First 4x5 handheld shot and first scan!

Happy Easter to all!

Dean, that camera looks like mine.

this thread is nuts - I think I am going to sell my cameras and take up a less volatile hobby

like needlepoint or fly fishing!

 

On the other hand - I think this argument, which, so far, has spanned several threads, can

be

simplified; Littman comes from an era when patents and copyrights are respected, most of

us who are of the "internet generation" with our iPods filled with downloaded MP3s, are

less concerned. Littman seems to be dealing with many of the issues the entertainment

industry is. Recently, I too had a similar problem that seems to be analogous to Littman's

patent issue. As a native New Yorker, and a follower of Christo's since our first meeting in

1995 I, like millions others, went to Central park to photograph the Gates. After seeing

more cameras in one afternoon than I had seen in my whole lifetime, I desperately wanted

to get at least one shot that was somewhat unique and unlike the billions of other photos

that had been taken of the gates thus far. After a couple of days I found my spot, my

subject, my angle, and the isolation that I wanted and within 5 minutes of my setting my

8x10 up, at least 30 tourists crept up alongside and behind me, cameras snapping away.

It reminded me of a game we used to play in college. One of us would look and continue

staring at something without saying a word and within a set time frame, the rest of us

would count how many other people looked and we would compete who could fool the

most people. Mr. Littman you can patent and copyright products, techniques, and

information but as my example above shows, there is no realistic protection of a good

idea.

Hi David, I like your analysis of how people will "follow suit", "Mimic a profound activity" or outright duplicate certain products and activities. I have been supplied Mr. Littman's patent and I honestly cannot see how my conversions infringe. I start with a Polaroid 110 series camera and wind up with a 4x5 handheld camera that has its own unique features, nothing copied from Mr. Littman's patent. The concept of converting a Polaroid 110 series camera to 4x5 or whatever is absolutely proven to exist in many forms long before a patent existed. It is public domain and those of us that engage in this activity do not appreciate being harrased over it, Imagine if you were engaged in the Hot Rod industry and suddenly someone is telling you that it is forbidden to modify or Hot Rod '32 Fords or '57 Chevys and harrassing you for it? That is exactly what Mr. Littman is doing, No one but him is allowwed to modify Polaroid 110 series cameras to 4x5 or whatever, He is also saying that the model 900 parts cannot be used for anything! I respect patents but there is no way in Hell anyone is going to patent the mere concept of converting a 110 series Polaroid into a 4x5 as it is proven over and over that concept is common knowledge and common practice.

It is sad that such a volume of paranoid diatribes has overwhelmed a column on photo.net! (BTW, "lithium" is an old but still useful treatment for psychosis)

 

As for patents, I think is is generally assumed that anything developed independently of a prior patent, AND also not used for commercial gain, is free of legal entanglements. Furthermore, anything that is "obvious" in its nature, or previously done within the public domain is also not patentable, so the question to ask in the face of these diatribes and threats is whether or not this "patent" is valid and therefore enforceable in a court of law.

 

I for one think the person behind the whining has done himself a huge disservice. As a result, I refuse to in any way look up his links and learn anything about his "invention". That way it will be impossible to ever claim anything I do in the future results from the "theft" of his "intellectual property".

 

I'd advise everyone here to do the same.

Okay, but that last rant was AWESOME! I plan to use it as "lorem ipsum" demo text from

now on.

By the way, I would never recommend using any kind of auto-dust-cleaning filters (ICE,

etc.) or plugins on the kind of imagery you are shooting. It just isn't as good as scanning

through the image, in PhotoShop, at 100%, quadrant at a time, and zapping the dust

yourself.

I also have a buddy that's very successfull in laying the film sheets in oil in his Epson

flatbed scanner glass (specs to come later on this and yes, it's just like a drum scanner).<div></div>

First I would not be responding here unless my name had been used. I do not normally post on P.net since I am a confimed user of film only. That does not mean I do not own a digital, it keeps my hubby happy when I go out to take pictures.

 

In regards to the claim of one bad apple by Mr. Hull, I sent him a message a while back about that. I did not like what he refered to and how it reflected on me. It supposedly had been taken care of off forum, but I see it has not. My trials with Mr. Jones are not pretty. I saved every single piece of communication regarding said camera project. When I recieved it, I had others witness me open the box. I, after had several well known photographers in the Southern California area, look it over and try to see what was wrong with it. The whole fiasco was a nightmare to me, and cost me just over $1000 for the parts and such to Mr. Jones. There are several instances I caught Mr, Jones lying to me about when the camera would be ready, and which camera he would be doing the conversion on. It turns out that He did the conversion on a camera I bought and sent to him. The orginal agreement was for him to use his camera and I would try to find one and replace his stock, to which I would be given a discount for the camera. I know it is the same camera I sent since it has some ancient dirt in one spot that I had not cleaned off still in tact. I waited 5 MONTHS before the camera arrived, when in the beginning I was assured it would take 6 to 8 weeks, which became 8 weeks since I was to supply a different lens. The lens was purchased From Jim Galli who by the way is a wonderful man to deal with. Even from the point Dean received that lens it took 4 Months to finally get that camera. Dean bragged about how good the camera was and how well it worked. He even put a picture up on his web site of it. It did not work, I was out the money I paid for it since there was no way I would return it to Dean Jones given I doubted I would ever see the camera again, thus being out further the money I sunk into the camera pitt. He did offer to reimburse me the amount I paid to him, which was less the coszt of the lens. The lens was the only part that would be salvagable.

 

At no time did I ask William Littman to exchange one of his cameras for the one from Dean Jones. He made the offer and I thought about it for a long time. They say once burned twice wary. I had the opportunity to try a Littman camera before I purchased the Jones camera. I was very impressed with it. I have physical limitations and wanted a lighter weight version of a 4x5 to take with me when I was out hiking. When I finally agreed to the exchange, William Littman was nice enough to outline and send me in writing assurances about my concerns. I have yet to receive his camera, but I know it is still not due for a few more weeks. William Littman did this so as to save his reputation in the field. He said that bad cameras reflect on the industry as a whole. This in question is the hand held 4x5 conversions. As to the patent infringement I am totally staying out of this. I just wanted to set the record straight as to what had happened to me. and the disturbing way the camera was assembled that came from Austrailia. Maybe it was the new lens that Mr. Jones had trouble with. It certainly was not installed in a rational manner. It compromised the usability of the lens, and if left as it was, would ahve destroyed the integrity of the lens. bottom line it would have ruined any value I could have salvaged out of the camera.

 

I also did not like the degrading emails, and PM sent to me by Mr. Jones when it came to light his camera was DOA on arrival. I was deluged with over 10 emails and PM's a day until I put him on ignore on the other website, and I had to put his address into my spam register on email. I did save the initial ones to prove the time line and the depths to which Mr. Jones would stoop to humilated and brow beat a person. There was a thread started by Mr. Jones on the other website in which he wanted only to slander me. It was deleted when it came to light what it was intended for. I fully expect to be soundly trashed by Mr. Jones for once again saying his camera did not work. I also was appaled at his toal lack of commitment to meet his self imposed deadlines for deliver. Once I became concerned he stopped comunicating. It wasn't until I started to wonder and even had friends in Austrailia ready to kock on his door that he finally responded back. At all times he knw how to find me and communicate with me. He claimed he had lost his password to the other site, but once he needed to, the password was used without problems. Ultimately he could have stuffed a reply in an envelope and sent it snail mail to me. He did have my home address.

 

As to Mr. Hull and the comment about one bad apple, I still do not appreciate that comment and since it is being used again in the same context, I think it is time you made a public apology.

 

Now for an apology of my own to Mr. Hull for responding on this matter that is besides what he orginally intended this thread to be about. I only did it to respond to my name being used here.

 

AGGIE for those who do not know me

Nice to meet you, Aggie. I have to point this out...

<p>

References to the term "Bad Apple" in this thread:

<p>

1) WILLIAM LITTMAN mar 19, 2005; 08:05 p.m.<br>

2) Andrew Hull , mar 19, 2005; 08:19 p.m., who replied:<br>

"One more thing, my comment about "one bad apple" was not at any person in particular...."<p>

 

* * * * *

<p>

References to "Aggie" in this thread:

<p>

1) WILLIAM LITTMAN mar 19, 2005; 08:05 p.m.<br>

2) Kai Griffin mar 19, 2005; 08:28 p.m., who asked:<br>

"Who's Aggie?"<br>

3) WILLIAM LITTMAN mar 19, 2005; 10:06 p.m., who replied:<br>

"Aggie is an excellent photographer..."<p>

 

* * * * * *

<p>

Your premise that the term "bad apple" is "being used again in the same context" is incorrect, and the phrase only appeared when William Littman himself dredged it up. Your name was only mentioned in this thread by... William Littman. I'm sure you're a nice person, but your two stated reasons for posting further messages about some ancient grievance that has no relevance to this thread are both misplaced!

<p>

This thread was hijacked by William Littman to serve his own purpose (to stalk and harrass particular members of this forum)... it's really not a great idea to join in that behaviour, no matter what issues you have with particular individuals here: other people participate in these forums, too, and don't need to have threads destroyed by bickering ex- Polaroid owners.

<p>

Cheers,<br>

Kai

Well well Well! It appears Aggie that you and Mr Littman make an excellent couple. I should have known that you would pop up somewhere other than on the APUG forum. Your attitude regarding the whole scenario was disappointing to say the least and for you to make any comment on this thread is totally out of place. I must admit, the mere fact that you sent your camera to Mr Littman for examination puzzles me. One can only draw a sinister conclusion to that. Your unwarranted attack on my integrity only reinforces my opinion. It does seem odd that you are the ONLY person to have ever behaved in such a manner. Do you have anything to contribute to this thread regarding scanning or does your knowledge on that subject equal that of LF cameras? I hope you will be happy with your new Littman 45, (and for free? mmmm)

Aggie:

 

Let's clarify for the people. Firstly, I don't see your name mentioned anywhere on this thread until YOU brought it up. Secondly, as I say in the prior post:

"One more thing, my comment about "one bad apple" was not at any person in particular. It might have been for one bad experience, one bad camera. "

I was referring to one bad camera/occurence. Not to a person. I also made this clear in an apologetic e-mail that I sent to you personally to diffuse your anger at thinking I was calling you a "bad apple" So to summarize, your name wasn't mentioned here. I didn't mean YOU were the bad apple. Are we done yet?

 

Andrew

I am sorry, I guess Littman brought your name into this.

Andrew you know well you meant me the last time, and now it is referenced again. It was yeaterday morning that I was informed about this threacd by another person who lives in Austrailia. Kai sorry to point this out, but there is alot more undeneath than is appearing in this thread. The comment I was refereing to happened in another thread several months ago. I am the one bad camera and the one bad experience, thus the one bad apple.

 

As to Mr. Littmam I had no dealings with him until he offered to exchange what was a useless non working camera for one that would work. It is purely a business trasaction similar to a person trading in a auto deemed a lemon for a properly working car. As to Mr. Jones the over 5 month long period of time started out with excitment. then it went to frustration on seemingly a delay so he could go do a show in Austrailia to sell more cameras. After that it went to a bit of anger when I could no longer get hold of Mr. Jones. It became real anger when said camera was thought to be fictious and would never arrive, floowed by a bit of wonder that he finally once I threatened legal action contacted me. The frustration again when it took Mr. Jones longer to send the camera finally. I was very apprehensive about the whole thing considering the time frame, and the subsequent tyraid from him that began before I even saw the camera. At 5 1/ months I figured it was a lost cause and pretty much gave up on it. Then within a few days it did arrive, but was post marked over a week later than he claimed to me. Mr/ Jones may have acted timely with others but in no way can it be said he did with me. What I received I would have been ashamed to have sold. It was scratched up, and non functioning. I had others witness my opening of the box to verify what I found. I had several photographers, Not Mr. Littman check it out, and tell me what was wrong. This all before Jan. 10th. My deal with Mr. Littman came about much later and I sent him the camera in trade the last of Feb. Yes, Mr. Jones offered tht he would take it back. but minues the amount I paid for the lens. He also said he would repair said camera, but given the circumstances and dulege of hystironics, that Mr. Jones flooded my email and PM at the other site, there was no way I would deal with him. I at least at that point had the lens back and in tact sort of. One last thing, I was not even sent back th orginal lens that had been on the camera. I figure that has been used in other wasy and is gone as well.

 

It's sad that this all had to happen. My suggestion to all is to just go about getting on with your life. I have moved on and will soon have a camera I know that I can use and will be repaired when sent in for service. This from someone I can trust to communicate with me, concerning what is transpiring.

<i>Kai sorry to point this out, but there is alot more undeneath than is appearing in this thread. The comment I was refereing to happened in another thread several months ago. I am the one bad camera and the one bad experience, thus the one bad apple.</i>

<p>

Say no more: that is <b>exactly</b> my point. All this stuff happened in <i>another thread several months ago</i>. Curiousity got the getter of me a week or so ago, and I found that old thread. Why, then, is it suddenly being dredged up in THIS thread?? [1] Because Littman dredged it up <b>himself</b> for no reason and with no prompting, [2] Because you are now unwittingly contributing to the problem, thinking that this is an extension of the old thread. It is <b>not</b>.<p>

You know what? The last I checked, that "other thread" from several months ago is still there for the taking. If you and Littman feel like you want to revive this seemingly endless sludgefest, go right ahead and revive that old thread. Or, if it really is blocked, then start a new one. The point is that neither of you should be doing it here in <i>this</i> thread. You are both completely in the wrong.<p>

If people don't take a stand against the likes of Littman (and now yourself) bombarding threads with spam, then we'll have him bombarding every thread in the forum with his drivel. That would ruin the forum. Your grievances are of no relevance to 99% of us here, and should not have been raised here in <i>this</i> thread. It is extremely inconsiderate to the rest of us.<p>

Cheers,<br>

Kai

I agree! This thread was started simply to help Andrew with the scanning of his GREAT negs from his 110B converted 4x5. All the rubbish written regarding the 'Unfortunate Aggie Experience' is most unwelcome.<div></div>

"Andrew you know well you meant me the last time"

 

Wow, now you can read minds. Strikes me as odd that you CHOSE to come over here and

hash things out again when nobody knew anything about you excepting Littman's

dragging you into this. I sent you an e-mail response right away regarding my comment

and you have chosen to get a huffy about it again. Seems as though you would rather be

angry anway, so go for it. Maybe you are the bad apple after all. I find it curious that I

haven't heard ANY OTHER complaints about Dean's camera except for yours, but have

seen several recommendations and even investigated his cameras before buying one.

 

Regardless who it at fault, it is rather obvious that Aggie's experience/ her camera are the

exception and not the rule.

 

Good luck with you new magazine, when can we expect a story on Littman?

Wow! What a head rush! But Wait! There's more!??? AAAAAAHH!! NOW GET OUT THERE AND TAKE SOME PICTURES!!!!

Just getting off the scanning issue for a second, here`s an amusing anecdote, and quite possibly an end to it all?

 

If you would like to own a great camera, at a fraction of the original cost, then this deal is for you.

Firstly find a suitable Polaroid 110B, try to find a nice one, but it doesn`t matter too much as this guy in Australia will only knock it around, scratch it up a little whilst illegally adding a 4x5 Graflok back.

 

Next find yourself a reasonable 150mm lens so he can have a shot at fitting it roughly into the original lensboard. He`ll crudely grind the rangefinder cam to suit, even though it will be hopelessly out of calibration and fail to function correctly or be remotely accurate, it doesn`t matter. He doesn`t even have permission to carry out such work.

 

Make sure you leave a little mark someplace so as not to receive someone else`s camera when it`s returned to you. A little deviance may later pay dividends.

 

Now after waiting a few weeks, it`s time to turn sour and get abusive.......... threaten him with the law, even have a local Aussie friend come around and pressure him into complying with your timeframe.

 

Now it starts to get ugly...... after receiving the camera that you believed would never arrive, open the box in the company of several buddies, just in case it might explode. One by one let them examine it carefully. I mean if you don`t know a 4x5 camera too well, a little help from those who do, is good for your inflatable ego.

 

After finding that it`s having a slight shutter problem, absolutely refuse to return it, even though the offer is given, free of charge, to get the whatever fixed. Even if the viewing lever is inadvertantly opened and the shutter refuses to fire and the aperture ring is a little firm, stand your ground and continue to refuse his offers of help.

 

 

The next step is to get on a thread so you can denigrate the fellow who went out of his way to help you. Your going to really get stuck in and call this guy a thief, expose him for the devious person he is. He`s a butcher, a rip off merchant, an absolute charlitan. Even stretch the truth a little as it makes for great reading. Be sure to save all correspondence for further use at a later date.

 

I mean you might have to wait five whole months for a camera that should have been received in 6-8 weeks, even though nearly four weeks passsed before all the parts arrive., AND

don`t even consider the fact, the poor fellow may have eight or so orders for a camera like yours, but who cares, everyone else can wait.

 

Now, in a strange turn of fate, a fine fellow who builds similar cameras , only much better ones of course, hears your incessant bleating and rushes to your aid. As if by magic, he offers a shiny new camera of his own in return for the scratched up, faulty piece of rubbish you already have. Wow! what a great deal, and all you have to do is praise the new camera and its maker, whilst damning the old.

 

This much drawn out tale finally has a happy ending......... you now have a new camera worth around $3000 for an original outlay of only a few hundred bucks, the 'Ogre' who rushes in to offer a precious gift now becomes the Knight in shining armour, and the writer of this long winded tale has gleaned a great knowledge of the darker side of human behaviour.

Dean, you're doing the same thing as William and Aggie now.

 

I get the feeling that getting involved with Polaroid camera conversions renders everyone into taunting playground children. I'll remember that when I'm 64 and looking for a way to rekindle my youth...

My apologies Kai, I thought I was pushing it! What about some scanning knowledge to compensate for the deviation? The converted Polaroid topic can become such a bore.

I was recently charged with scanning 20 6x12 trannies/negs and after 2 days work, feel that I can shed some light on the Canon 9950F.

Despite reports to the contrary, I`ve found this gadget a great scanner for the price, and with some fiddling about, it gives good results. It`s certainly a simple machine to both install and operate.

Without getting unwieldy files, I`ve stuck to 1200dpi at 100%, no extra enhancements other than 'auto tone'. First scans run around 40mb, but after spotting the dust specks using CS`s cloning tool, (this can take from 10-30 minutes at 200% mag, ot`s better than using the dust and scratches filter on Scangear. Hit the resulting scan with 'unsharp mask' at 100% with a radious of 1 and prints from this size file will print up to a meter wide plus.

When I`m finished the files have shrunk to around 12-20mb and are easily managed. Don`t forget to import the file from the scanner through Photoshop and it`s possible to load 2 trannies/negs and scan them one after the other. If you have a tranny that`s a little underexposed, try upping the backlight to low/ medium when scanning. It also gives more punch to a sad looking shot. Our 9950F is utilised on a daily basis for 6-8 hours a day and never complains. I wonder how we coped without this great little scanner!<div></div>

Hi Dean,

That's very useful info - thanks for that! So it sounds like you're using the supplied Canon Scangear software; is it as bad as everyone says? I know that Vincent at photo-i tried out the 9950F with ViewScan, but from memory he observed some odd jaggies" in the output; these might have been fixed by now. It's good to hear that this scanner works well, though - I figure that you large-format photographers are probably especially demanding, so give the best feedback!

Cheers,

kai