Hasselblad A12 back wind-on problem

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Thanks for giving us an ear full, Leigh.<br>

But HAD YOU NOTICED THAT WE KNOW THAT, AND THAT THE BACK IN QUESTION DOES STOP AT FRAME #1, EVEN WITH FILM IN IT? Just not at the right moment.</p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>But HAD YOU NOTICED THAT WE KNOW THAT</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. And in reviewing the thread I still see no comments about how the back works without film loaded.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"yet the camera/back continued to wind on and fire perfectly"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's also possible that the <strong>camera release</strong> interlock provided by the back isn't doing it's job. This last link of the interlock mechanism can be made faulty by "bad foam" contamination or faulty lubricant at the spring loaded pivot.</p>

<p>The film plane plate is often removed by people who re-new <strong>their own</strong> darkslide seals, and if they're not careful, can deposit decayed foam into the back interlock via the "camera" access hole. Hence the "not locking" wind-on through and past the 12th frame.</p><div></div>

[wieslaw1]

<p>There is nothing wrong with your Hasselblad magazine Martin and the obove opinions are irrelevant. You simply aplied the back to the camera which was not cocked. Once you roll the film in to the first stop, the black color of a tiny window on a side of magazine changes to white. The corresponding window on the camera body must also be white indicating cocked. If one window is red the other white you will have missalignement of the film which demonstrates like you observed.</p>

[wieslaw1]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6197393">Martin McGagh</a> Pretty sure i loaded correctly Frank. Lined up the red arrow on the feed side with the staggered start arrows on the roll of Portra 400. (I didn't line up with any particular point, I just stopped spooling when i saw the black arrows appear. Sound right?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No! It sounds wrong. Your statement is contradictory. Either you lined up the RED arrow or you did not line up with any particular point. When you saw the BLACK arrows appearing on the paper you were too far. Hence the segment of the uexposed film. The rest as in my previous comment.<br>

Why don't you simply put another roll of film into your camera, follow the procedure, and try? You do not know if you put the film correctly even if you say to the contrary. You are asking "have I crancked too much with too much force?" Nobody in this forum can answer this questioin except yourself, yet you are convinced (with the help of the others) that the magazine is faulty.<br>

C'mon, if you have too much money, send it for repair, but I want be surprised that it might not work either.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Wieslaw,</p>

<p>Forgetting to wind the camera before attaching a properly loaded back does not make half of the film go unexposed. You just lose the first frame. That's all.<br>

So that signal window explanation doesn't explain what happened.</p>

<p>But you're right about lining up: Martin, you should line up the arrow that runs across the full width of the backing paper to the red index mark on the insert, then put the insert into the shell, and wind on until the wind crank blocks.</p>

 

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>Even if Martin didn't line up the arrows correcty that would not explain intraframe spaces up to 27 mm, that's almost half frame.</p>

<p>If you don't line up the arrow that runs across the backing paper to the red mark you'll get either too much or to little space from the beginning of film to the first frame (you could actually get a cropped frame). To have the first frame at the middle of the film you may actually see the film before you put the insert in the back (assuming a properly functioning back).</p>

<p>There are some minilabs that develop 120 and sometimes they burn a little bit the beginning of the frame. To avoid ruining the first frame, I advance the film up to 1 cm. more (after the arrow on the paper aligned with the red mark) before putting the insert into the back.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"the obove opinions are irrelevant. You simply aplied the back to the camera which was not cocked"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh?<strong> You may want to rethink those harsh words Mr. Zdaniewski...</strong></p>

<p>The <em>"Red & White"</em> windows are there to:</p>

<ol>

<li>Prevent you from mounting the A12 back on that you <strong>already fired the image</strong>, but didn't advance it to a new film "frame". In other words, as a 'multiple exposure hazard'<strong> warning</strong>. </li>

<li>Prevent you from <strong>blanking the first frame;</strong> because the body was <em>"Red"</em> and the newly & properly loaded roll inside the A12 back, is at number one and <em>"White"</em></li>

<li>Show the operator that the mechanism of either camera or back, may not be FULLY cycled</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>"Irrelevant"?</strong> I addressed clearly his issue of <em>"continued to wind on and fire perfectly" </em>(It needs service)</p>

<p>Plus, his error in not positioning the correct arrow on the film to the RED arrow <strong>on the insert,</strong> is likely the reason for his <em>"the first photographs on each roll appear some distance into the roll"</em> problem. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Before misunderstandings arise: not lining up properly does not just move the first frame on the roll, but indeed also has an effect on the spacing between frames.<br>

How much depends on how far off the mark the start alignment was.</p>

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>Thanks Q.G. I was not aware of that. But, the effect on spacing between frames can go up to 27 mm? That seems too much to me.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Yes, that's a lot, and i don't think that not lining up properly is the cause of that.<br>

Now if it had been the only thing that wasn't right, i could be persuaded to rethink that. But as it is... nah.<br>

But it's always possible that two separate 'faults' overlap, confounding the issue.</p>

[wieslaw1]

<p>Do not worry Gus. I read your resume and might send you a camera of repair if a need arise.<br>

It is now for Martin to resolve whether his back or procedure were faulty.</p>