First 4x5 handheld shot and first scan!

This is thje very first shot that I took with my 4x5 conversion that is a 110B with 135MM

Rodenstock. I also just bought a scanner (Canon 9950F) and really don't know what I am

doing!<div></div>

Sorry folks, that is REALLY big, I don't know how to downsize yet.

That's a lovely photo, nice tones, nice direct composition. I wish the eyes were in focus, instead of the ears. (RF Calibration?)

I'll try this for you. I sharpened it a little while I was at it, which is okay at this size.

Try again...

Sorry, I give up. It's way less than 100 kb and way less than 500 pixels wide. At least everyone can see the whole image now.

No, it's not a rangefinder calibration issue. It is rather sharp on the negative. My feeling is

that it was a little too long of a shutter speed for handheld (1/60th) and there needs some

unsharp masking. I just took some 55 type polaroids of my friend and her eyes were tack

sharp. It is a camera with which you have to be really careful of shutter speeds. The guy

was taken at f5.6, so focus is obviously really touchy.

There you go gentelmen, one of the sharpest lenses on the planet and that doesnt even compensate for rf ineficiency,Mr hull insists he doesnt need to get knee deep into the arguments that I may have with those who use photo.net to violate my IP but appears to enjoy sparking them.

 

As a result recent discussion about my product was ended preventing those who are informed about the product their freedom of expression.

 

That is not my product.I didnt make that camera but the title of this thread and the description of the product says It would have to be my product because of what you will read below.

 

 

 

Mr Hull has confirmed the veracity of everything I said by the posting of this photo.

 

Photo. net forbids other members from using this website to violate other members IP.

 

Mr hull was invited to participate in disrupting my IP by unscrupulous competitors In turn he reciprocates the invitation opening the door for them hoping to use the leverage of public opinion to obstruct the enjoyment of my rights / avoid liabilities.

 

However the case may be if a photo has the ears sharp and not the eyes that is a focusing problem.

 

Then there is the fact that we are not living in Oaxca but in the USA

 

In any event people can say they have a wonderful experience when they can keep what they purchase,that it will not turn into a pumkin

the minute you pay for it because of existing patents or 10 days from now when the following claim becomes patented.

 

8. The camera of claim 7, wherein said lens is a lens other than a lens selected from the group consisting of Polaroid Models 110, 110A, 110B, and 120 cameras.

 

I am sorry but if the actual technical truth proven here which confirms everything I sad is not enough then there is the law.

 

I will not continue to plead with photo.net members that they should respect my IP it is required of them when they join.

 

I ask that all fellow members find the civility to respect my rights

or acknowledge the technical facts which are perfectly visible here

 

I will post a link to the patent when it issues

 

These people have tried continue to confuse the market in my detriment to the point that they expect my cameras to be maintenence free when that is ridiculous.

 

Our Product requires regular scheduled maintenance, it works well and if it has our name while it looks like a Polaroid it is because of what we know is required to make it work and keep it working and it is us who has to fix it because we are the ones who know the technology and it is patented.

 

Recently the person who accused me of unfair buisness as an excuse to start threads in 2003 to discredit me and force me to waive my rights by using leverage admitted that one of my customers contacted him after reading the discredit he posted in the threads and that he reccomended that he ask for a refund in liew of a regular scheduled maintenence that is the unfair buisness practice. the next day last month a client read that post and contacted me asking for a refund . there was nothing wrong with the equipment except the graflock tab screws require tightening by user from time to time, that is what they are for and that is what Mr hull is agreeing to endorse help create when he claims to be an inocent bystander .

 

This has gone on for too long and th truth is that a prada shoe box or hush puppies for that matter would yield better results with an apo sironar 135mm lens on one side and a graflock back in the other.

 

There is no mistake here this is yet another forceful disregard of my rights/ disruption to my buisness and nothing else.

William... are you on drugs?

No Mr. Droluck

 

The photo.net non solicitation policy applies to you as well. last week you posted a response to a thread which was close by the moderator saying it was closed due to solicitation you said" even though it wasn't me who started it".

 

a few days later you start a thread stating" 617 first scan

I thought some people would like to see the picture which is not great art but..... then you went on to discuss sales on the thread...

 

well we all have products we would like to sell yet when I started a thread to announce an artistic gallery for picture which were great art and it was deleted citing solicitation.

 

If this is a public forum then the freedom of expression applies to all and not the buddies of the moderators only.

 

Should I have to be on drugs to be able to endure that a handful have no regard for the policies of this server and use it as their personal ebay?

William

 

Are you fighting a fight from your last live, or what the hell is going on here?

Are you god and so the only one wich can change a polaroid into something else or what?

What's up William? Bad day at the office? Dog bit you? Wife mad?

 

 

 

 

Andrew - good work. :) Keep shooting. :0

 

That how we ALL learn. Right William?

No I am not God nor should any of you ask me to be before I can enjoy my rights or be forced to have to defend myself constantly.

 

Because I am not God I ask that until such time when it may be determined otherwise in the right place,I ask that my rights be respected and that this threads no longer be used to obstruct them.

What we have finally verified is that the rangefinder doesn't work, and also that in order for it to work my patented modifications are required .

 

That is what we have learned , we learn something new every day

Good grief, what planet/solar system have you suddenly sprung from, William Littman, or have I missed an in-joke here somewhere? You seem like a complete whacko coming out of the blue with this frothing, wet rant with no relevance to Andrew's post at all. I'm certainly willing to take your word for it that you're not self-medicated, but I'd have your water supply checked out if I were you!

 

Andrew, for a first hand-held effort that is quite lovely! I'd love to give 4x5 a try sometime - we've even got an old 110B in great condition and with no other purpose in life sitting in the closet; might see what I can do with it...

If you pattened something that is common knowledge or public domain, your pattent is not applicable.

 

One thing I have leanred when working with these old cameras is that there are MANY ways to accompolish the same task for FREE.

 

Now adjusting a rangefinder is not that hard , only takes a little amount of time and a good ruler. The knowledge on how to adjust rangefinders is COMMONLY available on the internet for FREE.

 

The technology used in these cameras in not high tech. The concept of a rangefinder has been around longer than you.

 

So again what is your issue here, - that we have not come seeking your blessing/wisdom/knowledge with a checkbook because the camera has a rangefinder on it?

 

Get over it!

 

Again - Andrew the best way to learn is to shoot lots of film and ask questions. If your rangefinder is not adjusted - do a search on the Internet.

 

If you get information that you need some further clarification on there are many people here on this board who are willing and able to help you simply for the asking with no strings attached.

OK, Google to the rescue, I've got the picture on Mr. Littman now, though I still fail to see what prompted the above rant.

 

Anyway, reading what Andrew said, his negs are sharp.. but at 1/60 it would be VERY hard to keep the camera steady enough anyway, no matter how good the rangefinder. Post another sample when you get a chance, Andrew, if you're willing to. I've been thinking of an old Speed Graphic, but a unit like what you're using would be so much easier to an LF newbie like me...

I'm working on it right now. I just got a tutoring lesson on scanning, so I should be able

to use Unsharp Mask on this one. I am not sure I have any extreme close ups. There isn't

an issue with the RF on this camera. Mr. Littman, seriously, this was an attempt to share

my excitement at taking my camera overseas and using it for the first time. This really

doesn't have anything to do with you...

Here is another, I have a few to post. Scanning improving, but work to do still on USM.

Can anyone give me some general guidelines for the setting for USM for 35mm, MF, and

LF? I am using the new Canon flatbed scanner and I know I need USM, but cannot seem to

get the settings right.

Here is another shot wide open, or close to it. Very nice man who was sitting and

watching the comings and going on the zocalo.

<i> What we have finally verified is that the rangefinder doesn't work, and also that in order for it to work my patented modifications are required . </i><p>

 

Ha ha ha. One can only laugh at a statement like that.

Last month when Mr. hull was pointed to the words of one of the buyers of These con-versions which you can read by following the link he replied that one bad apple is just one bad apple, now it seems that one would have to learn something and become a rangefinder himself.

 

These merchants have created a business for themselves by insisting my patented modifications are not required and as a result I lost a lot of time and money.

 

I was forced to buy the camera from this woman Aggie who I must say is a very nice lady and from what I have seen posted on apug is also a very good photographer, I was impressed by her landscapes and creative eye.

 

 

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11301&page=2&pp=10

The point is I retrieved the camera this morning from a private mailbox type facility and it was verified in front of the clerk that the aperture ring / dial was frozen as aggie insisted, it did move but had to be forced to do so.

 

The shutter does not fire and all this because the installation of this lens on such camera requires a modification which will also be patented in 10 days.

 

and will read as follows:

 

9. The camera of claim 7, wherein said washer is a washer other than a washer selected from the group consisting of Polaroid Models 110, 110A, 110B, 120, 150, 160, 800 and 900 cameras.

 

this refers to a required washer spacer needed to prevent the lens from jamming.

 

The person who sold this poor woman the lens replied to her on apug that this is because the aperture dial freezes when you activate the aperture preview lever but anyone who owns a copal 0 knows that the aperture preview lever never freezes the aperture dial.

 

These are the people who make a business by insisting I haven't got the slightest idea what I am doing and that my patent claims are not required.

 

Please be informed that Aggie told the absolute truth about everything, and she knows that I told her the lack of spaceror incorrect spacer was the problem the minute I learned what the story was

without having to see the camera in person.

 

Let me just also say that the lens which Jim Galli sold this woman is in perfect working order and reputable and legitimate businesses do not need to be scrutinized or forced into this kind of racket because a few hooligans cant contain their enthusiasm to make false representations in everybody's detriment.

 

It is perfectly fine if Mr. hull as he puts it has no idea what he is doing except when he takes the liberty and bravado to be contentious with those who do such as my established clients who use their equipment on a regular basis on major assignments and he hopes to outdo them because he also has a camera which he says is a wonderful experience.

 

When he proceeded to show us he proved that he is willing to be enthusiastic regardless of what the case may be, his creativity is not questioned , his right to take pictures and post them isn't either but he has proven that as the few others who have acted in similar contentious ways it is not about the picture or photography but about having the last word

and outdoing me at any cost.

 

He made a dedicated effort to tell us all that he felt lucky because he paid less and it works fine then he comes here to prove what I have said all along.

 

Ladies and gentlemen too many events have already proven why my patents are required and if they weren't then these things would work perfectly without need of the improvements.

 

The flip side of it all is that I am loosing my shirt, people now expect me to be God before I can have any kind of peace and quiet and these threads are entirely responsible for decent and unsuspecting people who believe that my patents are not required who are the victims of these scams.

 

If you sell something while insisting it will work without a required modification and it is not true That is unfair to me and may constitute fraud to the buyer then if the modification is found to have been used this person is cheating me, if then it is found that the modification was done improperly maybe the buyer is being cheated?

 

A washer spacer was utilized and it is the wrong thickness and size so never mind the patents if you prefer but mind that those who accuse me are the ones who don't know anything

 

This is yet another proof of why my patents are totally valid and will remain in force for the duration.

 

then regarding the requirement for a cam modification, which is patented by several claims and this person also told buyers that no modification was required, he ground the camera cam to modify the curvature but did so incorrectly and the camera focused on 6 ft and infinity but not at the rest of the farther distances beyond 10 ft.

 

The people who insist my patents are not required have proved they are by instituting the modifications themselves therefore I have no quarrel with someone who says that have no idea what they are doing until they make a dedicated effort to prevail forcefully at any cost despite the evidence .

 

We are all her to learn , I learn something every day yet my opponents say improvement is harmful to these relics and speak of preservation versus innovation, when the tangible camera shows up we verify that the innovation they criticize is required .

 

Mr. Hull the focus on that picture is also everywhere else but on the subject , the shoes appear sharper than the persons jacket and the face is softer than the shoes.

 

That picture is also out of focus, that is a Rodenstock 135 apo sIronar lens of late edition

Like I said the rangefinder doesn't work, you have confirmed it and now I have sufficient tangible evidence of how these conversions are made.

 

At some point you can learn that if things aren't the was you wish they were perhaps you can ask yourself why not accept the way they are, that may be the first step in learning something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Littman, this has nothing to do with you. This is about the pictures I posted. For

futher reference, I will not refer to the fact that I took the pictures with a 110B conversion.

Which obviously works. It is you who chooses to pull these threads into trolldom with

your constant chirping out things. So let's get it out on the table. Is the 4x5 conversion

that I have a product of stolen IP? If I chose to convert a Polaroid 110B to 4x5, am I

infringing on your IP? If it is not, which I believe it is not, then this has NOTHING TO DO

WITH YOU. WHY ARE YOU HERE? You should be too busy filling orders for your wonderful

cameras.

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. Doesn't the venerable Leica

even have problems once and a while? That being said, this isn't about the camera, it is

about the photos. Why do you need to consistently point to ONE PERSON who had a bad

experience? Why are you always trolling for discussions on this? Business slow? Instead of

writing these inanely long and hardly decipherable responses, why don't you just do what

you do, build cameras. If anyone out there is making such bad copies, or bad

conversions, I am sure that he won't be making them long. I personally am very happy

with mine. Anyone who would like to see photos, ask me a question, discuss, send me an

e-mail. I won't get dragged into another back and forth with Littman. And by the way,

Littman, you looked up my e-mail address, are you planning on e-mailing me? If you want

to discuss this, I would be more than amenable. I wish you all the best, leave me alone.