Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:15 PM 25-08-97 -0600, GH wrote: >>I looked at it again, and am convinced that the negative in the photo is a >>copy neg. Unless I am mistaken, 35mm film has always had sprocket holes on >>either edge. The neg in the picture is lacking these. You will note, the >>print from the neg is cropped at the very place that the big trouble spot >>occurs on the photographed negative. the area begind the man and the hoop >>shapes below him. It was my understanding that HCB was not much for cropping >>his prints. If we are to believe this, then the negative in the photo must >>be a copy. >> >You could be right. It would make sense to have a copy neg available for >something so valuable. [snip] > It is also well known that he had to poke his camera lens through an >opening when he took this photo. [snip] >-GH I looked at a book today (I can't remember the title, something like, "Celebrating the Negative") in which the photo of the negative was taken. According to the book, HCB claimied that he was poking his camera through a fence when he took the picture, and that part of the frame was obscured. Also, it was not a copy negative, it was the original. The author could offer no explanation for the missing sprocket holes, only that HCB, when asked, responded, "I swallowed them". Dan C.