On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, george jiri loun wrote: > The reason why amateurs try to replace bellows is for the most not their bad > function but the fact that not every amateur is able to make them well. Once > learned the art of their making, there is hardly anything better. Maybe, > once their material could improve, but for what purpose?? George
George, in general make some good points, but you are a lousy brainstormer. The idea is to explore the possibilities rather than to shoot them down. Sometimes incongruous ideas can make someone think a slightly different way that leads to an innovation. Is there something better - maybe and maybe not, but shooting down the suggestions in a brainstorming session is a sure way to lock yourself into a mental prison and kill the discussion. We all agree that bellows work well, and that they aren't really all that hard to build. However, suggesting that we shouldn't think about different designs, ideas, materials, etc. is antithetical to the premise of this mailing list. It seems to me that if we all adopted your position there really wouldn't be much to talk about. Why should we bother using plastic for camera bodies? After all, wood has proven to be more than adequate. Coated lenses - no need for that since plain glass works pretty well. Heck, why even bother building your own camera? You can buy them for heavens sake, and you might also notice that probably 98% of the commercial cameras don't use bellows anymore either. Perhaps I should just shutdown the list since there doesn't seem to be any point ... I'm not saying that we shouldn't be critical of ideas, just be careful about how you do it. Is your criticism constructive or are you simply torpedoing what may actually be a creative process? Right now I think you are dancing pretty close to the latter. - Wayde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
