Is the Littman 45 Single now legal or ludicrous?

And on that note I hope everyone can shake hand "virtually" and look forward and not back.

 

Understand that you can co-exists and use your products to differentiate yourself and let the customer benefit from what this great land offers so well - options.

 

Happy New Year Everyone and peace and prosperity to everyone!

Hello Mr Littman, Wow! I must admit I am impressed that you are now trying to reason with us. You must realize that most of us are just hobbyists and flat out do not produce the volume of converted Polaroids that you do and I mean with a certain probability of all of us combined might count for 40 to 50 cameras sold on just ebay in a years time. I have a copy of your patent and have read it many times. my methodology of attaching various 4x5 backs is just flat out different than yours and varies from unit to unit depending on whose back I use. I am constructing my own type of 4x5 back and I assure you that the film plane distance will be different than yours and does not involve a cb-103. I really like your conversion though, it has an enviable versatility to it, but you got to trust me in that I promise not to build one like it. As for 900s they have their uses, I like the bellows and the top part. There are a lot of 900s for sale, cheap too, In fact I would say that there are enough of them around to easily satisfy the needs for all of us and with a bit of cooperation we can all have them at reasonable prices, Noah has told me that there are probably still millions of old Polaroids waiting to be placed on ebay as the word has gotten out that these old cameras have value and all of the other ebay members are seeking them out to place them on sale on ebay. So, In essennce of what I am trying to convey here is that most of us are just doing these conversions for fun and a little "Pocket Money", I am a heavy equipment operator by trade but I go for weeks sometimes without work so it is nice to make some cameras for a rainy day and certainly had no intent to annoy someone on the other side of the country or tamper with their business.

Thanks Steve; I look forward to working with you and the others as colleagues

and i apreciate the new tone.

 

 

 

examine claim # 4 and you will see that it isn't limited by any brands , graflock graflex etc.

 

 

 

I have the willingness to work with you all as my coleagues and be more cooperative in the future hoping that you all can do the same and put the past where it belongs I will email all three of you as business to business and hope that we can keep it that way , if we are to get along this discussion here has to be considered closed at some point.

i have agreed to yield to my coleagues and not further expect the presentation of evidence by Mr Schwartz and simply limit the claim which would prevent anyone else from an applicable similar conversionas he has done . I have volunteered since the day i learned of a previous effort and was simply waiting to be able to verify it was valid, yet i will no longer do that. You have my assurance that I will not bother my fellow ebay members or anyone else unless the camera has the improvements which are clearly novel, I believe this is what everybody wants and Im willing to do it for free. Thank You

 

I have contacted my colleagues and i promise to work with them

 

 

thank you

Willam,

 

Actually I have to say publicly taht you are a gentlemen. You have contacted me and apologized for your past behavior. You have offered to repair my friends camera even though he purchased it on Ebay and not through you.

 

That is truly admirable and commendable. I will say thank you and welcome back into the fold of the LF users. Please allow me to extend my thanks and appreciation.

 

As I stated to you privately some time ago. You make an unbelieveable camera. It is special, a lot of fun to use, promotes spontenaity and is of first class construction.

 

Please feel free to repost my positive review of your camera on your website should you desire.

 

Thanks

 

Michael

As it was I who instigated this discussion, I feel that I should have a word in closure. It has been a truly interesting thread, and my thanks to all who contributed their views on this subject. It appears that problems arising from past behaviour have been addressed and at this stage, it seems that we all may have a bite of the apple. It is my opinion that a legal Patent should be respected. It also serves as a means of clarification in regard to what can and can`t be offerred as an alternative to the modification of the Polaroid camera. The input provided by William Littman in this matter is much appreciated, but at the same time, such input must be considered as words only. I`m sure that any future action taken against ideas that do not infringe upon the rights of Mr Littman or his methods of attaining 4x5 or other formats would be met with disdain and result in appropriate action through this medium arising once again. It is for this reason that such a posting has such an active role in self regulation. My thanks to all and cheers!

Dear Dean;

 

Let me just thank you for your words today, and much in the same manner as I have stated ,it is my intention to work closely with you guys in the future, As You are/were willing to believe that previous effort on 4x5 conversion of a 110b was valid based on a photo of Mr. Schwartz which doesn't show the matters at hand, I originally hoped that you could have trusted me when I provided you with the following shortcut , to the Polaroid OeM catalog Published in fall of 2000 and which shows a Polaroid 110a converted into a 110b and shows both conversions existing simultaneously as clearly shown , both from front and back,it was taken in summer of 2000 and the original prototype of the Littman was made this way when I took a 110a pack film camera and cut the back to accommodate the 4x5 back.

http://www.polaroid-oem.com/pdf/oem.pdf

 

I believe its page 79.

 

Such catalog was submitted with the first patent application, and as I said to you as well in a link by Email early on. as the polaroid 900 parts were used to achieve this both by myself and you and your coleague as no other way exists, I trusted that after you had published offers with these conveniences and described them in detail it wasnt that actual product alone but as I said, the publication of how to acheive this .my words arent just words but photos as well if that doesnt mean anything to you then the opposite would have to be true as well.,in any event I have the willingness to leave the past behind.

 

 

Thanks for your words It is my intention to work with you guys, without stress, Its such a small business and I have made so few cameras at such a great effort, that I haven't had any time for anything else, we have both rushed at times, and I want , and I hope that we can learn from this and move on to a better tomorrow.

 

 

 

I truly mean it

 

all best W

I have converted a mint condition Polaroid 95a to use 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Polapan 3000 film, using the frame from a Polaroid 250. It works perfectly, light tight, focal plane adjusted, and 100% reliable. It even has as finished and clean a look as most pros can make. I am going to sell it on E-bay and there isn't a damn thing Littman can do about it.<div></div>

First of all this discussion was declared as closed by the person who started the thread, As I responded to Mr. Wolffe's email today, 3x4 pack film conversions have been around for over 30 years and I have never objected to a 3x4 pack film conversion per se , and the subject was covered in this discussion.

 

This discussion was considered closed last year, thank you.

Hello, I have followed/read most of the most readable entries to this thread, so I am aware of the passion on both sides. I have been a camera bahser for many years in a very small way. Mostly by adapting Ocilloscope cameras from 70mm to 4x5 macro capable units for my own use. I am now working in large format exclusivly dur to deteriorating vision. The Polaroid to 4x5 conversions facinate me and are attractive due to the compact storage and use with a grafmatic. So then...who actually make these items (besides G.E.L)? Please contact me privatly at:

 

vjbedo@academicplanet.com

 

(281)787-0317

 

Regards,

 

Drew Bedo

i've been reading through various posts, as well as this thread, and one question has

popped up in my head. after looking at the littman conversions and reading the articles on

them, it seems as they're being marketed as "littman" brand cameras. i haven't seen

anywhere (in any posts or websites), any reference to the "polaroid" brand, which these

camera's retain and are based off of. the polaroid brand is a registered trademark, and

from my understanding, marketing these cameras as "littman 45 single" brand cameras is

a violation of polaroids registered trademark, as they have exclusive rights. using products

branded as polaroid, under a different name, for profit, seems as trademark infringement.

 

it seems more accurate that the item be marketed as the "littman 45 single conversion"

which would include parts and labor not branded by other companies. i think the

discussion would be more practicle, as it seems that a SERVICE is being offered (the

conversion of the cameras) rather than the manufaturing of a product. if parts are actually

being manufatured for the conversions, then those parts would be what entails the littman

45 single, and not the polaroid bodies which themselves are patented and trademarked.

When the Polaroid corporation learned of our product they granted us the standing of POLAROID OEM MANUFACTURER.

we undertook this project close cooperation with Polaroid as they were enthusiastic as surprised at what we had to offer as much as were my peers.

to infringe on a trademark you have to " use it"/ we don't. none of the Polaroid OEM manufacturers call their products to be Polaroid

 

We use certain parts and it is disclosed in the public domain that these parts are made by Polaroid. we use other parts from other companies and we use our own parts.

As per the policies of PN and the clarification offered by its senior editor we have the right to expect no further interference .

Modifying cameras will be done when we are all dead and just dust. A Patent doesnt erase past history of experimenters who learned from old photo magazines. The sprirt of 4H club with photography 1/2 century was cheerfull, and not sour grapes. Would a recent patent of using Briggs on a homemade go cart today erase the existance of all homemade go carts? Folks ARE going to experiment and modify old cameras and tools that cost little to make other tools. The entire world is not rich. This has been going on many thousands of years.

Mr. Flanigan has convinced everyone that those who aren't rich get his vote

and those who are get belittled. My clients aren't rich and neither am I and in what refers to

the so called 4H club Mr. Flanigan assured everyone that what happened there

stating;

"Kelly Flanigan , oct 04, 2003; 11:05 p.m.

We hand cut 4x5" ortho films; and loaded them in old Polaroids; in 4H club 4

decades ago"

 

Translated into English /loaded film by opening camera in the dark and

repeating same afterwards to remove. " no conversion present" and that was

his " evidence" at a time when he was instigating to have my rights repelled.

 

Mr. Flanigan is entitled to his resentment of rich people. but the " rich" is just an excuse by those who admit to never have had any better result by the use of better tools but waste peoples time breathing down everyone's neck telling them what to buy, what not to buy. that is downright rude and inconsiderate.

 

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HZY6&tag=

 

This website offers freedom of expression to its members as per the first amendment but clearly excludes solicitation and the rallying of such causes by its members.

 

The person who started this thread told all of you

 

 

Dean Jones , oct 13, 2003; 06:05 a.m.

As it was I who instigated this discussion, I feel that I should have a word in closure."It is my opinion that a legal Patent should be respected then he told all of you that "such a posting has such an active role in self regulation. My thanks to all and cheers!"

 

Such postings have, had and remain as an admitted means of solicitation using defamation against our name to achieve it and as this site forbids to all its members we have the right to expect that this flip flop cease as stated by the person who started the thread and then declared it closed.

 

Thank you.

I think you're obfuscating the point that the people who are really disappointed are your

customers.<p>Here's an email I received last week. I get emails like this all the time:

 

<p> "I have a very nice 110B

I'd like to have you convert using your lowprofile back. I bought a used littman, (on ebay)

sight unseen, although it works well, its a poor design. I'd like a more refined camera. I

understand if you only sell finished cameras, I got your ebay email. But if you would be

interested in converting my camera, I'd like to hear a price. Or if I could trade in my

camera toward the price of one of yours. Or I'll just keep an eye out on ebay. Thanks for all

the photos on photonet, fun stuff."<p>Look at <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photos/

Camera%20Conjurer"> my photos page</A> if you want to see how to build a camera ,

you can see the

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=574573"> LowProfile back I

designed specifically for this application</A>, as well as my latest way of

mounting an<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=644751">

interchangeable lens mount on the Polaroid 110B</A>.<p>Perhaps if you didn't glue

things together out of plastic and cover them with cheap rubber, your customers wouldn't

be dumping them like supermarket spinach ....<p>I'd like to add that I'm not taking any

camera orders at this time.

Well I see on that post " that it works well" and I have had to read several times where you wrote on photo.net that you had resorted to this defamation first because you could " sure use the publicity" and then that you kept this going as long as you did to" stop me or at least keep me busy.

 

I have made a dedicated effort to improve my product and have succeeded at great cost and effort despite these interferences

 

the cameras which I sold on that site were the earliest prototypes and rental units and apparently they still work after 6 years , now if unscrupulous solicitation and interferences and defamation as a means of solicitation cease I will improve design even more.

 

People admit to resort to these threads to prevent you from doing your work and then accuse you of not being able to do your work. great taste. this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years but this site forbids it and the thread has been declared closed by the person who started it.

A vistor to this thread might really just want to know the performance, handling and costs issues of the Littman or Deans camera, or other folks Polaroid to 4x5 conversions, or Polaroid to roll film conversions, Wolf Industry, instead of useless bickering. The constant attacks add no value to making a camera selection, just add negativity. The anti-experimention attitude is abit really weird, since once old Polaroids were just useless junk/crap at pawn shops for a 2 bits or a dollar or two and usefull to the resourcefull experimenter. Trying to erase the past 1/2 century of Polaroid conversion history via attacks is wrong and insulting. Folks fiddled with Polaroid conversions long ago because the old cameras were worthless, like old AOL discs today, and back then a Speed Graphic with 127mm Ektar wasnt cheap. A vistor to these threads may just want USEFULL real info, like minimum focus distance, sequence of operation etc, flash sync,

" A vistor to this thread might really just want to know the performance,

> handling and costs issues of the Littman "

They did and as you witnesses your own negativity last month when someone wanted to know just that

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HZY6&tag=

 

 

 

When people wish to know the performance of my product and start a thread

to ask about that to those who would know the people you instigate for show

up and resort to unscrupulous and forbidden solicitation while invalidating

their prefrences, insulting them.telling them that after reading the negativity you reffer to that has been refered to as " admitted instigation", How could they consider such a purchase"? as refering to the Littman or telling them they are trying to prevent them from making an expensive mistake.

 

 

The reason that people offering products and services are not allowed to here is demonstrated in the post on another thread which was made by Mr Brewer and while I have no clue as to who he is refering to his consideration that aplies to the point I am tryin to make is his comment that reads"and can't understand why a brother photographer(he participates on these forums) would do this."

 

The answer to Mr Brewers question is" brother photographers who participate in the threads are not people posing as such in order to peddle products while daring to invalidate the educated opinions of those most proficient and in the end admitting that in their own personal experience the use of better tools never did make a difference, the results were still crap! but hey you should take their word that their camera is no different / no less . they guarantee that from their own personal experience and dont forget that the experiences by those considered most proficient are just smoke and mirrors.

 

 

"Jonathan Brewer , dec 31, 2004; 03:23 p.m.

The above exchanges focus on the neverending truth that there are always two sides to every story, I never dealt with Ron Wisner, but it seems to me from reading about these travails over the years that he is no con man, by the same token, it seems he needs the business end taken over by a business manager while he just makes cameras.

When a deal doesn't go right, the bad taste in your mouth lingers way beyond the deal, which is what I hate about somebody taking my money and giving me less than what I expected.

 

I negotiated with a gentleman to buy a polaroid 4x5 conversion, for a lot less than a Littman, we agreed on his price, I thought it was a great price, I repeatedly asked him about the condition of the camera that would be used in the conversion since I was not supplying him w/a camera, and I didn't really get a straight answer, going on the pictures of his previous conversions it looked as if he was a reputable guy that would supply me a camera in great condition.

 

I sent him the agreed on price, I eventually got the camera, and the camera part of the conversion was dry and 'squeaky', the camera baseboard was ugly, the camera would 'hang up' halfway as you tried to close it, where you'd have to pull up on the struts to finish closure.

 

The conversion works as the lens is in decent condition, but the camera is 'beat-up', the workmanship of the conversion is acceptable mechanically but cosmetically ugly, specifally he didn't countersink deep enough so he has screws sticking out where they shouldn't, the hinges that secure the back where they're fastened to the camera, look 'raggedy',..................so what I'm left with is a camera that technically works, but which I won't be able to sell, and even if I do, I'm still without an alternative but the Littman which I don't want to pay for.

 

I didn't get what I expected, I wasn't told upfront what I would be getting, in terms of the cameras condition and I asked. I would've appreciated the use of a better camera in the conversion, and better workmanship in the conversion itself, and can't understand why a brother photographer(he participates on these forums) would do this.

 

If you're thinking about buying a camera from him, INSIST on an accounting of the exact condition of the camera he will use in the conversion if he's supplying it."

 

 

 

Whatever actual grievance this client may have does not interest me. what concerns me is his comment that he went such route felling that someone posing as a brother photographer used photo.net to solicit his buisness and if he feels misled he is correct and as far as Im concerned not about his actual performance complaint but about

 

the misuse of photo.net for the purposes of solicitation by unscrupulous people who pose as fellow photographers to promote products and services.

 

Recently I said Nikon would not show up on a thread discussing their product and someone responded" are you comparing yourself to Nikon? No there is no need to compare the rule of no solicitation exists because otherwise unscrupulous people selling stuff will try to convince you that Holga is equal to Hasselblad .

 

 

 

This thread was started with malice as to create dissent as a means to promote products and services after having started another thread and presenting it here as if it was started or instigated by another as was reminded by

 

 

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

 

 

 

Rich Silfver , oct 03, 2003; 12:48 p.m.

Dean, what do you mean "after reading the following link"? Didn't you start and participate in that link?

 

What's the purpose of opening up another one just to point back to your own link?

 

The purpose was to use my reputation and standing as to gain publicity as these people threatened me they would, then discredit me and then tell you not to buy my product.

 

Mr Flanigan please....

 

" A vistor to this thread might really just want to know the performance,

> handling and costs issues of the Littman "

 

People who really want to know"the performance,

> handling and costs issues of the Littman " want to know from profficient photographers, real users and not from unscrupulous solicitation telling them not to buy it while they plug their own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank goodness this thread is being archived, so potential customers can see what Kelly rightly referred to as bickering and negativity. Caveat emptor!