Re: "Collecting" vs. "Owing and not using"

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >I'm not sure I see the distinction between being a collector of images
> >and a collector of historical photo technology items. 
> 
> Let me help you:  People actually use these stereo cameras to take
> pictures.  I understand collecting "historical photo technology items" that
> are not in service any more but please don't compare perfectly usuable
> stereo cameras with stamps.

Stamps were made to be used.  Stamp collectors collect unused stamps that
could still be used.  I once was a stamp collector when I was a kid and
still have things like a mint-block of an Amateur Radio stamp.  They still
could be put on letters and be used, but I don't.  I keep them.  Collected.
The USPO even has newsletter type things and  cater to selling
stamps to collectors, even though there may be other people who would like
to use them to mail letters.  Some small countries have their major industry
the selling of unused stamps that *could* be used to mail letters instead.
No stamp collector would *dare* use their unused stamps, and they'd like
to have their entire collection be "unused" if they possibly could.

> Images were made to be be collected.  When you look at a picture or
> read a book you are using the item as it was intented to be used.  Books

How many of us can say that we've looked at *every* image in our collection
within the last five years?  I know I can't.  True, mostly are flatties which
I have gotten, bought, or took over the last thirty years or so, but if it's
okay not to have looked at a photo for five years, how can it not be okay
to use a camera only once every year or once every five?  Or some other interval?

> can be found or loaned through libraries.  Yet, one cannot find or borrow
> to use a stereo camera from similar institutions.

Those books can be borrowed only because various government entities collect
money from taxpayers to make them available.  If it were deemed important,
those same government bodies could similarly fund the lending of stereo
cameras.  That they choose not to do so is a product of public policy,
not inherent to properties of the subject items being discussed.

I have loaned a realist-format stereo camera in order to promote stereo
photography.  If I used only one and had only one I couldn't do that
(and still have *only* my beamsplitter, I guess).  I understand you have
loaned cameras too.  Now that you have only one, I assume that'll stop.

I've over a thousand books at home. Probably a couple hundred  just
in cookbooks.  I elected not to avail myself of the government funded 
availability of them (unreliable and slow access) and bought my own.  I
keep them even after reading them for reference or for that time when my
fancy may cause me to want to read one again.  I've read my copy of "The
Realist Manual" by M&L.  There's relatively little that I could learn
by reading it again, but I'll keep it anyway. Should one never own a book 
after reading it?  Nobody should own books, only borrow them?  I'm sure 
publishers and book stores wouldn't be happy to hear about that. :-)

> I have no problem with decleared collectors like the lady from Cincinatti
> who's mission is to learn, collect, display and educate us in a specialized
> area of stereo photography.  But I do have a problem with the person who
> swears that he/she is a "user" and has pilled up a few dozen cameras and
> viewers so that they can satisfy their anxiety of having the best stereo
> gear and every little gadget ever known to the human race in their disposal.

You know, if it weren't for people like that, few of us who have only just
started "real" stereo photography wouldn't have been able to.  If all the 
stereo  cameras made in the 50's were in continuous use since then (due to
being  ONLY owned by active users) then most of them would probably be defunct
and the few which survived 40 years of continous use (probably all Realists)
would be at a *really* high premium due to the even lower supply level. The
currently plentiful Kodaks would probably be long gone.

I think someone mentioned about how a dealer may come into a collection of
cameras to sell.  If it weren't for those collectors, those "warehoused" cameras 
would not be available now (how's that! for a rationalization? :-).

> Perhaps a poll would confirm my suspicion that those "users" who own the 
> most stereo cameras are the ones who take the least amount of pictures?

I'd suspect that to be true on an images-per-camera basis.  I'm not so sure
on a per-photographer basis.  I, for instance, take a good number of stereo
photographs, but any given camera might have a lower usage than someone 
else with a lower gross film usage but only one camera.

Should all cameras in a Museum be ones like my Kin-Dar which looks fine from
the outside, but which are basket-cases on the insides?  For sitting in a
glass case, there'd be no difference.  Mine's a museum piece until I get time
and courage to tear it open.

> 
> George Themelis
> 

Mike K.

P.S. - I don't argue that George doesn't have a perfectly valid opinion. I
       see and appreciate the point being made.  I only argue that in a
       global (time and space) view of things, it doesn't matter much one
       way or another if the "set" of existing stereo cameras expend their
       lives over ten owners with only every other one being a user or 
       if it has five consecutive user-owners.  So long as it doesn't
       get trashed, it'll come back around at some point in time.  Yes,
       that's me getting metaphysical again.  Sorry about that....


------------------------------