Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: A question I'm hating to ask, but. . .
From: Ken Wilcox <wilcox@tir.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 21:25:03 -0400

If you sespect a leak around the back door, shoot a roll (or half a roll)
with the door taped up. This should confirm or exonerate.

Ken Wikcox

At 06:39 PM 8/28/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Just received the slides for the last two rolls I shot.  All were taken with 
>my M4-P with my "new" 50/2 Coll and 35/3.5  On some of the shots I'm having 
>what appears to be a light leak problem.  The very top of the slide, say
just 
>down from the mount edge, appears to be at a lower exposure than the rest of 
>the slide.  On one slide, there is a serious amount of what I would call 
>"glare" like a window reflection, although there was no glass (outside the 
>camera) in the photo.  Light angle appears not related to this, as in the 
>shot where it is the worst is where the sun was directly behind me.
>
>Now, this is not on all shots.  Apparently it is on the "first" shot of a 
>series (after the camera has sat around for a while).  My "guess" is there
is 
>a small amount of light leak where the bottom meets the back flap.  It does 
>not appear to be lens dependent, as I found two slides that were shot with 
>the 35/3.5 with the same problem, although much less.
>
>So, my suspects are either (1) a "Leitz leak", with the back flap as a the 
>culprit; (2) the 50/2 Coll (light may be getting in around the collapsable 
>collar) or (3) a combination of the two.  There is also a possibility that 
>the lab had a problem and caused this, but I kinda doubt it.
>
>Any suggestions here?  I can return the 50/2 Coll. if it is the problem.  I 
>almost hope not, as it takes beautiful photos.
>
>While both rolls were shot in approximately two days, there were time
periods 
>when the camera was lying in the back seat of the car (with lens cap on)
with 
>daylight hitting the camera.
>
>Sorry this post is rather lengthy.  I'm trying to give an adequate 
>description here and then see if anyone can diagnose this "blind".  I'm not 
>going to lose too much sleep over it, since I'm betting if I just shot print 
>film, it would not even be noticable. 
>
>Any suggestions you could give would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Eric Platt
>St. Paul, MN
>
>
- ------------------
Ken Wilcox					Carolyn's Personal Touch Portraits
LAW LHSA MEA						          <wilcox@tir.com>