I was doing some film photography with an Old Yashica TL-Electro, and there were massive light leaks on all my photos. Massive red streaks down the middle of all my shots.
I checked the seal of my camera, because, you know, 40 y/o camera is 40 years old. But it was fine. I guess someone at Walgreens mucked up my photos. I'm not too butthurt, but I do want to save some of my shots.
I edited the scans I received, and I was able to make the photos black and white by deleting the parts of the layer on RBG that were causing issues.
Of course, that turned them all black and white, but I don't think they look too shitty this way?
What is /p/'s opinion? Was this a valid way of saving these shots? I'll dump the ones I've got on my phone, there are four.
Relevant attached, it's one of the shots.
This is another one. They aren't really that good of photographs to be begin with, but, I'm alright with that.
You should start by posting an unedited picture so we can see the kind of light leak you're getting.
If you're looking for critique on the set then I'll give you it when you post the whole lot of them
>>2803979
I don't have the unedited photos on my phone. If I was at home I would deliver, but I don't have shit here.
I don't know if it'll help, but I've got a shitty ass shot that sorta has the leak on it, if a little less extreme, I'll attach that.
I'm really sorry I can't help anon!
I'll post up the other two edited ones for critique, though!
Here is another, I'll post up the last one after this.
>>2803997
Here is the last one!
>>2804001
If the light leak is in the same spot on every photo, it is your camera that is the culprit. If it moves around from shot to shot, it may be an issue in development.
If it's in your camera, it may be difficult to find. It could be an issue with the shutter itself, which you would only notice as it fired, and it may only last for a fraction of a second.
>>2804004
Well, the reason I assumed it was the development process, is because some of the shots on the roll are somewhat fine.
I developed two rolls at ones, I took at different times. Both had the light leaks.
A third roll I developed, taken and developed after the a for mentioned botched rolls, where fine.
Any idea what would cause an issue like that? I don't to shoot a bunch more on this old camera if there is a fifty fifty chance and leaks, you know?
>>2804007
Well the strength of the leak would depend on the light around you. If there's shade, and not direct sunlight, the leak would be less pronounced. If it had been a lab error, the leak would be consistent strength, but inconsistent placement (probably from cracking open the canister/machine before hitting the chemicals, so as the film is wound up, it would hit different spots, etc.
For the third roll without the issue, did you use a different lens, or shoot in dramatically different conditions?
It's your camera.
>>2804007
>>2804004
Damn, looking back on that, I word soup'd the shit out of that reply. Sorry anon.
I meant I took two rolls to be developed at the same time. Those rolls were shot in a different location and at a different time.
The third roll was also shot at a different time then the others, but the time of which was after the others would have been taken. It was also developed at a later time.
I hope that clears that shit up
>>2804010
Maybe I improperly sealed my camera back twice? I don't know how I could have done that, but no, it was the same 50mm prime lens and the same small town setting with an overcast sky.
I don't think the issue is on the lens. I bought an m42 adapter for my new Canon digital, and it works perfectly on it, no strange bright spots or issues.
Thank you for all the replies!!
>>2804004
>>2804010
>>2804016
Now that I think about it, it couldn't be the seal on the back. I took photos on the same rolls that came out perfectly fine. It's got to be something else then?
Could the leak be caused on only certain aperture settings? Like on smaller ones it's noticeable, but on a larger one it's not seen? Could that be possible? Would that explain the varying size and intensity of the issue?
Here is a photo I took with the same camera, lense, and roll. It's normal, all be it not very good.
>>2804027
You need to consider a few things. The longer the piece of film is left behind the shutter the longer a mild light leak will burn into it. Also the direction and harshness of the light will cause the light leak to worsen or lessen.
>>2804027
The light here looks very soft but >>2803997
>>2803999 these ones look a lot harsher.
As others have already said this is a problem with the camera.
Old fixed lens RFs have tonnes of problems. The light leak could be caused by something completely separate from the seals. Changing the aperture or shutter speed could be causing a mechanism to fail or jump which is letting in light. There could also be a gap formed when you move focus on the barrel of the lens.
Change the seals yourself mate, that's the only thing cheap enough to do without considering throwing the camera in the bin. If new seals dont fix it then consider fucking the thing out. That's what I ended up doing with a QL17 III and Oly 35 SP I had.
>>2804046
I've got nicer gear now (Canon A-1) so it won't hurt too bad if I end up losing the camera, but it was my first one, so that kinda sucks. I guess it can sit on the shelf until I can get new seals. Or just remain there as a cool thing to look at.
Regardless, thank you so much for the advice!
If it isn't too much to ask, do you personally think those black and white imagines above are ruined entirely by the leaks? I know the latter two I posted are a hell of a lot rougher than the first.
I really appreciate any input or constructive criticism!
