did, softly pressed the button, no other contact whatsoever with the camera. So literally everything apart from the passage of time was identical for each photo.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Kiev 88's are fun...

About as fun as sticking your finger in a light socket

 

[MattKing]

The camera, tripod, fstop, shutter speed and mirror lock up/2 second timer function were all set BEFORE taking the photos, nothing whatsoever changed between shots. As for pressing the shutter button - that's literally all I did, softly pressed the button, no other contact whatsoever with the camera. So literally everything apart from the passage of time was identical for each photo.

The leak probably happened either before or after you exposed the frame that shows the problem.
In other words, the light got in after (or before) you wound the film on. It came in the side and hit the film as it was on the spool - either feed side or take-up side - before it was wound further.
So the leak exposed the film, and the shutter exposed the same piece of film at a different time.
And the leak may very well only cause a problem when a particular set of circumstances occur - circumstances involving how the camera was handled and where and how the exterior light hit the camera.

 

[Kino]

About as fun as sticking your finger in a light socket

You have to like tractors to like Kiev's!

 

[Dan Daniel]

The camera, tripod, fstop, shutter speed and mirror lock up/2 second timer function were all set BEFORE taking the photos, nothing whatsoever changed between shots. As for pressing the shutter button - that's literally all I did, softly pressed the button, no other contact whatsoever with the camera. So literally everything apart from the passage of time was identical for each photo.

OK, that solves it- GREMLINS!

Keep the camera away from water.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Ok, have got my camera back, and while looking on Ebay for other ones, stumbled across Asahi Pentax London, a Pentax repairer who take on old cameras, including (according to their website) Pentax 67s. 'Halleluja!' I thought, finally someone who can take a proper look at my camera, a 645NII. Sent them an email explaining the problem, along with the photo of the negative. Their response? They don't work on 645s! AAAGGGHHH!!! FFS!!!! Apparently not many of them were sold in the UK, so the machinery to repair them was an unjustifiable expense. They did, however, give me the email address of someone else who would be a better bet to take on the job, so I forwarded them the email and photo which I'd sent to Pentax. Their reply? You can probably guess. They don't work on 645s either. They did however note I'd also sent the email to Pentax, and said they might be better able to help me. AAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[norm123]

Shutter delay problem for me.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Shutter delay problem for me.

What, you mean that's your guess for what's wrong with my camera, or that's what you've got wrong with yours? Anyway, whatever's wrong with mine is irrelevant now, I have a new 645NII body on the way