Rent-a-Realist

[P3D Bob Aldridge <bob.aldridge@xxxxxx>]

Gregory J. Wageman wrote:
-> 
->Dr. T. responds to my suggestion that club members pool their
->interests: 
->>Expecting the members to contribute an extra $100-$150 to buy an RBT
->camera >is unrealistic.  There are more important things (like a
->better projector) >that must be purchaced first.  Plus, how can those
->people agree on who is >going to use the camera and when?  Too many
->questions, not enough money. >That's life! :-)
-> 
->The way the astronomy club does it is to have a sign-up list for
->each 'scope.  Each member is allowed a fixed period of time to use
->it, after which, if there is another member signed up for it, he or
->she must return it.  If no one else has signed up to use it, they are
->offered the option to re-sign it out for another period.  The order is
->first-come, first served.  You might have to wait a while, but you
->know in advance when your turn is coming, so you can plan for it.  I
->see absolutely no reason why this couldn't work for a camera as well
->as for a telescope.

The Stereoscopic Society has a Hawk projector that we loan to members in
a similar way - a bit like a book lending library, really. We don't, as
far as I know, have cameras for loan. However, we have operated a
"clearing house" system where a member of the committee has held,
advertised and sold stereo cameras - the Kodak, Realist, Iloca
varieties. These got quite a few members started - and you don't
actually need anything more expensive to take great stereo pictures!

->As for $100-150 being "unREALISTic", that's about the going price of
->a Realist 3.5.  Many (most?) of the people on this list have already
->spent that at one go.  Many of us have spent that many times over on
->multiple cameras, viewers, etc.  Given my example of a club with just
->30 members, is it really "unrealistic" to ask them to contribute $10
->a month for a year for the opportunity to use a fine piece of
->"otherwise unaffordable" equipment like an RBT?  Once the purchase is
->made, remember, the item can circulate indefinitely.  This benefit of
->membership should help attract new members to the club, as well,
->providing a larger pool from which to draw income.

Well I, for one, would immediately resign if I thought that I HAD to
contribute to the provision of luxury equipment for other members! RBT
cameras are great, but NOT necessary to take pictures! In actual fact,
the Stereoscopic Society could afford to buy an RBT from its current
resources, but those members that want to use one of them can save up
and buy it for themselves. Apart from anything else, they are not the
most robust of cameras - who pays if it gets broken?

->I suggest that if your club members can't part with an additional $10
->a month, then their commitment to their hobby is rather shallow.  Many
->probably spend several  times that much on some vice they'd be better
->off without (cigarettes, alcohol, candy... whatever).  That's less
->than the cost of one roll of film with processing.  Gosh, if your
->members can't afford that, they're in the wrong hobby!

This is patently untrue! I could afford to go without $10 a month - by
reducing my expenditure on essentials. Right now, I have no spare cash
for anything, let alone cameras for other people. And I don't think I'm
in the wrong hobby! I have a stock of jobs to do in stereo without
spending money (most are to do with administration of the Stereoscopic
Society). I also have thousands of pre-existing images to view and
sort... So yes, I think it is "unrealistic" to EXPECT people to
contribute to equipment purchases. If a club has only 30 members, then
there are plenty of higher priorities. 

Of course, that doesn't stop a sub-group of the members "clubbing"
together to buy a camera for use in that group, but I don't think exotic
equipment purchase is a high priority for a stereo club.

Bob Aldridge
Stereoscopic Society Projectionist
---
 * POW 2.0  0007 * History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. (M Twain)


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