Littman 45 Single... anyone using one?

I have bought a Polaroid 4x5 conversion from Dean Jones in Australia and have been happy with it. I paid only 300 or 400 US at the time. Dean was quick to respond to all queries and very friendly. I am now considering getting his 6x12 conversion.

 

As to mr. Littman's statements concerning patent-infringements, I have been a commercial attorney-at-law for almost 8 years and I fail to see any merit in his arguments.

 

I am sure mr. Littman does a very good job, but he should do at the price he is asking! I think he should live and let let live others who do their own conversions of cameras which are decades old!

 

Simon Schaap

I do live and let live , Im the one who is being prevented from enjoying the standing of my product when people hijack discussions

in order to promote products which are not a viable alternative to mine while attacking me personaly with insults and warning of what I will say next.

 

Mr. Shapp;

no patent infringement has been alleged here, but a patent exists and another will be issued shortly, while I do not disagree that anyone may be happy with anything, the matters at hand being discussed here is whether The L45s can be used as would a Leica, and the matter that as a result of how others have promoted their products, some people here seem convinced that these conversions being reffered here as viable alternatives to mine for the subject of this discussion , which shows as it has before that serious omissions of the truth have been made in these ebay offers thru which they are sold , I do not know which model you bought, but if it was a 110b or a 110a which may have a range finder to establish distance when the camera is aimed at a subject neither the whole glass window nor the crop lines represent what you wish to photograph, so the truth would be that the product cannot be considered to have a finder, and as these facts have been omitted in these offers we find ourselves here where people are questioning the value of my product insisting as many times before that the price of my product is not justified because there conversions you speak about exist.

 

The truth is that if Mr. Jones and others would have told the truth

in their offers to sell and stated that when aiming their camera at a subject hand held neither the whole finder nor the parallax reflect what the film sees, ( there is no way to know what you are shooting) and therefore the increase in film size

gained by the conversion is usually lost as a result of inability to aim the camera properly, I have extensive testimonials and research to prove it, and while you can be satisfied with that the truth is that as Jean Louis has stated and many others no one needs to shoot 4x5, those who choose to hope to be able to use the whole frame if you present the camera as a hand held camera, the truth is that even the earliest Kodak folders had wire finders for the format , which were at least centered on what the film saw, the Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic and even the least expensive 4x5 does and nothing could be more truthful that to say that the conversion of a Polaroid 100b or 110a to 4x5 can be stated to have (no camera finder), except in my product and while you and others may be willing to live with that and learn to guestimate , no 4x5 camera has ever been considered as hand held if without a centered finder,and buyers need to be given the option to know what they are buying beforehand and this ommision has had a negative effect on my buisness as you can see here.

I overcame these finder difficulties , many previous 4x5 cameras did not have parallax correction but all had at least a crop , coupled Parallax correction can be considered as a fancy benefit and I will agree that you can live without it but you cannot offer a product as being for hand held use omitting the fact that it does not have a viewfinder , yes it is there but it is off centered entirely .

 

As Jean Louis stated clearly My camera is considered as limited to those who think a 4x5 camera should be as a Swiss Army knife and be able to perform both as hand held and as a view camera but he and others recognize that after success stories , awards , and the pictures posted finally seem to at least have them recognize that maybe It is as convenient as a hand held snapshot camera , others instigated by Dean Jones as he has admitted are the ones who are allways insiting it isnt, Dean Jones is not letting me live very well !!! The fact that my camera has parallax correction and has been recognized to have exceeded the performance of all other cameras for this application has masked the fact , that without it these cameras have no finder whatsoever

 

 

This is not the case in any other cameras so people cant be expected to know this when the original product had a finder and is offerd as a modification people can assume that while the parallax may not be corrected or coupled atthere is some form of seeing what it is that you shoot

 

By now maybe a lot of people know abot my product , yet im sure that anyone buying a camera deserves to know it has no cropping device of any kind , no cropmark , nada.

 

Again you and others can find that acceptable if you so choose , but i have a product and have an interest in presrving its value and the right to expect that competitors describe what it is that they offer, weight features etc, if this truth was revealed in the offers we would not find ourselves here on the third discussion on the subject where it is clear and Public domain , that in a question Posed as whether My camera can shoot as if a Leica, people keep insisting that they believe these conversions are a viable and less expensive option for the application being discussed here , there is no question they do, where did that come from? I didn't tell them that so the only place that it could have come from is the lack of information provided in these offers to sell,

 

Up to now I have only revealed that these "conversions" did not have coupled parallax correction, they dont , they only omit the fact ,but as many great cameras didn't either people thought"so what" , but the truth is that when people see those

offers they have no idea that the cameras not only have no parallax correction but also not even a basic single rectangular crop expected in any camera, as this is a characteristic of these particular cameras and no other, the public doesn't know and sees both my camera , then theirs and they look identical from the outside, so while the camera back may be well made and the rangefinder for focus can be made to work somewhat, I assert that there has never been a single 4x5 camera in history offered without any kind of finder assistance and offered for sale to the public as a camera that can be used for hand held use, If these facts would be disclosed in these offers we would not find ourselves here where people find it to be a viable alternative for the application, it is not, I repeat that not having coupled parallax correction may be a luxury that people can choose to live without as was stated By Mr. graham in the horror story he narrated, but he found out that that particular conversion did not have coupled parallax correction after I had to contact the seller and ask him to disclose that, so the buyer made somewhat of an informed choice , even though he was not told that besides having no parallax correction it also had no finder at all,

 

Over time I have contacted these sellers and asked them to disclose these facts but they refuse knowing that most people would not buy a camera with such a handicap if they are considering it for hand held use and certainly thread participants would not dare encourage those who only have a small budget to buy a camera for that application If they knew this, and I shouldn't be the one having to disclose the truth after the fact and having to defend my product as well, first because as you can see people will think that I'm saying this for my convenience and that it may be less than the truth, it isn't, it is a big omission that has gone on for too long and which is the source of this friction as I clearly cant accept what people are insisting because this has not been disclosed by the sources.instead of disclosing these pivotal facts ,words as " marginal differences" have been used at times.

 

These products are presented as conversions , whether offers a back adapter or a complete product this issue I speak of is a pivotal issue in such a product, the omission of such truths has caused a confusion In the market and has lead to the belief as you can read here and in previous threads that these conversion and others you speak about are a viable option/ alternative to my camera" less sophisticated" but the truth is they are less sophisticated than anything else in the 4x5 market for the application because they cannot be aimed at a subject and they are not a viable alternative to my camera for the application and therefore not the subject of this discussion .

 

I understand that someone may choose to live with this handicap and not consider it a handicap at all , you may not even have those models,but as I have testimonials from the best in the profession on the subject and a first hand experience on the subject as this problem I speak of existed on my 15 first cameras which were no more than a mere conversion after which I had to stop it as a result and introduce the corrected parallax, while

it worked to my advantage and ended up being more than I expected

I know first hand that what I state here is 100% true and cannot be proven otherwise.

 

I am glad that you are happy with your conversion but unhappy that such product is being represented as a viable alternative to mine for the application being discussed here in an attempt to level the Plainfield motivated as Mr. Petronio and others have insisted that I'm not a nice guy,It is deans actions which have made me unpopular and let me just insist that I have proof that my actions were justified after i bought a conversion made later By Mr Icanberry thru a 3rd party which he sold in an auction right after the threads ended,in which he had offered parallax correction. As a result of the earlier instigations people have insisted here and everywhere else that Im an Ogre when the truth is that the rights specified in the cover of my patent posted here states otherwise.

 

as a result of this instigation some people either don't care that his camera is not a viable option in this discussion and are willing to suggest it is anyway or have been also as others influenced by the omissions of the truth I speak of, and if Dean has been listening to this discussion instead of you showing up here to defend the quality of his conversion which has not been questioned, only shows that there continues to be a group ofis a group of people who sympathies with Dean Jones mostly as a result of his accu sations against me as it has been stated who are willing to level the Plainfield in his advantage , and hijack the threads and divert the discussion from whether my camera can shoot as if a Leica to promote his conversion, Mr. Jones is watching

and although I'm sure he would prefer his camera to be perceived

as being able to be used as if a leica,that is not fair to me, as it isnt true, this confusion created is clearly damaging to me and so are the omissions in the offers , and these progressive appearances by his sympathizers trying to send him some business by implying that it is a viable alternative to mine for the application

and if you wish to read it says Dean, Dean , Dean

 

 

I have stated many times in previous discussions that I am not preventing Mr. Jones or others from offering their products , I do mind as any business would when a product is belitled as per admitted personal favoritism , Mr. Jones and others can promote their products on their own efforts, he is watching from the sidelines and again does not care if my product is hurt or I get bashed as long as he gets the publicity even if what is stated is false, he is watching from the sidelines , that is clear, he could have told his supporters to clarify that his product is not a viable alternative for the application being discussed, he did not , Instead you came along and others to endorse his product, which as I stated before may be "well converted " but not applicable to the discussion.

 

Dean started 2 internet threads last year to undermine my patent and first justified it based on the word of someone he never met and on what can be considered " prior art " as evidence in such a matter which he never saw and on a photo which did not show the matters at hand , this was irresponsible and extremely damaging to me in the end he admitted instigating such discussions and insisted that in his opinion a legal patent should be respected??, subsequently 2 more threads in which his supporters keep insisting that his camera is a viable alternative to minefor the application being discussed and attacking the value of my product and my persona ,so lets see ... it has been 5 months that have been very hard on my business, he has justified his actions against me on alleged unfair business practices by me when the fact remains that I have a patent

which he has done everything he could to harm , ignore deny and disbelieve, discredit, and doesn't seem to mind cashing in on the perception of what my product can offer by allowing others to insist that it fits the application being discussed here when it doesn't, that is not fair to me.

 

While no patent infringement has been alleged here I mentioned the patent and another which will be issued shortly because when I was again accused of not being nice when the fact that as time passes it becomes more and more documented in the public domain that Mr. Jones has the willingness to preserve these omissions as Status Quo and as Mr. Jones and others have not sent me a sample of their product for my attorneys to examine ,prior art has not been declared as valid by The patent office as to whether any previous conversion would justify his product, it may appear different than mime, but beyond the exemplary product there are many generic Patent claims to consider.

 

I'm not preventing its sale, but I do mind the fact that besides the fact that as I do not know if its legal as I have not seen it , I have to put up with the fact that his and other offers omit what I have stated and that he knowingly sits back and allows his friends to imply, assure or assert or recommend his product as a viable option

to mine for the application when he knows it isn't.

 

You are an attorney and your assurances that you do not see ant Patent issues are inappropriate as you have not reviewed my patent application pending , again showing That Dean discloses things in a selective manner, it is time that stops.

 

Products have to be perceived on their own merit and Dean can promote his product without the use of these sneaky tactics.

 

I made mention of a faulty conversion after people keep insisting prior art by others

and I have to show why I cannot believe it, and you being pleased with his conversion is fine but still not the subject of this discussion.

 

Dean has to respect my patent as he insisted, the cover of such patent posted here states "offers to sell the invention" and as you can read in this forum people feel his product is a viable alternative to mine for hand held use , and while he does not state that his product has parallax correction he also does not state how it is that he expects people to frame the picture they wish to take, the products appear to be similar/ they aren't , he has offers to sell and it is there where his product should be understood so I don't have to be put in this position. I am nice I just do not appreciate that Dean has created this pack team of supporters insisting that if I exercise the rights which he insisted should be respected these discussions will have to start over, I have not prevented him from selling his camera since I agreed not to and in return his friends have not given me a day to rest ever since, not fair/ I have had it.

 

At some point he has to start playing by the rules , he has not , he does not like them I'm sorry but they are here to stay, in both his current auction on ebay and his previous one he is again making offers to sell outside ebay , I'm sorry he does not like rules and wants to make his own and as you can see had no problems finding others who agree with his approach,

 

My clients and friends will not show up here to defend me first because I would not ask them and second because I should not have to continue to endure attacks

 

Deanassured at the end of those threads he started as matters having been addressed,he has not kept his word about that either, as he is eeing his supporters cause me grief as he stands by.

 

If in the future it is established that indeed these mere conversions have been made for years and they never became a hit until I introduced my product then that would show that the mere conversion has issues present which did not justify its earlier success , it didn't have to be the most responsive camera in history for people to buy it earlier , the fact that if they existed and they are so scarce shows that it wasn't a viable product in itself.

 

This false perception which has been reiterated here which these people wish to preserve after years of having stated in their ebay offers " a conversion that will not cost you an arm and leg " or similar statements .

 

 

I have proven over and over that the value of my product is based on the fact that it does more than any other for the intended application even if that application is being only a 4x5 snapshot camera, their product and no matter how well or poorly the body is put together is less effective as a hand held 4x5 than cameras that cost much less,

 

I have not only experienced it from the earlier stages of my product which lasted but a few months as such but because I have bought some of "these conversions" thru 3rd parties on ebay and have verified these facts to be truth first hand.

 

The conversion issue has been addressed for too long If you do not wish to put it to rest it will only lower the value of their product based on what it can do as compared to other products of its kind , that is the nature of the market

 

I wish to move on, I need to, Im not being allowed to by these tactics and I cannot tolerate this further.

 

i do not know how dean wishes to live but I am certain I do not wish under siege by these sneaky tactics

Thank You ,

PUBLIC NOTICE

It is clear that the original question will not be respected , the product has not been respected and as a human being I can no longer tolerate these personal attacks or tactics therefore I ask that this discussion be considered closed.

 

I believe that photo . net forums are valuable but in the case of my product they always end up being hijacked by the same group attempting to discredit me for reasons which have been admitted and that are flawed ,while they give me advice on how I should let others live they insist I should not live as I believe ,I'm expected to sit back and act like it is acceptable, waive my rights or appear unreasonable , warnings are issued that I might defend my product by quoting " secret recipes"

 

This is a treatment no human being deserves to experience when his product has achieved the highest standing in history not as a result of Marketing as by the time it was declared as the most responsive if camera yet in 2002 I had not spent a dime in advertising, the recognition I have achieved is genuine and so im I , this final message is aimed at those who can appreciate this, I have allowed others to live, now I expect the same instead of further suggestions of how I should think, act as again that would be further disrespect.

 

Those interested in the truth about my product can visit my site,

I believe that the earlier part of the discussion was very healthy and that everyone acted with respect and dedication to the subject except the ones force-feeding the conversion issue as a calculated effort.

 

Those interested in creativity and photography answers should not have to put up with this , it is time to raise the standards and hope that none of you has to go thru what these people have put me thru since last September.

thank you

What are you going to do - sue everyone who thinks your product is overpriced?

 

You need to get over your self.

I am fine with people expressing their opinion if they feel it is overpriced, but I have also demonstrated that the reason they say that is either because they are either not interested in the ability to shoot 4x5 handled as they would a smaller format and be truly mobile, in which case that would be a fair opinion, and also the subject of this discussion , the price of photographic equipment is based on the feature one seeks, since the feature I refer to is something most people seek in a camera , some will justify its price if they wish to do that on 4x5, it has been agreed that this is the only camera which does that, those who do not wish that ability should not buy it as it does nothing more, I have stated that in my site I have always maintained that and everyone agrees, you have stated previously that " "Anyway, the key difference is this: The high-end fashion guys who like your camera aren't going to be seen dead using a Polaroid with a welded-on Grafloc back, and the rest of us aren't likely to mortgage the house for yours when so many other options are available." to which I reminded you that any new 35mm body cost about the same as well as any medium format camera". that most my clients are neither rich nor famous and are very happy with the product because of what it does.

 

A similar comment was also made here saying that my camera was more "sophisticated" than other conversions, sophistication is something most people can do with out , a Rolls may be more sophisticated than a Chevy and they both have 4wheels but they both do the job and in this case the difference isn't sophistication but the fact that one product can do the job as asked by the original question and the second can not., and not as a result of sophistication or welding but because of its inner workings, and not as a result of its similar external appearance or how well the body shell may be built.

 

I am fine if people believe it is expensive, overpriced etc to those who do not seek the features,I am the first one to agree.

 

No One needs a camera because it is a converted Polaroid and when you justify suggesting other converted Polaroid's which cost 2x 3 times more than a speed graphic and do less than it does even as a straight snapshot camera, you are not really considering the overpricing but what you consider is the parameters of an expenditure on photo equipment based on what you would spend,which is fine to me and everybody else.

 

The price of the camera can be considered as part of the discussion

but the main focus of the discussion was whether the camera could work as intended.

 

I do not wish to shut anyone up, I do however wish that the subject of the discussion be respected .

 

We need not go around in circles forever , I respect your opinion and Agree that my camera isn't for everyone, the conversion issue has been addressed previously , we need to move on , If that isn't possible because a few cant get past the external appearance of the product and compare it based on that fact then I say we have gone around in circles for too long.

Please, could anyone who using this camera give his/her personal opinion?

I think the question is not if the camera is overpriced or not ,some of us would like to

know if the camera works well ,if it is versatile or not ,if could be improved and so.

best regards

Dear Jesus: Because the camera is of limited production I will direct you to the comments of those who have used them and volunteered their opinions. Earlier on in this thread it was mentioned that J. Brownlow had bought a L45s and then sold it, I was told by the buyer of the camera that what actually happened was that he traded his Linhoff or another camera for the L45s and here is what the buyer of that camera had to say"William I still have mine... its an awesome camera. I'll send some pics later. thanks for creating this photographic marvel cheers and aloha,,cory ." Cory had recently offered the camera for sale stating that it worked as if new and I just checked that the camera was first sold a couple of years ago that the camera would have been on its way to its third owner without any need of repair.You can visit the following page which is filled with the comments by the owners, most of those comments are from dedicated amateurs, some pro,s etc)http://www.littman45single.com/06wsbi/whoshouldbuyit.html( then you can visit)http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/gallery_home.html( which will lead you to six online galleries showcasing the images by the artists and each gallery has comments by the artists or relayed by me of their experiences with the camera. I would also like to point out the following gallery which just opened By superstar photographer Walter Chin.)http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/wc.html( I have placed several different links here for those who dont like to have to go thru hoops, I have enclosed all words which arent links in () so the links would not get confused / I know that they show well in emails but not all who read the forums get those . Today I got a call from a photographer who has been shooting with the L45s for years and just bought a used one apparently it was still working as new, I mention this because J Louis had objected That a camera which could only be fixed by one guy in America would be something to consider, Then I remembered that for example M. Kravit had mentioned earlier that a friend of his owns one and is very happy with it, he owns two, not 1, both purchased second hand both made years ago, the first one was sold on Xmass 2001 so lets see... that would be 2.5 years shipped all over the world 2 owners and its still cool, the other one was made a year later , to date I have not had requests for repairs , I hardly ever get requests for repairs,that would speak about the reliance factor, the personal experiences and images produced with the cameras speak for themselves. Jesus I regret that I find myself having to show that " someone" is actualy using it and has gone to great lenghts to specify why , how and for what, unfortunately when the reviews were presented in earlier forums , the words of the most respected editors was questioned , then regarding the opinions of respected photographers Mr Petronio had stated while refering to Bruce Weber: " pretentious fashionista photographers like Bruce Weber. Bruce photographs naked adolescent boys and sells those photographs for several thousand dollars a pop. So everybody makes out, except for the exploited adolecent boys. " . to which I remind that not only is he one of the greatest artist of the last 3 decades but he has enriched photography for all of us,re- established a place for American Photography in the world and is a source of pride for American art , if you ask anyone overseas to name an american photographer the answer is likely to be " Bruce Weber" few have captured the american mid west experience and re created it as well as he has, In any event I resent this dicrimination against art and must insist that Bruce Weber is a very kind and unpretentious , true and genuine gift to the arts and that Im honored by his use with my camera, and besides whatever he shoots he could be using a different camera if he wanted. Then someone else stated that top fashion photographers Buy it because of the way it looks, then when their comments were questioned because I had interviewed them and doubted as to whether their words were their own , they had to show up at these forums to back up their words?. Some of the best shooters in the world are using it and have provided a rare insight to their experiences. Jesus I value your interest and I hope that you would be motivated by the hope of being able to take better pictures with it , when it was verified over and over that those who can and do just that were chased out of these forums in a Jiffy , It was then that the question appears to remain with out answer when the truth is that it has been answered in detail and covered in different aspects by many of the very best Pro's and amateurs. My clients share one thing in common with me, I made it and they have bought it to enrich their art and not do define their lives by the mere fact of owning it, some people expect to define theirs by putting it down , and that is nothing new but I believe a camera should be an extension of the artist and Im interested in making cameras for those who wish to take better pictures , I dont expect everyone to get equal results but I do expect everyone who buys one would have the motivation to create and enjoy the ride, it is extremely rare that the " road less traveled" is both the shortest path, the most convenient and the most effective . I was once a starving Photographer even though my first shoot on a 12 exposure roll of 35mm was published as an 8 page spread in a major fashion magazine and shown in galleries etc, 20 years after that I wanted to make a camera for myself and instead I had to leave my shooting privileges aside to make this camera I kind of hoped that those who would buy it would have the willingness to see the glass half full meaning that , instead of placing it on a table and asking it to "put out" I hoped that they would use it to take great pictures, in time it would be shown that was a reality and that the tech aspects had also exceeded expectations of anything previously available for the specific application . What amazes me after 30 years in the profession is that when I started I was starving to find comments by the best in the proffesion regarding equipment that I was interested , I never did, I always wondered what they used, It is extremelly rare to find equipment comments by those who are famous who benefit from an expenditure that enriches their work and distinguishes it from the rest , In this case and as a result of gratitude the comments are available so I say" Sic Itur Ad Astra". Those who arent famous photographers and do not want to be famous Photographers are famously happy to have used the camera and that is all I ask , you cant please everyone and this is not an average camera , it is rated as the easiest to use Lf er yet, but I tell you that a child could not operate it, it's not a toy but it is a lot of fun , no longer a mystery and the rest..............is history.

 

Dear All,

William Littman 45 Single, is a superb camera. I use it professionally and I am having a lot

of fun with it. I don't understand, all this animosity towards William and his camera. You

think it is to expensive, to green, to blonde and to skinny... don't buy it. It is not meant to

please every one. I guess people like Bruce Weber, Patrick Demarchelier and other's think

it is good enough, well that should be sufficient... I can assure you, this camera will make

your life easy, it is a big rangefinder Leica with a single lens... indeed there are many other

camera's out there, enjoy them all, have fun, take good pictures and have a little bit of

respect for somebody, who after 9/11 started a new business, successfully and created

something that Polaroid never was able to pull...

Best to all.

H.L.

First sorry for my english...it's done! I'm discovering the Littman cameras tonight and only one thing to say : I want to try it before speaking !

I use only polaroid films with my Technika and I think the 45 single could be sometimes very useful (lighter, only one finder etc...).

Technika is excellent (Mr Littman admits it)but it can exist something really good too for an other use or another way to work, No ?

Well well well! funnily enough, only today did I find this VERY interesting thread regarding the ongoing confusion some have over what I consider a very simple procedure. I must again

make comments in reference to the Polaroid conversion process and hopefully clear up some points.

 

As for dear William, this whole fiasco has become his life`s work it seems. With such a talent for the written word, perhaps a career as a novelist would have been a far better choice. I believe that what I do with these old Polaroids is to experiment fully with their mechanicals to see what choices are possible in allowing the machine to use film in as many ways and formats as can be attained. Patents do not interest me, I feel that if someone copied my idea, I would simply come up with an alternative. The main criteria is to allow access by as many people as possible for as little cash as possible to experiment with the film formats that are currently available. We all know that digital is creeping up on us at an alarming rate, making film redundant eventually. I use digital too, and why not?, it`s great and has its place. I also love 4x5 Velvia trannies like no other, and it`s exciting to get the best result possible with whatever apparatus you have. Some people shoot pinhole, some with out of focus Diana`s (no offence meant), some perhaps with Box Brownies! So WHY all the fuss? Let`s start at the beginning.

 

Firstly, I envisaged a conversion could be easily performed without too much effort, even though it grew into much more than that when over 60 cameras have gone by. My designs are constantly changeing as I`m never satisfied and consider more could be done to improve whatever I`ve done before. Therefore I discount patents as they obviously inhibit any major changes. Secondly they`re damn expensive, the money better spent applied to development of any conversion. Next, I saw that as Mr Littman had already married a Graflok back to the old Polar, that route was not for me, so I invented my own method. That earlier method has now become the new Snapback arrangement that simply grabs whatever film holder is in place by using simple and effective spring type cupboard door hinges at five bucks a pair! Nothing to patent there.

 

Another great idea was the 6x9, later to become the 6x12 rollfilm conversion. This has proved even more successful and as the converted camera looks identical to the original when it was new, it makes for better aesthetics. Not only that, but the camera needs NO back of any kind attached, due to all mechanicals being housed inside the camera body. No patent needed here either as surely no one would be foolish enough to copy such absurdity! I can honestly say it`s all been fun, with one exception:

The incessant ramblings, threats, not to mention hassles, a particular fellow has inflicted on not only myself, but all others who care to experiment with older Polaroid cameras. I mean, lets face it the old Polaroid is a great camera, gives outstanding results for its age, a mechanical marvel, but to be honest it`s NO Linhof.

I like using it, plain and simple, so if others can use it too without selling off their daughters to cover the cost, I`m here to help. I work full time in a camera store and spend early mornings and very late evenings producing these converted cameras to make recipients happy for a small cost and the last thing I need is someone giving me a hard time. I figured that after the last round of threads were over that peace would ensue in 4x5 land, but sadly, I was mistaken. Mr G has fired up all over again with threats of a FURTHER patent. Blimey I can`t wait to see what that entails!.

 

C`mon guys, let`s get out and take some pics, hopefully as cheaply and as easily as possible. I`d like to add a couple of points to all this, I easily picked the Horseman back advertised on Ebay as being off centre, only because mine are cental, thereby situated more to the left when attached to the Polaroid back. The next thing that totally eludes me is the obsession with the Polaroid rangefinder and parallax compensation!

 

The rangefinder is no mystery, it`s system of mirrors, cams and levers was invented by Adam. What difference it makes to the rangefinder, which format is being used is utter rubbish. Whether it`s 35 mm or 8x10 the distance from film plane to subject is the same. Where it gets a bit tricky is shooting in close when accurate framing is not easily attained, that`s why we invented the single lens reflex method. I`m sure everyone who has used a rangefinder will attest to cutting off the occasional head AND THE POLARROID IS NO EXCEPTION! When things get out of tune the rangefinder goes off, and that`s a fact. My viewfinders do NOT portray exactly what you`re getting when in close, I`ve never had a problem with that, hence the need for a ground glass screen, (which I always supply).

 

 

When converted to 4x5 the original finder (only the 110A and earlier models mimmick the Leica with its 2 window system), all that happens is you get slightly more on the film than can be seen in the finder. My simple test is to set the camera on a tripod with the shutter open, (set to bulb and locked with a cable release). Just compare what is seen through the finder with what shows on the ground glass. Keep this in mind when shooting and you can`t go wrong. There`s really not much difference between 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 and 4x5 after all! I feel that much of what is stated about the Polaroid rangefinder/viewfinder is smoke and mirrors, (pardon the pun).

 

For my next trick, I intend to build an Auto Focus conversion for the old Polaroid, thereby making the finder redundant. Add to that a 4x5 CCD with 50 million pixels and all the problems will be addressed. Now I might just PATENT that!!!

 

For any of you waiting to receive my converted cameras, I assure you they will not be 'confiscated' as has been indicated could happen to all non L45`s. What kind of gobbledgook is this? Unlike Mr G, I don`t have an team of attornies waiting to pounce on anyone foolish enough to undertake such a venture as converting a Polaroid. Blimey I`d better start sleeping with one eye open?????????

 

 

Cheers to all, have a great Easter and enjoy your format, whatever it may be.

A short note to add to the earlier post. I am of the opinion that although I`ve never laid eyes upon a Littman 45, there`s a strong possibilty its a great camera, more than capable of wonderful results and never have I made reference to the contrary. I do not make any claims that my camera could outperform it either in build quality, weight, or anything else. I can only judge my conversions by the results I`ve attained. It is not my intention to act with any unprovoked malice toward Mr G.

Mr.Dean Jones 17 paris Avenue Croydon 3136 Australia; Henry Leutwyler placed a very good question, where does all this animosity towards me and my camera stem from? it stems from the fact that you started 2 threads last september specifically aimed at discrediting me, following the threats you had made earlier to do so.

 

at the end of those threads in Septemer you insisted that in your opinion a legal patent should be respected but none more than you is responsible for creating the animosity reffered to, you have used poetry with words like reincarnation to justify undermining my buisness and reputation, and the value of my product ,if you think this has become my whole life you are admitting that your admitted instigation against me has had a devastating effect on my buisness and my life, it has done just that.

 

 

When the threads were started by you I had a choice, A) defend myself with what i had which wasnt much then or put up with the abuse and later prove my case.

 

B)the later has just happened.

 

On March 28th you were given an opportunity when I reffered to your unfair buisness practices against me , and how i believed that because the conversion itself was unpopular , you had chosen to use discredit against me to promote your product, i made a clear explanation of why it is that your product cannot be considered a point and shoot 4x5,i also made other comments, one of them was that you were making offers to sell outside ebay, after which you were obligated to

revise the description of the auction which proves that you didnt just find out about this thread in which others were using a discussion about my product to validate yours based on the fact that besides the endless poetry about the nostalgia of the original products you do not describe what you offer and prefer that people will continue to think that your canera is a viable alternative to mine,

 

Unfortunately it is your poetry that has just caught up with you, I have obtained the camera you were offering on march 28th when i responded to Mr shapp which gave you the opportunity to show that you did not really intend to just slap a 4x5 back on a camera as you had insited but that you needed to "spoof mine".ebay auction #3800935517 )

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15247&item=3800935517

 

(stated"It now shoots the full 4x5 format with the assistance of the original viewfinder/rangefinder ", we examined the camera and opened the box in the presence of the camera buyer and as i stasted here on march 28th the camera cannot bepointed at the subject because the viewfinder as explained is not operable for the format, you then insist " My camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot " It does not work as such at all as it will be proven by the camera buyer.

 

You insist that even a child could operate it" well now that is poetic" yet the camera with the polaroid back weighs 5 and 1/2 pounds, and a child could not pick it up,

or poit it at a subject/ it will be proven that no one could and obtain the 4x5 picture intended, and by the way when the shutter was tested

it stayed open at 1 sec, and 2 sec, and the fast shutter speeds were fast.

 

As I have also had to reiterate many times the Rf proved not to work well at any distance for the 4x5 format, so there again no assistance, the inner and outer bellows were entirely separated from each other and had visible creases, when opening and closing the camera the infinity plate got stuch on the lens board and had to be forced at opening and closing, the camera back is not 90% with the front standard, and if someone goes to your website where you state "

THE NEW POLAROID 4x5 SNAPBACK WILL ACCOMMODATE ALL 4x5 HOLDERS, "

 

 

 

Let me just say that this "back" if you want to call it as such and which holds the filmholder to the camera r by the use of kitcken cabitet door hinges is not made by "Polaroid", it is your endless fraud that has discredited me, the animosity is your admitted doing which you reffered to and admitted to as" instigation",

 

Never mind my ramblings It is your fault that i have had to defend mysef as you have admitted . ,just wait and see what happens when Polaroid comes knoking on your door.

 

Then you refer to your products on your site as " Polaroid concept" if ther is any concept to what you do shouldnt it be your own?

 

as a header on your " polaroid concept page you state" FULL FRAME 4x5 IS NOW OBTAINABLE ")

 

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Polaroid_Concept/polaroid_concept.html

 

(Then you started 2 threads to discredit my patent on the basis that you insisted that these conversions had been done for years right?

 

on your site again you state"Such a fine camera is once again in use due to my conversions" so thank you Mr Jones for your ramblings!

 

Then you utilize the Polaroid corporate logo to validate the insistance that your back is made by Polaroid both highly ilegal and unfair buisness practice to me as a Polaroid OEM, not to mention it constitutes fraud on the public.

 

 

Ihave clear and definitive proof that you have lied to the public in your offers to sell on ebay since you commenced your offers a week after one of my NYC dealers offered a Littman on ebay, when you offered yours a week after you went on to insist

that you had " invented it" but never mind that the point is that people know that a mere conversion is worthless and it is proven by the fact that you started a thread on photo . net to promote your conversions on jan 13 2003, almost a year later the only person who showed up, did so to inquire about something else)

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Lh4

 

(Nobody cared and you made sure yoou could use discredit against me and my product to validate yours, Photo.net is littered with such evidence So after you realized that no one is interested in the mere conversion, you had 2 options a) follow your earlier threats and discredit me which you did except that the evidence is now against you and by your own admittance after the threads that in your opinion a legal patent needs to be respected as you insist to be 53 years old and have the time to commiserate with others on photo.net about the fact that you own a vast collection of reading glasses shouldnt you read what you write first and at your age your opinion that a legal patent needs to be respected, cannot come after you started 2 simultaneous threads first to disrespect the patent , lie to the public saying that I was unfair because your earlier cameras did not cover a full 4x5 , well now claims 1/3/4 of my patent do not specify what the image size needs to be and are patented, the patent may not have been issued during some of your auctions but the items made while pending are applicable, so your complaint was intended to discredit because if your opinion is that a legal patent should be respected you did not do that in any way.

b)allow others to continue to believe that your camera is a less sophisticated yet viable alternative to mine as a 4x5 point and shoot" until march 28th 2004 all i had was unconnected dots of evidence but then Mr shapp showed up here and I told him what my problem was, not the fact that you wanted to slap a 4x5 on a Polaroid

which is one thing but whan you went on to insist that your camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot in this auction, in conjunction with what i have had to endure from the public which thread after thread has insisted they believe that .

 

In this thread I stated that is because you want that belief to exist, until now i had only unconected dots now , now you have said it in the auction , Proof exists that you were aware of this thread back then and that you chose to leave it and mantain it, so there you go, you also didnt need in to " spoof" the blacktop finish on the L45s in conjunction with people posting your auctions on this thread and you insisting your camera can do basically the same as mine, My camera the L45s is only a 4x5 point and shoot, it can be pointed , yours cant , i have yours /i can prove it, the subject of this thread was only about my camera, not yours, first you allowed others to insist yours was a viable alternative,post your offers but when you said it yourself in a contemporary offer to sell where people were sending you buisness from this thread all the dots are now connected,

 

Since the september threads ended people have gone on and on comming to me to learn, what it is that your camera does, you do not wanted it known because as i can prove it does nothing well, so you not only started the animosity against me which as you admit has been devastating, but you chose to embrace it as a promo tool by posting the threads on your site while you had 2 simultaneous threads to discredit me.

 

You choose to see nothing wrong with what youve done that is fine, it doesnt matter any more its no longer up to you, me or thread participants, it is out of my hands.

 

Regarding your research and development you always speak about as your own ideas let me just point out that the only guy who showed up to the thread you started to promote your conversions was the one who gave you the idea about the cambo camera. yet once again as you have used my ideas and claimed them as your own you went on to do so about the cambo as in the thread below,)

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005egP

 

(In any event the patent shall now be considered as a secondary issue and now the least of your worries as I have proof that you have utilized clear and unfair buisness practices to undermine the value of my product by spoofing / not describing the properties of your final product truthfully/there is vast evidence of what the public believes in forum postings which are now" Public Domain" your favorite words, all your doings are now public domain, they might sit well with those you have instigated against me but when the evidence is presented no one is going to risk further embarasment on your behalf when it is proven that what you have done is admitedly deliberate, ilegal and that while you claim that I made no sense when i wrote to you, let me just say I made you aware from the start that you had been contacted for legal purposes, and when you replied that my patent was a farce I went on to say what I had to to get " you" to prove my case, you did not realize that, Im sorry but you have done just that, with your own pen and collection of reading glasses.

 

As the public believed and knew quite well that the mere 4x5 conversion was worthless and you kept invading and hijaking other threads to ramble otherwise as by this thread)

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006J1n

 

(and as the public sent you packing in your admitted obstinance you had no quarrell with mantaining otherwise, sending people to do it on your behalf and finally making it perfectly clear on an ebay auction,

 

On the September threads where you admitted this was all your instigation , that a legal patent should be respected , that was the first time that while you were asking the general public to disrespect my patent and validate your actions , you went on to promote your product in these threds, but as a result of the way you presented your case someone stated that " in turn I should understand that if the market so believes I should lower the price of my product" your actions on those threads started that, there is no question that you have insisted right on those threads that the price of my product was ridiculous, and that the summation of your actions and offers in threads and offers have led the public to question the value of mine basing it on what you have worked so hard to insist and conceal about yours and finally stated in your auction"

 

My camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot camera", it does not/ it cannot

I have the evidence and it is not up to anybody else who may be satisfied with what you have sold them, as to do so you have unfairly competed against me making false ststements which spoof the properties of my product and which yours does not have, and the evidence is vast, , this has poisoned the market, and you have admitted that you have also done that personally as well.

 

I will allow the buyer of the camera to show how poorly it is put together, this is not a lesser product for less money but a faulty product alltogether, the offer on ebay is a clear case of" MAIL FRAUD" on many aspects of the sale.

 

Regarding patent issues they are now secondary, but I will point out that the method used to attach this camera back is not identical to any alleged prior art, the fact that the back itself was designed by Jones is negligible ,

 

The fact that the back was made poorly by Jones concept and not Polaroid and the endless spoofing of Polaroid standing and spoofing of my product has just caught up with Jones.

 

As It is easter and as I have always loved Christ passionately iroinically it is my good name that will be resurected on easter Sunday as the evidence is overwhelming, that a great injustice and diservice has been done to Photography my name and my product.

 

While Mr jones has done a fantastic job posing as the good thief using poetry to discredit me the truth is on my side,

 

Mr jones made huge efforts to cruicify me and that is where the animosity began

he is right it has completely disrupted my life, but as he seems to be aware of reincarnation at least to justify his product , let me just say that the laws of karma have just caught up with him , when his admitted instigation was ended by him in september he reffered to my attemts to defend myself from his attacks as just words, "You should all realize that after all Mr Littman's words are just words"

 

He forced me to prove otherwise and I have to say That thread participants should

realize after seeing the evidence that they have been misled by the use of poetry into saying things against me and my product that many of you later regreted/ will regret as some wrote to me, and as it is easter I forgive you all, as the animostity created by him is so intense that anyone has noticed it I ask you all to wait to see the evidencebefore saying things that you will later regret further, It is extremely unkind to you all to have been rallied into harming someone and his rights , while actual fraud has been commited on the general public and many of you have unowingly endorsed it.

 

While I am a firm believer that disagreements between buisnesses should be kept

between buisnesses , that option was denied to me when I was presented as being

a bad person by Mr Jones, and when as a result I have had no peace since then as Mr Jones himself is now willing to realize.

 

Mr Jones knew that I had contacted him for legal purposes and after he insited that my rights were a farce , the only thing I could do was to get him to admit his actions against those rights and the rights of others such as established trademarks such as Polaroid corporation, on the other hand I have clear and undisputable proof that

mr Jones has lied in his offers since he started , that he has knowingly ommited the truth both in offers and in forums and in his offers which have both caused damage to the value of my product and my reputation and which constitute fraud on the general public, and that have confused the market to my detriment.

 

Mr jones used to state in his auctions" these fine cameras suffered from the usual Polaroid peel apart films which were both messy and expensive" that is very poetic

but if that is the way he feels then pehaps he shouldn't use the Polaroid logo or insist the back of his camera is made by Polaroid, or call his product "Polaroid Concept".

 

As Leutwyler has told me many times Polaroid t55 is the best B/W film ever and I agree, but when Jones decided to pose as an inventor and constantly ask us to thank him for that it was the summer of 2002 and as Henry has stated I had just introduced my camera after september 11th, and Polaroid peel apart was a main atraction and interest to my product, but after he started making those statements and sometimes saying that polaroid peel apart films 3x4 were altogether unavailable and discontinued, I have auction descriptions by him to prove that, no clarification is offered in those as to type 47 it only states that polaroid 3x4 film is no longer available in conjunction with the fact that for a few months Polaroid had declared bancrupcy I was left with only doubting questions from scared buyers on one side and Mr jones on the other determined to say whatever he wanted ,

 

We must be grateful to Polaroid corporation as a few month later it was bought by investors and assurance emerged that Polaroid peel apart films would continue to be available .

 

Polaroid is not at fault in any way, they have a specific division called Polaroid OEM that makes sure that their films are supported by makers of products in all fields.

 

Polaroid is concentrating on what they do best and new technologies , the sw4x5 coupled parallax is both a boutique size project and on the other hand a monumental investment in research, a corporation has to answer to investors and cannot justify millions of dollars in research spent on a project that will then require

very skilled high tech labor to even produce it, molds parts etc, so instead they have others cooperate to ensure that thier films are well supported, they did not abandon ship, on the contrary they stood by us and we should all be gratefull, I know Henry is

very grateful as he has told me many times as polaroid peel apart films shall remain a vital and important tool to the photographer for many years.

 

As before I have included the words in () which are not part of th links posted

the links start after a ) and end right before a (.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Jones you are at it again, trying to rally support against a patent you insisted it was your opinion that it needed to be respected, you ramble about a new snapback, yet you are aware that patented claims in my patent # 1/3/4 do not make any reference to what the camera back is, graflock ,graflex, snapback etc that you come here again to try to justify what you know better is a false statement which hinders me, you say you have made 60 cameras, I have only made 160 and your activities are not those of a hobbyist but those of a competitor, when to achieve your goal at the expense of my rights or their reputation while spoofing my product you now continue to rally the market against me using false statements knowingly made , that is clearly malicious, you need to make up your mind at some point.

 

I have not stated that your back is an infringement, I don't know that yet, in any event YOU'RE DONE! , the patent or lack of it on the mere conversion issue is no longer the main issue in your case, it never was, you wanted to presented as such and I allowed you as long as I had no choice because i didnt yet have all the evidence i needed ,but I know as well as you do that it is " camera back/conversion " both not justified by any alleged prior art, or the fact as you state that it is a snapback, you have had several years to admit that the finders in your cameras don't work, and not just up close but at any distance, the Rf doesnt even work! you should have done it in the auction , that was your last chance, I came here to say that I have bought products thru 3rd parties to give you a chance to change your ways , but you did not, thank you for now confirming the truth for the first time, Its too late now! and I say that finally anyone can understand that I have made typos at times when being under a stress I did not really deserve , the buyer of the camera has informed that his email has ceased to work mysteriously and that he will post the pictures when possible.

 

Contrary to what Mr jones stated in the revision of that auction, It was the actual camera pictured that was shipped/ sold by him to the buyer,and not at the buyers request , I have yet to find a single occasion where Mr Jones has told the truth anywhere about what he actually does. Please give it a rest/ it is Over!

Further proof of Mr. Jones disregard for the general public is his latest comment about the horseman back made by another competitor being improper, yet as he has always done, these guys bid on each others auctions to support each

other, and to falsely raise the prices so there is no real concern as to whether it will be useless to you as long as they get their money, If Mr. Jones noticed the problem why did he as always bid on all of this sellers auctions , he is validating them by doing so in the eyes of others who know him .

 

He did notice it but he really doesn't care to validate what harms you just as long as in return he can get his" colleagues in these connivances "to support him back.

here is a link to that auction , Mr. Jones has bid on all similar auctions by this seller and of other competitors never bidding high enough to purchase, just high enough as to make the auctions look desirable ,)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3806198541

( in that case he should not validate what he admits he knows is wrong, and more so in my case he should not rally support asking you to validate what he knows is wrong) no poetry here just plain evidence , that he should stop lying if only to himself.

The buyer of the camera is busy but has emailed me some of the pictures, he will post his opinion of the camera when he has a chance<div></div>

The cameras bellows in the camera sold under the name Polaroid Concept<div></div>

Here you have a picture of the back made by Mr Icanberry another one of these guys,

 

this camera was even worse nothing worked well and is really poorly made, and the manner it is constructed is also not justified by any alleged prior art.<div></div>

Attachments too large.

Since on the ebay auction in which this camera was offered by mR icanberry he stated"The parrallax frame has been re-adjusted to match the larger frame. " THE LARGER FRAME IN A CAMERA CONVERTD FROM 3X4 TO 4X5 IS 4X5" this camera does not have parallax correction for 4x5 as he stated, this camera was offered as a polaroid 110b yet it is not it is a 110a using the parts of the Polaroid 900 in a way that he denied he was using and that he went on to discredit me as a result, well here is the proof and in any event this is still not a Polaroid 110b it is a Polaroid 110a with a 900 finder , nothing works execept the shutter speeds which were accurate, but that doesnt concern me,he had stated to me many times that If i wanted to defend my rights I would have to come to california to do so, that will not be necessary as both California and The US will now come to him.<div></div>

Ok I am making the images smaller<div></div>

I must say I`m absolutely gobsmacked by all this rubbish! All these mystery pictures of some bellows and the like. Am I missing something here or what? How much longer do we endure this crap? I`ll say this, Mr Littman is his own worst enemy. It was him alone who instigated the whole furore in the first place by using bullying tactics, threats of litigation, ending auctions on ebay early and rambling emails like I`ve never seen before. It is he who keeps hammering away with threats and threads. My earlier threads were started simply to highlight the proceedings and seek public comment. The reason for placing bids on certain items listed on Ebay was to simply bring attention to my website if anyone cared to click on the 'ME'. That was it. Surely it`s not illegal now to place a bid on Ebay, surely there`s not a patent on that too? I have NEVER referred to my back as being made by Polaroid, that is preposterous. As for the sticky film, that was in reference to the Rollfilm pull apart film that Polaroid itself ceased to manufacture. Type 665 and type 55 film are EXCELLENT emulsions that remain forever popular.

 

Mr G, grow up and get on with life, concentrate on making your fine cameras. Some help with public relations would not go astray. I might seek legal counsel myself with regard to your recent behaviour, unfortunately, that would place me in the same class as you!

 

Have you have engaged third parties to perform secretive activities, to procure my cameras under false identities in order to dismantle them and pick fault. WHAT DEVIOUS BEHAVIOUR! Were you involved in espionage in the cold war?

 

This whole matter is more than farcical, its pathetic.

I am the buyer of the camera in question purchased From Dean Jones in ebay auction #

3800935517

 

Package was opened for first time in the presence of Mr. Littman who was never alone with

the unit until after I personally was in charge of testing it myself.

 

 Inner and outer bellows separated from each other and severely creased

 

Front standard not 90 degrees to camera back

 

1 second shutter speed and lens stays open, 1/2 second shutter speed is slow

 

cocking lever extremely hard

 

Fast shutter speed too fast

 

infinity front plate set so it doesn't allow camera to close properly and has to be forced

closed

 

when camera is opened it catches on the infinity front plate

 

short-range rangefinder  tested with a laser pointer and rangefinder does not match

ground-glass

 

mid-range does not either

 

infinity on ground glass is right on but as lens board is not 90 degrees with camera back

there is a drop in focus from left to right

 

lens is dirty and cloudy inside and out

 

camera back not made by Polaroid as represented on his site where it reads Polaroid Snap

Back. Instead film holder to be held by kitchen cabinet hinges

 

Cannot utilize camera as described with assistance of existing viewfinder as the parallax

lines do not match the ground glass at all. As described by Mr. Littman in this thread

neither do the outer lines created by camera window outside the parallax lines are also not

a good indicator of what the ground glass sees. Therefore, as indicated by Mr. Littman in

this thread, the camera cannot be accurately described as a point and shoot 4x5 because

it cannot be accurately pointed at anything. The difference is so significant that one can

certainly state that this camera has no viewfinder. In reference to this being a hand-

holdable camera, yes you can pink it up, but it appears to weigh double that the Littman.

 

None of the internal calibrations have any setting agent to fix them

 

System of changing camera back system would not allow rapid change of film because it

doesn't allow the film to be slid in.

Ah Ah, a fly in the ointment! Anyone care to check out the Ebay auction 3800935517 will find that this camera was indeed NOT OFFERED FOR SALE, only the conversion. It was only a demo made of bits and pieces. The Auction was for the conversion only, but the buyer clicked 'Buy it Now', so as a favour, and after an ADMISSION that he had made a mistake, I foolishly agreed to send him the camera anyway. I wasn`t to know he was lurking, and in league with the 'EVIL ONE'. Entrapment? What a devious pair of fellows.

It looks like the war is about to begin!!!!

It is widely known that patent holders are entitled to verify what others make by first buying it , besides the patent when a buisness feels that another is making an offer which is not what the product can do and that has created such a documented reaction in the public as to confuse the market as you can read all over photo.net , at some point i am entitled to prove the truth , and if i would have bid on your auction you would have not shipped it, on the other hand there is no secretive activities, on this thread I anounced I had bought cameras made by others, and you should understand by my comments to Mr shapp that in this case I certainly would.

 

It is again my legal right to do so, your complaint against it is again another insistance that I should waive my rights.

 

you have just stated

"I have NEVER referred to my back as being made by Polaroid,"

lying again as after you revised tour site on April 5th you still reffered to the back of this camera as "4x5 Polaroid Snapback".

 

After years of finding false comments in your offers It was time to show the evidence of that because the animosity you have created has made it so people would not take my word , you said my words were just words so You left me no choice, people in this thread after 6 months of grief were continuing to toot the horn based on what I have explained, Did you expect me to live with that ? for how long ?

I knew this would be the case and one fine day I ran out of patience.

 

There is no wrongdoing , that is the proper way to proceed in these matters.

 

I was in grade school during the cold war , and visiting My grandad's Photo studio.

 

But one would have to be a spy to figure out what it is that you offer as you dedicate so much space to nostalgia of old cameras and none to the true characteristics of your finnished product, after having examined it first hand I can understand why you choose to do so.

Mr. Jones; you just wrote" The reason for placing bids on certain items listed on Ebay was to simply bring attention to my website", No placing bids on auctions is not illegal but ebay forbids you to bid on items unless you intend to buy, you are grasping at straws

be it for reason a) b) or c) makes no difference as it is even worse to bid on someone else's auction when you admit that the purpose is to compete with the auction who is offering something similar to your product in that very auction, I gave you more credit than You are willing to take I thought you were placing the bids to support your competitors but you just admitted you do so to drive business away from the seller. Don't worry then, that makes it all fine!