Winogrand's camera

J

John Rountree

Nothing is what I want
Local time
3:19 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
340
Location
Black Mountain, NC
View My Gallery
I have been thinking about the picture of Garry Winogrand's camera, specifically the picture of the pressure plate. I have seen the photo several times, but there is something about that image that I can't reconcile in my brain. The caption indicates that because he shot so much film (and obviously he fired off a lot of frames) the film is imprinted on the pressure plate. Here's the rub, if he was shooting so much film, how could the sprocket holes be imprinted on the pressure plate? I mean, if you are shooting that much film, you are always advancing the film. So, it seems to me that the sprocket holes would be blurred into one big streak. If the camera sat idle for several years, loaded with film you might see the sprocket holes, but not if you are constantly shooting. Anyone else have any thoughts about this?

http://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm
 
ya know a friend and I pondered this too, the only thing we could come up with is that the film rests in that position most of the time because when you wind to the next frame its always going to advance the same amount of film so we guessed that means the film holes wold be in the same place too. Just our theory.
 
I don't see a problem with the camera having sit for several year, either. Why not?
From where comes the conception he had to use this particular camera all the time for 22 million films?

In that link, is Cameraquest really crapping on the Noctilux? Is that the same cameraquest requestng the M8 should have a fake film advance lever? ugh...
 
Last edited:
I don't want to be argumentative, but the film does not always rest in the same place. Depending on how the roll is loaded, more or less of the leader is taken up on the spool at the beginning. Of course the amount of film advanced after every frame is the same, but the actual position of the sporcket holes will change with each roll. That is why there are "A" numbers on the film i.e. frame "3" and frame "3A".

Maybe he did let the camera sit for a few years, but I doubt it, given that this is the only camera reported to be owned by him. And even if it did sit for years I have never heard of film imprinting on the pressure plate. Some of the people on this thread have reported how their parents, grandparents, gave them a Leica that had not used for years and I have never read anyting about film imprints on the pressure plate.
 
If you think about it, the teeth on the gear that drives the film will ALWAYS put the sprocket holes in the same place on the pressure plate as long as they move the film the same distance each wind. Which it would have to to keep the frame spacing even. The areas between the holes would almost always be covered by film, whereas the areas within the holes would almost never be covered. So you might get oxidation in the holes, or the areas between them might get some kind of interaction with the film material itself causing a subtle change in the surface.

I think the comment concerning the owner walking around shooting with a Noctilux was kind of a poke at people who let "collectible" Leicas sit on a shelf or in a safe. The guy who was using it was out actually USING it. There are some who would call that "unacceptable risk." 🙂
 
Last edited:
yeah, im not sure what it is like on some cameras but my canon ae1 teeth move with its film spool when you advance it so I was assuming it does on the old leica too. Even when I load the film kind of bad in the camera I have to adjust it so it fits into the teeth and will advance to the first frame. Just assuming thats all.
 
The film may have worn the plate from the carry round vibrations and jars, the plate shold be held against the outer rails there may be some freedom of movement of the film.

I thought he used a 28mm?

Noel
 
When I saw that photo, I thought it was just an imprint of possibly using some cheap film on a very hot day. What are the Leitz operating specs. for an M4?

I've seen an M6 with gummed up film near the rails that was likely from cheap film on a hot day.
 
My M4 was made 21 camera's after Winnogrand's. (Serial number M4-1227 092). It's got the same imprint in the pressure plate, though not as pronounced, as I only shoot about a roll a week.
I agree that the film will always stop in the same position - as the distance between the sproket holes is always the same on all films - and the images on my pressure plate are 5 - 16 holes back from where the advance roller stops each time - I counted.
What I can't figure is why they're there at all...you'd think that the film would 'sandpaper' the plate away evenly, except for where the sprocket holes are, (because less film travels over this area of the plate), and that in this area, there would be just one long (ever so slightly raised) mark.
BTW, my camera is in about the same 'Loved' condition. No chrome on the shutter button, I've rubbed through the chrome on the strap lugs, and through the chrome on the lower right front - just from being held so much. My Vulcanite is in better condition though!
Z.
 
Hey could be a tolerance problem as My M2 which has a new interior, e.g. winder, shutter etc. has its original plate and no sign of wear...

Noel
 
I don't think it is wear as much as it is a build-up of film anti-halation backing left on the pressure plate. The darkest marks are where the film is in direct contact along the film rails. Or, due to the way sprocket holes are punched out of the film stock makes them feel, ever so slightly, raised on the emulsion side of the film and this could be how (over thousands of films) they leave their imprint as they are dragged along and deposit a small amount of silver on the pressure plate, down to the film rail. I think the angle that you view (or photograph) from makes this seem more pronounced than it actually would in general. I'd be willing to bet most of that "wear" would come right off with a mild solvent. I have had some experience with the metal in a camera scratching the film but I can't think of one instance where the film scratched the camera. But I could be 100% wrong...
 
Last edited:
wpb said:
I don't think it is wear as much as it is a build-up of film emulsion left on the pressure plate.
Click to expand...
Emulsion is facing the other side.
EDIT: sorry, misread your idea, now that I think of it it makes sense too.

My wild guess is that there's short tensioning action by sprocket wheels once the frame is advanced. Maybe 1-2mm of movement, but with more tension against pressure plate than during film advance.
 
B. Czar said:
Maybe he did let the camera sit for a few years, but I doubt it, given that this is the only camera reported to be owned by him.
Click to expand...


I've read in several places that he had a minimum of two M4 bodies.

Very late in his life he also purchased a winder, which means he must have owned an M camera with the motor sprocket (M4-2, M4-P, M6, M6ttl, M7, MP etc)
 
Xmas said:
The film may have worn the plate from the carry round vibrations and jars, the plate shold be held against the outer rails there may be some freedom of movement of the film.

I thought he used a 28mm?

Noel
Click to expand...

I'd heard that too, but looking from Figments from the Real World last night, I can see a lot of shots that would indicate (from perpestive, DOF) a lens of at least 50mm.

How many rolls of film did he leave after his death? I'm just looking for some reassurance after staring at 50 sheets of unscanned, unprinted negs over the weekend...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom