J. Wayde Allen wrote: > > 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
Wayde: Just my two cents on bellows - there are alternatives to the historic camera bellows if some one wants to do the research and pay the price. A number of companies make bellows for other than photographic applications - many of them use "space age" materials. They are expensive and you have to use their "standard" sizes. A cursory search on Google will turn up these molders. Building a bellows is not rocket science. It is just time consuming and really nit picking work. Perfect for anal retentives. The really easiest way to make a bellows is to use a tapered form. I think Romney explains this method in detail in his book on bellows making. For me, the seminal article on bellows making (and very, very simple to follow) was Mike Robinson's short and beautifully illustrated treatise on "How to Build a Camera Bellows" in the July/August 1996 issue of View Camera Magazine. His method is simple, fast, cheap and adaptable to many current view cameras - all in three pages with pictures. To me, the most difficult part of bellows making is choosing the skin and the liner. The rest is cut and paste. Regards, Marv _______________________________________________ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
