Unequal distances from edges of film

[payasam]

In the negatives I get from my IIIc, the picture area is closer to one edge of the film than it is to the other. In pictures taken with the camera horizontal, with the film held so that the sky is at the top, there's some extra space between the sprocket holes and the upper edge of the picture area, while at the bottom the sprocket holes intrude into the picture area. Standing on my head, I figured out that the film is riding lower in the body than it should. Camera's been to repair person twice, with this point being specifically mentioned the second time. Each time, it was away for over two months, and I have no intention of sending it again. What I speak of is only an annoyance, really, since my prints are made on automatic machines which crop off a fair bit anyway, and framing is nowhere near as accurate as it is on my reflexes. It might become a real problem, though, if I were to use slide film. Do I live with it, softly grumbling, or is there something I can do myself which does not involve major surgery?

[EDIT] It's wrong wrong wrong to write "sproket".

[Nikon Bob]

From what I have been told, this is fairly normal and you learn to live with it. If someone has an easy cure I would be interested for my IIIc also.

Nikon Bob

[Ronald M]

Normal. Mine always goes fully to one edge and extends to the sprocket area on the other so there is always a full picture where it belongs with some extra.

The base of a 111f has a tab sticking up to minimise the slight drifting.

I may get a base from a 111f and use it.

[John Shriver]

This is partly due to the design being oriented around use of the Leitz reloadable film magazine. The post/knob on the bottom of the spool is about 0.5mm longer than on a "standard" (Kodak) 35mm magazine.

When you put a Leitz magazine in and invert the camera back and forth, you don't hear anything moving. With a Kodak magazine, you do hear something moving.

[Nikon Bob]

Originally Posted by John Shriver

This is partly due to the design being oriented around use of the Leitz reloadable film magazine. The post/knob on the bottom of the spool is about 0.5mm longer than on a "standard" (Kodak) 35mm magazine.

When you put a Leitz magazine in and invert the camera back and forth, you don't hear anything moving. With a Kodak magazine, you do hear something moving.

So the answer is to add a 0.5mm washer?

Nikon Bob

[doubs43]

My 1950 IIIc does it too.

Walker

[payasam]

John, you speak of the film cassette's dimensions. If the cassette is raised by 0.5 mm -- Bob's question -- the film will not run parallel to the base of the camera and the sprocket teeth will pull on it unevenly. It will also take a spiral path on the take-up spool. Ronald, I've seen the IIIf tab and wondered about it: but that too will act only on the rewind side of the body, and it must have been designed with the Leitz cassettes in mind.

I never had trouble with my M3. Leitz made a reloadable cassette, the model N, which worked in both M and screw mount bodies, though not in the M5 and probably the CL too. The earlier cassette, the model B, was 2.2 mm longer and would not go into any M.

So, until I can figure out how to make 0.5 equal 2.2, I guess I must stay in the leaky boat and drown in good company.

[John Shriver]

Looking more carefully at the last roll from my IIIa, my pictures are also a bit canted. The film was lower on the feed spool side, by about 0.5mm. It was a Kodak roll of Potra 400NC.

Still, the overall picture is just high on the film (holding it with the image inverted). The overall image is a pretty accurate 24mm x 36mm.

I can't see any way that there's anything in the assembly of the camera that's causing this. They just cut the hole in the shutter crate a little too high on these cameras. No idea why.

However, now I go back to the last roll of bulk-loaded film that went through the camera, in a Leica magazine. Very level, not canted, and centered between the sprockets. So it is something different about the magazines.

Perhaps because the Kodak magazine isn't as tight a fit as the Leitz one in the feed compartment, the magazine gets a little tilted, too?

[payasam]

They cut a hole high, John, and then assembled the camera perfectly? If the asymmetry -- whether of one sort or two -- is caused by the Kodak sized cassette's being a bit loose, firing off a couple of frames with the camera held inverted should, in theory, show a difference. I am troubled, though, by the facts that the two rows of sprocket holes appear to run correctly along the tracks, and that on loading the take-up spool is pushed up as high as it can go. That should give me, for two mutually reinforcing reasons, negatives whose longer sides are not parallel to the edges of the film: but they are parallel. Thus three tests. Take pictures with camera held upside down, at the risk of putting foundations of houses among tree tops. Try to see if "standard" cassette fits in chamber with a thin something between it and base plate. If it does, see if there's a way to push take-up spool too a little farther away from base plate [EDIT: if there is space for it to slip downwards]. Something tells me I won't get anywhere. One rule. Do not touch that hammer.

[thafred]

Hi, my IIIa does that too as well as my Leica I (recent flea market find...married with CV 21/4 ..love that thing!!! )

But Don´t worry!!! In the spirit of the RFF-Contest I bought a big (= expensive) book with 300 of HCB´s Pictures and since they are showing the border of the neg (to demonstrate HCB´s precise framing...realy impressing!) most of them show the same effect! So even back then with the (I assume) original Leitz casette the picture area covers the sprocket holes a little.

It´s a bit annoying that the neg holder of my DS IV doesn´t allow for enough movement to scan the whole frame thou ... otherwise it looks quite nice I think.

keep shooting!
Fred

[Ronald M]

I have screw, M , and R cameras. They all seem to do this to some degree, but none to the extent of the 111c.

I tried a paper shim under the spool on the 111c, one layer is all would fit. It does not cure the problem.

Keep in mind you always get a full picture where it belongs centered between the holes.

[John Shriver]

The problem is to really see what's going on, you need to take the back off the camera while you run film through it. But you can't DO that on a IIIa...

The Kodak magazines have a lot more play (sideways, any which way) than the Leica ones. Over a millimeter of slop.

[payasam]

I agree, Fred, that life is dull without sprocket holes. Sort of like strudel without apples, yes?

Ronald, I do not get a full picture centred between the sprocket holes. If I did, I'd be howling somewhere else about something else.

I'm disappointed that no one has jumped on me for having suggested that the take-up spool, like the Kodak pattern film cassette, might be moved away from the base plate. It was made by Leitz and did not change as a result of George Eastman's machinations.

[thafred]

I agree, Fred, that life is dull without sprocket holes. Sort of like strudel without apples, yes?

lol exactly!... just see it that way: one more thing analog photography can and digital can´t do

We wanna see 4/3 standard with sprocket holes! Leica do you listen?

[Will]

Originally Posted by payasam

They cut a hole high, John, and then assembled the camera perfectly? If the asymmetry -- whether of one sort or two -- is caused by the Kodak sized cassette's being a bit loose, firing off a couple of frames with the camera held inverted should, in theory, show a difference. I am troubled, though, by the facts that the two rows of sprocket holes appear to run correctly along the tracks, and that on loading the take-up spool is pushed up as high as it can go. That should give me, for two mutually reinforcing reasons, negatives whose longer sides are not parallel to the edges of the film: but they are parallel. Thus three tests. Take pictures with camera held upside down, at the risk of putting foundations of houses among tree tops. Try to see if "standard" cassette fits in chamber with a thin something between it and base plate. If it does, see if there's a way to push take-up spool too a little farther away from base plate [EDIT: if there is space for it to slip downwards]. Something tells me I won't get anywhere. One rule. Do not touch that hammer.

Payasam,

Pentacon Six do the same thing with 120 film (kodak and fuji spoons are not as long as old east german spoons? I have no idea, but there are loose) but if you load it correctly, and have both spoons touching the bottom, wind the shutter (increase tension on the film, between the two spoons) and you can solve this. Also, you can see the film on the pentacon.

Originally Posted by thafred

lol exactly!... just see it that way: one more thing analog photography can and digital can´t do

We wanna see 4/3 standard with sprocket holes! Leica do you listen?

LOL

They will give you something like those DC with cartoon frame impose on your photos...





Will

[payasam]

So far as I know, Will, 120 spools were the same size, always and everywhere. East German spools will have been based on those which were used before East Germany existed, and the Pentacon was intended to be sold mainly outside the country. Goof-ups of a millimetre or two are hardly unknown, of course. A house in which I once lived had one wall 18 inches higher than the one opposite.

[jaapv]

Not only that ; film is half the thickness it used to be half a century ago. Ideally you should have the guide-rails machined down to the correct thickness.

[AGN]

I solved the problem by placing a small conical spring on to the bottom of the cassette, alowing the pointed end to go into the center of the latch when attaching the bottom plate. These springs are the type used in the end cap of a small flashlight. Any lightweight conical spring can be used, as long as it is reasonably correct dimensionaly. The problem is dropping and/or loosing the spring during film changes. Search my other posts for more on this. If you need a photo, let me know.
Art

[payasam]

Daniel, this matter bothers me precisely because it is, as you say, more than a nuisance. I cannot understand what you mean by "locking ring". Is it the part of cassette which is immediately under the rewind mechanism (you also say "the top of the camera")? Also, is the cloth tape adhesive? Are you eliminating sideways play or do you mean, by "a snug fit", jamming the cassette into the space available so that it cannot move in any direction? Do you carry a pair of pliers for use after rewinding?

Art, your conical spring solution must move the cassette a bit higher in the body than the take-up spool. Does that not, as I said in post 7, make the film run *not* parallel to the guide rails? If it does not, I shall adopt it. How many springs have you lost so far, might I ask? I need to know how many flashlights I must buy.

[AGN]

Originally Posted by payasam

Daniel, this matter bothers me precisely because it is, as you say, more than a nuisance. I cannot understand what you mean by "locking ring". Is it the part of cassette which is immediately under the rewind mechanism (you also say "the top of the camera")? Also, is the cloth tape adhesive? Are you eliminating sideways play or do you mean, by "a snug fit", jamming the cassette into the space available so that it cannot move in any direction? Do you carry a pair of pliers for use after rewinding?

Art, your conical spring solution must move the cassette a bit higher in the body than the take-up spool. Does that not, as I said in post 7, make the film run *not* parallel to the guide rails? If it does not, I shall adopt it. How many springs have you lost so far, might I ask? I need to know how many flashlights I must buy.

Payasam,
The spring fix works perfectly. You can see this for yourself by wasting a film and running it through the camera with the lens off. Watch the film as you advance it. At about the third or fourth frame the film will drift and the sprocket holes will start to show in the frame. Now, rewind the film and use the spring, and you will see the film runs straight and even with equal amounts on both sides of the frame. It is simply that the Kodak cassette is a bit shorter than the Leica cassette the camera was designed for. The spring will hold the cassette at the top of the chamber where it belongs.
The springs are sold in any good hardware store, you do not need the flashlights, unless you aspire to be an usher at a theater. Hmm, do they still exist?

[AGN]

PS,
I have two springs, to date, I have not lost any. Dropped it a few times.
Art

[AGN]

Also:
Be advised that the spring only has to exert a small amount of pressure on the bottom of the cassette, so a light one is preferable. It should fit around the stem of the cassette, with clearance, and taper into the hollow of the latch body. Bring a cassette to the hardware store. You can cut the spring to length as it will probably be to long.
Art

[payasam]

Jaap, the thickness of the film doesn't matter if the pressure plate does its job, since the emulsion will be at the correct distance from the lens flange: that is, pressed against the guide rails. Daniel, does the film travel *between* the rails or do its sprocket holes travel *over* the rails?

[AGN]

The problem with using tape over the spindle, is that the spindle turns when you advance or rewind. This has the potential of chewing the tape and making a mess. The spring clears the spindle and rests on the bottom of the cassette and lets the spindle turn freely.
Art

[payasam]

I'm for the spring. Jokers jump about, so must get a couple of dozen for starters.