First 4x5 handheld shot and first scan!

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by andrew_hull, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. 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!
    00BYEU-22430784.jpg
     
  2. Sorry folks, that is REALLY big, I don't know how to downsize yet.
     
  3. That's a lovely photo, nice tones, nice direct composition. I wish the eyes were in focus, instead of the ears. (RF Calibration?)
     
  4. I'll try this for you. I sharpened it a little while I was at it, which is okay at this size.
     
  5. Try again...
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. William... are you on drugs?
     
  10. 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?
     
  11. 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?
     
  12. 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?
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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
     
  15. 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...
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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...
     
  18. 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...
     
  19. Here is another, I have a few to post. Scanning improving, but work to do still on USM.
     
  20. 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.
     
  21. 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.
     
  22. 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 .
    Ha ha ha. One can only laugh at a statement like that.
     
  23. 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.









     
  24. 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.
     
  25. 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.
     
  26. Well, I have to say that this is some of the wierdest stuff I've ever seen here at PN. Who's Aggie? Who's Jim Gallie? Who shot J.R.? Why am I even reading this nonsense?

    Andrew, at those sizes, the USM/sharpness looks OK (to my eyes). Are you USM'ing in the scanner software, or in Photoshop? I gather that USM is best applied in PS post-scanning, though someone else might correct me on that. By the way, what are your first impressions of the 9950F?
     
  27. Kai:

    I don't have any USM done, and it is off in the scanning software. I really like the 9950F. I
    bought the 4870 and took it back because I just didn't like it. I really like the holders for
    the 9950F. That and the fact that I can scan 30 35mm negs in a bunch. I still have a lot to
    learn on the scanning. I am starting my own website and have at least 200-250 images to
    scan from 35mm and MF. I have a rather large filing cabinet of my negative. I really like
    the scans of 4x5. They were only done at 1200DPI. A file at 4800 DIP is way to big until I
    get more RAM. Unless someone has made RAM a patented item and no other RAM will
    work ;-)
     
  28. One more thing, and hopefully someone here can step up. I cannot figure out how to
    activate FARE for scanning.
     
  29. Patents are public documents, they are in the public domain. I is unnecessary for me to insist if your camera is or isn't an infringement specially since I haven't examined it, however if this were about you taking pictures or your creativity and right to express them you wouldn't have to recommend that others join you on the camera aspect .

    Post pictures , be a photographer learn as you will that is grand enjoy your right to all your opinions and the patents are and new ones will be in the public domain for you and those who you buy from to exercise their own discretion.

    At this point I do not need to be cornered by you further, because enjoying my rights and the public perception of them is the reason for their existence.

    No I have no intention of emailing you I did some time ago but I thought you would respond as usual and would have to either negotiate or yield which is the way you would like things to be.
     
  30. "At this point I do not need to be cornered by you further"

    YOU joined this thread, I didn't ask you to.

    "No I have no intention of emailing you I did some time ago but I thought you would
    respond as usual and would have to either negotiate or yield which is the way you would
    like things to be"

    I need not a negotiation, nor do I need you to yield. I end up where I was before you
    responded. I have a camera which works very well for me. I will continue to post pictures
    from it in order to share in the photographic dialogue here and hope to grow and learn
    alongside my fellow shooter. God bless and good luck.
     
  31. I don't think we're dealing with an entirely full deck of cards here, somehow. That's often the case with folks who obsess endlessly about patents. Not always, but often enough to notice.

    William, you might consider that these bafflingly incoherant rants of yours in a public place like this are doing far more harm to whatever potential business you might get than any number of competitors might be doing. It doesn't help that you also appear intent on stalking members of these forums. I mean, you've certainly managed in the space of an hour or two to scare me well away from your product; I'm just glad that there appear to be alternatives, as the concept of a folding LF rangefinder is quite appealing to me.
     
  32. I joined this thread in the same manner you joined a thread named after my product to plug your camera as a viable alternative to mine , I didnt ask you to do that either.

    What I posted was not about 1 user's experience but about what these people say is or isnt required to make these cameras and if you dont believe I have a right to protect my rights or the perception of my product we cant agree.

    all cameras require service including my own that is not the issue the point is that I dont need to be competed against in any way as you suggest.

    You posted a thread decribing a product you own , I responded by informing you of claim 8 of that patent will issue shortly and then I informed you that definitive proof has been obtained that my patent claims are required contrary to what those you reccomend have stated.
    regarding having no need to negotiate or yield you may want to read this one more time.
    http://www.littman45single.com/05ccmc/patentcover.jpg

    Like I have said if the camera works fine I knew what was required to make it work, now I have verified what these people do to make it work so have many other people who have examined them.

    I guess if this ever comes up in the real world those who make determinations can read that when I informed you of my rights you replied by telling me to leave you alone and to get in line with everyone else for my share of the market.

    Like I said you dont know what was done to your camera to make it work and I thought we had agreed on that on the last thread with that said it is you who has to decide whether it is considerate and polite to continue to ignore that.

    all that would be required is to inform of the existance of the patents, whatever alternatives have to respect them.

    If you believe that having to defend my rights makes me look defensive then just respect them.
    thank you
     
  33. Aggie is an exellent photographer and soon to be an editor For large format in an All film related magazine.

    Jim Galli is an established camera equipment related buisness
     
  34. " I thought we had agreed on that on the last thread with that said it is you who has to
    decide whether it is considerate and polite to continue to ignore that"

    Again, why did you chime in then? I am moving on. For those interested, I will post more
    shots from my 4x5 tomorrow. I have learned a lot from using it.
     
  35. I am moving on as well
     
  36. Wow! I did a little homework and this has been going on for 1-1/2 years, at least!


    Michael Briggs: Please don't wait as long as you usually do to shut these things down.
     
  37. Let me get this straight:

    this William guy wants compensation ( and has harrassed you for) because you took a picture using a camera that you/may not have/thought about modifying/ never thought about modyifying/ that might be close to something he may/thinks/dreams/ has a patent on?

    I am missing something here or is this William guy is worse shape then his posts seem to indicate?

    Well I guess I had better run all of my camera modification/ideas through William before I post them on my companies website cause I wouldnt want to get nasty email form him in photo.net
     
  38. John and everyone else:

    Sorry that this got dragged down. I should have just ignored him and not replied. I truly
    just wanted to share pictures. Apolgies for stirring this up, or reacting to someone who
    wanted to stir things up. It won't happen again.

    AMH
     
  39. hey ...it was a great read..this guy is getting good advertising since its raised his profile no end.....but instead of all the sabre rattling he should just go for a conviction if he can...if he cant then let that be the end of it.

    personally speaking unless its big time money and numbers a patent or protected design is hard to enforce and is probably not worth the legal fees... better to just keep on turning out a good quality product and make sure everyone knows its your design.
     
  40. Andrew,

    I have to concur that the focus is in error. In your first photo the lead edge of the hat brim, the subjects nose and chin are all soft and nothing becomes real sharp until the rear of the eye socket/temple area, in the second the same applies, the rug and the shirt are sharp but the face is soft, in the third you seem to have gotten it, front of legs and facial detail are sharp while background is soft.

    Large format DOF is different from 35mm in that smaller apertures are needed to get a large DOF and focusing point very critical for shooting at wide apertures. A little pratice and you will get it.

    I recently took a 4x5 press with a 6x9 roll film back on a walk around an island on the edge of the Bay. I was susprized(disappointed) to see that less than 100 yards was in focus at f8 and a 1/4 to 1/2 mile at f11, only the few shots at f22 were close to being useable. Each lens will preform slightly different. Somewhere on this site are some links to DOF caculators that will tell you what should be in focus at a given distance/f stop/ for a given lens length and film format.

    To control image size, in your scanner software you can select lower scan DPI, and should be able to select 100% origional size or lower or larger. I do not have a canon, Epson and Microtek/Silverfast, all have some scale factor on the scan parameter setting page. The second way to adjust size is with your editing software. Best to make a copy of your saved scan, then (adobe photo????) Image/Resize/image size and select precent(any box with a down arrow has options) then type in a precentage,75, 50, 45 ect to get the size you want, and save changes when it is the size you want. Most if not all programs will work basically the same but the names of the functions may be slightly different.

    Hope this helps.

    Charles
     
  41. Andrew, your efforts so far are to be admired. Shooting at wide apertures can definitely result in an amazingly shallow depth of field, perhaps a centimeter or two, so very careful focusing is required. It looks to me as if the rangefinder is performing very well, despite certain criticisms from disgruntled parties.
    I`m sure as you come to know the camera well, the results will astound you if they haven`t already. With the aperture of most lenses failing to give a decent depth of field until around f8, the use of faster film, a tripod, or shutting down to a slightly smaller aperture may help. The wider apertures are only beneficial when focusing using the ground glass screen. I have a Canon 9950F also and have found most scans to be fairly unsharp unless you tweak the settings a little. If your negs look sharp when viewed with a good quality loupe, then have one or two drum scanned. The difference will astound you! As for the rantings of those with a negative outlook, simply ignore them and get on with it. BRAVO!
     
  42. One thing that remains to be said is that perhaps people also have a right to know what " works fine " means on a 4x5 conversion as he puts it before they take Mr. Hull's word for it or having to do a massive search on what was used for what.

    the following is a series of pictures taken with a conversion as you like to call it, a modern lens and the use of a rangefinder to obtain such results and creativity aside there is no comparison in the quality of the focus.

    the lighting conditions are in Mr. Hull's favor because he shot in Mexico and this person shot in northern Europe where the light is several stops weaker.

    http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/psgal01.html

    And the following is a collection of images also taken with a similar camera and modern lens but in studio with a smaller strobe aperture obviously of higher resolution I offer both ends of the spectrum expected of what he likes to call a conversion when using a modern lens.

    http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/hlgal01.html

    and the following is a collection of images taken with a similar camera and a vintage lens
    which is over 50 years old yet the images shot on the first day the photographer held the camera are sharper than those you present shot with one of the sharpest lenses available yet which is what you used. which confirms what I said recently that it is idiotic to use a modern lens unless the cam is accurate because if not the results may be less attractive than those offered by a vintage lens.

    http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/wc.html


    Creativity aside many of my clients shoot at speeds up to 1 second handheld so no handholding at 60th of a second is not a problem if one hopes to use a large format camera hand held because otherwise you can only expect to shoot when it is sunny.

    It is my opinion that the truth is that he doesn't mind the fact that it doesn't work fine. that is perfectly all right .

    all three pictures Mr. hull has posted have the focus behind the subject or in front of it
    the point is shallow the depth of field/ lens wide open of 4x5 may be the eyes should be in focus
    and the ears out of focus.

    When my competitors said that anyone who would believe my camera could work better than any 110b would have to say so out of ignorance or disputed the value of my camera Mr. Hull always added a plug on their behalf he will say he didn't say anything bad about my product but his participation and tone and timing created the appearance of " works fine" as if being comparable if not equal and because he wants to drag everything down to be labeled as" 4x5 conversion" title I show what 4x5 conversion is expected to yield on the different setups.
     
  43. "The wider apertures are only beneficial when focusing using the ground glass screen"
    that is an amazing ranting considering many of my clients shoot a lot
    of their work wide open thru rangefinder . that would be an expected response from the person who made Mr Hull's camera.

    Most of the images I get from clients are not drumscaned but in regular home computer scanners, yes if you spend 60-100 dollars on a scan or sharpen everything in photoshop you can also use 35mm.

    If the truth is presented as if negative outlook for marketing purposes
    people may buy into the idea that "works fine" is what you have been shown.

    I also wished that Mr Hull didnt get caught in the middle or anywhere else for that matter that things are what they are , no more no less.
     
  44. Well Andrew, I guess you`ll have to hold VERY STILL to shoot one second exposures by hand with a 4x5, the best I can do is around 1/20th of a second with an Image Stabilser equipped Panasonic Lumix FZ-20 digital camera. With the 9950F, don`t try scanning above 200% and keep the dpi at 300 at first. Perhaps don`t use sharpening as Photoshop`s unsharp mask is far superior to the scanner softwares own capability. Most printers (Agfa D LAB) like a 300dpi jpeg. My recent 6x17 tranny was scanned at 100% / 2200 dpi (drum scanner). The resulting 3.8 meter wide sign printed in Duratrans would have seen the file size fall in dpi considerably, but it remained sharp. Shot or Melbourne was f11 @ 30 seconds handheld!!! (not really)
    00BYkQ-22446984.jpg
     
  45. "The wider apertures are only beneficial when focusing using the ground glass screen"
    the following is a collection of images shot with what he calls a 4x5 conversion both absolutely wide open( night) and at extremely low shutter speeds some with tripod and some without with a vintage lens of much less resolution than his and not film but Polaroid color prints of all things.again sharper than the images we have seen posted here

    and these images were scanned on a home computer.

    http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/skgal01.html

    I'm sorry but what he said is false.
     
  46. Dean:

    Good to hear from you. I have made sure that things works perfectly. I printed out a nice
    contrasty sign and posted it at a 45 degree angle moving away from me. I then light it up
    well with a spot light and compare the rangefinder when in focus to the ground glass, and
    there is no difference, so I am not worried about it. I understand the depth of field issue.
    I took one really nice shot of a young lady and her daughter in a pappose on her back. I
    had to shoot wide open to keep the shutter speed respectable. Unfortunately, the
    daughters eyes are sharp, but the mother's are not, as they were on a different focus plain.
    Nonetheless, she was one of the highlights of the trip and I am glad I have a good picture.
    I hope things are doing well in Oz. Any word from Shane?
     
  47. Mr. Littman: I don't want to get in to an argument about semantics and lagnuage, but to
    me, as intended "works fine" means that it works as it should and I have not had a picutre
    come out incorrectly because of the camera. All the errors, I can assure you are due to
    me. The depth of field at f5.6 with a 135mm lens rather narrow, and I didn't want to putz
    around much in particular with the gentelman because at first he didn't want his picture
    taken. I responded in Spanish that I was sorry to have bothered him, and that I wished he
    had a nice day. He then told me to come back and take it quickly. As the camera is rather
    heavy, and this WAS MY FIRST TIME USING IT, I was having trouble holding steady, not just
    the camera. Any movement to and fro on my behalf, would more than likely cause it to be
    out of focus (or not what I wanted to be in focus wouldn't be). I can assure you that I have
    tested the focus on thsi camera and it works. Now weren't you moving on? I sure wish
    that the moderators could come through and hack anything out of this that wasn't related
    to the actual photos.

    Would anyone like to critique the photo of the gentleman sitting on the steps. I know it is
    a contrasty picture, but I thought that it more captured the essence of Southern Mexico by
    being that way. Does it work? How about composition? Let's move off of talking about
    the camera.
     
  48. I haven't laughed this much in quite a while... thank you everyone. The last four days have
    had me standing in a booth at the PIE in Tokyo introducing our new 624 camera to the
    Japanese, so I've been a bit too tired to tune in... a couple of Asahi's after dinner and off to
    bed. It seems as though things have toned down a bit, so let me pump the bellows a little.
    William, you wrote "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"... actually it was a scan of one of the first images from our
    6x24 camera using Schneider's magnificent Super Angulon 90/5.6 XL lens. To the best of
    my knowledge the WIDEST lense ever mounted on a production 6x24 camera. Indeed, I
    thought there might be a few on the forum who might like to see the superb results (which
    Schneider's engineering department had predicted). It has been quite some time since a
    manufacturer has intruduced a 6x24 camera, much less one that will capture a 105 degree
    view. The posting of the image prompted questions which I felt obliged to answer. Were
    they commercial in nature?... obviously the moderator thought so, and deleted the thread.
    I have no quams... this is not MY forum. Had I not answered the queries the thread might
    not have been deleated, but everyone deserves an answer to questions posed.
     
  49. Andrew,

    Nice shot! I have a crown graphic, and being able to shoot 4x5 handheld is a wonderful
    thing! I agree that it looks like a focus problem, but take some more and see what you
    find.

    William-

    No one asked and we are tired of this. If any of us could afford your camera we would buy
    it. I respect the work that you have put into it and have no doubt that it is superior. You
    should recognize that the reason people buy other cameras originally came down to cost.
    However, at this point I think that anyone who reads what you have to say will not buy
    your camera because of it. I wouldn't. If your camera is superior, say so simply and
    graciously and leave it at that. As more people get to use it, it will speak for itself. This
    harassment is bizarre.
     
  50. Mr Hull
    To get past semantics I offered samples of comprable lenses and lenses with much narrower depth of field that yours,precisely to avoid semantics like "The depth of field at f 5.6 with a 135mm lens rather narrow" being taken at face value.

    Should that be true it will still be less narrow or comprable to the depth of field of the lenses I pointed to shot wide open.

    I also think the camera issue has been perfectly clarified .

    Thanks all!
     
  51. Adrian ; I am sorry but everyone I have talked to has told me that the only reason people bought lower priced cameras was because they were told mine could not possibly be better.

    if you don't think that deserves clarification that is fine but when my clients try to offer clarification they are abused and called ignorant.

    I have offered visual clarification once and for all, people can make up their own minds . have a great week!
     
  52. Lithium, it can work wonders.
     
  53. Eric,

    You just beat me to it! I think he needs another trip to the medicine cabinet.
     
  54. I've handled an 110b (unconverted, in the old days..), and I must say the ergonomics of the camera did not impress me. While shooting in landscape orientation the RF window is too far to the right and the shutter release isn't in the most convenient position. The camera is much more comfortable to use in the vertical mode. Seems like the camera was designed by a bunch of engineers, not photographers. I should think a Fuji 6x9 or a Mamiya 7 would fit the bill much better for handheld shooting while maintaining 'quality'.
     
  55. Now I am getting sucked in again. While I have not been able to dig up every thread on
    the subjec, I did find several instances where Dean specifically complimented your
    cameras...I don't recall him ever saying that they weren't great. I wouldn't say they weren't
    great. The bottom line is if they are selling, that's great for Mr. Littman and the person
    that buys it. I don't understand Mr. Littman's delusions of persecution (does Lithium treat
    that specifically?).

    Here is what Dean said about a year ago now...
    "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."

    That speaks for itself in my book. I can also attest to Dean being a very nice guy to deal
    with. William, I think this is where you have shot yourself in the perverbial foot. Let's just
    hope that the parallax correction is off.
     
  56. Don`t worry Andrew, all my cameras/conversions are guaranteed for life!
     
  57. What Mr. Jones and those who have acted in connivance to start threads to discredit me have done or said is written for all to see.

    At this time I will wait until my patent issues at which time photo.net will finally be free of doubt as to what has happened and if all this should have taken place in photo.net and remained published in my detriment when the moderators themselves said that in their opinion it should be removed.

    Dear Photo.net members regarding these discrepancies I think it would be in everyone's best interest to wait 10 days until my patent issues.



    Thank you
     
  58. Uh-oh, I think that is the Patent Police knocking at my door now. they are saying that
    nobody may convert a 110B even though it was done LONG BEFORE MR. Littman ever did
    it. They say that I must pay Mr. Littman $.05 for every shot that I take.
     
  59. Mr. Littman, I challenge you to find a single thread that I have been involved in where I say
    anything to discredit you. I have always said that I imagine that your cameras are
    wonderful. They should be for $4000. I personally don't need the a+ camera when an a-
    will do for $500. I imagine that for many people that is money well spent. Again, please
    show me where I have directly discredited you. Not in your somewhat wacky logic, but
    where I have,, in plain English discredit you. You needn't ramble on and on, maybe just
    paste the quote or better yet, paste the quote and the link. The only discredit aroundhere
    is the discredit that you provide to the more than amicable community of people that
    come here to discuss photography. You aren't ever here except touting or refuting. I
    think that it speaks volumes that you aren't ever here otherwise.

    On another note, you need serious help. I mean that from one human being to another. I
    wish you would seek out the help that you need so you can be happy. I hope that 2005
    leads to the changes you need to make to be a happy Mr. Littman in 2005, instead of the
    vitriolic and angry one. Life is too short for this.
     
  60. MR. Hull; you admit to have ignored previous existing arguments which you constantly refer to and even apologize for making them re surface which you refer to as " stirring" while trying to make me sound unreasonable by asking me to cite things you haven't done, trying to make someone sound unreasonable can be a form of discredit you did the same thing in previous threads.

    Normally when someone is advised of the existence of patents they accept them or if interested they follow proper channels and procedure to clear the way for a product.

    The point is I am not required to have the ability to handle adversity any better that I can when I have been under attack for years by people who have done all they could to obstruct my rights
    and which you endorse while presenting me as unreasonable .

    However I may be my rights are to be respected and not expect me to have to be who I am not.

    It will be determined in 10 days that I did not have to endure these adversities
    which in themselves are inexcusable, therefore as a fellow photographer to ask you to find the civility to stop this.

    If you have any proof that any of my patent claims are not valid you can submit them to the patent office otherwise as an interested beneficiary your discredit of my rights without tangible evidence accepted by the patent office as being prior art amounts to you or others giving away my rights or hurting their public perception or making me appear as requiring therapy is yet another form of discredit.we have been thru this before.

    It is always best not to omit half of the truth to make a point appear stronger.

    if your camera cost 500 the lens costs 800.00 so already that is almost half of what mine costs or close, whatever things are that is what they should be.that again tries to make me sound unreasonable.



    you say I do not contribute on photo.net and that is false I have participated in many threads not related to my cameras.

    The only reason I participated in threads was after Mr. Jones and others discredited me or disputed the validity of my research.

    It is most inconsiderate to try to make me look as responsible for initiating these discrepancies on photo.net when Mr. Jones has clearly admitted to having done so and that they should remain posted as leverage.
    this is yet another form of discredit and to insist that I am the causing of this is also discredit.

    Perhaps if you consider that my cameras may be wonderful I can prove that is because of the innovations involved and therefore my patents are valid and I have verified what others do to the cameras.

    I simply informed you of my Ip . I'm not telling you what to do but the patents exist so that I do not have to divert my work and personal time to having to do this back and forth.

    I informed all of my IP and as a member of this server that is all that is required .

    Lets move on as you said earlier.
    You and need not agree that is the case with everyone else however respect shouldn't be conditional to whether agreement is reached.

    I wish you the best and lets move on as you have said.
    thank you
     
  61. This is becoming a bore! I have NEVER discredited you or your product, you are quite capable of achieving that all by yourself. All Andrew did was post results from his efforts and ask for advice. My advice to you is to shove off and leave us all in peace. All this rubbish is only damaging to your product whilst it`s bordering on intimidation, harassment and downright pigheadedness. I`m sure by now we`ve had it up to here with all these patents and with threats of more patents to come, the whole scenario is ridiculous.
    Better to spend time simply making a better camera that stands on its own merit without all the associated crap.
     
  62. You advised all of photo.net that a legal patent should be respected
    that translates into;
    http://www.littman45single.com/05ccmc/patentcover.jpg
    If you have evidence of prior art that applies to any of my patented claims you have the right to submit it to the patent office.


    I have nothing further to say to you after reading what you just wrote.
     
  63. Mr Littman,

    After reading your posts and the manner in which you have behaved....I would NEVER buy one of your products no matter how good was! I suggest you take a class in Public Relations.

    Cheers,
     
  64. Someone's cheese has slid off its cracker.
     
  65. hmmm, is this the same thread I read a while ago in the archives, the person was threatening people who buy these old cameras off of ebay, said was "threatening his livelihood" or something...Good Grief
     
  66. These people were people buying parts to compete with me, not private users, anyone can buy anything but when they buy 10-20-50-100 of the same I have to think they will use them to do the same. they denied it but...

    I bought what they made and found the parts were used identically while they had denied that in those threads.


    Well in 10 days the following will be patented retroactive to 2001; A camera comprising: a body shell from a 31/4.times.41/4 format camera selected from the group consisting of Polaroid Models 110, 110A, 110B, 120, 150, 160, 800 and 900 cameras; a coupled rangefinder/parallax assembly from a 31/4.times.41/4 format camera selected from the group consisting of Polaroid Models 110B and 900 cameras on said body shell; means for holding films; and an adaptor between said body shell and said holding means.

    that is not limited to 4x5 as you can read. and that refers to the saga about converting a 110a to a 110b. and a similar claim will be patented when doing that on 4x5.

    more related IP will be pending.


    That covers both the issue of the utilization of the parts of the Polaroid 900 as I had told them and the conversion of a 110a to a 110b .

    I bought their products and verified they had purchased these parts not for something else but for protected uses.

    these threads on photo. net to discredit me alleging unfair business practices is therefore a public relations campaign for them.

    they have discredited me for years, even Michael Briggs went as far as to say derogatory things after reading what these people wrote on it. Michael Briggs like I have always said people have a right to their opinion but when they distort the facts to discredit someone with lies to the point that still today have to read them in my detriment and that even your words as a participant and as a moderator have been influenced by these lies and I ask you to finally
    remove all this from photo.net.

    Like I have said If someone has prior art on any claim they can submit it to the patent office.

    These people did not have the right to make these matters public to present me in a way which is untrue.

    they may have the right to disagree with a patent claim but as hopeful competitors that they presented these matters here to obstruct them is an issue independently of whether prior art may exist on any claim, while they also said to have submitted it and lied again.

    Whatever the case maybe on any patent claim what matters is that this were matters related to intellectual property pending,and my privacy must be respected they did otherwise and threatened to disclose more if I ever considered my rights

    I have just proven that I had told the truth and that means that they had the right to submit evidence of prior art if it existed and not to interfere with my reputation and force me to defend my rights.

    Mr. Briggs; Mr. Jones and His palsy have done all this to sell their products and went to offer them by making sure people would not buy something from me no matter how good it may be by discrediting me a year and a half ago they actually told all this should be the case .



    This has remained posted as leverage as Mr. Jones suggested it should
    when I defended myself Mr. Jones said all should realize that my words were only words which amounts to dennying my right to defendmyself when i shouldnt be under attack in the first place so he could justify his flip flops and as per the patent claim shown above you now know I told the truth.

    here are Mr. Jones Words in October of 2003
    After Mr. Jones instigated photo.net against me and my rights he offered the following comments""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 also wrote he now says he NEVER discredited me.....

    What I say Is I am tired of his tag team efforts to obstruct my rights whether thru a photographer who says he is just here to get advice but then says " I imagine others like me would think that is a great deal"

    I didn't need to have all this contentious discussions with anyone.

    As Jones told us all to he can follow his own advice before he gives me any

    None of us should have had to endure all of this I didn't start it and had to clear my name after these people did all they could to make it impossible for me to proceed otherwise.

    That was their intended purpose that people would not want to do business with me no matter how good my product could be.

    At this point when I say I intend to move on I mean I intend to not have to endure this further. I expect all the discredit and resulting libel will be removed from photo.net as to allow me the right to conduct business and live as per my rights/ not have to be subjected to this ensuing humiliation based on libel.

    Freedom of expression is a great right but it has been misused to discredit me so people would not do business with me , that has placed me in a very bad spot.

    Mr. Briggs I invite you to correct this malicious wrongdoing which has been committed against me and that it be removed from photo.net.
    Gentlemen what I have to say is that all of you who were misled and responded accordingly are entirely forgiven. I am not one to hold grudges.

    All best William












     
  67. I am neither Mr. Jones "palsy" nor a member of any "tag team" effort. I have simply come
    here to share the results from my camera. That I happen to be a satisfied customer of Mr.
    Jones is a credit to him and him alone. It is not a discredit to you or your cameras. There
    is not much more to say. The fact that his work can result in a loyal customer is
    comething that I am sure people can pick up on. Mr. Littman you truly do a discredit to
    yourself, nobody else needs do it.
     
  68. You wish to continue to ignore that when you plugged Jones on previous threads he added the following in reference to your specific camera " I have found that a 135mm Rodenstock Sironar-N runs exceptionally well with the original Polaroid 110B rangefinder and requires no mods to the cam. It actually seems more at home with this lens than with the original 127mm Rodenstock. It is also far more forgiving with its apparent greater depth of field. Whatever back you fit that will accommodate 4x5 holders is irrelevant as the results are brilliant. I have just built such a camera and it`s simply marvellous. Thanks to Andrew for some kind words also!
    Cheers guys, Dean"



    He said that the modification of the cam is not required which isn't true, when I told that to a client who had just received one of my cameras with the same lens his immediate response was that two different lenses could not have the same curvature in the cam.

    that is precisely the case.

    on that issue if there were no patents that is still discredit .



    then on a contemporary thread he said "I have also found that the Polaroid rangefinder is far more accurate with a 135mm lens fitted! I consider the later multicoated lenses are far more forgiving with their apparent greater depth of field at larger apertures. Cheers, Dean."but now he says here that
    the wider apertures are only good on ground glass.





    That is also not the case, the lens should be better but the rf is equally effective with any lens if proper.

    What this is a systematic discredit of all I say is required, the fact that he doesn't say Littman means little when he is speaking about an option which I offer .

    a few weeks later Mr. Hull appeared on a thread where some of my clients were responding about my product and said" just received a BEAUTIFUL converted polaroid from Dean Jones that has a Rodenstock 135mm lens and a graflok back. Very nicely done. His website is ...................................

    I recommend him highly. Andrew. And to not find myself having to have future discrepancies with other photo.net members I reminded him that the configuration he was recommending was patented and would be patented further this led to an argument but we agreed to move on and I thought I made it clear that I didn't have any intention of suing him I just didn't want to find myself having future discrepancies with others. That is my right. I also made it clear that hope you would enjoy your camera but that my new patent would issue and I didn't want to find myself having to do this again.

    I do not dispute your right to be satisfied and hoped you would not as you put it"stir "situations that obstruct my rights when we had discussed the matter previously. I would be satisfied with that and it is my lawful right.
     
  69. Surely that cannot be all you have to say on the matter, Littman, you must have a few mroe
    pages of tirade left...
     
  70. Hi! I'm Baaaack! Just wait til' Noah gets wind of this! I own a "Hot Rod" shop just like Dean and Noah but our fellow "Hot Rod" shop owner in New York city (Littman) can not stand the idea that there are other folks that "Hot Rod" Polaroid 110 series cameras. What would happen if a New York Hot Rod Shop forbade the modification and resale of '32 Fords? I am sure that the shops in California, Melbourne, Rhode Island, and others would certainly laugh! Patent? IP? Yeah Right! Now is about that time that the moderator will get disgusted and close up this discussion and severely edit what I have expressed. Don't forget, the other shops provide sincere value without the N.Y. price. Andrew, Keep up the great work, You are doing a fantastic job with your "Hot Rodded" Polaroid 110B!
     
  71. Mr Hull we both agreed to move on last time , lets do that.
    thank you.
     
  72. Since you said, ?I am moving on as well? March 19, 2005, you have typed 11 thread
    responses.
    Total Pages (when pasted into word): 10
    Total Paragraphs: 72
    Total Words: 3,109
    Total Meaning: 0
    Total Time Listening to Rant of Littman: Priceless

    Let's hope you mean it this time. Prove it by not answering this post. C'mon, I know you
    want to....
     
  73. Mr hull:like I have said I value and respect your right to your opinions and those of others and I see that you Invalidate mine. My clients are called ignorant for preferring my product while you start this thread by saying that you really don't know what you are doing tell me how things should be and that my words mean nothing and respond to my experienced clients in contentious tone.

    The matters which I have addressed are not a matter of opinion but of tangible proof admitted as such by the patent office.

    I wish you well with your photography and everything else.
     
  74. As absurd as all this is, I think that there are a few points that
    should be made.

    <p>First of all, Mr. Littman's name, as it appears on his patents
    is, "Litman; Guillermo E". <p>

    If any of you were to send in a claim to the patent office, whatever
    that means, you might want to have the right name so that they
    knew what you were talking about.<p>

    Secondly, It is Mr. Litman's responsibility to prove the validity of
    his patents. No one else's. You don't have to submit anything to
    anyone. He has to be the one to take action. He won't sue
    anyone
    because he knows how expensive and humiliating that would be
    for him,. He knows he would lose his case and he knows it
    would cost him tens of thousands of dollars to do so. <p>

    Those familiar with all of these threads or the history of these
    cameras know that the Polaroid 110 Pathfinder series have
    been one of the most universally modified cameras in history. To
    4x5, or pack
    film, or whatever for about fifty years. No one has the right to
    claim they invented anything to do with that at this point in
    time.<p>

    The Littman cameras are not superior to any other conversion.
    Even the most skeptical seem to think that there must be
    something to the cameras, simply because they cost so much.
    Nothing could be
    further from the truth. If Mr. Litman does what he claims to do to
    these cameras in his invalid patents, he is ruining them, not
    improving them. ( One of his claims is for putting crazy glue on
    the
    rangefinder adjustment screws! ) His cameras will self destruct
    into a not easily repaired mess. Guaranteed. And may the lord
    help you if you ever drop one.<p>

    Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there are rumors that Mr.
    Litman has broken into other peoples email folders. I would take
    this VERY seriously. If you've had dealings with Mr. Litman,
    CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD FREQUENTLY.<p>

    He's gone beyond the realm of being a spoiled man child to
    being a dangerous internet thug.<p>

    All his talk about 'his rights' makes me nauseous.<p>

    By the way, Mr. Hull, nice photo. I wish you many more
    Kangarooids. I'm sorry you had to deal with all this.
     
  75. Andrew, if I can to get back to your original query regarding the scanning of and consequent processing of your 4x5 negs, hopefully we can proceed without threats of impending patents.
    I have recently used the Canon 9950F and found that scanning 1200dpi @ 100% gives a 6x12 neg a file size of around 12-15MB. This size file is quite easy to handle and doesn`t exhaust my computer. After scanning with dust and scratches filter off, quality on and nothing else, I finish up with a reasonable but rather soft image. When in Photoshop CS, I hit the file with a quick clean up using the cloning tool. Dust seems to be my biggest enemy, especially in the skys. If I then apply unsharpen mask at around 75% with a radius of 1.0, the results appear to be very nice. I figure the softer images are a result of the scanner and certainly not the negs. I`ve examined them under a 10x Schneider loupe and absolute sharpness exists in both the negs and trannies. After printing the images before and after using the the unsharp mask, the introduction of that certainly improves the outcome. I`d welcome any advice on this subject as I`m still a novice when it comes to Photoshop CS. I`m currently scanning and processing 20 images shot by Suzanne de Pelsenaire using a 6x12 converted Polaroid J66 so there`s a lot of experience to be gained from all the consequent post production. I`ve found the best way is simply just 'doing it' and anything I might learn along the way will surely be posted. Some images shot by Suzanne can be viewed at: http://www.ozefocus.com/
    Her standards are very high so I must get it right. If images of Australia interest you, then have a look.
    Please lets keep these threads free of the Patent Police. After the nonsense earlier posted, it reminds me of the film '1984' and 'Big Brother'!
     
  76. Hey Dean:

    Can I not use FARE with traditional B&W (I assume not)? Does it automatically kick on for
    slide or color film or can I turn it on in scan gear?

    Thanks,

    Andrew
     
  77. Hi Andrew<p>FARE does not work with silver based B&W, as the IR channel used to identify the dust is also blocked by the developed grains of silver, thus interprets large chunks of your image as crap on the film. You may get some interesting effects though ;^))<p>
    Steve
     
  78. Okay, but how do I turn it on?
     
  79. If you are using the Canon utilities for scanning, I don't think these will allow you to turn on FARE when B&W negative is selected as the film type. It certainly won't for FilmGet used with the FS4000 film scanner. If you are using an alternative such as Hamrick VueScan, you should be able to turn it on in the Filter settings.

    Steve
     
  80. ON My PATENTS AND NOAH SCHWARTZ

    Mr. Schwartz introduced himself to photo.net by insisting to be experienced in Patent matters.He then said that while I asked him for proof of prior art to be submitted to me on the same day I learned of his product offer be sent to me or my attorneys he replied that he needed a patent application # before considering my request.

    A few days later I provided it to him but later found out that I had the right to maintain my
    patent application data as confidential until it was issued, but a few days after his original request I furnished him with the patent application # and after a few exchanges he told me
    to stay away from him because otherwise I could loose my patent and " he could use the publicity" to which I replied that I hoped he would submit proof of prior art to me, my attorneys or the patent office, My patent didn't issue until September and he had plenty of time to do so before that date.

    Just as Mr. Jones had threatened to disclose data regarding IP pending and Mr. Schwartz they proceeded to start 2 simultaneous threads after the issue of my patent at which point he told you all that he couldn't do anything because I gave him My AKA and not my legal name, such comment made 5 months after I did give him my name and patent application #is malicious and damaging and a is a misrepresentation of the actual events.He went on to make a huge deal as to how alarmed and surprised he was that I had patent application pending etc etc and that was the reason he responded or acted as he did yet later on in the threads he ended admitting that SKG had told him about my product a year earlier, then he further admitted that someone who had been interested in my product contacted him and he was made aware of my website who mentioned the patent applications and obviously who I was, but when he started the threads to discredit me he said that when I first contacted him he acted the way he did because he didn't know who I was.
    He then said in several other occasions that he had submitted all the evidence I needed to re write my patents, Neither I or my attorneys ever received anything.

    Then he tried to insist that a photo of the front of the camera which he insisted he had never modified was to be considered prior art on a modification of a camera back.

    Prior art is something tangible which proves it was made at a certain time
    Then at a later date he went on to post what he insisted was an excerpt of a letter from his attorney in which such attorney had made the determination that no further patents could be issued/ would be issued.

    I felt it would be hard to believe that an attorney would jeopardize attorney client privileges in such manner much less allow a client to publish a letter saying they had made the determination which only a court or the patent office can.

    The only valid determination possible is that of the patent office or a court so I believed Mr. Schwartz was bluffing because as you read he insists litigation is expensive anyway and bluffing or such assurances has been used since the beginning of this matter..

    When a year or so went by and I asked him why he never submitted evidence to the patent office he replied that why should he have the cost of doing so. and because of earlier threats of discredit fulfilled by the threads started that sounded to me like as If it would be more effective and less costly to just discredit me.

    In January of this year he proceeded to say that all my patent claims are false and none of my modifications are required ,

    What Mr. Schwartz could speak of publicly to make such assurances is that of which he has
    absolute proof regarding " all my claims" otherwise while he may have proof of something to say that all is false and not required is obviously impossible unless the proper authority determines that to be the case , he can not nobody can.

    When he insists that none of my modifications are required then he could not justify having done them before I did if he ever had to. again if he can not prove that all the modifications I have patented are not required that again would be a clearly damaging .

    Interestingly as I said before others who have made the modifications I purchased utilized the modifications......but have also insisted that they don't and that they are not required.
    The fact is in the event I would ever sue someone and I would first acquire and verify if a tangible structure to show how it was modified by another and verify how, and it is that person who has to prove that someone else or himself made that specific modification earlier.

    Mr. Schwartz has to consider this endless list of misrepresentations of the way things are could be interpreted as a means of obstructing my rights in the public eye, etc may not be justified I think that he could say that I would prefer to think that my camera is better than it but when the users agree then that is just an absolute castration of everyone's opinion, the giving away of my claims to all based on his assurances which he does not have the authority to make , as well as his introduction of me to this website as an undesirable person to deal with when it is proven by his own admissions he presented me in this manner with misrepresentations for reasons he also gave.


    He insists that you should be made aware by him of my real name because I use a " fake" name but all can see that my patents are listed In my site and that I use my photographers AKA for business because I was previously know like many other photographers
    who have done so. he implied in the original threads that amounted to dishonesty.

    When he started the threads in accord with Jones accusing me of unfair business practices
    went on to disclose My ebay identity, my emails ref patents pending and participate in the instigation of ways to undermine my business. and then went on to tell all to send the cameras for business to him instead.
    Others responded with Ideas such as " sales is the best revenge" and building a pile of cameras and destructing them or so.

    I was not invited to participate and they did all they could to prevent me from defending myself .


    As you can see it is an endless list of attempts to make me look undesirable and the factor of risk is painted to color everything, that amounts to telling you to be careful of me and to be afraid , the same has been done about the product .

    Contrary to what Mr. Schwartz insist the patents are considered proved once the examination period ends and prior art has to be determined as such made by another to limit, or invalidate a patent claim.


    Mr. Briggs I respectfully ask you to review these matters and the claims I have referred to here and compare them to the discrepancies used as justification to start the original threads I will have my people do the same.

    I am sure that for every patent which exists there is a wishful competition business who could resort to this kind of jubilee and discredit as deterrent. I would like to ask if some photo.net member has ever heard of such a thing. I doubt it.

    The reason for that is that people utilize self regulation or keep these maters between businesses, you seldom read that someone is suing someone but as a last resort however in this case both Mr. Jones and Mr. Schwartz chose photo . net as both a leverage tool on these matters as well as they insisted because they could use the publicity and when they give my rights away without the authority to it is in the hopes that enough people will disrupt my business so that I will not be able to sue them and now that I have shown the patent claims refereeing to the discrepancies used to initiate the discussions
    I have proven that while I cant guarantee longevity because only Mr. Schwartz can take license and predict the future.

    The fact that it was Ip pending, the fact that it was granted and the fact the new claims will be granted clearing the discrepancies proves they did not have the right to discredit me as a form of deterrent or as a means to put the public against me.all they had to do is submit evidence of prior art or if they were so convinced that my patents would not stand in court
    they could have just ignored them instead of creating a public leverage tool as the threads
    to obstruct me from using them as they said it should all remain posted for that purpose.

    They may be entitled to their opinions but what Mr. Schwartz has done was to make assurances presenting himself as an expert on these matters or as entitled to speak on behalf of The USPTO and waive all my rights, is inexcusable .

    If someone hopes to be entitled to ignore my patents based on what Mr. Schwartz has said or done better show this post to their attorney before getting in knee deep.

    What I say is that you better forget aboudid

    The statements made By Mr. Schwartz in January have already cost me more than half of what a patent trial could cost and the rest of the situations I have yet to determine .

    He says he is sorry that you had to read all this , but I have an email from him in which it says this would occur because he could use the publicity and I have defended myself because no money is worth this kind of publicity .

    In October of 2003 Mr. Schwartz also said the patent was not ludicrous but last month insisted they all are.

    As most of the ip I represented to them would be eventually patented and this has occurred or will shortly I have to seek advise on whether this medium has been abused in order to prevent my enjoyment of those rights when there is an admittance in writing of earlier threats to do so as deterrent or for publicity purposes and that it should remain posted as leverage.

    That in itself is inexcusable there is all this direct reference to personal endangerment ,risk, and rumors and forecast of the future which sounds more like fortune telling than fact.

    I cant assure the longevity of my patents but certain that no one can assure their certain demise specially a wishful beneficiary of such case.

    When we find ourselves here after 1 1/2 years with all these 3 people admitting now how they have felt all along and how they have reacted to my patents being pending .and how they react to my patents granted and the endless contradictions not to mention what they say about my product or me .

    Jones started the threads based on Mr. Schwartz word and his opinion and the photo of the front of a camera and at every turn they have rushed to make determinations which I do not believe they are entitled to.

    So far Photo.net members regretted having to read all this but in the end it was understood that these people could not be justified to just do this.

    You can see how fast Jones hangs his sign on the door the minute that Schwartz shows up to give his closing speech.that in itself shows the modus operandi and what effect Schwartz assurances have had on the behavior of others since he made them.

    When they felt they had sufficiently discredited me In 2003 they went on to offer their products in the same threads they started with the excuse saying they wanted to learn whether they were valid or not but the minute after the discredit they posted and saw that the participants reacted against me they opened shop as they call it under the name of don't do business with Littman no matter how good his product may be

    That stopped working because people started hearing that customers were satisfied so the next strategy was to say the product can not be better than any 110b.


    The only problem is that they got away with this as long as I couldn't show that the pending IP wasn't granted as I represented to them that it would. whether it will all remain in force it is a matter all together different the case is I don't know if they had the right to do what they did on photo.net instead of following proper channels.


    Mr. Schwartz I am absolutely tired of you representing that I am afraid of you, I am absolutely not.the endless venomous portrayal of my persona has been utilized to bluff as to the existence of enormous proof of your assurances about the existence of prior art in your possession and I say if you had it you would have submitted it. you are harming my business telling everybody to disregard my patents , My claims as false and my modifications or claims not requires on your word , a photograph which doesn't show the matters at hand and heresay.the only person spreading rumors is you.

    I do not believe you are in the possession of what can be considered as prior art in these matters on a single patented claim a fraction of it much less 100 patented claims, on that note it is my firm belief that you have done this and what you have said about my product for financial gain, That is what I believe ( firmly). after which I urge you to govern yourself accordingly you have created this circus to profit from it, the circus is closed.
     
  81. ON WHAT MR. SCHWARTZ HAS SAID ABOUT MY PRODUCT IN JANUARY AND YESTERDAY
    In September of 2003 Mr. Schwartz reason to start the threads was to say I was an unfair businessman but last month he said" when the threads came up......(the truth is he started them as fulfillment of earlier threats because he said he could use the publicity), he told us that when a customer of mine contacted him after Schwartz discredited me, he suggested/ encouraged such client to obtain a refund in lieu of a regular scheduled maintenance. anyone would say that would be unfair business practice.
    then he ratified by saying it was hearsay....



    Then he went on to say that anyone who would prefer my camera to another 110b would have to do so out of ignorance.now says My cameras are not better could not be better.

    Gentlemen: photo.net and its threads have the purpose of users sharing their experiences
    and anyone who has tried two things can decide which one he prefers.

    When my clients by now include some of the worlds most proficient photographers and not just a few like Mr. Schwartz try to put it, if they cant prefer my product to another conversion or to anything ever made before what is the purpose of these discussions anyway?The same applies to the pros and dedicated amateurs or even to someone taking their "first shot "if he also used another camera to compare it to??

    Then Mr. Schwartz went on to insist that my cameras would self destruct and were overpriced time bombs.so much talk about destruction and endangerment.

    In April 2003 When Jones sent me an email with the title" I hope you have seen this"
    It was a link to Mr. Schwartz first ebay auction on the conversion and in the description he insisted that you couldn't walk around Manhattan with a Speed Graphic camera and hit someone on the head with it because the camera would just get Dented.

    So that was the first occasion in which I learned about on the value of an all metal body and its requirement as a multipurpose tool.... now when he refers to mine he puts it as God help you if you ever drop it.

    I think my clients are happy that they don't have to carry an anvil around as a camera hoping it will outlast them or to cause damage to others

    He is entitled to his opinion but has an interest in saying so but to me it sound like fortune telling but is clearly a definitive discredit of my work, my product, My patent claims, my innovation and whoever may prefer it.

    It is also an attempt to erode the credibility of those who believe it is superior for fear of being labeled as ignorant even though they may have compared products and arrived at such conclusion not to mention an attempt to discredit all who have used it or reviewed it as unqualified, who died and left him in charge?

    Then he discredits the patent office saying that it needs to be overhauled and sends us all to read a book saying patents don't mean the same thing as it used to. perhaps the truth is years ago it was a smaller world and events had more significance and ceremony yet innovation has skyrocketed in the last 20 years which required streamline to accommodate the intricate new technologies and today thanks to the aid of computers any search is much more efficient and more likely to not omit any data than when all data amounted to file folders or microfilm.

    Then he said that if I do to my cameras what I say in my patents I would actually ruin them
    because I say for example that it could be necessary to increase the tension of a spring on a rangefinder after it has remained tensed for 50 years.

    I agree that if it was done excessively that could be the case but photo. net members have read enough comments on my belief in subtle changes/ adjustments in photography versus huge changes which are never required, however small a modification may be it is still a modification and none of my patent claims quantify anything as to how big or small a modification should be beyond a few measurements.

    He said it would create a groove in the cam much like a needle would on a record if you put a weight on it.

    Mr. Schwartz always uses absolutes and magnitude as a requirement but photography is about subtlety so taking into account the infinitesimal variance over the years I may if required return the tension to the original setting.

    The springs on an old car are not at tense after 50 years that is the case for all springs.

    So you see that as usual alarmism is used to discredit .everything is taken out of context to make it appear damaging.
    By next week I will have next to 100 patented claims, not all are required simultaneously.

    There are several maps and one chooses the best route in each instance.

    Also the language in the claims does not exactly describe every detail because patent language tends to be more generic and because a patent is a public document and will remain in the public domain,yet it is not intended as an instruction manual for building it.simply a list of protected claims

    Then he said that what I wrote in my patents shows profound ignorance of rangefinder theory, that he read a book on the subject and he doubted I ever did.

    I didn't read any books but have proven to have the ability to innovate throughout my life
    and if theory was a closed subject then innovation would not ever be required.

    True innovation requires a break from earlier beliefs, not about everything and enormous as Mr. Schwartz seems to expect but thru minute subtleties in the process of cognition.

    Mr. Schwartz recently wrote on one of his offers that if you were like him the only valid conversion possible is the one he does because the camera remains intact.

    It was then where I began to understand and connect the dots and to understand that Mr. Schwartz chooses preservation over innovation and regards the old as necessarily having to be better than the new in his comment about the patent office or the Polaroid 110 B saying my camera could not be better.

    The instance that improvement could not be possible speaks of his own experience as he cannot speak of what he hasn't seen.

    He also puts a lot of emphasis on longevity when the only value to all this is for utilitarian purposes, would you not marry a great girl because she will age?

    Apparently he told several people that he feels that are millions of these cameras lying around so perhaps someone can have an " intact" clunker on a shelf or as a paper weight on their desk and find comfort as a member of the clunker preservation society.

    My clients are those interested in preserving a moment, most photographers are.


    Then he accuses me of not having any previous experience but I respond by saying that I have done nothing else for 4 years than this camera project and 2 years before I was doing the research so on this subject I have to have more experience than anybody because
    there are about 200 of my cameras out there and I get very few requests for repair.

    Then I have the "other" experience after being a Fashion photographer for 25 years I can understand how something is expected to somewhat work around you .


    He said God help you down the road ........My cameras require maintenance , all cameras do and we offer a 1 year warranty and then repairs to our customers and also to those who buy them second hand.should we cease to make the cameras a licensed repair shop will be in charge of repairing them

    I have several customers who bought them second hand and have never required maintenance and several customers who required maintenance right away and several customers who required maintenance in 1 year or 2.

    Then he said that when a customer of mine complains about my product on photo. net I offer excuses. first of all it has never happened , but I did respond once that the rentals had been iffy in the beginning because the cameras require they be sturdier than one owner cameras, he said that I kept promising the next model would be better . It has been confirmed by the users. in any event the fact is that a patent refers to an idea but implementing it in the real world requires experimentation both time consuming and costly and I cannot use customers cameras for experimentation so I have to work on that on my free time.again he represents by this that improvement or innovation is unlikely.

    That is amazing coming from someone claiming to be an inventor.

    .

    That Mr. Schwartz says he heard rumors that I violate peoples privacy is yet another rumor and damaging.those who have the willingness to make rumors public are also the ones who usually start them.

    Amazing that someone who threatens you that If you considered using your patent rights he would disclose your privacy and being able to use the publicity as deterrent tells all to be careful of me because I might violate their privacy?.

    Mr. Schwartz told all not to do business with me based on the way he presented me to photo.net in September of 2003, he put it as " if you buy from Guillermo what you get is Guillermo.

    My clients say otherwise.





     
  82. ON WHY THESE MATTERS EXIST ON PHOTO.NET
    They reiterate they are sorry that you had to read all this but if you go back to the first discussion they recommended it remain posted as leverage and It is nothing but a choreographed tag team connivance since the first day. Mr. Jones says he is sorry you had to read all this and to keep these matters out of photo.net but I read that at the end of the instigation he started he recommended the following"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! Dean Jones".

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

    What that means is he recommended that if he felt like it the subject should start all over again if what they offer would not infringe upon my rights and that it should have an active role in self regulation?? I mean do these people even read what they write?.

    Again Mr. Jones and Mr. Schwartz please read what you have written
     
  83. That's pretty long, so here's a condensed summary:

    "He said I said she said he said I said she said me says you says then I said and now she says but I still say its like the way I said it when I said it the first time, and all this means..."

    OK?
     
  84. Kai:You are absolutely right.
    Photo.net is no place for a
    he said I said, with that in mind the moderators can tell you I have asked repeatedly that it all be removed from photo.net and that it be dealt in the buisness world but under Mr Jones Suggestion It must all remain posted to serve as leverage and sales.

    I wish it would all be removed once and for all and these people excercise self regulation
    as per their suggestion
    Thank you
     
  85. Aha! Now I understand what this is all about. You write these incredibly long spam messages in threads in the hope that you can get the entire thread deleted. In other words... sabotage. Your thinking is that by filling up a thread with enough endless nonsense, that the administrator will finally get fed up and delete the whole lot. In that, I hope you do not succeed, as it would mean that you (or anyone else, for that matter) can target any thread you don't like with a fillibuster until you get what you want: removal of threads you don't like.
     
  86. I do not want this thread removed.just dealings between businesses removed from the server entirely which were agreed would be based on self regulation starting in 2003which did not result in self regulation but the opposite.
    as I would prefer none of it would have made it to the website in the first place.
    In January there was a thread about my product and one moderator said it would be closed as soon as the first user expressed his opinion then it was allowed to remain , then later the thread was closed not removed. the only comment which was removed was where Mr. Schwartz decreed that anyone who would prefer my product would have to do so out of ignorance.because of that I have only now been able to respond to his comments and many of my clients were unable to express their opinion both because the thread was closed and because they received the email at home informing them of their ignorant status.
     
  87. Wow! I am going to get me a beer out of the fridge, Then I think to myself as I look at this years production of MY 4x5 110B camera conversions of all the happy clients that will soon posess them and enjoy them, tell their friends about them, Sales are great! by word of mouth. And No! The "Hot Rod" shop in New York will not get his hands on one, How can He? Anytime now the moderator is going to flush this thread down the...............___
     
  88. Mr Littman. UNLESS you wish to share information with readers of PN, especially regarding scanning LF, using the Canon 9950F, Photoshop CS, B/W photography in general or perhaps anything else associated with the reason for this thread, then kindly keep your long winded ramblings for your resume. The purpose of the question posed by Andrew dealt solely with the scanning of his negatives to obtain the best result. No one was, is, or will be remotely interested in your patents, retrospective or otherwise. Obviously you don`t remember stating earlier that you had nothing more to say.........Alternatively, I have another idea: You keep on rambling whilst I make more cameras!
     
  89. Mr. Jones;here is some information you told me to share with the readers of PN. I am just doing what you told me to do and to the letter.
    you gave us all the following instruction: 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! Dean Jones".

    If that is the case then the opposite would also have to be true. As I explained I didn't want to find myself in the future having to have discrepancies with others so when Mr. Hull showed up at my thread In January I wasn't discrediting myself by informing him of my patents but following your instructions.The response was highly contentious and he is your client, my thread was closed , the knowledgeable users called ignorant.

    When client of mine Alban Christ posted an email uncoated an email to the thread that was closed in January complaining that he wasn't able to express himself ,Mr. Hull replied
    to that email on Thursday, March 17, 2005 7:00 PM . When this thread was started following that email I followed your instructions because As Mr. hull said it is not about him, The discussion was brought up again as per your instruction and we all found out how you and the rest had been complying with self regulation .

    You brought these matters to photo.net as leverage against me and then gave me instructions for a future coexistence
    I believe I have followed your instructions to the letter but you insist I discredit myself. must be my poor English and limited intellect.

    Being able to prove that you had no right to present me to photo.net as you did was priceless.I followed your instructions and was able to show that what you guys wished and told others to believe about me applies to you and not me.
     
  90. William: OK, you're willing to follow instructions to the letter. Follow these instructions: Go Away.

    Let us get back to discussing Andrew's picture and FARE, which are the only two relevant discussions in this thread. If you have something to contribute on those topics, well go ahead. If you just want to carry on with your own agenda pusuing this meaningless, unrelated argument concerning patents and business ethics in SOMEONE ELSE'S THREAD... then the instructions above are clear - just bugger off. By all means start your own thread on those topics if you want to, but don't try to take over unrelated threads. Nobody but nobody wants you here hijacking threads like you have here.

    Personally, I'd like to have gotten involved in the FARE topic that fourished briefly here, but you buried the conversation again with you unrelated personal garbage. While I initially found it all kind of humourous, you're now seriously pissing me and others here off. To me, that looks like a clear case of sabotage on your part. The irony is that you are also publicly sabotaging your own business prospects.

    Just go away - you are becoming extremely irritating to EVERYONE here. You have absolutely no "RIGHTS" to hijack threads, no matter what you may think about it, or how big the chip on your shoulder might be. You have had your "last word" about 7 or 8 times in this thread already - do not bother to answer this post; you can answer it by NOT answering here.
     
  91. I`ll have one more go at this! Andrew, this is my current procedure: With the scanner on, open Photoshop, (preferably CS?) and click 'file'. Select 'import'and then select 'Canon 9950f'.
    Next check out the Canoscan page and select the film type, whether positive or negative RGB or B/W and then click '4x5'. Next select 'output size' which should be 4x5 (inches)when set at '100%'. A reasonable file size of perhaps 20MB will come up if scanned at 1200dpi. Select 'auto tone' ON, followed by 'Quality' ON. Click the preview button and a short scan will occur. Pull the borders to where you want them, then click 'SCAN'
    When it`s finished you will have to close the scanner page to access the file loaded in Photoshop. Then you can edit, use unsharp mask, adjust contrast and size, or simply 'save as' and leave it. If you want to increase the size, simply decrease the dpi, (say 300, or 72 for viewing on a monitor, or emailing. Don`t forget to save the file with a new name or it will overwrite the original file. Even scanning a transparency and turning it to 'greyscale' afterward does a marvellous job. By this time you will have either exhausted yourself from all the proceedings or fallen asleep reading the rantings so far posted.
    Cheers.
     
  92. Then there is the fact that we are not living in Oaxca but in the USA​

    (1) I doubt anyone is living in "Oaxca."
    (2) This is an international forum and I doubt you know where everyone live, or is able to speak for them.
     
  93. Guillermo Littman:10518 Words

    Everyone else:7254 words

    Wow can that guy rant.
     
  94. I would like to wish everyone at PN a happy Easter.
    Z you are right . I was addressing someone who lives in the USA.
    I myself have lived in Mexico for a year and loved it, I have lived in many countries all wonderful experiences where the golden rule is alive and well.

    These people set out to destroy the public perception of my reputation and rights while saying that all should know that my words are just words so that I could not defend myself.

    They presented themselves as friends told you to believe I am the enemy then after reluctantly having to realize they couldn't just do that entirely they decreed a set of rules for coexistence they are so written as to obstruct me if they so choose to using public opinion as leverage instead of evidence in the proper channels but those rules apply to them as well and they obligated themselves to reciprocateand respect my rights and when confronted with in the format they chose fact they did not follow them clearly show that the whole thing is nothing but a set up, it all was .



    When they are confronted with what they prescribe and not follow they show they were not entitled to the moral high ground / business ethics to be able to question mine as to entitle themselves to gain support at the expense of My reputation.

    My friends , family and loved ones and my clients didn't want to have to read that anywhere yet they have had to and still do. I have to live with it every day when I wake up and when I say my prayers at night.

    While this is extremely annoying I had no choice but to clear my name I apologize to all but we have reached a turning point which was required and I will no longer have to endure any of that.

    I could have chosen to take drugs or lithium as I was told but perhaps it is more effective to show that those who discredited me
    did not have the right to distort the facts to my detriment.

    This is Easter And Pesaj and I am glad that I don't have to live
    with a chip on my shoulder , I never did and that is why I did what I had to remove it.

    Those who don't like to hear ranting had no right to have started it.

    What has happened is inexcusable and I understand that because of that people want to dismiss it by pointing to the amount of words I have had to say to demonstrate what was cleverly concealed as they denied it at each turn.
    Yes it took a lot of words to prove that my words are not just words. I leave it at that .

    Happy Easter and Pesaj to all !
     
  95. Mr, Litman,

    You started it. We were not discussing your cameras. There was no mention of them.
    Can it be said any more clearly: GO AWAY!
     
  96. This is worse than Mr. Acutol himself.
     
  97. Those who don't like to hear ranting had no right to have started it​

    Translation: William Littman takes no responsibility for his own tangential or offtopic rants if he sees someone posting whom he accuses of ranting from a completely different thread. He feels he can appear and dredge up any offtopic discussion simply because of something which happened somewhere else, some time else.
    I hope the moderator(s) see(s) this.
     
  98. And as the Dust from the flurry begins to settle........I am learning from Dean, Andrew, Kai and all the others about scanning and printing large format negs and trannies of which is fascinating! Too bad I had to wade through all the rantings to get to the REAL issue at hand. As for Him! We should make a point not to respond to the RANTINGS as He will do damage to himself, He reminds me of a movie I saw once where this feller with a loud mouth was securely staked to the ground, then a rope with a sharp sword attached to one end hanging over his chest and then rope was strung over a tree branch with the other end inserted into his mouth, so if he opened his mouth, the sword would fall and stab him in the chest, well, the men who rigged the rather cruel rigging were joking on how long the loud mouth man would keep his mouth shut, They suddenly heard loud cussing that was followed by a blood curdling scream, they looked at each other and said "Not very long!" So, How long before the ranting begin again? Whooops.........
     
  99. Is 'Z' for Zorro, or am I missing something? I don`t recall anyone but Guillermo ranting, or am I becoming phased at the prospect of another 100 patents? God forbid! I`m sure we haven`t heard the last of it and there`s still more smoke an` mirrors to come. If Lithium fails what about Nickel Metal Hydride?
    00BcGH-22516384.jpg
     
  100. Dean, .[. Z was only referring to our motor-mouth friend and his wild accusations, by my reading!
    Where was I? The question I wanted to ask at some point, and now is as good a time as any, was this: I recall reading that dust-removal technology (ICE or FARE) was available when scanning prints on one of the latest scanners: I don't remember if it was the Canon 9950F or the Epson 4990. Anyway, I was wondering whether this could imply that dust removal on that scanner could conceivably work for B&W negatives? I'm guessing that the dust removal hardware operates differently for prints than it does for negatives (?). Perhaps using the print-mode dust removal method on B&W negs would work OK?
     
  101. Happy Easter to all!
     
  102. Dean, that camera looks like mine.
     
  103. 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.
     
  104. 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.
     
  105. 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.
     
  106. 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).
    00Bes4-22574384.jpg
     
  107. 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
     
  108. 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
     
  109. 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)
     
  110. 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
     
  111. I am sorry, I guess Littman brought your name into this.
     
  112. 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.
     
  113. 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.
    Say no more: that is exactly my point. All this stuff happened in another thread several months ago. 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 himself 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 not.
    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 this thread. You are both completely in the wrong.
    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 this thread. It is extremely inconsiderate to the rest of us.
    Cheers,
    Kai
     
  114. 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.
    00BgSt-22612984.jpg
     
  115. "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?
     
  116. Wow! What a head rush! But Wait! There's more!??? AAAAAAHH!! NOW GET OUT THERE AND TAKE SOME PICTURES!!!!
     
  117. 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.
     
  118. 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...
     
  119. 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!
    00Bj0N-22691984.jpg
     
  120. 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
     

Share This Page