HIstory question: Red vs. Black bellows

[meissner]

<p>I suspect the LF forum may be a more natural place for this question, but I hang out here more often. Also, I suspect when I explain what I've done, it may irritate some of the scheimpflug devotees, much like some recreations of the summer of love by kids born in the 80's and 90's irritate people of my generation (I was born at the tail end of the boomer years in 1957).</p>

<p>I like doing science fiction and renaissance faire costumes (so-called cosplay), and lately I've wanted to recreate the look of news photographers from the 1930-1940's. You know the image, Speed Graphic in hand with the giant flash:<br>

<img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/albums/camera-hacks/thumb/2010-05-19-00-52-241-sgraphic.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="360" /></p>

<p>However, since going to digital 2001, I really don't want to go back to film as a normal means of capturing images (I do want to sometime learn how to shoot with the Speed Graphics that I bought, but that is more curiosity about the cameras and what is involved, and not that I'm drawn back to silver halide) . So I got this idea to put my digital cameras inside of a shell that looks like a view camera from the outside, and I begun my quest.</p>

<p>I started looking at flea bay for appropriate press/view cameras. I noticed the earlier cameras often had red bellows (often times with nice wood finishes on the inside), and most of the later cameras tended to have black bellows. So, I'm curious why red bellows? Was it to make the cameras prettier and little works of art, which is easier when the items are much more expensive and hand crafted. Why did later cameras tend to use black bellows? Was it more of a mass production issue, where as more cameras were made, it was cheaper to make black bellows? Or was a style type issue where people felt black bellows was more professional (just like today where some feel professional cameras should be black). Or is there an issue where red bellows were often made of died leather, and black might be synthetic and last longer?</p>

<p>In case you are interested in the results, my first view camera was a Seneca Chautauqua 4x5 from 1890 or so. It has suffered two falls, which broke one of the supports for the up/down lens movement, and I think it is missing a few screws. My wife and daughter also declared it is too nice of a camera to be ruined by my quest, so it sits on the shelf above my computer. Here is a picture of it:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/albums/camera-hacks/thumb/2009-12-30-22-09-220-chautauqua.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="300" /></p>

<p>After that I bought the 1939 4x5 Speed Graphic I have pictured above, and it looked good enough that I paid to have it checked out. Since I eventually want to use it to learn about using a view camera as they were meant to be used, it too has mostly been sitting on the shelf, waiting for me to get more time and ambition to use it.</p>

<p>However, in looking at the Speed Graphic, I came to the conclusion that a 4x6 donor body is just too small for most of my cameras. The E-P2 might just barely fit, but the lens is not centered (since it doesn't need a film take up reel), and the press/view cameras tend not to have as much side to side movement. So I figured to go up to 5x7 or 8x10. 8x10's don't go on the market as much, or their starting price is higher than I want to pay. I did eventually find a Kodak Pony Premo 5x7 from 1910-1915 that I bought. The lens is rather cloudy and has fungus on one side, so it is doubtful the camera had been used to capture images anytime recently. I removed the lens and lensboard easily, and the E-P2 just barely fits inside, except I can't use the video out or shutter release, since the camera is jammed against the right side. However, it does work, and gets lots and lots of comments when I take it out to science fiction conventions and renaissance faires:<br>

<img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/2010-small-albums/2010-pimp-my-ep2/thumb/2010-05-13-08-53-024-hidecamera.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="300" /><br>

<img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/2010-small-albums/2010-pimp-my-ep2/thumb/2010-05-13-08-55-025-hidecamera.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="300" /><br>

<img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/2010-small-albums/2010-pimp-my-ep2/thumb/2010-05-22-09-42-031-hidecamera.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="400" /><br>

<img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/2010-small-albums/2010-pimp-my-ep2/thumb/2010-06-26-11-39-042-hidecamera.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="338" /></p>

<p>My latest effort is to make a shell for my Olympus E-3, primarily because the E-3 is weather sealed, and with outdoor events like renaissance faires, rain is always an option. I've been experimenting with an 8x8 inch shadow box as the frame, and I have a slightly larger cedar wood cigar box enroute, but I suspect that eventually I will make a box by hand (cherry is my current choice for wood). Obviously in building it myself, I will have a lot more freedom in terms of dimensions, etc. but I'm not sure I'm up to the task of making something that looks as nice as the real thing. I have a large red bellows I picked up on flea bay, but it may be a little too large, and the usual bellows you see are now black. While most later cameras use black bellows, I am kind of partial to the red, hence my question of why they fell out of favour.</p>

<p>Here is one of my prototype pictures, when I was experimenting with using wire wrapped around the 14-54mm lens to provide zoom capability.<br>

<img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/albums/camera-hacks/thumb/2010-09-09-10-58-274-hidecamera.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br>

<img src="http://www.the-meissners.org/albums/camera-hacks/thumb/2010-09-09-10-50-270-hidecamera.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>As far as I'm aware it was just a style thing. The earlier cameras (really quite early!) sometimes had the red bellows to complement the beautiful wood and brass, although there seem to be some red-bellows up into the teens on metal-bodied cameras. There were also occasional forays into metal bodies clad in red leather. Alternative colors have popped up from time to time as fashion statements, and Pentax is now pushing a DSLR that comes in a variety of colors, including red.</p>

<p>There's a functional reason behind black, of course. Black doesn't reflect light, and it is less conspicuous than a color. For that reason, most serious photographers want black, which is why Canon photographers often complain about Canon's "big white" lenses. There's an exception to every rule, of course: Some wedding photographers would prefer white, and I believe Canon even put out one white body to support this use.</p>

<p>BTW, I'm about your age, but I regard at the retro leanings of this generation as very flattering, if not charming. Tell me this beautiful couple doesn't put a smile on your face!</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/equalitymarch0042.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

[dlw]

<p>I believe it's more a style issue than a time period one. My Wisner 4x5 Technical Field has a red bellows, and I got the camera new in 2002. The red bellows look quite good by the way. There's a group in the internet called "The Red Bellows Group" or something similar to that, I think you can find a link to them at largeformatphotography.info. Cheers.</p>

[acbeddoe]

<p>I'd just like to add that this is a wonderful example of creative anachronism. Very clever idea, my hat's off to you.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I imagine that this might really cause a firestorm for the some of the traditionalists.</p>

<p>I'm still trying to figure out a period-appropriate camera set up for the French & Indian War (Beginning and part of the Seven Years' War elsewhere, roughly 1754-1763).</p>

[colin carron]

<p>As far as I know it was a style thing . The main red bellows period for Kodaks and field cameras was up to bout 1910. During the 1920's Kodak also made the Vanity Kodak range which came with a powder compact, lipstick and a velvet lined case. These had bellows in a variety of pastel shades which matched the camera body colour. Today's camera makers may have missed a trick in not carrying on this tradition though these days they might sell to both sexes. I imagine chaps in tweed jackets and moustaches would probably still go for traditional all-over black.</p>

[meissner]

<p>Sarah Fox:<br /> Those two certainly put a smile on my face. I guess my comment was the reaction to seeing 'hippy' costumes in mall Halloween stores, where it is a little too dressed up for the time period.</p>

<p>David Wilcoxson:<br /> Thanks, I will search out the group.</p>

<p>Charles Beddoe and Colin Carron:<br /> Thanks. It has been a rather fun project. In fact, the reaction to the camera when I took it to the Connecticut renaissance faire last weekend, was outstanding as I had people coming over to talk me about the disguise (I had the camera on my walking staff, which I had the foresight to order with the head that screws off to become a monopod).</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg:<br /> It really depends on how historically accurate you want to be. There was no photography back in the F&I war, just like there wasn't in the English renaissance. If you are trying to be historically accurate, then you have a problem (I'm not, but then since I'm a paying patron sometimes called playtron, I don't have to be accurate, and my normal garb is way to bright to be period accurate any way). In addition to disguising the camera inside of a view camera, which would work for Victorian times (and Steampunk, which is where I originally got the idea), I've thought about going as a court painter, making a deep pochade box for plein air painting that would have an opening in the box, with the camera in there, or perhaps under some artistically drapped rags on top of the painting.</p>

<p>The way I usually do renaissance faires is to keep the camera in a pouch on my belt or in a felt bag over my shoulder. I have two leather bags I bought for this, but so far, I haven't actually used the leather bags. That way you just bring the camera out when shooting and putting it back.</p>

<p>I'm more familiar with the US rev. war period 20 years later, and depending on your camera size, the shot boxes might work well. If you are going dressed as a drummer, I could see fitting the camera inside a drum. The smaller palm sized cameras are a lot easier to disguise than DSLRs.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>re: 18th c "cameras"</p>

<p>I <em>was</em> actually aware that there were no photographic cameras at the time. ;)<br>

I confess I hadn't thought about putting the camera in a drum. That does raise some other possibilities.<br>

Although it wouldn't be as mobile, how about a Canon in a cannon, or at least something like a culverin. ;)<br>

The one person who does photography for a fee at the gatherings, although she wasn't around this weekend at the Encampment, I think, simply keeps the camera out of sight most of the time.</p>

<p>Of course, there were camera obscuras (L pl? my Latin is rusty) at the time, some of them small enough to be portable, used to aid artists in sketching. I suppose something like that would form a case for a hidden digital camera.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Sounds like a fun venture, Michael. You will definitely be impressed with 4x5 sheet film and holders when you get to fooling with that stuff. Something to process them too,in a tray is fine. And a contact print from 4x5 is really some super kind of contact print. The pleasure of fooling with tilt, slide perspective adjust the old fashioned way and looking at the ground glass (you may have to get one cut) upside down and backwards, with a cloth over your head---they did it back then. You are part of the happening, which is performance art of a sort. And, goes without saying, have good taste re brand of camera, naturally :-). aloha, gs</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>In my collecting ventures these past 35 years, the red bellows on cameras over 100 years of age have weathered nicely being of high quality soft leather. The black bellows on consumer cameras that came out later were stiff and of imitation material and did not wear well. The exception would be genuine black glove leather bellows found on high quality cameras.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Before the 1930s, with the advent of Mars Colors made from rust (iron oxide compounds), it was suddenly easier to make the bright, synthetic colors we're used to today. Before then, a permanent, bright red was hard to come by. There were many natural reds, including an iron oxide that's commonly used as a red primer, but very few strong hues in red.</p>

<p>Coincidentally, a bright yellow, not made of urine or other concentrated poisons, was also hard to make at the time.</p>

<p>So, my guess is showing off. Same as red in fabrics. Like, in movie theaters or "red carpets," red in fabrics as a permanent, colorfast, water resistant color: it's a 20th century thing. While it was not completely impossible to build the primary colors before the 1930s, it was extremely difficult and expensive. Most of the natural reds were prone to smearing, fading or bleeding. So, a bright red, that endures without fading or smearing, close to pure red: that would be a sign of wealth and innovation before 1930.</p>

<p>Not causal, but a trend that I think might describe part of what might have been happening.</p>

[meissner]

<p>JDM von Weinberg:<br>

Yes, a Canon in a Cannon would be amusing. After doing ren. faires for a while, I can tell you need to think about props, and whether you are willing to live with the prop all day. At times, I find my walking staff to get in the way, particularly when I'm sitting for shows. For example, you need to consider whether you can put the prop down safely when going to the privy, eating lunch, or any other task needing two hands. In some events there are places cameras are not allowed, and so being able to fold up the prop so it can be checked is one of the design criteria. Outdoor events can mean rain, and so you have to consider appropriate protection against the elements (which is one of the reasons I'm building the new shell out of wood, instead of using cardboard for the interior frame). Of course you need to consider protecting your camera from the rain also. With the larger ren. faires, going back to the car to drop off the prop is problematical due to the size of the parking lot (and one faire will not let you back in without paying for a second entrance fee). When I was just doing cameras, I would sometimes use a wrist strap I fashioned out of a dog collar and leave the band it connects to on my wrist, and just put the camera in the pouch when not in use instead of using a neck strap (I have been twice knocked from behind in a crowd situation, and had my camera dangling from the strap). I could also imagine a hero cam type setup, where you have the camera mounted inside your helmet (if you are portraying a british soldier, obviously not if you are a colonist or indian). Looking at JAS Townsend, I would think the Market Wallet or Haversack would do to start just to hide the camera when not in use.</p>

<p>Gerry Siegel:<br>

I live on the town water supply (even though my house uses a well), and I would need to think real carefully about setting up a darkroom to develop film, particularly on what it would do to my septic tank. For trying out my Speed Graphic, I likely would use the Fuji instant film to start with. Back when the local stores film section was larger, I used to wander down the isle and sniff the developer to remind me of high school and using their darkroom (in the 1970's). However, my personal style in terms of taking photos is more Henri Cartier-Bresson (i.e. decisive moment of people and less post processing) and less Ansel Adams (set up the shot to get just the perfect shot, and then spend a lot of time in the darkroom to bring out the image that you visualised). Also note, the press cameras that I have tend to have less movements available that a full view camera on a tripod. In terms of using the camera at faires and such, the tripod can often get in the way due to crowding (I use it on a walking staff/monopod which is easier to manage, but I have to be careful when setting it down). I also find when I turn the camera around, and people can see the LCD, a little light goes off and they can instantly see what I'm doing (though I did have a few people say I'm cheating). Also, I would think having the black cloth would make it harder to follow the show. I find I sometiimes spend more time getting the shot, that I don't remember the show itself.</p>

<p>Paul Wheatland:<br>

Good points (though I notice the bellows on the Pony Premo are not in as good shape, and will need attention). I do know a leather worker from the faire, and will ask his opinion of them. I suspect the cameras made in the 1890's and 1910's were more speciality items, while the press cameras in the 1930's were more utilitarian.</p>

<p>John O'Keefe Odom:<br>

I recall that the one of the things the Victorians did was start to produce more and better dyes. True they weren't the bolder colors than came in the 1930's, but the Victorians did like their colors, and the red bellows from that era were probably a reflection of that, and similar to the leather used for chairs, etc. Google reminds me that the Arts and Crafts style was also in this period (though by the 1890's it was probably running its course). Most of the bellows cameras I see for sale are more rust colored red.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Michael, I appreciate the good advice, but I have been going to these French and Indian war rendezvous since Pluto was a pup (well, since 1970 anyway). I have to admit, my original query was more in the way of whimsical reflection than a serious question, since there's really no very authentic way to go back so far. The portable camera obscura might be best, but it's very unlikely I think, that any of these made it out to the Illinois Country in those days. My recent participation is as a day-tripper in very minimal French peasant clothing and I just carry the cameras openly. Sometimes I even (horrors!) wear a wrist watch. :)<br>

The Civil War stuff is much easier, isn't it? :)</p>