Rolleiflex wind-on is stiff after last frame.

[stephen_mcateer]

My Rolleiflex 3.5F has noticeably more resistance at the wind-on lever after the last frame has been shot.

Is this normal?

I mean quite a lot more resistance.

I don't want to damage or break anything.

( I think I asked this question here before somewhere but I can't remember.)

Cheers.

 

Edited January 23 by stephen_mcateer
Typo.

[Colin O]

My 3.5F does not show any greater resistance after the last frame. I wind on and it feels exactly the same as for previous frames.

[stephen_mcateer]

@Colin O Thanks for that insight, Colin.

I had a CLA done recently and they fixed what was previously a lumpy wind-on.

However, although it's now perfect otherwise, it is very stiff after the last frame is through.

I can live with it but as I said, I don't want to break or damage anything.

I think I'll ping the repairer and see what they say.

Cheers.

[kmac]

Tight winding seems to be a common problem with f3.5s judging by what I'm reading on the internet. Returning it to the repairer is probably the best idea.

Other than that, make sure the film is correctly fitted to the camera. Some owners have been running the film under the rollers, and some under only one roller. This makes little sense to me, but I don't own a Rolleiflex so I suppose it's essential to follow the instructions on how to load the film correctly for that particular camera.

If your camera is working "perfectly otherwise", as you say, I would check the backing paper for noticeably extreme scuff marks caused by the spring tensioner. There may be too much tension on the film the more it winds on to the spool, or the tensioner is perhaps catching the backing paper and wants to bite into it.

Edited January 24 by kmac

[stephen_mcateer]

@kmac Thanks for that.

I'm running the film under the first roller and over the other two. I think that's the correct method but I'll double-check.

Thanks for suggesting I check the backing paper for scuffs — I hadn't thought of that.

I'll try Google and see what others are saying about this particular problem.

I've emailed the repairer — maybe they can suggest something.

Cheers.

Edited January 24 by stephen_mcateer
typo

[kmac]

Here's a link that may be helpful ...

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rolleiflex-3-5f-winding-crank.140524/

Edited January 24 by kmac

[John Seaman]

My 3.5F film advance does not stiffen after the last frame. Nor does that of  my Automat X which has the same mechanism.

You must surely be loading it correctly, otherwise it would not detect the start of the film and would either not wind at all, or just allow the film to run through without initiating the winding sequence.

[Colin O]

Yes, under the first roller and over the other two is the correct way to load.

In the process of finalising winding the film onto the take-up spool, is the camera by any chance tearing the seal off the film?

[stephen_mcateer]

5 hours ago, kmac said:

Here's a link that may be helpful ...

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rolleiflex-3-5f-winding-crank.140524/

Thanks for that link. His problem is similar to mine. I'm waiting to hear from the repairer. Will report back here when I have more information.

[stephen_mcateer]

3 hours ago, John Seaman said:

My 3.5F film advance does not stiffen after the last frame. Nor does that of  my Automat X which has the same mechanism.

You must surely be loading it correctly, otherwise it would not detect the start of the film and would either not wind at all, or just allow the film to run through without initiating the winding sequence.

Thanks John. yes, I'm pretty sure I'm loading it correctly. Not sure what's going on with it.

[stephen_mcateer]

1 hour ago, Colin O said:

Yes, under the first roller and over the other two is the correct way to load.

In the process of finalising winding the film onto the take-up spool, is the camera by any chance tearing the seal off the film?

Thanks Colin. I don't see any irregularities with the film once I'm finished shooting it. It looks undamaged. Cheers.

[stephen_mcateer]

UPDATE: The repairer said the camera was winding on correctly when they tested it after the CLA, and that the problem will be due to either the spool, or the film being used.

[stephen_mcateer]

On 1/23/2024 at 11:14 PM, Colin O said:

My 3.5F does not show any greater resistance after the last frame. I wind on and it feels exactly the same as for previous frames.

Can I ask what film you're using Colin? I've been using Portra 400, and I'm wondering if there's some specific aspect of this film that's causing this problem.

[Colin O]

3 hours ago, stephen_mcateer said:

Can I ask what film you're using Colin? I've been using Portra 400, and I'm wondering if there's some specific aspect of this film that's causing this problem.

I predominantly shoot Portra 400 and Gold 200. But I've used other Kodak films too, also Fujifilm and Cinestill and one roll of LomoChrome Metropolis. Never really had any issues, except I actually have had the camera tear the seal off the film - just twice I think, certainly once with a roll of Tri-X - it didn't cause any ultimate problem, but I've been curious why it happened those two times. I also saw someone post somewhere online (can't remember where, but feel it might have been on Reddit) that they had experienced the same thing.

Edited January 26 by Colin O

[stephen_mcateer]

3 hours ago, Colin O said:

I predominantly shoot Portra 400 and Gold 200. But I've used other Kodak films too, also Fujifilm and Cinestill and one roll of LomoChrome Metropolis. Never really had any issues, except I actually have had the camera tear the seal off the film - just twice I think, certainly once with a roll of Tri-X - it didn't cause any ultimate problem, but I've been curious why it happened those two times. I also saw someone post somewhere online (can't remember where, but feel it might have been on Reddit) that they had experienced the same thing.

Thanks Colin. I haven't had any problems with the camera tearing the sealing tab off the film. There is a definite problem though. I pinged Harry Fleenor to ask his opinion. If he replies, I'll update this thread. Thanks again.

[stephen_mcateer]

UPDATE: I got a reply from Harry Fleenor — he says there is probably a problem with the transport.

All I need to do now is decide whether or not to have it looked at, and by whom.

I have a roll of Tr-X in it at the moment — I'll see how it goes with that and make my mind up from there.

[stephen_mcateer]

MORE: I put a roll of TRI-X through it and there was slightly more resistance at the end of the roll than there was during shooting, but not as bad as what I experienced with the roll of PORTRA 400.

The wind-on was quite acceptable with the TRI-X.

I'm going to put another roll of PORTRA in it tomorrow & See how it fares this time.

[Niels - NHSN]

@stephen_mcateer Repeatedly testing the operation of a camera with fresh film can be costly over time.

I'd recommend you keep a test roll at hand for the times when you inevitably will need to verify camera functions unrelated to actual exposures on film.
It is especially relevant in situations where you receive a camera back from service, to be able to quickly communicate if there are any anomalities in order to avoid delayed discussions about who is responsible for a possible re-repair.
I am saying this because during the past years I have had many cameras serviced, and perhaps 35-40% have needed additional adjustments. I have used both the usual recommended suspects as well as lesser known, and both groups are equally good/bad when it comes to the need for returns.

Re. your current issue, running a test roll through it a couple of times may give you an indication if this specific issue is perhaps periodic and therefore camera related or if it is more likely film brand related or whatever.
It is also easier to get a feel of the consistency of operation if you don't have to compare incidents that happened weeks apart.

Not saying you have to sacrifice an expensive color film. Maybe one you know you may have mis-exposed, or if you find one in an old camera, or an expired roll you accidentally left in the glove compartment, or maybe just get a roll of cheap Fomapan (or Arista - depending on where you live).

Good luck.

BTW: It is practical to have an extra spool to roll the test film back onto - you should be able to get one free from your lab if you don't have them lying around.

 

Edited February 22 by Niels - NHSN

[kmac]

Another thing to consider is the diameters of the two rolls. If the backing paper is slightly thicker on one roll, the diameters will be different.

The extra thickness multiplied by the number of turns on one roll may mean a significant difference to the diameter, of about 0.5mm - 0.75mm, than the other roll.

Also the thickness of the films may be different. So if one of your rolls has both thicker backing paper and thicker film, there could be more pressure on the spring tensioner after the last frame, or the spring tensioner has bottomed out.

Edited February 22 by kmac

[stephen_mcateer]

@Niels - NHSN Thanks Niels. Useful suggestion about keeping / using a test roll.

The recent service on this camera was carried out by Newton Ellis in Liverpool. I saw a notice a couple of days ago that they are closing the shop in summer this year, which is a bit of a loss. (They're one of the main analog camera repairers in the UK.)

I'll see how this roll of Portra goes through the Rollei and maybe ping them if there's a problem again.

I've kept the roll of Tri-X for use to re-test the camera in future.

Cheers.

[stephen_mcateer]

@kmac Yes — it had occurred to me to put my Vernier caliper on a roll of Tri-X and one of Portra and do a comparison. In fact, I'll do that today and post my findings on here.

Cheers.

[stephen_mcateer]

On 2/24/2024 at 8:59 AM, stephen_mcateer said:

@kmac Yes — it had occurred to me to put my Vernier caliper on a roll of Tri-X and one of Portra and do a comparison. In fact, I'll do that today and post my findings on here.

Cheers.

UPDATE: A roll of TRI-X measures 22.5mm  / PORTRA is 23mm.

[Niels - NHSN]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:50 PM, stephen_mcateer said:

UPDATE: A roll of TRI-X measures 22.5mm  / PORTRA is 23mm.

I am assuming those numbers are of the factory rolled films prior to use? 

I am thinking they may be rolled on different assembly lines that may not deliver the same exact tension, and I probably wouldn't give 0.5mm on the feeding spool too much importance.
It I am guessing that differences in the backing paper tension you apply when you load the film onto the take-up spool will affect the final diameter and thus the final wind-on tension to some extend.
Or/and as @kmac suggests; possible variations in thickness of backing paper and film and possible tension introduced by the friction/resistance of various film/backing-paper materials that occurs during film winding. Combined this may result in variations on the take-up spool diameter and potentially affect the total resistance you feel at the end of the film wind-up.

Just speculations.

[stephen_mcateer]

11 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

I am assuming those numbers are of the factory rolled films prior to use? 

I am thinking they may be rolled on different assembly lines that may not deliver the same exact tension, and I probably wouldn't give 0.5mm on the feeding spool too much importance.
It I am guessing that differences in the backing paper tension you apply when you load the film onto the take-up spool will affect the final diameter and thus the final wind-on tension to some extend.
Or/and as @kmac suggests; possible variations in thickness of backing paper and film and possible tension introduced by the friction/resistance of various film/backing-paper materials that occurs during film winding. Combined this may result in variations on the take-up spool diameter and potentially affect the total resistance you feel at the end of the film wind-up.

Just speculations.

Thanks Niels. I agree that 0.5mm probably isn't going to make much difference. The roll of TRI-X I test-loaded wasn't too bad as regards the wind-on at the end of the roll. I don't remember how much tension I put on the leader during loading, but I can see that his might affect roll thickness on the take-up side, as you say.

I don't know about thickness of the backing paper being different. SInce they're both Kodak films, I would guess they use the same paper stock. I don't know though.

I now have some Portra in it. I expect it'll take me a couple of weeks to get through it — I'll update this thread once it's finished. (I was thinking about sending it off to be fixed, but I'm only going to do that i the problem re-appears with this roll.)

Cheers.

[kmac]

Are you close to the repairer where you got the CLA done ? I'm thinking that maybe you could leave the film in the camera after the last frame is exposed and get the repairer to feel the tension on the winding handle.

I'm also thinking that the repairer, while fixing the "lumpy wind on", something else went amiss during that process, and is causing the tightness in winding handle. Normally, after the last frame, the counter disengages and the winding handle free wheels, I just checked on my C3. Your 3.5F should do the same.

With a film in the camera, and after the last frame, the handle free wheels, but pulls the tail of the backing paper through, with no other mechanism coming into play, no counter, and no resistance from any other mechanism. So it appears that your handle is meeting an abnormal resistance from within the winding mechanism itself, or it could have something to do with the counter, possibly it's not disengaging properly and getting jammed. That is if it's proved that the film is not binding in the film chambers.

Can you remember if there was tension on the handle when no film was in the camera ? Checking this will solve where the problem will be. Without a film in the camera, check the handle tension after 12, (or is it 11). I take it you will have to do this after you finish your current Portra film.

Edited March 4 by kmac