Is this what a light leak looks like?

Rookie here. I am new at film photography. Got bored and needed a new hobby. I acquired a minty Yashica Mat 124G from a retired pro photographer who only very infrequently used it as a backup camera. It took some great 120 photos first time out. Developed them and they don't look bad at all for the first time. Then I acquired another, twin, Yashica Mat 124G that I just could not pass up. Never know when you might need a spare! One for B&W and one for color! Lol. My dilemma is that I am not sure which camera took these. Is this a good example of a light leak around the edges of the back? It's on what looks like every frame of 2 rolls of 220. Shoot! They are both filled with B&W again and this time I'll have to pay better attention which rolls were in which cameras.

 

 

 

 

That's a really excellent example of a light leak, but that's not 220 film.

It's 70mm cine film. So who's re-packing it into backing paper and spooling it? Could they be responsible for the fogging?

 

Sunstrikes on one side of the film, and amorphous fog on the other. Are you sure the back of the camera was even shut properly?

Lucky brand 220 out of China. Yes. Hand made out of cine. It was as screwed down closed as could be, and that back pops out when unscrewed. I don't know. Was making me wonder if it might have happened inside the bag I was fighting with. Gave up at one point and left two rolls of film inside overnight. But two rolls, 48 frames, all got it the same way. Or happened at point of hand rolling? I don't know. Can't explain it. Have to take a look inside... which I didn't. Seemed tightly closed which meant sealed to me. Disappointing.

That's a really excellent example of a light leak, but that's not 220 film.

It's 70mm cine film. So who's re-packing it into backing paper and spooling it? Could they be responsible for the fogging?

 

Sunstrikes on one side of the film, and amorphous fog on the other. Are you sure the back of the camera was even shut properly?

 

 

The "mystery" deepens. It can't be seen in my photos here, but I noticed that when both negative strips are oriented the same, shiny side up, dull (emulsion) side down with easy to determine images like people and buildings lined up north to south (IE: both negative strips aligned in exactly the same way), the "light leaks" are on opposite sides of the film. How can this be? I am leaning more now that this hand rolled, Lucky brand film made of split Cine 70mm film may have already had a "production problem." Like I think I said earlier, I shot a roll of Ilford HP5 with what I think was the same camera these two rolls were taken with and it was just fine. And this camera, a professional photographer's backup cam, was in mint condition, still in its original box. Or, something happened after the film came out of the camera. The "good thing" is... the subjects of the photos weren't anything spectacular, just local images of things around here and at a farmers' market I took just to get used to using the camera. Still, the "mystery" continues... and I'd like to buy some more of that 220 knowing it's good! Dang it! Hoping it was me... probably.

120, 220, and other roll films sometimes get a little fog along the edge from

light that leaks in between the paper and spool. In most cases it doesn't even

reach into the frame, and I have never seen it that bad, but that doesn't mean

it can't happen. This would be worse if the paper wound a little offset, so

a little more open on one end. Could be either before or after exposure,

and could be one end (edge) or the other.

 

And in that case, it would likely be worse on one end than the other,

and also have a period base on the spool diameter at that part of

the roll.

Why you'd want to take a chance with that "film" is beyond me. Not only was it hand spooled, but the sprocket holes were sliced off of one side. Way too many ways to introduce problems. Stick with fresh 120.

 

Lastly, the film is probably NOT for movie cameras, but still. I think you can still find 70mm film in 50 or 100 foot rolls. FYI, as far as I know all of the still photos taken on the moon used 70mm film in a Blad with a 70mm back.

 

Oh yes, a good chance that the Chinese stuff is LONG outdated.

PS - Camera film for 70mm movies is actually 65mm. It's then printed on to 70mm release prints with the extra 5mm for the sound track.

 

Yikes - I just looked up the price of that good stuff. With shipping $60.00 USD for five rolls of 220

 

Fresh film - ~40.00 USD for 120 for 5 rolls.

 

Save $20.00 for the same number of exposures? Considering the results it's a sucker bet.

Edited September 6, 2020 by chuck909

I wish you'd stuck with "lastly." The film had many great reviews from happy customers and was very reasonable. Nothing like what you say you found, but didn't show.

I would DEFINITELY buy more from the same seller. He took good care of me for a different problem. I was hoping someone with a lot of "experience" could look at that light pattern and recognize what the problem might have been. I bought 10 rolls for $40, and as I said earlier, there was absolutely no problem like this with the first couple of rolls I shot and had developed at a local shop. They look just fine. They came individually sealed in silver foil plastic packaging (no box) just like a name brand roll. I developed these. I think I may have somehow been the problem. We'll see next roll. Have one loaded up in a Bronica S2, but I like carrying a backpack with the 2 Yashica Mat 124Gs so much (one loaded with color and one with B&W) I never pick up the Bronica any more. It'll wear off. I did shoot a couple rolls of Ilford HP5+ a few days ago (one in each camera) and they came out just fine, so not looking like a camera problem. Looking like a "people" problem at one end or the other and my end is very likely the problem end. I just can't put my finger on what might have gone wrong. Still could be at the seller's end, too. We'll just have to see what the rest look like. Edited September 6, 2020 by http://www.photo.net/aj_chicago

I just can't put my finger on what might have gone wrong.

On revisiting this, it looks like the streaks of fog are due to the sprocket holes. This doesn't narrow down the cause much, but does explain why the character of the fogging differs from one side of the film to the other.

Was making me wonder if it might have happened inside the bag I was fighting with. Gave up at one point and left two rolls of film inside overnight.

That's a distinct possibility. Having your arms down the sleeves of a changing bag is part of keeping it light-tight.

On revisiting this, it looks like the streaks of fog are due to the sprocket holes. This doesn't narrow down the cause much, but does explain why the character of the fogging differs from one side of the film to the other.

 

The edge with the sprocket holes has crisscross light leaks. The other edge without sprocket holes also has crisscross light leaks if photos 3 and 4 are anything to go by.

 

It seems this film acquired those crisscross light leaks from both rows of sprocket holes before the film was spliced to reduce it to 60mm. The splicing of course removed one row of sprocket holes, but some evidence of the light leaks from those holes is still further in on the film.

 

To get that crisscross pattern, the film must have been turned over in the one spot for some reason during the process of slicing and rolling, the crisscrossing is forming equilateral triangles. The thing is, why was there light exposing the film when the whole process was meant to be done in total darkness ? There may have been a red safe light turned on while this film was being spliced.

PS - Camera film for 70mm movies is actually 65mm. It's then printed on to 70mm release prints with the extra 5mm for the sound track.

 

Yikes - I just looked up the price of that good stuff. With shipping $60.00 USD for five rolls of 220

 

Fresh film - ~40.00 USD for 120 for 5 rolls.

 

Save $20.00 for the same number of exposures? Considering the results it's a sucker bet.

 

Doesn't 220 have twice the exposures of 120? So you would need 10 rolls of 120 for $80?

 

Otherwise, the usual 70mm sold for still use that I know of is unperforated.

 

I have a roll of 100 feet of 30 year old Tri-X that has fog level higher than I feel like using,

but someone gave it to me, so I didn't complain. The thought was using it for 116, but

I have enough VP116, older but it usually works pretty well.

 

The light pattern from the holes is interesting. I do still wonder about light leaks

while spooled.

Doesn't 220 have twice the exposures of 120? So you would need 10 rolls of 120 for $80?

 

Hmm, all the 70mm I ever sold was perfed (not that we sold a lot). and I thought I made it clear about the cost of 120 v the odd ball "220". same number of exposures, 220 was a savings of $20.

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by chuck909

Hmm, all the 70mm I ever sold was perfed (not that we sold a lot). and I thought I made it clear about the cost of 120 v the odd ball "220". same number of exposures, 220 was a savings of $20.

 

[ATTACH=full]1356533[/ATTACH]

 

Oh, I thought you meant that the 120 was $20 less.

There's no saving at all if the film is unusably fogged!

I just noticed sprocket hole shadows. That is, between some of the holes.

 

That can only happen when it is rolled up.

 

I still suspect light leaking around the backing paper.

On either spool while in the camera is also possible.

 

Most 120 I know has just a little edge fogging due to light leaks around the

edge of the spool, where the paper isn't quite tight enough. If the paper is

offset, tight on one end, loose on the other, more light would leak.

Usually not within the frame.

 

I suppose it could come that way from the factory, or while loading,

unloading, or otherwise carrying around the roll out of the wrapper.

 

It would be worse if the paper was slightly narrower than it should be.

 

Load, unload, and carry film around shaded from direct sunlight, or

even less direct sunlight.