Light leak!

srichards

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,968
Name
Suz
Edit My Images
Yes
I seem to have a light leak on the voigtlander :( It's on quite a lot of frames bottom right hand corner as you look at the image. Do these things have light seals at all? There is slack in the way the back shuts so you can move it very slightly side to side and the plastic squeaks a little. It was ok before. It's just started doing it in the last roll. It was ok earlier in the year but on very sunny days it seems it does let more light in that it should.

This is a disaster as I take this fellow everywhere and it lives in my pocket.

What's the best way to fix it? I've just loaded another roll in it as well. R1-07058-023A.jpg
 
Tape would stop it but I was hoping there was a more elegant solution and a definite cause I could pin down so it wasn't just covered in tape that I'd have to keep sticking on and peeling off.
 
Are you sure it's a light leak and not some sort of lens flare; I find light leaks often tend to have an orange colour to them on colour film? Knowing that site and where Lady Carrick was parked, you'd have taken that shot just off being straight into the sun (if it hadn't have been a bit cloudy), so the reflection/flare in the bottom right corner would be about in the right spot for that.

Perhaps have a look at the lens and see if it needs cleaning before you get the black tape out and mummify the poor thing?
 
Last edited:
Would a light leak not cause more of a band across the image? (Thinking of other examples that I have seen). I might sound daft but as it is such a small area could it be a chipped piece of film stuck in the shutter slats? If not then maybe just a CLA to replace the light seals and tighten up the back?
 
Sounds like you need to break out the lighter fluid and cotton buds! If there are meant to be seals there, they've probably broken down so, at the right angle, are letting in light. If you can't find a ready cut kit from someone like AkiAsahi, you will need to cut your own from some 1 or 2mm closed cell foam sheets that you can pick up for a few £ on EBay.
 
FilmDev said it was a light leak. I blame @Mrs Snap as she touched it and it's clearly picked up her curse :D

The back is all plastic. I can't see anything that is anything vaguely seal like. It seems to rely on a tight fit basically. I have wiped the lens though. Other Vitos that voigtlander did didn't have seals either.

I've had similar marks before when I used the Fuji GA645 and I cocked up the loading of it so the film was a bit loose on the spool. That had exactly the same kind of look.

It also doesn't really look light lens flare as I have other shots shot right at the sun or it was placed elsewhere and the mark is always in the same bottom right hand corner.
 
Oh, in that case it looks like you'll have to get one of those Canon EOS-3 digital cameras instead then! ;)
 
Tape would stop it but I was hoping there was a more elegant solution and a definite cause I could pin down so it wasn't just covered in tape that I'd have to keep sticking on and peeling off.

It was more a suggestion of a temporary solution to protect the roll you have in there as anything else is likely to involve opening the back. As others have said though, it doesn't look like a light-leak (I'm no expert though, so don't take my word as gospel!), and looks a little like the effect I've had when there's been some damage to the negative - although you'd be able to see that by examining them.
 
Last edited:
I'll check the negatives when I get them back. I'll stick some tape on for now and use this roll and see how it comes out :thumbs:
 
Check the film around the sprocket holes. If that area is anything other than completely clear, then it's definitely light leaking through the back. If the edge of the film around the holes is clear, then I doubt very much that it's a light leak.
 
The negs arrived and the sprocket holes are clear as anything. There is this consistent 'splodge' for want of a better word that is that pale patch. Some of the other shots don't have it and all taken in bright sunshine do. I've just noticed a couple of shots that were taken at Shugborough also have it. It's always in exactly the same place. It wasn't particularly sunny on that day though.
 
The negs arrived and the sprocket holes are clear as anything. There is this consistent 'splodge' for want of a better word that is that pale patch. Some of the other shots don't have it and all taken in bright sunshine do. I've just noticed a couple of shots that were taken at Shugborough also have it. It's always in exactly the same place. It wasn't particularly sunny on that day though.
It might be worth doing a test roll and see whether the time between shots makes a difference.
 
Someone on a forum I read about was on about a possible leak due to the way the lens is opened and pops out. I wonder if you either don't open it fully or don't close it fully it leaks then? I have added tape to the hinge side for now. Once I've done this roll I think I'll have to spend some time opening and closing it shining a torch through to see if there is a way for light to get in if the mark is still visible with the tape applied.
 
If the sprocket holes are clear, then light is not coming through the back of the film and making an orange/red splodge of a light leak. I don't think the tape on the hinge will make any difference. Looking through your posts, it seems the you have a Vito C which looks like a Minox 35 with it's front flap and lens that slides out. My bet is that that white curved mark on the photo is indeed a light leak caused by light coming through the front of the camera via a gap in the sliding lens barrel. Sadly I have no suggestions on how to fix that.
 
It probably is the fold down front but I remain optimistic that I can find some way of sorting it out.
 
I've been messing about with black tape. I have taped over the hinge... results to follow. I have then taped over lots of other things including screws and joins around the front and side that are roughly around the exposed film chamber where I think the light is getting in. It's possibly getting in when the film is wound on which is a bit of a pain in the butt.

I'm hoping today's black tape fest will fix it otherwise it means finding some way of stopping the light getting through the winding mechanism while still having a working winder.
 
I've been messing about with black tape. I have taped over the hinge... results to follow. I have then taped over lots of other things including screws and joins around the front and side that are roughly around the exposed film chamber where I think the light is getting in. It's possibly getting in when the film is wound on which is a bit of a pain in the butt.

I'm hoping today's black tape fest will fix it otherwise it means finding some way of stopping the light getting through the winding mechanism while still having a working winder.

Out and about, it would look amusing to other photographers esp to a digi guy ;)
 
I've been messing about with black tape. I have taped over the hinge... results to follow. I have then taped over lots of other things including screws and joins around the front and side that are roughly around the exposed film chamber where I think the light is getting in. It's possibly getting in when the film is wound on which is a bit of a pain in the butt.

I'm hoping today's black tape fest will fix it otherwise it means finding some way of stopping the light getting through the winding mechanism while still having a working winder.

I hope it's good quality tape and not the stuff you get in Pound shops, since I'm not sure it would actually be lightproof. Would you be allowed a phone snap to show us what it looks like now? :thinking:
 
It looks much the same from any distance beyond 2 feet away. You can barely see the tape as I've just done small pieces in some places. The only noticeable bit is on the hinge. The roll of tape I have is quite narrow and does seem to be fairly light proof.
 
Sounds like you've made a neat job of it, and avoided the Egyptian mummy look! Besides, I wouldn't worry about it looking amusing to a 'digi guy', as it appears that some of the locals round our way can't differentiate between an absolute classic of a 35mm film camera and a digital one anyway! ;) "It's not a digital camera!". :dummy::LOL:
 
Mr Film Dev has triumphed again. Only sent yesterday.

There are lots of frames with the visible light leak on and lots without. It's a mystery. This is a with. Same as before precisely so it isn't the hinge area.

R2-07954-018A by Suzy Richards, on Flickr
 
Are you sure there's not a small chunk of fluff in there somewhere that sticks its face into the corner of the frame every now and then? It still looks more like flair or ghosting of light to me somehow?
 
I can't see how. I have cleaned the lens off several times. It can see some bit of light coming in when I have the back open and move the winder. I have taped up lots of potential areas. It does look like ghosting somehow but I can't see how. It's very low on the frame. The shutter curtain is light tight. I've been shining a torch at it, holding it up to daylight and generally spending far too long messing about with it. I've loaded another film and taped up the bottom as well so it is a bit more mummified than before...

I could do with one of those pill cameras to put in. That would show up where light was coming in.

If it's still not sorted then I'll have to find something else carriable which is a shame as I really like this camera.
 
It's unlikely to be coming in from the back if there is a pressure plate there - the plate will shade any ingress of light from that route. If it's at the bottom right in the final image, it will be at the top-left in the camera when viewed from the back. In the cases when it is apparent, does the intensity vary?

[EDIT: Shutter curtain bits removed because I wasn't paying attention.]
 
Last edited:
The only light I can see in the wrong place is top right, right up behind the spindle. There's a hint of it when you use the winding on leaver. Top left is the winding back handle. Hmm. So if you say the image is basically turned upside down then that makes it more interesting. If the windy back leaver is the leaker than that is an issue as it can't be stuck up with tape on the top so easily. If it's the left hand side join then that's not so bad as I can just tape over that.

It does have a pressure plate but it doesn't have light seals of any kind. The intensity does vary slightly. Sometimes there just isn't any apparent at all.
 
Unless your pressure plate is made of glass (has been done), or is smaller than the 36x24mm frame, then the plate is highly likely to cover the entire frame with an opaque layer that will prevent light getting in from behind.

The in-camera image is inverted top to bottom and left to right - something at the bottom-right in the final image is at the top-left inside the camera. If you can get a bit of tracing paper and tape it over the frame inside the camera, you can open the lens and shutter and see the inverted image projected onto the film plane. You could probably use that creamy coloured masking tape, or the translucent drafting tape that looks matt as alternatives.

With the tracing paper or tape in place and the camera back open, in a dark room, with the shutter closed, it should be possible to move a torch around while observing the frame to see if the light leak appears. With the camera on a tripod, you can readily manipulate the controls in case that's a factor. Although I deleted my comments about the shutter curtains, I would look for possible holes in them anyway. That means, lens aperture wide open and move the torch about in front of the lens with the shutter both cocked and released so that both curtains are checked.

Your usage patterns and how you hold and handle the camera can give clues to the cause...

Do you always fit the lens cap between shots? Do you always wind on immediately, or just before you take a shot? Do you tend to leave the aperture set to whatever it was at for the previous shot, or do you keep it adjusted to be in the ballpark for the current conditions? Do you leave the focus set to whatever was last used, or do you set it to a particular default distance between shots? How do you hold and carry the camera? In a case? Always in the same hand? If on a neck strap, is it pointing straight out or down at the ground?
 
It doesn't have aperture control. It's fully automatic. I don't always carry it in the same way. I usually keep it open if I'm taking several shots within a minute or two. Then I'd close it if I weren't. I wind on immediately. Focus thingy is kept on whatever was last used until I change it. It doesn't have a lens cap. It has hand strap so I hold it or dangle it depending.

I'll try your suggestions after the current roll is done. :thumbs:
 
Is this the Voigtlander Vito C seen in a photo in the new toy thread? If so, that looks too small to have shutter curtains, which technically means a focal plane shutter with either cloth or metal blinds. If it has a leaf shutter (which would be shutter blades rather than curtains), then it's pretty unlikely to have a leak there. Cameras that have cloth curtains in a focal plane shutter can end up with damage in the form of tiny pinholes, but it only tends to affect non-SLRs (usually rangefinders with interchangeable lenses). With no SLR mirror to act as a barrier, the lens is always projecting light onto the shutter. If the lens is at a particular focus distance, an object at infinity can be rendered as a sharp image on the curtain rather than on the film plane. If that object happens to be the sun, then there's a risk that the curtain can get burnt, resulting in a little pinhole (or pinholes if it happens several times with the sun in various positions with respect to the frame). If your camera doesn't have a cloth blind focal plane shutter, then this pinhole issue shouldn't be a factor. Having looked at some photos of them (but none showing the inside), it looks too small to have such a shutter.

It's possible that the blades in a leaf shutter can be a bit iffy and not always close correctly, but I don't think that would result in such a well defined pattern. It would, in effect, be more like having the lens set to a small aperture, the opening of which happens to be off centre. I believe that would result in a dull projected image, probably with vignetting towards the centre of the frame. In other words, it would be bigger and have less defined edges.

I think the shutter can be eliminated as a possible cause. That leaves some sort of opening in the body. Possibilities that come to mind are: the front of the viewfinder, the back of the viewfinder, the rewind crank, maybe something around the side of the lens barrel, and possibly the back cover depending on what the pressure plate looks like. It should be possible to narrow it down by a process of elimination, and you can use the film as a detector (which is handy).

Does the light leak extend outside the frame when you look at the negatives? By that, I mean well into either the sprocket hole area or the vertical space between frames. If it does, then the leak is more likely to be coming in from behind. If it doesn't, it's coming in from the lens side of the frame.

You say it's intermittent. Possible reasons for that would include: the light path inside the camera changes because something inside is moving around (so sometimes blocked, sometimes open), how you hold the camera could sometimes block it from the outside or reduce the intensity of the light coming in, and the ambient light itself could sometimes be too dull for the leak to be noticeable.

Give the camera a shake in various orientations next to your ear - any little rattles? If any external bits make noises, hold it in such a way as to keep them still.

Does the intensity of the leak vary? The two examples here look pretty similar - are there duller versions?

Can you correlate instances of the leak with usage patterns? For example, if you've had the camera closed for a while, does the first shot after that tend to have the leak? Or does it happen when the camera has been open for a while but a shot hasn't been taken? If you take a few shots in quick succession, do they have the leak? Does it appear in shots that are framed vertically? How do you hold the camera that's different from horizontally oriented shots - ie, which parts of the camera body are covered in one orientation and not the other, and which parts are covered in both orientations? When vertical, is it held right hand up or right hand down?

You can do a series of tests in a dark room to try to force the leak to appear (this is where your film is used as a detector). Find something light tight that can be used to cover the various bits of the camera that are potential paths for light to get in. Tape can be used for some bits. For others, like the viewfinder, maybe tape with little bits of card to stop the adhesive getting onto the glass. In each case, try to cover everything that might be a possible light path. Start with the front door closed. Wind on to a new frame and bathe the camera is strong light. If using a troch, move it around to direct light at the camera from all angles. A more diffuse source like a desk lamp is better than a torch - using it fairly close to the camera will improve the chances of getting light in at the right angle (daylight is diffuse).

After each bathing of the camera in light, switch the strong light off, fire the shutter, advance the film, and remove one bit of the covering (if you've taped up the rewind crank, remove the tape from that first so that it can rotate). When it comes to opening the front for bathing in bright light, use tape/card to block off the front of the viewfinder while leaving the lens barrel clear., then do another step with the viewfinder clear. Repeat the process for each possible path, firing the shutter and advancing the film each time. (set the film speed as high as it will go to ensure minimal exposure of the image to allow any leaks to be more obvious). If you do this in a dark room, you should be able to open the front to expose the frame without introducing the leak to a great extent.

Take notes at each step so that you have the sequence of which part of the masking was removed. If you make a mistake, like opening the front to expose a frame while there is a bright light present, fix the error (kill the bright light or whatever) expose the frame, advance the film and repeat the step. Note down the occurrence of the mistake.

If the leak is being caused by an opening in the body, it shouldn't be too hard to track it down - all you have to do is point the light at the camera for a reasonable length of time at each step.
 
It is a Vito C. I really want one of those tiny pill cameras to pop inside it!

The marks are pretty much all on horizontal frames in the same place. They do seem to vary in intensity too.

A couple of recent examples:

Bottom right of frame, only a small mark:

R2-07954-021A by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

Bigger mark

R2-07954-018A by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

Sunny day. It is on vertical shots:
R1-07058-005A by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

Very noticeable on this one but it wasn't that sunny.

R1-07058-024A by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

I have taped up some different potential places as it was clear it was the same as the last roll so the hinge tape wasn't fixing it.

I have checked the last but one negatives from it and the mark is always within the frame and not on the sprocket hole.

The more I look the more I think the leak is on the majority of pictures taken with it. Including vertical frames.

This is from one of the earliest rolls I took with it.

R2-03860-0033 by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

It does rattle. The film chamber where the unexposed cartridge is not as robust as it should be.
 
Last edited:
The variation in intensity is interesting. In the shots where it's less intense, how long was the front open for before the shot was taken? Also interesting to note that the last shot there with the tree and the water has a different pattern.

I've been looking at some more photos. Is there some sort of light trap around the lens barrel where it slides in and out of the body? It's a bit hard to make out in the photos I've found, but I get the impression that there's some sort of velvet type of stuff in there.

If there is, you can check that out using a sacrificial frame of film - expose the current frame in dull light, cover the viewfinder and the front of the lens (tape and card), advance to a fresh frame, and shine plenty of light at the space where the barrel passes into the body. Keep the rest of the camera dark or covered. After a while, bright light off, expose the frame and advance the film.

You can also try this with the thing I mentioned previously, about tracing paper or the like over the frame when the back is open. That can help in seeing what's going on - the projected bit of light will possibly be quite dull, but you won't need to get your eye precisely on the line between where the light enters the camera and the part of the frame where it lands. If you get something with that, you can then take the tracing paper off and fiddle about with angles to see if you can get the light path lined up with your eye.
 
Last edited:
I can't honestly remember. I'm usually so busy taking pictures I really don't think about whether it is open or shut unfortunately.

It has a slidey out barrel. There is a body join under the flip out cover so I've taped that over as well. I don't know whether there is any velvety stuff. I've not noticed any. They didn't seem to be a fan of light seals when they made this camera. You can't fire a shot unless it is properly slid out. Looking at the inside I couldn't see any sign of light getting past the shutter system when I was folding the barrel in and out facing a window. The only stray light looks like it is behind the exposed film spindle.

I shot half a roll today and left it all on infinity focus. I did close the body more often. I'll see how that turns out. The corner flare on the neg is in the same spot in the viewfinder image that has a slightly lighter patch too. It's right near where you can see the edge of the barrel.
 
Interesting to read what was the solution...I gave up on my Petri m42 camera a few years ago and had similar problem of light in the lower left frame....did most of what Nomadz suggested, but gave up in the end and stripped it down for spare screws....well I only paid £1.50 for it and the cost of wasted film was too much.
 
Last edited:
Right at the very top on the side closest to the shutter button. Only seems visible when you are using the wind lever. i could be imagining it though as I've spent so much time with my nose right in the camera...

I will try shooting some in the dark shots and winding on in bright light then vice versa.
 
Had a quick outing today. Took a few more, used the focus a bit. Shot in pitch black then wound on in daylight then shot in daylight and wound on in pitch black (well under the bed with a cloth over the camera anyway...)

If it is the barrel leaking then I'll have to come up with a bellows attachment that will keep the light out.
 
After a bit of a delay I've got the next lot back from film dev... and they're exactly the same :( No sign that any of the tape has made one iota of difference. I'm a bit stuck now.
 
After a bit of a delay I've got the next lot back from film dev... and they're exactly the same :( No sign that any of the tape has made one iota of difference. I'm a bit stuck now.

scraping the barrel for a suggestion....have you tried taping over the viewfinder?
 
Back
Top