Will the M-A ever brass?

[lmans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, kivis said:

Folks this was Gary Winograd's M4 after 4000 rolls of film.

Then I would say the 'real deal'...    

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

1 hour ago, kivis said:

Folks this was Gary Winograd's M4 after 4000 rolls of film.

No after a using this camera in a professional career he still had 4000 rolls of film left to develop after he died. If you can’t comprehend the wear a professional camera gets don’t try to make fun of how it ends up. So what would that be, fifteen years with this camera and given his shooting records maybe 20 or more rolls a day (probably a wild underestimate), so work it out for yourself.

Edited November 17, 2022 by 250swb

[Matlock]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

It is this guys camera, genuine wear is assured

https://fraenkelgallery.com/artists/garry-winogrand

 

Yes, but wear in places that no finger (or anything else) could ever reach? Sorry but it doesn't add up. 

[archive_all]

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

Yes, but wear in places that no finger (or anything else) could ever reach? Sorry but it doesn't add up. 

I'm not following. Where is the wear no finger would touch on this camera? Also, consider it being put in a bag, taken out, wear from being in a bag while traveling due to vibrations etc. Fake brassing isn't my first assumption with this camera.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

Yes, but wear in places that no finger (or anything else) could ever reach? Sorry but it doesn't add up. 

So you really think Garry Winogrand took sandpaper to his camera? Despite bags, buckles, buttons, and rings, and the possibility of scuffs against multiple things, this is possibly the most used M4 ever? If it was 36 exposures twenty times a day for fifteen years let's see a comparable camera to check the wear pattern.

Edited November 17, 2022 by 250swb

[archive_all]

1 minute ago, 250swb said:

So you think really Garry Winogrand took sandpaper to his camera? Despite bags, buckles, buttons, and rings, and the possibility of scuffs against multiple things, this is possibly the most used M4 ever? If it was 36 exposures twenty times a day for fifteen years let's see a comparable camera to check the wear pattern.

Not to mention film sprocket hole marks worn into the pressure plate as proof of that.

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, archive_all said:

Not to mention film sprocket hole marks worn into the pressure plate as proof of that.

I still don't understand how that could happen, unless the camera was literally stored damp w film in it, causing the film to stick/etch into the plate.

[pippy]

7 hours ago, 250swb said:

I think a bit of brassing just goes to show how many films were shot with this camera, Winogrand had over 4000 undeveloped films when he died never mind the number that had already been through it in a professional career.

+1

Going way off topic but to comment upon what seems to have become the current focus rather than the question raised by the OP;

It's hard to comprehend why some of these responses have been written.  Belive me; wear happens even to silver-chrome cameras if they are used.

At a guess perhaps Mr. Winogrand was far too busy using his camera to waste shooting-time cleaning it? According to his Wiki entry at the time of his death there were nearly a third of a million unedited negatives to be dealt with. A THIRD OF A MILLION. For all those who suspect that Mr. Winogrand faked the wear on his camera please have pause to reflect on that statistic and, perhaps, how many photographs you, yourselves, have captured regardless of whether the quality of your output could match that of GW.

Philip.

Edited November 17, 2022 by pippy

[Stevejack]

34 minutes ago, Huss said:

I still don't understand how that could happen, unless the camera was literally stored damp w film in it, causing the film to stick/etch into the plate.

I always assumed that was basically a shadow - kind of like when you leave a picture frame on a painted wall for years, then take it down, and the paint under the picture is less bleached by the UV light.

The sprocket holes are pretty distinct, I think if it was pure wear then surely it would be a dark horizontal line rather than an outline of each sprocket hole?? 

 

[Stevejack]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

So you really think Garry Winogrand took sandpaper to his camera? Despite bags, buckles, buttons, and rings, and the possibility of scuffs against multiple things, this is possibly the most used M4 ever? If it was 36 exposures twenty times a day for fifteen years let's see a comparable camera to check the wear pattern.

Exactly and it's not just number of frames shot - a lot of photographers will literally carry their cameras in hand for 10 hours a day, walking the streets. You're not just going to get wear on places where your hands hold the camera as you actually fire the shutter, people grip their cameras all sorts of ways as they carry it along. 

Then you have someone like Jim Marshall carrying half a dozen cameras around his neck on straps, all rubbing against each other and his clothing. You're not just going to get wear on places where you hold the camera.

[archive_all]

1 hour ago, Huss said:

I still don't understand how that could happen, unless the camera was literally stored damp w film in it, causing the film to stick/etch into the plate.

True. Maybe it would be more normal for the film to wear the pressure plate while being moved across not while static.

[Huss]

2 hours ago, Stevejack said:

I always assumed that was basically a shadow - kind of like when you leave a picture frame on a painted wall for years, then take it down, and the paint under the picture is less bleached by the UV light.

The sprocket holes are pretty distinct, I think if it was pure wear then surely it would be a dark horizontal line rather than an outline of each sprocket hole?? 

 

Yes but if you look at your exposed/developed film, light does not reach the sprocket areas.  It is contained w/in the 24x36mm confines of the 35mm image.  So there cannot be a shadow. 

[Stevejack]

7 minutes ago, Huss said:

Yes but if you look at your exposed/developed film, light does not reach the sprocket areas.  It is contained w/in the 24x36mm confines of the 35mm image.  So there cannot be a shadow. 

Ah yep of course you're right. So some form of chemically induced staining then?

[Matlock]

8 hours ago, pippy said:

+1

Going way off topic but to comment upon what seems to have become the current focus rather than the question raised by the OP;

It's hard to comprehend why some of these responses have been written.  Belive me; wear happens even to silver-chrome cameras if they are used.

At a guess perhaps Mr. Winogrand was far too busy using his camera to waste shooting-time cleaning it? According to his Wiki entry at the time of his death there were nearly a third of a million unedited negatives to be dealt with. A THIRD OF A MILLION. For all those who suspect that Mr. Winogrand faked the wear on his camera please have pause to reflect on that statistic and, perhaps, how many photographs you,  affected by constant useyourselves, have captured regardless of whether the quality of your output could match that of GW.

Philip.

I don't doubt for one moment that Mr. Winogrand subjected his M4 to more use than any of us could ever imagine but the wear does not reflect the areas that would be most affected by that use. Steven made the point about the camera being scuffed from bags, buckles etc., fair comment but why no wear on the areas that would be most susceptible to such handling. Probably more questions than answers.

[Matlock]

One point that has been missed is: "I am told Mrs. Winogrand  had very strong feelings that her husband's camera should be continued to used after his death.  She sold it to a family friend, who continues to shoot  it to this day" That was written in 2003 so how much of the brassing occurred after his death?

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

...the wear does not reflect the areas that would be most affected by that use...

Certainly not wishing to start a bunfight Matlock, I assure you, but I'm curious to hear which areas you feel might be suspect(*). I've just had another look at a handful of images of the M4 which are on-line and I can't see any areas which seem odd to me. As far as 'subsequent brassing' goes none of us will ever know for sure but it would be interesting to discover how much use the camera has undergone since the change of ownership.

Philip.

* Incidentally my long-gone M8.2 Black-Paint brassed in a manner which was different from the majority of other users' cameras simply because I happen to carry my cameras differently.

[Matlock]

12 minutes ago, pippy said:

Certainly not wishing to start a bunfight Matlock, I assure you, but I'm curious to hear which areas you feel might be suspect(*). I've just had another look at a handful of images of the M4 which are on-line and I can't see any areas which seem odd to me. As far as 'subsequent brassing' goes none of us will ever know for sure but it would be interesting to discover how much use the camerexact examplea has undergone since the change of ownership.

Philip.

* Incidentally my long-gone M8.2 Black-Paint brassed in a manner which was different from the majority of other users' cameras simply because I happen to carry my cameras differently.

No bunfight intended I assure you Philip but, whilst I can't give an exact example, the wear on my Grey Paint IIIc shows some of the areas that I would expect wear to occur. The brassing on the M4 in question seems to be confined, in the main, to the edges, including the step on the front of the top plate which is a little strange. Also the brassing on the base plate is extremely shiny which, again, would be strange unless recently done, brass dulls very quickly. Again I wonder how much of the brassing occurred during Garry Winnogrand's lifetime and how much after his death.

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]

Un-natural brassing.

When I received this Nikon S the front cover panel had been taken off and the chrome removed. I polished and lacquered it.

Likewise, the 90mm Elmar had had most of the black paint removed. I removed what was left, polished and lacquered the brass underneath. It looks more like a Victorian lens.

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!

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Huss]

16 hours ago, Stevejack said:

Ah yep of course you're right. So some form of chemically induced staining then?

That’s what I think.  Film must have been left in the camera for a long time and some substance reacted with it.  Maybe the camera got wet, was stored in a humid place, who knows?  Wear would show as a band not individual sprocket marks.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Huss said:

That’s what I think.  Film must have been left in the camera for a long time and some substance reacted with it.  Maybe the camera got wet, was stored in a humid place, who knows?  Wear would show as a band not individual sprocket marks.

Given nobody has an equivalently used and worn camera for comparison I think it’s over explaining to suppose poor storage is the cause for something you can’t explain. Kind of like our ancestors grasping at straws for why the sky goes dark in an eclipse.