daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 4, 2012 8:40:22 GMT -5
Are all the shutter leaves opening and closing properly? Maybe one leaf is sticking some of the time, hence the intermittent nature of the fault. On the other hand, I don't know why the shape of the fogged part is as it is (i.e not going to the full edge of the frame).
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 4, 2012 7:24:42 GMT -5
The battery could be the problem - too high a voltage compared to (I presume, I haven't looked it up) the mercury original.
Of course it might just be that the people who do the scanning just don't do it too well.
The underlying photos I really enjoy. Thanks for posting them.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 4, 2012 7:21:09 GMT -5
This time last week we had temperatures around 70oF. This week it's around 38oF, but some areas have had it below freezing and/or snow.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 4, 2012 7:18:14 GMT -5
I was thinking at this stage to block off fully between the lens, its housing and the film chamber. Just run a few frames. If there is still light getting in it must be from the film side: if clear then it is something on the lens side. Another option might be to try to run some backing paper through with the film, like from the old 828 film (which I believe had the same dimension as 35mm but without all the perforations.). It might take a bit to do, but it might just help.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 4, 2012 0:23:01 GMT -5
Light is almost as amazing as water for finding its way into places. the paint used on cameras is often s low-gloss black. It will certainly reflect some light and that light will bounce off in all directions. I would assume if there were no need to use a light-seal rubber/sponge/felt the manufacturers wouldn't have used any. The fact that they do makes it, to me, a logical assumption that without that seal light will seep in.
Don't forget that the exposures might have been 1/125 at f11 (say). Even if it only a hint of a pin-prick of light while the film sits there it can be collecting that light for minutes, hours or days. Even a second is 125 times as long time wise as the film gets when being exposed.
The lens itself is easy to test - take a photo with the lens cap on. Many people have tried this over the years! ;D The back too - as has been said, use tape. Other possible sources aren't as easy to get at.
The centre point of light "infestation" is just above midway (or below on the camera).
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
iPad
Apr 3, 2012 23:54:28 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Apr 3, 2012 23:54:28 GMT -5
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 3, 2012 18:22:01 GMT -5
It was the AutoWide that mainly caught my eye. We had an Ilford Sportsman at the end of the 1950s - it was stolen.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 3, 2012 18:18:46 GMT -5
I think Mickey is right, but it's presumably the camera and not you which is overexposing things a little.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 3, 2012 9:47:03 GMT -5
Just thinking further - if there were a light leak to the side of the cassette the light would tend to hit the film in about that place. The cassette finishes quite close to the opening where the lens projects the image. The thickness of the cassette would cast a bit of shade over the very edge of the image - hence the first part "fogged" is part the way in and reasonably straight edged. Does that make sense?
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 3, 2012 9:40:41 GMT -5
I didn't either! Berndt, sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I meant the fact that the light leak was fairly straight edged near to the right border of the photo as we look at, then lessens as it goes towards the centre (no American spelling for me! ;D). I would presume it it were anything to do with the lens mounting it would be more circular or diffuse.
As you say, should there be seal in the well that the door shuts against? I can't tell on the photo if there is any there or not in any of the well. I have a Olympus 35 EC (I think that's the model). I picked what remained of the door light-seal out a while ago as it had gone all gooey. I haven't got round to replacing it yet. Perhaps the previous owner did the same with you camera.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 3, 2012 7:41:11 GMT -5
Josh,
Welcome.
There has been a thread or two on foam and suchlike - one fairly recent. (I haven't time to search it out at present).
Dave.
Mickey has added the one link since I started to post.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 3, 2012 7:34:04 GMT -5
I suppose those flash exposure depend on 1) how long each frame was in place ready for/immediately after the photo was taken 2) how bright the ambient light was. If it was pitch black, then (other than a lens problem itself) it wouldn't have a light leak. Even if there was some light it would surely be less than daylight (other than for synchro-sun). If wound on immediately maybe the frame wouldn't sit there long enough.
I suppose it becomes a process of elimination - some parts easy, some less so.
Do you think it might be from the central part of the door? (As it isn't affecting the perforation area.) It seems a fairly straight line. Is it the same on other frames?
As regards the shutter, I would have presumed there are several speeds, but that they not selectable by the operator.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 1, 2012 3:41:25 GMT -5
33, just to add - yes, good idea for a thread.
As regards the 52 year ago hottie, do you mean the model in camera or the camera model?
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 1, 2012 3:37:45 GMT -5
Yes, of course, our shops were Tandy too - I'm not quite sure why I said they were Radio Shack - except that most (all?) the stock was branded Radio Shack.
At least some of the plastics now have biodegradability built into them.
I remember years ago the liquid that had been developed that would dissolve everything. They are still looking for something to keep it in. ;D
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Mar 31, 2012 15:41:41 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure we had Heathkits here too. When (Clive) Sinclair came on the scene there were several build-it-yourself kits available from him - or at least the company bearing his name.
Radio Shack shops were everywhere till ten years or so ago. Then CarPhone Warehouse bought them out, closed them down as electrical parts shops and just sold mobile phones from the premises. We have Maplin (a name that has been going for some forty years) shops now, though they are not as widespread as Radio Shack were.
|
|