wood and metal cameras
Richard, some of these thoughts have already been articulated and I'm simply reinforcing; a couple might be new to the thread.
(1) I've used wooden cameras such as Koronas for years. They are sloppy from age- shrinkage and wear. It takes a great deal of work to make them like new. The problem is exacerbated in the climate where I live which averages about 20% RH but can dip to under 5%. When I took my treasured 5x7 Canham (which replaced all of the old cameras) to Scotland, after several months, I had to pry the back off to change to 4x5 as it had swollen so much in 90% RH. He has brilliantly solved the "sloppy" part of wooden cameras by making the crucial elements metal but there are still problems with wooden cameras.
(2) Ansel Adams used a "Kodak All-Metal Commercial Camera" in 8x10. He writes about in a number of his letters and illustrates it several times. The best illustration is on page 63, Figure 30, in Camera and Lens 1976 revised edition. Tillman Crane mostly uses a Canham today, with the metal movement parts. Weston was a very imprecise photographer (I can quote from Ansel's letters if you'd like) and made only contact prints; hardly a test of camera quality.
(3) The Chinese are already in the market and other third world countries would be smart to enter it. You cannot compete with their prices but can probably exceed their quality. Nonetheless, the future may lie in modern materials such as carbon fiber rather than wood.
(4) As already noted, the problem is in the holders and other accessories. Independent thinking (and perhaps examining some 19th century solutions and bringing them up to date with newer materials) that results in new and unique products will likely be well received. I firmly believe the world ahs enough ULF cameras already.
(5) as an earlier responder noted, something like a 2x5 or 2x7 roll film back on a camera with full view camera adjustments might make a dent in the market but it had better be as good as my Horseman panoramic!
OK, bring on the flame throwers!
Russ
Richard, some of these thoughts have already been articulated and I'm simply reinforcing; a couple might be new to the thread.
(1) I've used wooden cameras such as Koronas for years. They are sloppy from age- shrinkage and wear. It takes a great deal of work to make them like new. The problem is exacerbated in the climate where I live which averages about 20% RH but can dip to under 5%. When I took my treasured 5x7 Canham (which replaced all of the old cameras) to Scotland, after several months, I had to pry the back off to change to 4x5 as it had swollen so much in 90% RH. He has brilliantly solved the "sloppy" part of wooden cameras by making the crucial elements metal but there are still problems with wooden cameras.
(2) Ansel Adams used a "Kodak All-Metal Commercial Camera" in 8x10. He writes about in a number of his letters and illustrates it several times. The best illustration is on page 63, Figure 30, in Camera and Lens 1976 revised edition. Tillman Crane mostly uses a Canham today, with the metal movement parts. Weston was a very imprecise photographer (I can quote from Ansel's letters if you'd like) and made only contact prints; hardly a test of camera quality.
(3) The Chinese are already in the market and other third world countries would be smart to enter it. You cannot compete with their prices but can probably exceed their quality. Nonetheless, the future may lie in modern materials such as carbon fiber rather than wood.
(4) As already noted, the problem is in the holders and other accessories. Independent thinking (and perhaps examining some 19th century solutions and bringing them up to date with newer materials) that results in new and unique products will likely be well received. I firmly believe the world ahs enough ULF cameras already.
(5) as an earlier responder noted, something like a 2x5 or 2x7 roll film back on a camera with full view camera adjustments might make a dent in the market but it had better be as good as my Horseman panoramic!
OK, bring on the flame throwers!
Russ
