Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Folding. Click here to start a new topic.

Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.

The article in general

Rebollo, please help

After having decribed hundreds of folding cameras you should be able to improve this basic article about the general topic. I already tried to do so, but English is not my native language.

Question: Are barn door folders really a common folder model or does this architecture belong to the special folders?

Best regards, Uwe, Aug 5th '6

The only barn door folders I know are the Vitessa, the Glunz Ingo / Rodenstock Rodinett, the Dallmeyer Dual, maybe a couple of Japanese compact cameras by Chinon (with no bellows) and also some plate cameras called "chambres à joues" in French (see this google search). This is a very small minority: if the Vitessa wouldn't exist, almost nobody would have heard of this configuration. --Rebollo fr 04:42, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Hi Hoary

nothing in article bellows ? your help is welcomed too.

Best regards, Uwe, Aug 5th '6

Sorry, but I'm not going to put much time into bellows until I have some other things out of the way. -- Hoary 22:37, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

Range of sizes

We read (I believe Rebollo fr wrote): There have been folding cameras in all kinds of format, from 18×24 mm to at least 18×24 cm.

I can believe that there have been enormous folding cameras, if only because "folding camera" is such a vague term and large cameras have various bits that can be folded. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a folding 18×24 mm camera. However, I can't think of any example of the latter. What have there been? -- Hoary 22:37, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

The only example I know is the half frame model of the Agfa Ansco Memo, sold around 1940. --Rebollo fr 04:18, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
I was about to say "No way!", but this tells me you're right. Well well. -- Hoary 04:26, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
And you have pictures here. --Rebollo fr 04:55, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Vertical and horizontal

"A distinction is sometimes drawn between whether the bed hinges vertically or horizontally, but other than for square format (e.g. 6×6) cameras, normally only held in one way, this distinction too is ambiguous as it is not clear what "vertical" and "horizontal" mean."

For cameras having a single folding bed, the words 'vertical' and 'horizontal' are relative to the position with the folding bed underneath. Thus to decide if a folder is horizontal or vertical, you put it with the bed underside and it is horizontal (i) when the rollfilm runs horizontally (for rollfilm cameras) or (ii) when the longest dimension is the horizontal one (for plate cameras). The plate cameras having a square revolving back are not vertical nor horizontal, but square folders. I have always seen these words used consistently that way, and the above works for 99% of the folding cameras, the remaining 1% having weird configurations (for example the Ihagee Patent Folding Reflex).

--Rebollo fr 04:35, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

That seems very sensible, but I don't think it's at all obvious. Consider the Virtus, and do take a long, careful look at the two photos there (front and back) of this handsome beast. It seems to be designed (and cosmeticized) so that the "default" position is such that the film moves not sideways but upwards. I think that Voigtländer would have said that the bed hinges vertically; you'd say it hinges horizontally. Is the Virtus a freak? Then consider the Moskva 5. I've read several first-hand accounts saying that yes, it's an ergonomic disaster -- until you realize that actually it was primarily designed to take "portrait" rather than "landscape" photos.
So you may well be right about usage; but even if you are, this needs explanation. -- Hoary 04:50, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
I have re-read my post, and maybe I'm not fully awake, but it seems to classify the Virtus as a vertical folder: when I put the folding bed underneath, the film runs vertically. It is the same for the Moskva 5, the Ikonta 4.5×6 and the Ikonta 6×9, but not for the Ikonta 6×6 that I would classify as a horizontal folder. This is used even for cameras that are not designed to stand with the folding bed underneath (for ex. I would say the Retina II is a vertical folder even if it cannot stand vertically, while the Dollina is horizontal). I think this is a tradition dating from the era of the plate folders, that would only stand on their folding bed. --Rebollo fr 05:03, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
And I have reread what you wrote -- and yes, it's clear. Last time I was speaking out of the wrong orifice! Hoary 09:49, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
I have changed the page on that matter. I hope that nobody objects to the way it is now. My definition is the one that is consistently applied in McKeown, but maybe I am too much influenced by this, and other sources tell otherwise. If there is too much "conflict" about this, that means that it is unclear and we'd better get rid of all the references to "vertical" and "horizontal". --Rebollo fr 05:17, 8 August 2006 (EDT)