Camera signatures on negatives

Richard G

Richard G

Veteran
Local time
8:38 PM
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
6,991
I spent Easter Sunday afternoon organizing a couple of years worth of negatives. One of my favourite shots of my daughter I had always thought was on Ektar with the ZM C Sonnar on a Leica. But I came across a roll with wide spaces between frames and some frames with no space. This had to be my mother's Zeiss Ikon Contina II, badly in need of a service, and in which I put one roll through two or three years ago. Anyway, that favourite shot was with the 45mm Novar Anastigmat, fixed focus. I guessed well that day. Sorry cannot post the pic.

Next I was cutting a roll and went through a sprocket hole. That doesn't happen on my Leica negatives between frames. I looked at the subject matter and it was all at the beach. It was of course my little Olympus mju.

I suppose everyone who has one knows about the Hexar AF's little diamond shaped recess out of the inter-frame bar that signifies its negatives.

My M5 and M6 have inter-frame bars that are 2mm apart, sometimes just a little less. The M2 also tends at times to be under 2mm. The M6 seems to be the most consistent. The M4-2 I had also had a full 2mm. I cannot, however, reliably tell one Leica from another by my negatives. I might find that the M6 is the most consistent, but I will need to look back to when I was mostly using the M6.

A couple of hours at the light table looking at negatives was very satisfying for the transparencies and the black and white, but the colour negatives look awful, even when the picture is great.
 
When I worked for a large social photography company, about 40 years ago, the Rolleiflexes issued to the operators had notches cut out of the frame edges. We could recognise who had exposed a shot, just by reading the code. Very simple and a great help, when the lab's copy of the print order got "misfiled".
 
When my M4 was serviced last year it got a new film gate with a slightly uneven edge. At first I was a bit disappointed but I've kind of learned to love it as my camera's unique signature. :)



Look at the top of the right edge. It's not much, and it's even less with wider lenses. This was 50mm, I mostly use a 35mm and then I hardly notice it.

But the frame spacing is very even, unless I've been changing lenses a lot in a roll.
 
Thanks for pointing that out about the different lenses - I hadn't thought of that affecting the space between frames.
 
On a slightly different topic, you mention cutting through a film sprocket hole between frames as though that isn't supposed to happen. Ive read that view a couple of times on photo forum sites.

There is no particular registration between the image frames and the film sprocket holes. The space between image frames is not necessarily supposed to line up between film sprocket holes. The holes are physically part of the film so their positioning is fixed, but the placement of the image frames depends on how far the photographer loading the camera pulls the film across the cameras film gate to engage with the take up spool.
 
My scanner crops to the edge, removing the 'blad double-V and corner notches. I'm not an anti-crop fetishist, but I like seeing the border on 6x6 for some reason.

Also , each back's mask is notched to ID which one has sprung a leak, should the seals need replacement.

BTW: Image spacing should not be not affected by different lenses, unless something else is akilter.

- Charlie
 
BTW: Image spacing should not be not affected by different lenses, unless something else is kilter.
Click to expand...

It certainly does with the 21mm Super-Angulon--that lens always gives me a very slight sliver of space between frames, where my other glass doesn't.
 
The SA is unusual. The rear lens is so far into the camera, it's probably projecting around the shutter/mask a bit differently. Hmmm. Result would be thinner spacing, while the mask hasn't moved over the film.
 
FrankS said:
On a slightly different topic, you mention cutting through a film sprocket hole between frames as though that isn't supposed to happen. Ive read that view a couple of times on photo forum sites.

There is no particular registration between the image frames and the film sprocket holes. The space between image frames is not necessarily supposed to line up between film sprocket holes. The holes are physically part of the film so their positioning is fixed, but the placement of the image frames depends on how far the photographer loading the camera pulls the film across the cameras film gate to engage with the take up spool.
Click to expand...

Dear Frank,

But the edge of the frame is always a set distance from the sprocket, on a camera using sprocket hole film location, so it should in theory be possible (and appears to be in fact possible) to build cameras where you don't cut through sprocket holes when you cut between two frames -- though as others have pointed out, deep, non-Retrofocus wide angles do give narrower rebates between negatives.

Cheers,

R.
 
The Konica Hexar AF has a triangular cut-out notch at the 2 o'clock position of each frame.

The only other cameras I have seen with a similar notch is the small Agfa 335 / 535 / 1035 / 1535 series of cameras. The notch was in some other place though, can't remember where exactly.
 
As I recall, my Konica Auto S2 has a similar notch, but it's not as sharp as in the Hexar.

The Olympus Stylus Epic always leaves one corner of each frame rounded.
 
The Koni Omega has a series of holes (7 if I recall) along the film gate edge, and a movable slide so you can set how many are exposed or not. Its great when I take the camera for a week away as I can tell which day I shot which roll on, even if I have been to the same place more than once... I just set 1 hole on monday, one on tuesday etc etc.

Great idea and it easily distinguishes my negs when I file them too.
 
FrankS said:
On a slightly different topic, you mention cutting through a film sprocket hole between frames as though that isn't supposed to happen. Ive read that view a couple of times on photo forum sites.

There is no particular registration between the image frames and the film sprocket holes. The space between image frames is not necessarily supposed to line up between film sprocket holes. The holes are physically part of the film so their positioning is fixed, but the placement of the image frames depends on how far the photographer loading the camera pulls the film across the cameras film gate to engage with the take up spool.
Click to expand...

Dear Frank

I have never cut through a sprocket hole till today with those little Oly negs, so all my Leicas have the film registered the same. I use the tiny scissors from a Swiss Army Card and I can see both sides of them as I cut. But with two dark frames or astrophotography or auditorium stuff where I can't see the edge of the exposed negative, I count sprocket holes and cut between them. Always works. Makes sense, as Roger points out, regardless of how much I put in the tulip or how deep into the M2 take-up spool I push the leader, as it's the distance from the cocked sprocket to the film gate that counts.
 
bigeye said:
The SA is unusual. The rear lens is so far into the camera, it's probably projecting around the shutter/mask a bit differently. Hmmm. Result would be thinner spacing, while the mask hasn't moved over the film.
Click to expand...

My CV 21mm does the same thing, giving me "wider" frames. :)
 
It actually makes cutting the negs very difficult w/ my SA 21mm- there's such a tiny sliver of space between the negs that I'd say at least 25% of the time I don't quite get it right, and nick the side of one frame.

Not that it matters much in the end, since my negative carrier isn't filed and doesn't print that extra bit anyway....

-Brian
 
Just checked a roll of mostly 21 f4.5 C Biogon on the M5: definitely thinner spaces - about 1.8mm instead of 2mm.
 
Looking at a roll from a couple of years ago which is most likely the M6 or otherwise M2, before I had the M5 and before the 21, there is a clear difference in spacing when consecutive shots are with the 135 f4 versus consecutive shots with the 25 2.8 Biogon.

My little Olympus Mju does not have rounded corners to the negs as described for the Stylus Epic above.
 
I can tell immediately whether I shot a roll in an M or a Barnack, just by where the space falls in relation to the sprocket holes. And yes, you can tell an SA by the space width!
 
My observation ist that my Leica and Canon RF seem to have the sprocket holes placed so that the images at the film are separated in the middle between the holes, so that you don't need to cut the holes.

My Zorki Ie is different, there the sprocket holes are at the space between the images so that you have to cut through the holes.

On the other hand I have the impression that my Leica IIIf gives me images which nearly touch the sprocket holes on both sides, being very tall.
(I will have to check this)


Different MF cameras sometimes differ in the film area (specially at 6x9), so that you can separate the images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom