Nikon FE, uneven spacing between frames.

[nikos_k]

<p>My Nikon FE puts spaces between frames unevenly. It does not bother me much as there is no overlapping, but what causes this, can it be repaired?</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Your problem is most likely slippage in the film advance mechanism. It's probably quite worn from use, and in need of a mechanical repair. As a camera store employee I saw that problem appear in a number of SLRs under heavy use.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>A wide angle will produce a larger image on film than, say, a telephoto - this may account for it if you are using different lenses as it will look like uneven spacing. Perfectly normal.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Regardless of focal length, lenses should all have sufficient circles of coverage to fill the 35mm frame. Rather, the OP describes frames that are unevenly spaced. I'm scratching my head over Robin's comment. I still recommend getting the camera to a knowledgeable person for a look at probable film advance issues.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Not sure "mask" is the right term, but on film SLRs, there is a mask that presses onto the film and restricts the size of the image.</p>

<p>I bought my FE in 1978, the year it was introduced. It was in production for about 5 years or so and then replaced by the FE2. So all FE are over 30 years old by now, and most likely their film-advance mechanisms are no longer perfect. As long as the frames don't overlap, it shouldn't be a major issue if you do your own darkroom work.</p>

<p>Uneven spaces between frames may post a problem to auto printing machines or auto slide cutting and framing machines. I have had a few slides that were cut inside the image area, especially when the edges of the frame are dark for some night scenes that confuse the machines.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>If this is indeed a film advance problem, you will see the variance between frames increasing over time, until at some point frames adjoin, or even overlap.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>The 24x36 mm mask on the camera, exposed film areas 24 x 36 mm, <strong>regardless</strong> of the lens you using, <strong>ultra-wide-angle or 1000 mm tele</strong>. Oh boy. And this is same, I said, same in digital too.<br /> Very interesting, I have cameras 45 some 50 years old, 100-100s of rolls, still using them, and I never noticed this. It definitely has some mechanical problem and need servicing.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>This is actually a somewhat common issue. Back in those days, if I shot negatives (that would be the Nikon F5 and F100 in the late 1990's to early 2000's), I used to ask them to leave the negatives uncut so that I would cut them myself and then put them into negative sleeves. Some auto machines would, apparently, line up the first frame and then cut the rest of the roll of 36 into sections by measuring the distance from the first frame, and occasionally they would cut inside the frame.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I know that all of my film cameras don't advance film perfectly even even when new. How much of a discrepancy do you see?</p>

[blumesan]

<p>If this is due to wear and tear of the film advance mechanism causing slippage, one would expect to see overlap of frames rather than a larger than normal gap between frames. Still, the problem must lie somewhere in the advance mechanics. A trip to a competent repair facility is in order.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It may be wear and consequent slippage, and that will require service.</p>

<p>However, with medium-format films leaving slack* in the feed when loading the film can produce this result, so it couldn't hurt to examine how you are loading the film- keeping tension on it, etc.</p>

<p>Of course, with 35mm, the perforations <em>nearly</em> eliminate this problem.</p>

<p>_______<br>

*of course, "Slack", capitalized, is a desired property for members of the Church of the Subgenius. See <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._R._%22Bob%22_Dobbs">J. R. "Bob" Dobbs</a>.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>There's no clutch to slip in a film SLR like the FE. The film is advanced by a sprocket mechanism that revolves an exact number of turns per frame - or at least it should. That's the whole point of 35mm film having sprocket holes. Examine the film for torn or distorted sprocket holes. That would indicate some over-tensioning of the film by the take up spool. Also bulk cine film doesn't have the same shape of sprocket hole as does 35mm still film, and that might cause some uneven spacing.</p>

<p>The sprocket wheel is only fully disengaged during rewind, so make sure that the rewind "pusher" fully retracts after being pushed in. It should automatically pop out when the back of the camera is opened. The rewind pin may have become sticky with lack of use and so doesn't engage the sprocket wheel properly. See if it remains partly pushed in by attempting to pull it up with a fingernail. Another possibility is that one of the sprocket pins has become worn or broken. If that's the case it's a repair job that's probably going to cost more than the camera is worth.</p>

[roland_vink]

<p>I have used Nikon FE2 and FM3a cameras, which are newer versions of the original FE. None have perfectly even spacing between frames, it's always a little variable. Sometimes the space between frames is very narrow, when cutting frames for slides you need to be very careful not to cut into the image. It never bothered me, I just live with it.</p>

<p>I think there is a bit of slack in the film wind mechanism, so the spacing is depends a little on the tension on the film, maybe the speed that you wind the film, and whether you push the lever all the way to the hard stop, or just enough to wind on the next frame</p>

[j_sevigny]

<p>As a long time user of completely manual Nikons, I'm inclined to agree with Roland. But a good tune-up wouldn't hurt anything :D I just don't know who does them anymore.</p>

[nikos_k]

<p>I will have my beloved FE checked then. It has served me quite well and it deserves it. I can live with this, but I will give it a check anyway. I would really hate myself if something worse happens in the near future.<br>

It might be the way that I wind on the film too as I can recall doing this a couple of times in a hurry without taking care of things.<br>

Btw, I have used just the lovely Nikkor 35mm 2.8 AI on this roll.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Same experience as Roland here. Not a problem at all.</p>

[bob_cook]

<p>I suggest that you slightly re-wind the film, after loading, and before your first exposure. That has always been standard practice on film cameras. To be more specific, after you load the cassette, and close the back, simply lift up the rewind lever and turn in backwards until you feel resistance. Don't disengage the rewind knob, just lift the lever. That will take all of the slack out of the film windings and should solve your problem. On any of the manual advance Nikons you can do this even if you have a motor drive attached.<br>

I guess you could have a problem with the advance mechanism, but I'd be surprised if that is the case. I shot with dozens of bodies starting in 1965, exposing lots of film, and never had an advance mechanism problem in any Nikon.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I suggest that you slightly re-wind the film, after loading, and before your first exposure. That has always been standard practice on film cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For cameras with a rewind crank, that should be standard practice.</p>

<p>I would imagine some of you have had the same experience. Way back when I was a teenager, I loaded a roll of film and started taking pictures. But the film leader wasn't correctly connected to the intake spool and the film didn't actually advance. I didn't notice the problem until after 15, 20 frames. After that, I'd always rewind the crank a bit to make sure it is all tight and the film is properly loaded. The rewind crank should rotate for each frame you advance.</p>

<p>Later on, most AF cameras no longer have the rewind crank (although the F4, F5 ... still have it) so that such practice no longer apply.</p>

<p>How uneven is the spacing?</p>

<p>As I said, Nikon introduced the FE in 1978 and I bought one in December that year. Below are some negatives I captured around June, 1979. My FE was only a few months old, and there was already a bit of uneven spacing; see between frames 9 and 10.</p><div></div>

[nikos_k]

<p>I always rewind the film a bit after loading to take out any possible slack and keep it as flat possible. I also repeat this a few times in the same roll.<br>

Looking back at most of my films taken with my FE I have noticed for the first time in my life that there is uneven spacing between frames in almost all of them.<br>

I guess that my beloved FE is still perfect. She is black btw.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p> I also repeat this a few times in the same roll.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On cameras with a rewind crank, you do want to rewind it a little at the beginning of the roll to make sure that everything is tight. However, once you start taking pictures, you definitely don't want to rewind it again until the end of the roll. If you rewind a little mid roll, that can easily be the cause of the uneven spacing.<br>

<br>

A long time ago, I was at Mount Rushmore and somehow I turned the rewind crank a little mid roll. I captured exactly two images of the monument and those two slides overlap as a result of what I did. I learned my lesson then.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Like I said it should not be a concern as I have used F2AS and F3HP bought new and even when they were new the spacing is never perfect. </p>

[nikos_k]

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a><br>

Didn't know that I should not try winding back the film after start of shooting it. I thought that this way I would keep it flat all the way. Many thanks for this tip!</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Once upon a time, 35mm cameras advanced film by pulling it from the spool with a sprocket. This method was abandoned over time by using the sprocket to measure the film travel while the actual pulling was done by the takeup spool. While this should work just fine, it is affected by looseness in the latching mechanism that stops the film takeup, and any springback in the supply side. This results in variability in the frame spacing. As long as frames don't overlap, it probably doesn't matter.</p>

<p>Sprocket drive is more expensive, and requires that the sprocket be physically disengaged from the drive mechanism in order to rewind. Consequently what was normal in the Leica/Contax/Nikon F days is now found only in top tier 35mm cameras like the F5 (and, not surprisingly, the Leica M7). The F3 has it, as does the F4, but not the F100.</p>