Is this a light leak?

Steven001

Steven001

Messages
1,531
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

I just received my files from my first roll of film shot with my Pentax Me Super and 50mm 1.7 lens. I noticed that on two of the images there looks to be what I think is a light leak, because I'm not sure what else it could be.

I was quite disappointed with most of the images to be honest, I seem to have struggled focusing and a lot of the photos are out of focus :oops: :$

https://goo.gl/photos/ooaETNo49CBSmAEd6

https://goo.gl/photos/PNHZKYsiZJo9shd29

PS: Sorry for the lack of imbedded images; Photobucket no longer works, I don't like uploading test shots to Flickr and I can't find a way to get the direct link to the image through Google Photos!
 
Last edited:
But I'm getting a 404 error when I click on the links...
 
I can see them ok. The second looks like a light leak, although the colour looks a little odd - it's kinda flesh toned rather than the warmer yellowy orange-red that I'm used to seeing. The first could be too, but it also looks a bit like an OOF finger or something encroaching over the very edge of the shot.

On the bright side, the focus looks ok though. :)
 
FishyFish said:
The first could be too, but it also looks a bit like an OOF finger or something encroaching over the very edge of the shot.
Click to expand...

Well could be what you said but when I used a compact my finger was in the way (and something else) and got this result, so am steering towards a light leak:-
View attachment 105897
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
I can see them ok. The second looks like a light leak, although the colour looks a little odd - it's kinda flesh toned rather than the warmer yellowy orange-red that I'm used to seeing. The first could be too, but it also looks a bit like an OOF finger or something encroaching over the very edge of the shot.

On the bright side, the focus looks ok though. :)
Click to expand...

excalibur2 said:
Well could be what you said but when I used a compact my finger was in the way (and something else) and got this result, so am steering towards a light leak:-
View attachment 105897
Click to expand...

It's definitely not my finger! I'm going to Sri Lanka tomorrow and I was hoping to take this camera, but I'm not going to bother if there's a light leak; I'll take my fully manual Praktica instead.

I will try and repair the light seals when I get back and see if that improves things.
 
Steven001 said:
It's definitely not my finger! I'm going to Sri Lanka tomorrow and I was hoping to take this camera, but I'm not going to bother if there's a light leak; I'll take my fully manual Praktica instead.

I will try and repair the light seals when I get back and see if that improves things.
Click to expand...

Wise decision as any camera is useless if you can't trust it.
 
Always check light seals around an opening film camera back if you've just acquired the camera and it's of a certain age! It's basic. And it's easy to replace them.
 
Surely if it was light leak it would be over exposed not dark/ under! I think the shutter is sticking/dragging or a aperture blade sticking in lens
 
droj said:
Always check light seals around an opening film camera back if you've just acquired the camera and it's of a certain age! It's basic. And it's easy to replace them.
Click to expand...
On closer inspection the light seals are a bit perished, especially the on the inside lip behind the lens. Do you just use so self adhesive foam to replace them? What sort of thickness is best to use?
Mark twiglet said:
Surely if it was light leak it would be over exposed not dark/ under! I think the shutter is sticking/dragging or a aperture blade sticking in lens
Click to expand...
Is there anyway I could diagnose a sticking shutter or sticking aperture blades?
 
Mark twiglet said:
Surely if it was light leak it would be over exposed not dark/ under! I think the shutter is sticking/dragging or a aperture blade sticking in lens
Click to expand...

Is this comment based on post 8 above rather than the photos under discussion, where the effects are lighter than they should be?
 
Steven001 said:
Do you just use so self adhesive foam to replace them? What sort of thickness is best to use?
Click to expand...

Well I've been using a sheet of self adhesive foam given to me years ago and the thickness is just over 1mm (inc backing paper) and if not thick enough in parts of the camera then just stick another layer on...the first tricky bit is to cut it in strips at a suitable width to fit into the slot (too wide and it's more difficult to push it in)... I've got a guillotine so it's easy but sometimes get the width wrong so have to cut another strip. :(. You can buy kits already made but I would guess it's a lot cheaper to buy a sheet from an arts and craft shop (or where ever).
I can't be bothered to clean all the gunge out properly and just put the new strip over it, and never had any further problem on the cameras I've done h'mm but I suppose one day a spec of gunge is going to fall out and stick on the film :eek:
 
Last edited:
If there's a red/orange streak on the negatives extending into the sprocket holes area, then it's a light leak through the back of the camera. If the sprocket holes area is clear, then it's unlikely to be a leak through the foam.
 
•


Because of the colour of it, I suspect
your finger was possibly in the way.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I've been using a sheet of self adhesive foam given to me years ago and the thickness is just over 1mm (inc backing paper) and if not thick enough in parts of the camera then just stick another layer on...the first tricky bit is to cut it in strips at a suitable width to fit into the slot (too wide and it's more difficult to push it in)... I've got a guillotine so it's easy but sometimes get the width wrong so have to cut another strip. :(. You can buy kits already made but I would guess it's a lot cheaper to buy a sheet from an arts and craft shop (or where ever).
I can't be bothered to clean all the gunge out properly and just put the new strip over it, and never had any further problem on the cameras I've done h'mm but I suppose one day a spec of gunge is going to fall out and stick on the film :eek:
Click to expand...

Thank you, I'll order some foam from eBay!

NickT said:
If there's a red/orange streak on the negatives extending into the sprocket holes area, then it's a light leak through the back of the camera. If the sprocket holes area is clear, then it's unlikely to be a leak through the foam.
Click to expand...

The sprocket holes of the negatives are clear. What if it was a light leak through the front? There is a small price of foam on the lip of the body (above the mirror) which is perished, could that be the cause?

Kodiak Qc said:
•


Because of the colour of it, I suspect
your finger was possibly in the way.
Click to expand...

I've been shooting on a DSLR for 10 years and I have never taken a photo with my finger in front of the lens, never mind twice in 36 shots!
 
An SLR with a focal plane shutter and a lens in a rigid barrel, can't leak light throught the front.
 
NickT said:
An SLR with a focal plane shutter and a lens in a rigid barrel, can't leak light throught the front.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can!

Holes in the shutter blind will cause light leaks, the intensity of which depends on the time between shots. Other forms of damage can occur to the shutter blinds, as well. Debris can prevent the blinds from capping properly - light leaks during cocking if the shutter.
 
Steven001 said:
The sprocket holes of the negatives are clear. What if it was a light leak through the front? There is a small price of foam on the lip of the body (above the mirror) which is perished, could that be the cause?
Click to expand...
The foam above the mirror is simply a shock absorber for when the mirror snaps up. If light was to come in through the viewfinder and past this foam, I would expect it to be more diffuse than what you have.
 
OP has perhaps left already, but it seems odd to me that the defect is in such different places and shapes in the two images. I can't think of a mechanism where the leak is comping through the back of the camera (to explain the pinkish colour) that would do that... other than the finger of course, but the offending digit would have to be artfully placed to achieve the effect, IMHO!
 
ChrisR said:
OP has perhaps left already, but it seems odd to me that the defect is in such different places and shapes in the two images. I can't think of a mechanism where the leak is comping through the back of the camera (to explain the pinkish colour) that would do that... other than the finger of course, but the offending digit would have to be artfully placed to achieve the effect, IMHO!
Click to expand...

Well you'd have to have a very long finger to stretch beyond the lens while holding the camera o_O as if too close you get the effect as in my post\shot...easy to do with a small compact.
 
Last edited:
Sue has a couple of digital compacts where the design makes it easy to get a finger in front of the lens, so I've seen a few and they are invariably flesh coloured rather than dark areas. This is the first example I found, and it's not typical as the area intruded is comparatively large. It does however show the colouration.

View attachment 105996
 
StephenM said:
Sue has a couple of digital compacts where the design makes it easy to get a finger in front of the lens, so I've seen a few and they are invariably flesh coloured rather than dark areas. This is the first example I found, and it's not typical as the area intruded is comparatively large. It does however show the colouration.

View attachment 105996
Click to expand...

Well yes if the finger is not too close to the lens and light can get around it, but hold your 35mm slr (usually have your index finger ready on the shutter button) and explain how you put any finger to cover a 50mm f1.7 lens on an ME far enough away to give the effect in your post...while taking a shot.
 
Last edited:
Explanation asked for; here's mine. When using 35mm, I used one hand to hold/support the camera and focus; the other for more support and to press the shutter release. The mere fact that I used one hand to focus meant that the fingers were on the side of the lens. I don't see "finger creep" as being impossible. But that's just me.
 
Well Steven is not a newbie and says:-

Steven001 said:
I've been shooting on a DSLR for 10 years and I have never taken a photo with my finger in front of the lens, never mind twice in 36 shots!
Click to expand...

Above Steven is not a newbie, but I suppose anything is possible if you have very long fingers..for me I have short fingers and using my smallest camera OM find that if I hold the camera in my left hand and operate the shutter button with my thumb can easily put a finger in front of the lens :D
 
Last edited:
The difference between the OP's shots and StephenM's is that the finger in the latter is opaque, whereas in the OP's it seems to be translucent. That was why I suggested an "artful" placing. But in practice I think we can give the finger the finger!
 
How old was the roll of film? And where was it stored?
 
Steven001 said:
It's in date but has been stored on the shelf at poundland. Could the temperature possibly have made it go "off"?
Click to expand...

Short answer: no. Longer answer: it's an in date consumer film, so going off in normal to slightly elevated British temperatures is extremely unlikely. Kept on a shelf in the Outback for 6 months varying from -5 to 40 C, then I'd be more concerned, but personally I wouldn't expect the issues in the two images you showed us. But as I keep having to remind myself, I know nothing!
 
Another thing worth mentioning if using a film camera for the first time is you can get the OPs problem if a bit slap dash loading the film i.e. pulling more film out to insert in the wind on spool and winding the film back afterwards and then not wasting the first three shots....but this will only affect the shots in the beginning.
The film makers allow for this wasted for 24, 36 exp but you can get away with say 25, 26 or 37, 38 if you are careful and load the film in very low light.....but IIRC some of my more modern cameras seem to only want to go to 24 or 36 maybe someone agrees with this OR it's my bad memory.
 
I'm very unhappy if I get less than 26 shots from a 24 exposure film. Two shots get wasted loading the film - can't help that.

I have a couple of 'modern' electronic cameras that read the DX info off the cassette and rewind when that many frames have been taken. Appalling waste!
 
excalibur2 said:
Another thing worth mentioning if using a film camera for the first time is you can get the OPs problem if a bit slap dash loading the film i.e. pulling more film out to insert in the wind on spool and winding the film back afterwards ....
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree with that. In all the 35mm negs I've ever looked at, there is a clear transition at the light trap, where the film was pulled out of the cassette and what was still inside. I can't see how that would result in selective fogging of the film within a frame as seen in the two examples.
 
Nomad Z said:
I'd have to disagree with that. In all the 35mm negs I've ever looked at, there is a clear transition at the light trap, where the film was pulled out of the cassette and what was still inside. I can't see how that would result in selective fogging of the film within a frame as seen in the two examples.
Click to expand...

Ah you missed the bit "will only affect the shots in the beginning" i.e. would be the first1 or 2 frames. I've seen the OP problems plenty of times as the first 3 frames I take a shot of my back garden and usually get an orange splodge at least on the first frame and would have to go thru' all my CDs to find the ones showing this, as when I copy the jpgs onto my computer I delete those ones with the orange splodge.
Anyway my point was to a newbie "always waste the first 3 frames" as your first shot could look like this:-

CNV00001.jpg
 
Last edited:
Also we forgot to mention bad handling by the person doing the developing...I can understand light leak in the beginning but once the neg is in the dev M\C can't see how light would get in.
 
excalibur2 said:
Also we forgot to mention bad handling by the person doing the developing...I can understand light leak in the beginning but once the neg is in the dev M\C can't see how light would get in.
Click to expand...

I think this is basically ruled out by the fact it doesn't go into the sprockets. The only other thing I can think of is if it's a light leak via the eyepiece and prism seals crumbling... but I would expect it to be across the whole of one side in both, not just one of them.
 
Thanks for your reply guys. I'll put it down to a mix of lack of experience loading/using film and a possible light leak somewhere on the camera. I'll replace all the seals when I get back from my holiday and shoot another test roll on the camera.
 
Steven001 said:
Thanks for your reply guys. I'll put it down to a mix of lack of experience loading/using film and a possible light leak somewhere on the camera. I'll replace all the seals when I get back from my holiday and shoot another test roll on the camera.
Click to expand...

We would all like to to know what solved the leak....all adds to our knowledge (y)
There is not many here who have never had a light leak, one of my cameras was like yours in that now and again I would get this below in a roll..gave up in the end after using two or three rolls trying to solve the intermittent fault.
Meyer 50mm (10).JPG Tak35mm (9)1000px.jpg
 
excalibur2 said:
We would all like to to know what solved the leak....all adds to our knowledge (y)
There is not many here who have never had a light leak, one of my cameras was like yours in that now and again I would get this below in a roll..gave up in the end after using two or three rolls trying to solve the intermittent fault.
View attachment 106236 View attachment 106240
Click to expand...
That looks very much like pin holes in a shutter curtain, the intesity of which depends on the time between shots. Of course, if it was from a leaf shutter camera, it cannot have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top