What happened to this film?

[Phothomas]

Hi everybody,

yesterday I was at the drugstore because there was a film waiting for me. It was a bw film and the first one I put in my new Zorki 3 a few weeks ago. I took the film home yesterday and when I looked at the pictures I was shocked. They all looked like the example I show you.
While I was waiting for the film I put a new one in last week. This time it was a color film. I brought it to an one hour photo service and so I got it back earlier than this one. Please read http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105270
for further information.
The color film was ok, not great but that was my fault because I underexposed a lot of the pictures. But what happened to the bw film? Was it my fault? Or the camera´s? Or did the lab do something wrong?
I hope you can help me here so that something like that doesn´t happen again.

Regards,

Thomas

 

[sevo]

Looks like a very irregularly and slow running shutter. That camera desperately needs a CLA.

 

[Phothomas]

Thanks for your comment. But why is the second film good and this one came out like this? Do you think the first film was like a cleaner for the camera and after that it works?
If it has to be cleaned, can I do this by myself or is it better to give it away?

Thomas

 

[Pickett Wilson]

You probably exercised the shutter mech with the first roll and the second came out better. But, it clearly needs a CLA. Whether a Zorki is worth having CLA'ed is up to you and your pocketbook.

 

[JohnL]

Looks like the prints have been cut in the wrong place. Were they made on a machine? What do the negs look like?

 

[oftheherd]

Looks like the prints have been cut in the wrong place. Were they made on a machine? What do the negs look like?

They do, and some bad processing to boot. Were those wavy lines in the photo? If not, I would say a bad processing run. Try a few more. You might also look at the FSU forum for ideas on whether you want to try a CLA yourself. I would put a couple more rolls through it first though.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Maybe you accidently touched/stopped the shutter speed dial from rotating freely when you fired the shutter.

 

[Phothomas]

Hello,

thanks for your ideas. I also thought they might have cut the negatives wrong but the funny thing is that they didn´t cut the negatives at all. I got the complete film back, rolled and put in a little box. That was new to me so I wondered if they did something wrong in the lab. But I didn´t want to blame them without being sure it wasn´t a camera problem.
I don´t think I stopped the shutter speed dial 33 times. 😉 Every picture on the film looks like my example.

Thomas

 

[arunrajmohan]

No, no one did nothing wrong. It is time to abandon the ship. Switch on your GAS machine. Go get a new to you M3,4,5,7,P,8,9 🙂

PS: I skipped M6 because my M6 has a light leak and I have no dough.

 

[sevo]

Every picture on the film looks like my example.

As I said, if it looks like that ON THE FILM, it is a camera issue, as nothing a lab can do will make the image on the film wavy - that is a error that can only happen during exposure.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Sorry. not a flame bait... but russian cameras are like exotic girlfriends with hang-ups. Very sexy and nice when it works but the emotional issues will just kill you. I ran through 2 Fed-2 and 2 Fed-Vb before I got a boring IIIf.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

There's something weird going on here and 'Of The Herd' spotted it.
Your earlier photos on colour negative film were all pretty much OK. This one, showing banding from top to bottom of the negative and ALSO a streaky wave from side to side might indicate two problems - a shutter problem AND a processing problem. I doubt very much that the 'wave' is due to a shutter malfunction on that camera but the vertical banding could be.
You don't mention what B&W film you used. If you want to try B&W again, I'd use a chromogenic film like Ilford's XP2 which is processed in the same chemicals as colour negative film. Kodak also make one - I think it's branded as BW 400CN or something like that. More available processing, standardised and quicker turnaround. That way you can pretty much eliminate processing as a problem and if the negatives come back without the marks then I think you have identified a processing problem with the B&W you took first. If the marks recur then the problem is with the camera.
You can talk to the lab - my guess is they probably sent it out to someone else to process and then they printed the negatives they got back. That's what the local camera shop does with B&W film. They pay me to process it, then print the uncut roll of negatives I give them back. I usually attach a short note giving comments on exposure or other problems I notice. For example, this week I did one where it appeared there was a light leak from the rear door of the camera - probably from defective seals. Fortunately I've never had a film go like the one you have shown! Maybe the person who did the processing could help but if they know they stuffed up they're unlikely to admit it!

 

[huntjump]

No, no one did nothing wrong. It is time to abandon the ship. Switch on your GAS machine. Go get a new to you M3,4,5,7,P,8,9 🙂

PS: I skipped M6 because my M6 has a light leak and I have no dough.

m2?? sheesh no love 🙂

 

[sevo]

I doubt very much that the 'wave' is due to a shutter malfunction on that camera

There are not that many potential causes for horizontally wavy pictures:
1. vertical camera or subject movement throughout exposure with a horizontally moving focal plane shutter
2. emulsion lift in either the film or paper processing - but the chances of all the emulsion depositing again within the image area across all frames of an entire film are very small indeed.
3. continued lateral film or scan line movement during scan passes
4. continued lateral paper movement during digital printing with some technology that proceeds along the long side of the paper, like laser or inkjet.

1 can only affect the film, 2 can theoretically affect film and all silver based printing - but I have never seen the latter happen in such a uniform fashion on an entire film or across multiple prints. 3 and 4 can only occur in digital processing.