Vertical band in print from cla'd IIIC

[atelier7]

hello, finally finished my first roll of film in my cla'd IIIc

to my dismay, there's a light band running vertically slightly past the mid way mark to the right of the photos.

it happens at all shutter speeds - photos taken at 2 - 4 sec to 1/125.

any idea what's wrong?

 

[laptoprob]

Examples perhaps?

It might be light leak around the shutters, but it sure sounds strange.
Warranty on your CLA?
Is the band similar on all photos at different speeds? Then it may not have anything to do with the shutter itself. Is the light band restricted to the image or beyond that into the perforated edge?

 

[atelier7]

yah, i called the technician and he's going to take a look at it.
the camera is in the post to him right now 🙁

it appears the band is similar at all speeds.
from the negs, it doesn't look like it extends to the perforated edges.

will keep you posted when i hear from the tech.

 

[laptoprob]

Keep us posted. If the band does not extend beyond the negative frame the cause must be in the shutter somehow. Maybe something is restricting free movement of (one of) the curtains. If the second curtain would be limited in movement somewhere that could cause a similar light band on all negatives.
But, that should not occur after a CLA.
Did you do the TV shutter test?

 

[ZorkiKat]

One source for light leakage in IIIc Leica is under the slow-speed knob. There is some flocking placed in this area. The original is just a strip of felt stuck on the body shell and runs from the notch where the slow knob sits, down to the bottom of the crate.

I also got a consistent fog pattern (somewhat diagonal, and doesn't go into the sprockets) whose origin almost made me crazy trying to determine. The shutter speed / exposure time never seemed to matter. I thought the fogging came from the shutters, the upper plate, or some loose screw. I also suspected shutter fog, but firing flash behind closed shutters proved that they were leak-free.

Then I noticed that the felt strip became worn and got a bit dog-eared at the upper end. The fogging actually occured whilst the film was wound in the take-up, as light breaching from the gaps between the body shell and slow-speed knob struck it. Fogging happened more when the camera was brought out in bright daylight.

I decided that this worn flocking was the cause. The old felt strip was removed and replaced with black velvet paper (the black plush lining 35mm cassette lips can be used). I covered the metal plate cover of the shutter crate found under the slow speed dial with black felt. Fogging has been eliminated totally.

Ask the your technician to check this black flocking, and have it replaced if possible.

Jay

 

[payasam]

There's one vertical light shield on the take up side and another on the rewind side. The third lies over the slow speed escapement at bottom front, and a problem with that gave me narrow *horizontal* bands in my IIIc -- but only on the frame in the gate when the lens was changed. The felt of which ZorkiKat speaks cannot be the cause of your problem -- you get vertical bands, not a diagonal fog pattern.

 

[ZorkiKat]

There's one vertical light shield on the take up side and another on the rewind side. The third lies over the slow speed escapement at bottom front, and a problem with that gave me narrow *horizontal* bands in my IIIc -- but only on the frame in the gate when the lens was changed. The felt of which ZorkiKat speaks cannot be the cause of your problem -- you get vertical bands, not a diagonal fog pattern.

That felt flocking material, if loose, folded, unglued, or worn, will cause fogging. This material can deteriorate. It can also be distorted during a CLA. Once this flocking is distorted, the camera shall by all means be correct in function, but it will let light through. I know this for a fact since this is what happened to my IIIc (similar to atelier's camera)- and the problem was fixed by installing new flocking. So it is worth for Atelier to check on this part as it could also be the reason of his camera's problem.

The fogging (picture attached below) is really diagonal by all means. It could not be trully vertical since the notch is still partly covered by portions of the shutter crate cover plate. Film sits behind to the left of this part and light will reach it in anoblique manner. As one could see, the fog marks has peculiar shape- following the shape of the slos speed cut out notch. Sometimes the fogging assumes an indeterminate shape, but nonetheless remains diagonal. The foggind does not usually reach the sprockets because some of the metal parts inside the camera block these portions. But when exposed long enough, the fogging can creep through the sprockets.


What Payasam found is a faulty baffle which let light leak through the shutter blinds. There is a full, all-around baffle covering the shutters found in IIIc, IIIf, and IIIg Leicas. This baffle is thin metal and can easily bend and even break at the corners. This bending or breaking in the corners (one of my IIIf had this broken corner and leaked light= producing horizontal bands whenever the lens was changed) can cause light to break. The leakage was fixed by patching black putty on the broken corners.

 

[atelier7]

thanks everyone for your help! will speak to my tech when he receives the camera and discuss the possible problems/solutions mentioned here.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Atelier7, can you post a scan of any of those pics with the fog band(s)?

 

[atelier7]

sorry, don't have access to a scanner at the moment. but it's a vertical band... not diagonal

 

[payasam]

Here's a spot of nit picking, ZorkiKat. With me, light did not leak *through* the shutter blinds but *around* their lower edges. The IIIf repair manual I have speaks of, and shows, not a "full, all-round baffle" but three separate light shields. They are of thin metal, they must be handled carefully and they must also be installed in precisely the correct way if they are to work Felt can certainly suffer from the problems you describe, and then it will let light through. That fogging cannot but be diagonal, since that is how the felt is placed -- but then Atelier spoke at the very beginning of *vertical* banding, and he confirms that later.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Payasam, yes you are right. I was thinking about the Kiev baffle. You know Leicas better. Afterall I only started shooting with III series Leicas in 1984. My repair experience with Leica is very limited- I've only rebuilt one Leica IIIc which I found without a shutter and totally without its vulcanite. That Leica IIIc is now working- see the thread titled "wartime Leica IIIc + uncoated Summitar in colour" which I will post in a bit.

Whether its one piece or three, I still stand by my observations- putting some sealant on the corners of an errant baffle can greatly prevent leakages. See attached photo from 1988, from a Leica IIIf with a broken baffle. The leakage was relieved by placing black sealing putty on the broken baffle joints.

And the orientations are confusing- diagonal vertical or horizontal? Depends on how one looks at the finished photo.

 

[payasam]

ZorkiKat, ever wonder why those Leica bodies which are a single casting should need the diagonal strip of felt? I haven't so far been able to figure it out.

A baffle, or shield, is meant to stop light. If it is of material A but light goes around it, then adding a bit of material B can only help. I did not and do not dispute this. Seems to me, though, that well masticated bubble gum might do a better job.

Yes, orientations depend. Don't people say that even the horizon isn't horizontal? For myself, I'll find another way to break my neck.

 

[ZorkiKat]

ZorkiKat, ever wonder why those Leica bodies which are a single casting should need the diagonal strip of felt? I haven't so far been able to figure it out.

payasam:

I know why there are such flockings and light proofing gaskets there- but I would rather not share it in this instance and have it, perhaps mocked, among other things.

Why don't you find out yourself the reason why those Leica needed felt strips? You could take your IIIc apart, rip out the felt flocking, and put the camera back. The procedure is so simple- you could use your IIIf repair manual as a guide. Then load with film, shoot under bright daylight conditions, and then see how your negatives develop. If you find anything wrong, you could perhaps use "masticated bubble gum" to fix this and explore at the same time the effectivity of this inexpensive stuff as repair material. I'd be interested to know if Wrigleys work well in Leicas.

BTW, were there any screw mount Leica which did not have single-cast bodies? AFAIK, all - the pre-IIIc Leica included- had single cast or stamped body shells. The pre-IIIc Leica even could be considered as "fuller-bodied"- there were no notches in them where the slow dial and lens mount slid in. The IIIc and later Leica could be considered less full if one looks at the notched openings for the slow dial and lens mount where the round holes on the older Leica were.

The upper, RF covering is a different story though. Early Leica had the RF housing as a separate plate. The IIIc and later camera used a single stamped RF cover. The different cover styles don't really have much to do with the felt flocking.

 

[payasam]

The IIIc of 1940 was the first Leica which was a single casting. Earlier models were built up of several components. One reason was to make manufacture less expensive, another was to increase strength to cope with the heavier lenses which had either come in or were planned.

I may find out why there is need for a strip of flocking: but in my time and by such means as I choose. Your monopoly over knowledge is not in danger.

 

[ZorkiKat]

ZorkiKat, ever wonder why those Leica bodies which are a single casting should need the diagonal strip of felt? I haven't so far been able to figure it out.

The IIIc of 1940 was the first Leica which was a single casting. Earlier models were built up of several components. One reason was to make manufacture less expensive, another was to increase strength to cope with the heavier lenses which had either come in or were planned.

payasam:

Which part of the Leica are you really referring to? The body shell or the shutter crate? I think you are confusing the parts or issues involved. First you referred to "single cast bodies", but when I commented about "single cast body shells", you then refer to what appears to be a different "single casting" thingie without really making clear as to what it is.

BTW, you can't make a camera out of a "single casting". All of them need to be "built up of several components" in an assembly which takes up many steps😛

I've been referring to the IIIc body shell at the start and why the way it attaches to the shutter crate would require some light proofing somewhere in the assembly:

"...The original is just a strip of felt stuck on the body shell and runs from the notch where the slow knob sits, down to the bottom of the crate..."

The IIIc was the first production Leica to use a single cast (but not a single piece since the bottom part comes apart from the rest) shutter crate. The crate is cast with the top plate. This is what the "single cast" description refers to. This made the crate more robust to have the potential of bearing heavier loads. In this case, the shutter crate bears the weight of the lenses, not the body shell. The lens mount is attached to a plate which in turn is attached to the shutter crate.

The older shutter crates found in earlier Leica were made of at least three parts. The 'walls' were rivetted to each other. The whole crate separates from the upper plate, and shutter assembly can be more difficult. In this version, the body shell mostly bears the weight of the mounted lens.

Whether the crate is "single cast" or made from several stamped components is not the issue why flocking is needed.

On the other hand, if you're talking about body shells, the earlier II and III bodies were also in single pieces. My 1933 and 1936 III bodies have once been totally stripped of their vulcanite covering. They looked to be of single piece construction. No seams or any indication of having been "built of of several components". Perhaps there's a seam there above and below the lens mount to join the formed metal ends together, but finishing is so fine that this has become virtually invisible. One gets to look at the bare metal with a bit of attention for detail whilst priming and cleaning them prior to installation of the new leatherette trim.

You only need to compare both styles and see why one type really has to use gaskets.

I may find out why there is need for a strip of flocking: but in my time and by such means as I choose. Your monopoly over knowledge is not in danger.

Good luck. In the meantime, until you determine the reason why the flocking is there in IIIc Leicas, please try not to mock those who've already found out and in the process of finding out more.

 

[payasam]

A seam is a seam, never mind how well finished. Not mocking, just saying I don't take orders.

 

[ZorkiKat]

A seam is a seam, never mind how well finished. Not mocking, just saying I don't take orders.

Check the pictures of a naked IIIa posted at the "Odd IIIa redux". That looks to be one full piece.... exactly how I found the pre-IIIc Leica body shells. If there was a seam, that would have been there to join the two ends of a single piece of metal.

So which was it, the body shell, the shutter crate, or the top plate that you've been referring to? What's your point? Light would leak more in a body shell made of several pieces instead of one? Well finished seams would totally block out light.

 

[atelier7]

Yay! I got an email from my technician today.
He thinks the problem is a light leak from the surround to the lens mount which he has sealed.
The camera is on it's way back and i'll keep you posted on the outcome of the repairs.

 

[kully]

Hey atelier7, did you get this sorted? Did the streaks look anything like this:

http://superkully.com/images/photos/cameras/zorki_mir/mir_lightleak1.jpg?