IIIc -- light leak or what?

[payasam]

Oops. Sorry, Jay. Maybe after cataract surgery, due in six weeks, I'll become a sharp-eyed kitty too and call you Dan.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Jan, mine's post-war: '46 or '47, going by the serial number. Single body casting, not built-up. Was your fogging in the same place as mine? Within the frame only, and a narrow strip along the direction of film travel? From what you say, it doesn't sound as if it had anything to do with changing lenses. Still, it's something I'll look into. Thanks.

Payasam

Looking at the examples you posted again, I would be inclined to say that the fogging could be from ineffective baffles. This is how fogging looks like in a III or even similar FED or Zorki which didn't have efficient baffling. The IIIc baffles go around the frame and are more efficient. Sometimes when one part gets bent or a corner is broken or torn (I've seen this in another IIIc), light can breach the baffles and can fog the film behind the curtains. The fogging I remember from that broken-baffled IIIc is similar to what you showed.

If it is indeed your camera's baffles which is the source of trouble, fogging can result from lens changing- broken or bent or displaced baffles won't normally
cause fogging unless lens is removed or a wide aperture lens is used in bright sunlight. Note that in even the best made III or II Leicas and FED and Zorki copies, fogging is almost inevitable when changing lenses in bright light.

The fogging I had with my IIIc were thin and diagonal in shape- and some times extended outside the frame. The first clue which hinted at body leaks, rather than shutter breaches, is the fogging which occured when the camera (with lens capped) was placed under bright sunlight for 10 minutes. Its actual position was confirmed by placing a piece of photographic paper in the film chamber. Several strips of bromide paper BTW were inserted in the film gate, the take-up side, and it was only at the film casette chamber where the paper got fogged. The paper was developed and showed a fogging mark consistent with the shape found in all the fogged frames.


Jay

 

[payasam]

Jay, my problem is not a light leak anywhere in the body. A frame which was in the gate while a bright flash-light was played over and into every possible place (lens mounted and capped) was clean when developed. When changing lenses, whether on a RFDR or an SLR, I'm perhaps too careful. Never harmed a frame -- not even on an M3, but that may have design differences from IIIs.

 

[payasam]

Body and one lens are to leave tomorrow for Kolkata (revised name for Calcutta), where my Leica surgeon will take a look and, I hope, do what has to be done about this problem and a couple of others.

 

[Ronald M]

The little wedge of exposure backs up what I said first, light shield problem.

 

[payasam]

I'll look into what you spoke of earlier, Ronald, when the camera is in my hands again. It's been sent to hospital not only for the light leak: it also had a film advance and shutter cocking problem near the end of a 36-exposure roll. Maybe it *likes* to travel. Its previous owner, who's now somewhere between 85 and 90, bought it in England not too long after WW2 ended, then spent some years in East Germany, then was an advisor to the Turkish government for a while, and went heaven knows where else. But Calcutta was and is his base, so I guess the IIIc likes it there.