Will the M-A ever brass?

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, 250swb said:

As @pippy says, a third of a million negatives remained unedited on his death, plus thousands of films unprocessed, and on top of that all the films that went through the camera and were processed and edited. And your theory comes down on the side of poor storage? Give me a break, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck and not a random wild goose.

Theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

If this was due to physical action - which makes zero sense as the film is dragged across the pressure plate but that's ok you can ignore the obvious - we would see this with lots of other cameras, not just this one.  What other cameras? Who would possibly take so many pictures?  Well, I'll tell you who - professional sports and news photographers who often shoot hundreds of rolls of film a day with their motor-driven cameras.

But we have not seen one example of this type of pressure plate corrosion/wear ANYWHERE else. Not one.  So, that pretty much rules out wear due to quantity of film being used.

Which leaves the much more plausible theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action - that after Gary's passing there was a roll of film in the camera, which remained there for a long time, and possibly was subject to foreign elements which resulted in the imprint of the stationary film marks.

Or you could just go on with your wishful thinking that film in motion through a camera would leave static frozen marks.

[250swb]

30 minutes ago, Huss said:

Theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

If this was due to physical action - which makes zero sense as the film is dragged across the pressure plate but that's ok you can ignore the obvious - we would see this with lots of other cameras, not just this one.  What other cameras? Who would possibly take so many pictures?  Well, I'll tell you who - professional sports and news photographers who often shoot hundreds of rolls of film a day with their motor-driven cameras.

But we have not seen one example of this type of pressure plate corrosion/wear ANYWHERE else. Not one.  So, that pretty much rules out wear due to quantity of film being used.

Which leaves the much more plausible theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action - that after Gary's passing there was a roll of film in the camera, which remained there for a long time, and possibly was subject to foreign elements which resulted in the imprint of the stationary film marks.

Or you could just go on with your wishful thinking that film in motion through a camera would leave static frozen marks.

Ok then the pressure plate wear was the subject of 'other' elements. I guess on that basis the rest was the result of mice. Join the dots.

[Huss]

24 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Ok then the pressure plate wear was the subject of 'other' elements. I guess on that basis the rest was the result of mice. Join the dots.

To sum up:

My theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action - that after Gary's passing there was a roll of film in the camera, which remained there for a long time, and possibly was subject to foreign elements which resulted in the imprint of the stationary film marks.

Your theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action - mice did it.

[oldwino]

38 minutes ago, Huss said:

To sum up:

My theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action - that after Gary's passing there was a roll of film in the camera, which remained there for a long time, and possibly was subject to foreign elements which resulted in the imprint of the stationary film marks.

Your theory - noun - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action - mice did it.

Very small, and very talented, mice. 

[BradS]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

As @pippy says, a third of a million negatives remained unedited on his death, plus thousands of films unprocessed, and on top of that all the films that went through the camera and were processed and edited. And your theory comes down on the side of poor storage? Give me a break, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck and not a random wild goose. Natural wear is a theory, and the probability.

except that it makes absolutely no sense at all that the movement of tens of thousands of rolls of film dragged across the pressure plate leaves behind a static imprint of sprocket holes. It's not even be physically possible that motion results in a static imprint.

The hypothesis posited by Huss makes much more sense and seems highly likely.

Edited November 18, 2022 by BradS

[Huss]

off topic @250swb I looked at your flickr Steve - really great images!

[williamj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't believe Garry left a roll of film in the camera, but hear me out. In the last year of his life he was photographed using a black Leica, so he'd moved on. It was probably clapped out. And we know from early in his career he used an M3. So this camera may be the notorious camera but not the only camera he used. Moreover, no one associated with Garry would leave a roll of his film in the camera. Can you imagine?

If @Huss 's theory is correct, it suggests that someone else left film in the camera for long enough to leave an imprint. Or there may be some other simple explanation but in 30+ years with cameras it's a mystery to me.

[Matlock]

Garry died in March 1984 and shortly after his widow sold the camera. The pictures of the camera, including the one of the pressure plate, were taken around 2003. What happened in the intervening 19 years is a mystery. No matter how many theory's, we will never know the answers unless someone comes up with the full story.

[jukka]

May I offer an alternative hypothesis, and one that may be easily falsified. So, how does anyone know that the camera pictured actually belonged to Gary? Sprocket hole marks and the little too explicit brassing could hint at some shady business. I guess the serial number is there, sure, but all in all, this is with 100% certainty Gary's camera?

 

[250swb]

8 minutes ago, jukka said:

May I offer an alternative hypothesis, and one that may be easily falsified. So, how does anyone know that the camera pictured actually belonged to Gary? Sprocket hole marks and the little too explicit brassing could hint at some shady business. I guess the serial number is there, sure, but all in all, this is with 100% certainty Gary's camera?

 

Well Garry Winogrand's wife says so and the friend she sold it to says so and Stephen Gandy says so.

[250swb]

9 hours ago, BradS said:

 a static imprint.

 

There you have it, the camera was hit by lightening, it explains everything.

 

[williamj]

I had another look at the Garry Winogrand documentary of 1982 on YT. By this point if he was responsible for the brassing it should show because he passed away in 1984 as noted above. I know this isn't 4K so we can't be definitive but I can't see any obvious brassing on the camera. It could be that the brassing was due to some other factor after he stopped using it. The fact that some people have questioned the wear pattern on the camera as being unrealistic may in fact be valid.

.

[Matlock]

3 minutes ago, williamj said:

I had another look at the Garry Winogrand documentary of 1982 on YT. By this point if he was responsible for the brassing it should show because he passed away in 1984 as noted above. I know this isn't 4K so we can't be definitive but I can't see any obvious brassing on the camera. It could be that the brassing was due to some other factor after he stopped using it. The fact that some people have questioned the wear pattern on the camera as being unrealistic may in fact be valid.

.

Thanks for that. It would seem to back up what I said on post #50.

[wattsy]

On 11/17/2022 at 2:44 AM, kivis said:

Will the M-A ever brass?

Mine has (though it is seven years old, I think).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by wattsy

[logan2z]

1 hour ago, wattsy said:

Mine has (though it is seven years old, I think).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

That's cheating, you've got a BP M-A 🙂

[Pyrogallol]

Is there a picture of the sprocket marks to understand what we are talking about?

[logan2z]

3 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Is there a picture of the sprocket marks to understand what we are talking about?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

Thanks.

must have had a film left in place a long time and in a damp? environment. 

[andrew01]

For a chrome MA I would expect some moderate brassing after 50-60 years service shooting 15-20 rolls per day in war zones.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Matlock]

27 minutes ago, andrew01 said:

For a chrome MA I would expect some moderate brassing after 50-60 years service shooting 15-20 rolls per day in war zones.

You will have to wait a while to find out as the M-A has only been available since 2014.