Littman 45`s now from China?

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by razzledog, Jun 4, 2006.

  1. I don`t believe it.......Check out item 7626464556. Pick up only from
    Shanghai?, I`ll just get my hat.........
     
  2. I wonder how long that will be on before ebay pulls it? I hope someone doesn't fall for it...


    William
     
  3. Dean, check his feedback, really fishy 10 positives; ALL FROM FOLKS WITH ZERO RATINGS! I dont think I have ever seem something so hucksterish since I have been on Ebay for the last decade!
     
  4. click on the sellers completed auctions, they are monkey poop ????????
     
  5. Not only are the feedback from people with zero feedback, the buyers all joined on the same day, plus the items ended on the same day the feedvack was left. Go figure.
     
  6. And the 10 "different" buyers just happened to leave their feedbacks on mostly consecutive minutes from 20:25 to 20:33. Except two posted on 20:33. And their ids are similar random sequences of characters.
     
  7. It seems that everything about the L45`s is weird at the moment.......either we have 'The Real Deal' that doesn`t sell, or the 'Littman Copy, only Cheaper', that does, but with an inaccurate finder that allows only focusing with a groundglass, to a mysterious 'Rare Earth' lens that boasts adjustable 'Bokeh'! The current fake listing from China only puts the icing on the cake. Are we to see Chinese knockoffs of a Littman?
    A patent is simply meaningless.....especially when it comes to the modification of a Polaroid. I guess any claim made that it`s a 'New' product or a 'New' invention, is also misleading.
     
  8. What would be involved in having all Littman listings removed from ebay on the basis that the
    claims of it being a 'new' camera are false ?
     
  9. Another malicious trick from the individual who started this thread and the rest of such threads by him and his palsy as fulfillment of threats of defamation as a means of solicitation.

    Photo.net terms of use policy:No Soliciting
    You agree not to use the Site, other than the Classifieds section of the Site, to advertise products or services or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services.

    Allowing a buisness to admittedly instigate the public and use this website as a base for the purpose of solicitation and admitedly using defamation as the means to achieve it is an unfair business practice .


    If someone in china has resorted to malicious actions spoofing our product, then that is their problem.

    But Jones resorts to similar malicious action on this website week after week engaging in ensuing solicitation and using defamation as a means to achieve it.

    My product sells well thru my website and if it doesn't sell on the auction site it is because this website allows Jones and co conspirators to start threads as to impede such sales.

    Every time I post an auction him of the 3 or 4 people who walk with him start a thread on this website telling people not to buy my product.

    This thread is yet another attempt to defamate and interfere.

    I am fully dedicated and concentrating on my work but have had to divert a lot of time to deal with these malicious attacks.

    These people work as a tag team; one pushes you / the other one makes you trip and then they tell everyone you are clumsy.

    When confronted with the facts this person shrugs his shoulders and insists he is a hobbyist to deflect responsibility but then he tells us that his REAL job is being the manager of the large format department at a camera store.

    If you walk into a camera store and the manager tells you that you wouldn't be able to notice the difference between a vintage lens and a current Apo corrected one( as he posted on this website) you would know this person is not qualified to make differentiations as he admits he doesn't SEE them.

    Polaroid to most signifies a means to verify exposure
    but if this person would show you two different pictures of lens shutter apertures showing 1/3- 1/2 stop error as he posted on this website and tell "There is no problem". you would again know this person cant SEE vital differentiation.

    At least 5 people have sold used "conversions "and have confirmed that when using the 127 mm lens the parallax lines do not correspond. Several people have even assured this is the case on this website but this person CANT SEE the differentiation either.

    After the first discussions when he told everyone in photo. net that in his opinion a patent should be respected .... what followed was an interest by the public to learn the tech issues and I was forced to divert almost 3 full years of my life to engage this person and others who were acting as a team insisting they were trying to stop me or at least keep me busy. that when one was done over here the other one would take over somewhere else and so forth.


    I am busy with my work/ and that was the case then yet thought that if I was impeded from making sales by assurances of there being no difference I had no choice but to respond.

    What I got in return was insults abuse and everyone who dared confirm the tech was labeled as a Littman spy.

    I came to this website and confronted the tech issues and another issue was the camera cam which Jones first assured it did not require any attention and then proceeded to admit otherwise when we were able to show cams which he crudely grounded with a grinding wheel and were not re finished when it is widely agreed that the surface of a cam must be smooth.

    when looking thru any rangefinder ; the axis relating to distance forms a triangle composed of the points where the axis meets the subject; the primary mirror and the secondary following mirror.

    When I announced that when I started I had only considered this triangulation as a basis for calculations he used that as another means of mockery to be used as defamation. Again he could not SEE the obvious.

    Then when I discovered that a fourth angle present not optical in nature but that its interrelationship with the triangle would form a quadrangulation which permitted me to streamline performance, then again he used this as yet another chance to resort to defamation and mockery. these are yet another 2 instances that show this person cant SEE .

    Novelty is not obvious but certain things must be obvious to those skilled in the art .

    I have had to endure 3 years of abuse to the most prominent opinions in the business and we should all ignore the words of the most talented and belittle their work and choices to embrace the contradictions of those who have proven they cant see difference in those things which are obviously different to all, then that person can not be allowed to admittedly prevent me from my work by using these threads to interfere with my sales and then insist my product doesn't sell.

    These people are using their membership to this website for solicitation purposes and by their own admission defamation as ameans to achieve it.

    They discredit films and their qualities and when the product doesn't sell they accuse the manufacturer of leaving them in the lurch.

    Claiming experience and credentials they insist you could not tell the difference between the best and latest to that made 60 years ago.


    This has cost millions to lens manufacturers and everyone will have to carry the burden those who insist they would like you to have choices are taking those choices away when they engage in the activities that lead to films being discontinued lens choices presented as all being equal or no different also takes your choices away.

    We lost many sales to these false and unfair assurances.


    Whatever the case may be on any given issue public forums forbid solicitation by businesses in the hopes that users may reach their own conclusions .

    When a business abuses the forums offering free advice in exchange for votes those who feel invited are there with little concern to what the issues may be as it has been admitted in each instance in one form or another.


    I appreciate the Moderators attention to the statistics of fake feedback in a fake auction but the statistic here is that this thread is yet another instance of defamation as a means of solicitation.



    When I tried to complete the research on a concept lens by involving the public "these usual " who cant see or insist they need bifocals to even see went on to again
    engage in defamation and mockery to impede its development.

    The point is information is made available as it becomes available and whenever I have available time left from doing my work and having to cope with these malicious interferences
    Depth of field is a result of optical performance + iris intervention
    in traditional lenses there are 2 interacting scales that affect depth of field
    first the summation of the glass components
    and how that behaves in regards to dof independently of an iris
    and then a second scale pertaining to the intervention of the iris.



    A diagram showing the DOF/ depth of field scale of traditional lenses would look like a triangle considering the width of its base as the depth of field a lens yields wide open while focused on infinity and the top corner of the triangle would represent the depth of field the lens yields when focused at its minimum distance.
    this would apply to both optics and iris to different degrees but in the same manner as in traditional lens design both glass and iris scales behave similarly with shallower
    dof up close and which improves the farther you focus and the more you stop down the iris.

    When we changed 1 variable by compressing the depth of field in the optical design to make the lens act as a selective focus lens ; the dof scale of the lens itself was inversed somewhat ( emphasis on "Somewhat" because of the natural tendency of optics to be sharper when focused on far away objects than those which are close, therefore our compensatory modification to traditional design results in a partial inversal of such scale yielding a seamless bifocal effect ) resulting in a lens which yields more depth of field at the center and more depth of field
    at closer distances when wide open( more than expected from traditional designs by comparison .

    after which the dof of the lens in the edges or background remains
    softer than traditional lenses
    while the center is sharper . not representing the lens is sharper overall than traditional designs but by selectiveness always sharper than the background and if stopped down you can have f 16/ f22 even f 45 resolution at the subject while maintaining differentiation with the background.

    On the other hand the scale pertaining to the iris cannot be inversed and is constant on all lenses because if you stop down any iris
    you get more depth of field.

    The difference expected between the zenithar and traditional lenses is that in the Zenithar the optical dof scale and the iris scale work against each other and the final diagram looks like an hourglass composed of two opposing triangles.

    The convergence of these 2 scales at focus point is what allows for extreme selectiveness.

    Again this which is readily demonstrable and has proven to be the case was misused by these people as to belittle my research and impede my progress.

    These people don't seem to understand very much. It is not your fault, it is not my fault. I cannot afford the time for this until they leave me no choice .The losses and damages losses which stem from these interferences are by now in the millions of dollars .

    I have a duty to my clients and dedicate my time to them these interferences impede me from doing my work , these ensuing and malicious interferences hurt my clients to whom I apologize . eventualy these instances will face legal action but completing My work , my research and my duty to clients come first.

    They did the same when I introduced my design models. It is sad that there are those who are willing to resort to this type of behaviour and sadder to see there are those who care to participate.

    By what this person has admitted in his posts in this website regarding the tech issues that regard differentiation is that he was/ is not qualified by his own admission to be entitled to have
    interfered with my bisness of make assurances about my product which are proven false by his own admissions .


    This website is encouraged to abide by its non solicitation policies.
     
  10. Just PURE and clear GIBBERISH!

    Remember that:

    Lens to front DOF limit

    Df = s - 1/(1/f-(1-C/a)/d) where

    Df = s - sf ; C = Circle of confusion
    a = aperture diameter ; s = distance to subject


    The only way to make the DOF negative, is to make s, the distance to subject a negative number. Simple HS algebra...

    This is correct in my statement that if this is done, then the subject MUST be BEHIND the photographer, as the reference axis is taken at the film plane.

    We have a scientific breaktrough here! Take note.

    Naturally, the clients are getting rid of these cameras, because of these facts. The camera produces consistenlty blurry results since it gets INVARIABLY aimed THE OTHER WAY all the time. This is the normal operation for this lens.

    This is the effect of INVERTED DOF. Do we have someone here that does not what they are talking about?

    Would you buy a camera from someone like that?
     
  11. As all can see the admition of intention as to the motive for these people starting these threads ranges from" impedeing all my sales/ all my auctions " to telling people not to buy my product.

    What is somewhat inversed is the scale by the intervention of modified optics which allow the lens to focus differently than expected and as a result the lens acts as if a seamless bifocal .

    he can not even see or understand that which he insits that he requires to see.

    Perhaps if Mr Bhatal would care to be honest instead of ommiting the facts to promote himself at my expense he would have told you tat the so called pink....... camera rangefinder doesnt work.

    The Zeiss as well as any of the finders on the 180/190/250 types had
    a angefinder and parallax cam in the form of a groove stamped into metal which aoffers no chance for adjustment.

    This is so much the case that when the 180/ 195 was produced they had to shim the lenses as no infinity adjustment was provided for and then to get the lens to work with the standard cam they had to dial the rear element of the camera lens to allow the cam to be within range.

    Then the rear element was shelaked into place. this yielded a quality less desireable than what the lens could do.

    this i was told repeatedly directly from the source.

    The finder intended for a 114mm lens did not work satisfactory manner unless this was done even on the 114mm lens.

    This guy takes a 127mm lens/ moves the finder to the side and based on something which doesnt work dares use that as a means to ridicule my research and impede my sales.

    We will get a chance to confirm the performace of his camera in court eventualy
    but Many who tried making pack fim cameras by using the 127 ysarex on the 250s type know this was always an issue.

    HOw convenient of an ommision when he proposed such beauty as an alternative to my cammera mocking MY products name and insisting you should not buy it.

    Regarding my lens design it is still under development and not offered for sale.and if some choose to engage in impeding viable options to promote themselves by offering non working choices then again they are taking viable choices away.

    Perhaps people should visit their opticians more frequently instead of admitedly engaging in copyright ofenses, mockery, defamation and admited interferance and sabotage.



    Everything works to some degree.
     
  12. My camera is NOT FOR SALE.

    My camera is NOT COVERED BY ANY PATENT.

    The RF works fine. Have not had a soft photograph. The RF link works fine, maybe more accurate than the circular cam of other RF's that have inherent error due to torsion of the RF coupling shaft and slippage of the screw that holds the cam! Not a good way to hold that cam!

    As everyone can see, my camera does not have synergy, and does not have a lens with reversed DOF.
     
  13. "Everything works to some degree." That statement is worth repeating, even if everything before it is not worth reading.
     
  14. Wow!...what was that all about?
     
  15. Perhaps the camera would be better off manufactured in China? At least they don`t attempt to disguise the facts with rhetoric.
    The fact is, the Polaroid 110B is a great design, even though it`s fourty five years old. It cannot be regarded as 'NEW' because it simply is not.
    The rangefinder fitted, (when adjusted correctly) is precise and trouble free.
    Mr Littman did NOT design the finder, did NOT design the camera body, did NOT design the Horseman 4x5 back, nor the Polaroid designed pack film holder that acts as the mounting for the back and above all was NOT the first to develop the 4x5 conversion.
    To say it`s a 'NEW' camera is more than a slight overstatement.
    I have never 'instructed' anyone not to buy, only offered a cheaper alternative.
    The camera is basically a very good one, its downside being the 'Ogre' that may come attached. Apparently, the Chinese see the joke also.
     
  16. "My camera is not for sale"

    What you are selling the viability of your efforts versus mine and the compensation which you admittedly expect is that people will not buy my product as a result

    "My camera is NOT COVERED BY ANY PATENT."

    Sir let me assure you that when I find it is the right time you will find out that your camera is covered by my patents.

    At least one person has publicly admitted to making such a camera following your public inducement and instructions in this website.

    Your camera may not be for sale but you admittedly utilized it as a means to impede ours.



    My lens is not yet for sale and as soon as you started a thread to impede the progress of the research people stopped participating in the study.

    Any representation made on the lens are expectancies based on research and tests. when it is offered for sale we expect to know the final parameters yet as a result of your interference many viable participants in the study were discouraged from participating in the evaluation.

    My lens is not yet for sale and may not be as a result of your defamation and if we manage to overcome the costs generated by your disruption the lens will cost more than was expected to as a result of costs incurred thanks to you.

    Let me make something clear once and for all. If my products are offered for sale they are not offered to you. your insistance that you would not buy them matches my instance that I have no intention of selling them to those who waste their life hindering the project by these sabotages.

    those who have been discouraged by your attacks have their choices taken away when businesses and hatemongers are allowed to use this website for solicitation and attempts to impede my sales and then festivities to celebrate that my product doesn't sell.

    Not only has anyone who dared prefer my product openly on this website had to endure all kinds of invalidation and abuse but upset that another website chooses to enforce their non solicitation policies and reserve the discussions for legitimate users only; Mr. Di Goliardi accused APUG of being " catholic" for honoring the policies for everyone in the same manner and keep his website destined to users rather than businesses posing as users for the purpose of solicitation thru the furthering of hate...

    He then went on to say that it was as a result of my advertising there.

    let me tell you something
    Sean Ross is not for sale . and I applaud his commitment to keep his website free from the claws of business.
    I believe Catholics are great people and on the other hand I have no interest in dealing with those who would soon resort to religious, racial .classist discriminations while finding that technical ones are non important.

    Not only do we specify it is used and only on the basis that we utilize some new parts and some old parts to make a camera which is not a re manufacture as it does not meet its original specifications, it is not a re furbishment either and considering that some are now 5-6 years old those are considered as having been used after modification and therefore are used Littmans as opposed to those which are newly completed .

    I do not expect nor accept your business and by the policies of this website I have the right to expect that you stop using the threads to impede mine.
     
  17. Frankly Mr. Littman I read about two lines out of your entire diatribe and did not read the rest of it. My brain was getting dirty.

    I got an employee that when confronted with an negative issue that they were involved in, begins to "explain" things to me. Now the only reason that this employee is still employed is because their value to me far, far outweighs their bull. When they start up with their "explanation" I tune them out.

    Mr Littman reminds me of this employee, the only problem is that his vebosity of speech far out weighs any perceived value he hopes to impart upon the photographic community at large.

    "Me thinks thou dost protest too much"
     
  18. When people call me and ask me to repair a Littman camera, is that MY fault? (Please don't
    ask me, I won't.)<p>Did you ever think that maybe your TOTAL lack of knowledge of camera
    repair, the iffy quality of your cameras and the false claims you make are the source of your
    problems?<p>You're an amateur compared to me, you disrespectful little ....<p>Oh, and
    long live China!
     
  19. WILLIAM , your thoughts are totally bizzare.<BR><BR>Dean Jones brings up this oddball fake Ebay auction using your products name, and you attack him. <BR><BR>Would you attack a person who says to the police your house is on fire, then imply to the police that the informer started the fire too?<BR><BR>What type of juice do you guzzle today to become such a horses behind? You are abit of a goofball to complain when a person points out your camera is being sold on a fake auction. What jackassery goes thru you mind for such attack?<BR><BR>I pointed out the fake weird feedback.<BR><BR>Using 4x5 film on Polaroids is ancient history, your patent is like Al Gore being the father of the internet, a stretch, an insult to those who tinkered long before the ill flatus claims came. <BR><BR>The Chinese could wring out all the fat in your product, but China is a minefield for a zillion clone knockoffs. Your design then would be lost. <BR><BR>You get free publicity on this thread, and seem to go into a bitter old hoot mode, instead of being a salesman. Folks want to buy a product that they feel good about, from folks they like, not some bitter sourpuss whiner. <BR><BR>You should drink something more cheerfull, and less sour for breakfast. <BR><BR>If you went out today and patented the lenscap, would you spend more energy on whining about your lens cap patent , or actually spend some energy selling your hopefully better cap?<BR><BR>
     
  20. My camera weighs in at 1.5lbs. Other cameras similar to mine come in, after a diet, at 3lbs...

    Both above contain the same lens, which is for sale in the market to anyone.

    The RF linkage of my camera is my IP. The film back of my camera is my IP.

    My camera is not covered by any patent. The current "patent claim" as stated does not include my modification.

    My camera is not for sale. The copies, of which at least one states that were made from my modification, corroborate my prior art and IP. We do not need a kangaroo court to explain this. It is self evident.

    Thank you.
     
  21. You can rework a Ferrari completely -- and it will still be a Ferrari. A Yugo will still be a Yugo. A million miles or 50, it's the RIGHT of an owner to do as he or she pleases. It's called the RIGHT of REPAIR and continues indefinitely. .

    Repaired is also called USED. Using interchangeable used camera parts and other parts such as the Graflok ヨ 60 years and going strong ヨ to modify an existing camera is technically running a Camera repair shop, not a factory. Itメs similar to rebuilding (technically repairing) Bentley disc brakes. They will never be new again.

    A duplicate car from scratch is a reconstruction ヨ and may or may not be legal. Ferrari hasn't gone bankrupt and they might sue you. It might be legal to build a complete Polaroid replica except for film choice. But it wouldnメt be novel ヨ and Polaroid could then protect its trademark.

    Polaroid rangefinder/viewfinders are used camera parts, even with new works. Polaroid sold parallax compensating viewfinders including the 900, which is robbed to make a 110A into a 110B. Nothing novel there. You can't patent a thing that someone else invented and sold ヨ and use their parts, external design and and those of others, then call it new.

    You can obscure that you're patenting a used camera. You can paint it, recover it and chop it up, and make it more useful, but itメs still a used Polaroid.

    The film size argument is inane. If you have a old camera and canメt get film for it, the OBVIOUS modification is either one size up or one down. Film pack, roll or sheet film is a customerメs choice, for decades. The ONLY OBVIOUS sheet film choice is 4x5 because it's the only sheet size available that will work.

    The coverage of the Ysaryx or other lenses is not new. It will still be an Ysaryx. The cover and distance to the film plane and other settings are a matter of physics and optics, something measured, not invented. The builders grind cams because the Pola wasn't designed for interchangeable lenses as was the Graphic.

    Triangulation for distance, using variables, is more than 2200 years old.

    There's a lot thatメs appealing and useful about old technology. Most of the people here like it, but it is old technology. Some do this with more skill and inventiveness than others. The best donメt call a Polaroid weird names. I like the idea though of naming one after my dog.
     
  22. I tend to shy away from anyone selling a camera with a price so high that they must think they are going to re-coup all the R&D costs with just one sale.

    As far as Littman goes I don't like his marketing, his secretness, or his attitude towards others who have been doing the same thing for years. Mr Littman you want better? Then make better and welcome the competition.
     
  23. Mr Chapman Im sorry but these generalities are misleading.
    (You can't patent a thing that someone else invented and sold ?)
    you can patent an improvement to an existing product. it is the law period .end of story. it was found that my improvements show utility in every regard. the examinations of my patents was conducted in a thorough manner and not 1 but over 5 years where anyone could have objected. the fact is there is no possible objection.

    and regarding parts you can not protect the purchase and sale of used parts as being contributory patent infringement
    provided the seller and buyer do not know they are to be used specifically for the use covered by a patented claim

    When the 35mm Polaroid back Patent was still active you could not take a used pack film holder you owned and a used piece of fiber optics and make yourself a fiber optic back. the right of re pair of an owner ceases where a patented claim begins.you keep making reference that claiming a new use would require that a carburetor be used as a vacuum cleaner when the fact is that all that is required is that utility is present in the use in excess of the original utility .
    (You can obscure that you're patenting a used camera.?) I am not patenting a used camera and nothing is being obscured . hwt has been patented are only the improvements to existing products . Polaroid made the pack film holder when Forsher invented the 35mm fiber optic back it still used a Polaroid holder but Polaroid and no one else was entitled to make such back without license from the patent holder. I guess they could have said they own the holder patent and making the 35 mm fiber optic back is just the obvious choice or their right of repair after all. not the case at all. in the same manner my use of the holder as a spacer falls under the same category. my use of the original cameras to make a coupled rangefinder parallax LF camera falls under the same category.
    (You can paint it, recover it and chop it up, and make it more useful, but it?s still a used Polaroid. ) No in my case I use an old Polaroid in part in my way to making
    a streamlined equipment who's utility is different and greatly exceeds not only the utility for hand held use of any Polaroid ever made but of any large format camera ever made in what refers to responsiveness. If the LF camera considered to be the most responsive in a category in history does not represent novelty to you. it does in what refers to patentability. it is not still an old Polaroid it includes many old Polaroids and if I were to call it a Polaroid that would not change it is the first and only coupled rangefinder parallax camera

    I'm sorry to disagree with your generalities but I have just invented a method by which digital photography can now permit a user to achieve perfect sharpness from 1 foot from the lens all the way to infinity and beyond (which also makes it interesting for astronomy)using a lens which is 1.2 in aperture without using any iris intervention.

    When this is patented someone like you will come out and say that is obvious because they got tired of having to deal with the iris and low light issues or couldn't find
    the lens they needed any longer so the natural and obvious thing was to do what I did and besides you have the right of repair because you owned the camera etc etc sorry it doesn't work that way at all..

    The fact is that if what you say is true then millions of cameras would have turned up qualifying as prior art when the case is not even one has qualified as prior art yet.


    (The builders grind cams because the Pola wasn't designed for interchangeable lenses as was the Graphic) the builders first said that grinding cams was not required
    the builders then showed inability to grind the cams properly as well as total lack of obviousness proven by statements made in postings

    . when I am presented with a properly ground cam implemented prior to my patent applications and because the Polaroid's were not designed for the use as you admit and I designed the modifications required for such use which those you call builders went on to insist were not required as they insisted in 2003 and onward then it is convenient that they claim otherwise now but it doesn't work that way.
    (Triangulation for distance, using variables, is more than 2200 years old. ) exactly. yet when I announced I was using that as a tool ALL of these people went ballistic and proceeded to make fun of it.

    Triangulation is 2200 years old but quadrangulation is novel. thank you.

    (Repaired is also called USED) re pair means to again pair together as was before. the fact that people who do repairs may venture to make improvements such improvements are not governed by the ownership or tenancy of personal property in the event that such improvements are patented as improvements to existing products.

    Most patents are based on earlier patents and relate to improvements on existing patent or existing products.

    (You can rework a Ferrari completely -- and it will still be a Ferrari.) sure if you re- work it

    The fact is that when a company working under license by Polaroid went on to reproduce one of their pack film models they did not call it a Polaroid because you cannot represent that what you are selling is something made by the original maker unless you are only adding an attachment or accessory to it.An owner user modifying something for his own use can call the product whatever he chooses but after some degrees of modification as mine require that it is described as including the use of Old Polaroid's or based on old Polaroid's but what comes out can not be sold as if it were a Polaroid. If all I did was slap a back on it then yes I would be allowed to call it a Polaroid.

    What I make has a different utility than what Polaroid made. I disclose that I use Polaroid parts in the process but I am not allowed to call it by its original brand on the basis that some of the parts I use were made by Polaroid.

    The different utility is called coupled rangefinder parallax 4x5 camera and applies to 4x5 and everything larger meeting those requirements.

    I have made many such camera prototypes which do not use any Polaroid parts.

    Your hope that everything regarding patentability would be summarized as requiring to be so entirely different from everything else that everyone who hears about it would have to think it is novel is both false and unrealistic. that would limit the number of patents to a few dozen when there are more than 8 million in the US alone.

    There are no more than 2- 300 categories of products and mine is rated as most responsive in history in a category. and you want to spell out a few deductions and insist it is obvious. no it isn't.

    The best photographers in the world are not snobs as many here wish to present but people who have had to work really hard. many who saw my camera when I introduced it have tried everything they could get a hold of and have people on staff 34/7 scouting all resources for avenues to further their work

    The people who got to review my camera include some of the most recognized connoisseurs on classic cameras and they were convinced my camera was absolutely novel. the publisher of the site cataloging the Polaroid cameras since they were introduced wrote exactly the same in 2001 when he was informed of our product.

    (The coverage of the Ysaryx or other lenses is not new) of course it isn't and the properties of such coverage are not new either except to....

    This whole reentrance if inapplicable and misleading generalities making reference to obviousness is meaningless and these people have made ensuing statements that prove otherwise .

    I do not agree with these opinions furthermore I am convinced they are not applicablebut if there were no patents the rule here is that these threads are off limits to businesses for the purpose of solicitation.

    If I am asked to welcome competition in the form of defamation as a means or hope that things will improve I prefer you dislike my marketing because I dislike theirs more as well as the prospect of having to do work for anyone who condones their behavior..

    WE are way past patent validity discussion time Nikon and Pentax may make products which are not covered by patents and more PN users use their cameras many more may have questions regarding their products than any 4x5 yet they do not came here to start threads and they do not come here to solicit or advertise their products .

    Failing to abide by that rule is unfair competition because the fact is these people insist their product sells while mine doesn't as a result of these interferences








     
  24. Mr BHathal
    a utility patent claim may not require or allow for diversity of back design or linkage or any tangible configuration differentiation as a means to circumvent the claim .that is self evident. except to you of course.


    But Honestly I just dont care about that right now . what matters is that you are interfering with my buisness by telling people not to buy my product and resorting to all sorts of conivances to do so.
     
  25. William,

    I believe this thread, with all your incoherent ramblings, has done more to turn away potential buyers of your camera than anything else.

    When I first saw your camera advertised several years ago (in View Camera Magazine, I believe, and possibly other places) I thought it was a good concept and that there might be a demand for such a product. The ad copy was brief and concise, and the illustrations of the product were very attractive; it sparked my interest and I even considered, however briefly, buying one at some point.

    I even recall mentioning "the Littman 4x5 rangefinder camera" on this forum years ago, as a suggested solution to another poster's question about a handheld 4x5 cameras with focus capability; that thread started some interesting and lively discussion about the topic and your camera. Many were of the opinion then that your camera was really nothing more than a reworked polaroid with an exhorbitant price tag. Everything I've read about the camera since seems to support that belief. But, in spite of all this, I still had an interest in your product...you still had an interested potential buyer.

    However, it seems that every time I read something you've written about your camera, either describing its many positive and innovative qualities, or in defense of the many perceived wrongs being done to you by others, I have been left with a distinctly bad impression...I am no longer interested in your product.

    I really think you would be better off trying to market your Littman Camera in a more positive fashion. Selling a new product is all about creating a positive buzz and having people feel good about buying your product. You might consider hiring someone to handle PR for you, and, more importantly, swear off the temptation of posting such vitriolic rantings on these forums. Just a bit of constructive criticism.
     
  26. Mr. Flannigan you re joking right?
    you say:
    "Dean Jones brings up this oddball fake EBay auction using your products name, and you attack him. "
    anyone reading his post written at jun 05, 2006; 07:16 a.m can see that the mention of the fake auction was used as an excuse to then engage in defamation of my business .

    "It seems that everything about the L45`s is weird at the moment.......either we have 'The Real Deal' that doesn't sell, or the 'Littman Copy, only Cheaper', that does, but with an inaccurate finder that allows only focusing with a groundglass, to a mysterious 'Rare Earth' lens that boasts adjustable 'Bokeh'! The current fake listing from China only puts the icing on the cake. Are we to see Chinese knockoffs of a Littman?"
    you saying that is free publicity is like saying that someone is the father of the internet and I am afraid that the admissions by these people regarding tech improvements over the last few months and those made earlier fully eliminates any chance of them claiming obviousness or due diligence.

    If you consider what he says after mentioning the fake auction as free publicity that is hipocrecy.

    His mention of the fake auction reminds of those rare firemen who start fires to then put them out and take credit for them; if he intended to help he could have notified us so that any damage could be prevented but he uses the instance as means to justify his interference.

    Anyone can see that.

    as far as Someone insisting that it is not their fault that people ask him to repair my product is not telling the truth as is the case with everything he writes

    On eBay he started the following auction the title was defamatory LITTMAN 45 SINGLE Par Pez Hazard Opurt REPAIR JOB !!!!!)
    he then says that You bought the hype and you're going to need it fixed. Item number: 7560846332


    he proceeded to defamation of our name and product



    he insists that you ship him the camera, and he'll inspect it for things like the lens, the back, and then he insists that pretty much everything else will have to be discarded. , he did that yet again in a different auction.

    I don't believe a word this person says and no one does because everything he has said so far has not been true and proven to be the case by his own pen.

    He insists it is not his fault people ask him to repair my products after admitting he Joined PN for the purpose of fulfilling threats to resort to defamation which he summarized as " stay away from me because I can SURE use the publicity " then years after when he was made to admit that all of the defamation was false he explained it as " WE are trying to stop him or at least keep him busy" . stop him is represented by the admission of intention earlier today to impede all my sales and keep me busy by the ensuing lies which he then proceeds to admit finding them cute. keeping me busy with what is something I don't need to deal with as it prevents me from working
    and as always he then insists I'm an amateur . they push you they make you trip and then they say its your fault


    Amateur comes from the word Aimer+ to love and amateur is "un qi aime" one who loves and it is the case I love what I do and my clients insist it shows .

    Any insistence that any of these interferences would be publicity in good faith is a bad joke

    By this time the entire LF community is aware that we have gone thru these same discussions over and over and I feel a certain way and others feel differently.

    The point is whatever the case may be we need not agree on a single issue before these people are obligated to cease using these forums for solicitation.

    That was the case from day one.



    Mr. Ortega the fact is that you suggest that when these disruption are left unchallenged then they would do less harm.

    I do not believe that more harm is possible than finding a situation where businesses are allowed to push their products and advertise their products directly on forums .

    Al of what you have read in forums stems from these instigations . as a matter of fact prior to the threads in 2003 the tone was quite different and users were left to ask questions about the product and while I could have benefited financially I did not come to the threads to answer questions at a point . was I entitled? NO .

    That would have been unfair to everyone making something or selling something.

    If you feel that is incoherent then you and I think differently.

    I have good customers who readily understand the purpose of my product or move to find the answers they seek and not here because whet we have here are businesses peddling their stuff while insisting
    that the most qualified that have embraced my product are not qualified at all, when confronted with the tech issues they say I am an ogre and besides that all tech aspects are dismissed as smoke and mirrors.

    You say you may have bought my camera but expected things would have been different.

    So do I. "

    At this point and after this long I have a pretty good Idea who will buy my product and personally I am not interested in doing business from those who condone the conflict of interest of solicitation by business on threads reserved for users only as these people have admittedly instigated the public against me using lies.

    If you feel that is incoherent that is fine. I feel I shouldn't have had to do any ramblings because by the sites policies all of this interferences against me are forbidden.

    These people are not the only buisness who could use publicity but appear to be the only buisnesses resorting to defamation to achieve it and appear to be the only ones allowed to do so, they admit that they cant help themselves and I am certain they cant after so long.

    the pattern is consistent they start a thread and if confronted with the conflict of interest then they move to start a second one , a few wont mind as they do not consider conflict of interest to be the biggest impediment standing on the way to any truth and as I explained earlier I am convinced that those few are not my marketplace anyway. My only question is how come the site allows it.





     
  27. Michael, Is this dual similar to the ones that run on the Leica forum or different?

    Just wondering.

    I am sorry I really did not read through the pages of posts here. So, my excuses in advance if it is an important discussion pertinent to large format photography.
     
  28. Mr. Vivek; I know you did not address me with your question and on threads which are free of leverages I would consider that answering it would not be polite ; but the fact is valid and respectable members have their hands tied in these matters somewhat because these peoples instigation has proceeded in a way that any expectancy that they should behave as everyone else is expected is met with such force and abuse that nobody dares confront them .

    they will not let anyone have the last word on threads unless it helps their pitch, if anyone questions their actions they ask you what is wrong with you? this is great entertainment.and they keep it up until anyone with any common sense is smart enough to abstain from saying anything against their sales pitch. under such arrangement nothing is truly pertinent because nothing is ever true.

    I believe as many have stated elsewhere that these connivances not only interfere with what is pertinent but with assurances that all threads targeted will end in their favors or they will just have to call the next and the next and the next until it does is proof that the outcome of these discussions is rigged or predetermined ,

    People like you are not advertising products or services for sale in your posts all threads are limited to people like you as oer the sites policies . If the leica forum would get duels due to diversity of opinions then that is life. Different people think differently and express themselves in different ways and as far as I'm concerned that is the reason for the first amendment and what would justify users participating in forums in search for the truth.

    Solicitation is forbidden whether the question is pertinent or impertinent, whether you have to have the answer as of yesterday or you have a year to research it.

    what is to follow? some members will now get to have a buy it now feature right next to their names so when they
    advertise a product they can close the sale right there?

    I mean why cant everyone just pull out all the gear they don't need out of their closets and dump it on any thread they please or better still start a thread discrediting their competition and then say that by the way they actually have that on sale and proceed to advertise it.

    Is everyone richer than these people, is anyone less entitled to resort to the same? but the biggest question is why does everyone believe they should abide by the rules when everyone could use a few extra dollars and condone that these guys use the site as if it were their own commercial website .

    As stated earlier this picture of a 110b and a user showing the front of a camera was taken in the 60s and is part of the camera manual. the picture presented by this person shows no more than the fact that he was once in the same room with a Polaroid camera and is not prior art as it does not show what was done to the back of the camera.

    Furthermore when this person first decided to offer his product for sale on eBay he went on to post an image of the back of the camera and went on to explain in detail what it is that he claimed to have done previously and how and delimiting precisely what that was by assuring that he had never modified the camera differently.

    Should he have valid prior art he would be limited to making the modification exactly in the same manner as he insists he had done previously. doing any variation from the image presented immediately exposes the buyer to liability as he has already delimited what he is entitled to do.if and only if he has prior art that is determined to be so.

    the reason businesses are forbidden from advertising products or services is because if it is allowed that is when you get the least chance to learn the truth.

    The truth is that if he had the prior art he insists that he does one of my patent claims could be limited in scope as to include what he did. nothing else would be allowed and in no other configuration.



    These people don't care !

    Maybe some of you could make money by advertising your photography services on the threads, why dont you? because it is not cool. everyone should be able to live by the same rules.

    To prove this point I announced a photography gallery showcasing images and inviting any user owner borrower or renter to participate and it did not last a day; the moderator removed it on the basis that it was found to be commercial in nature? .

    after which I say it would not matter whether some dont mind if these instances are allowed to persist they amount to interferances which are knowingly allowed and facilitated to a few in detriment of the rest .
     
  29. I am sorry to see this folks. I hope, you (Dean, William and others) will resolve it or come to some understanding outside of p.net.

    At the least, I am somewhat informed now to stay clear. For that I thank Mr.Littman.

    (my better half is an IP lawyer)
     
  30. I can't imagine having the time or desire to write over 29,000 characters comprising over 6,500 words on ANY topic in this kind of a forum. I probably don't write that volume in a month of emails, including work emails....


    Was it Mark Twain that said something like "better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you are a fool than to open it and confirm that you are..."
     
  31. Vivek, don't worry about it....this buffoonery has been going on for years. A certain character fits this description extremely well, (perhaps this is a new marketing ploy we don`t yet understand?). The fellow is his own worst enemy, hence my suggestion that he could employ the Chinese, they are far more courteous and nowhere near as thickheaded.
     
  32. "The people who got to review my camera include some of the most recognized connoisseurs on classic cameras and they were convinced my camera was absolutely novel."

    A Pez Despenser is novel, that doesn't mean I'm gonna try and make a camera out of it.
     
  33. Well then don't use that dispenser as Jones insists he has determined what the best way is: Mr. Jones told all of Photo.net on August of 2005 . " my own thoughts on the best way to go about converting a 110B' ." attach the Graflok/Toyo back to the packfilm holder`s rear door after cutting a suitable sized hole in it." and the rest of the steps , he admits the best way is My way even if he then claims
    these suggestions are all my own IP and reflect my own thoughts on the best way to go about converting a 110B"

    What I should have said is""The people who got to review my camera include some of the most recognized connoisseurs on classic cameras and they were convinced my camera was absolutely novel.. And added " Mr. Jones proved it was novel after seeing the completed product made a few years before and insisting to have come up with the idea 4 years after the fact as a result of having examined my product and adding that in his opinion; that was the best way to go about it.
     
  34. Well it seems Mr. Schwartz has had a lucid moment! for the second time It wouldn't take anyone else this long to come to the realization that if you lie about everything ; admit to doing so with the intention of causing harm and tell people you think that's funny and they still don't laugh then all you can do is then shrug your shoulders and tell jokes to make up for it; but I can remind him of his other lucid moment again contadicting what he writes in the forums "A few people have written to me about the price of the Littman 45 being too high. I really don't like to hear that. I have told them that, the Littman 45 is a high quality camera and worth EVERY CENT he charges for them and more. Look into the Littman 45 if you want the best camera you can get." of course it doesn't matter what he writes in the threads because besides the few who are into ax grinding everyone else hopes the threads would be free of these peddlers and their baggage.
     
  35. "A few people have written to me about the price of the Littman 45 being too high. I really don't like to hear that"

    I'm not sure why you'd be offended by potential customers complaining about the price. I hear stuff all the time from my employer, my wife, my kids, my doctor, etc. that I don't want to hear. If you're not selling the number of cameras that you think you should, then perhaps your price is too high. Heck, I sure wish Mercedes cost the same as Chevrolet...but I bet Mercedes company wouldnt take it personally or complain if i bitched about the price, which I'm sure happens all the time.


    Noah, those are classic pics of you in your workshops over various years.
     
  36. woops i made a mistake, I see the complaint about the price is attributed to Noah....oh well, nothing i write here matters anyway....back to work
     
  37. I don't have anything to do with that quote. <p> I don't even understand the context of it.
     
  38. " HA! I taunt you " yes we can all see that and we are tired of it .He threatened to and joined PN to do so and you are still doing it.

    "I come off really good in that thread...." overt preoccupation with coming out good which has also been expressed as his determination to " not letting others have the last word on threads"translates into ensuing compulsive lying .If this person feels he comes off really good by lying and needs to proceed that way and is happy about it that is his choice. sounds "needy" but to each its own.

    he was given plenty of opportunities to submit prior art even after patent issue as I kept explaining to him in these threads that I contacted him to ask for prior art not because of his rights but because of everyone else's and then he lied insisting he had submitted it and then admitted it was because he was upset feeling that someone stole his idea which he later referred to as having seen such idea for the first time when someone walked into his workplace with one which was completed.

    then came here to say it was because he did not know who I was but later admitted that someone had shown him a magazine with an article on my product, had visited my website and even saw someone using one on the streets.

    If he wanted to come off really good and consider the rest of you he would have left such pettiness aside, the lies and hang-ups and worked towards providing me or my attorneys with what is required. then after that I did not hold patent issue date as final and waited for years but now I over him and this situation in a big way.

    But in any event the fact is that patent or no patent neither of us are supposed to use the forums to promote or advertise products or services..I'm going to deal with patent issues in court and not in opinion alley. because these issues cannot be resolved by taunting and the " HA! I taunt you " coupled with the refusal to cooperate and submit prior art goes to great length to tell me that no prior art exists.


    My position is that every business has issues with other businesses and If they are not entitled to litter the threads with this sort of stuff to advertise products and services by posing as having an interest in finding "resolutions". much less to rattle the cage some more if they are reminded to abstain from solicitation.

    There is no doubt in anyone's mind as to what to expect from these people who admit to have ambushed these podiums for business purposes using justifications when no justification is offered to anyone.

    Mr. Jones seems to believe he is the spokesperson for our company for Photo.net. he isn't and to summarize that bit he insisted to have obtained a sample of our product last year and while boasting experience as to question my research declared to be holding our camera but unfortunately having no instructions on how to build one? starting numerous threads directly or thru admitted instigation to intercept our progress and I would like to take this opportunity to say that should we choose to make any sort of announcement in this website we shall proceed to do so directly . as it has been our choice to make our announcements outside of the forums we find it is inappropriate malicious and misleading that competitors assume such roles as a means of interference.

    But this taunting is not healthy or conducive for photography , the truth is pushed farther and farther when partisanship is to the point that participants are disappointed that the technical truths are found because it may benefit their team's score, that is why I am glad my clients and supporters have abstained because there can be no winners here, everyone looses, to these people it is all about coming out really good while the public is used as pawn and that is why I'm glad my clients and supporters have gone to do their thing rather than get sucked into this. If I have had to weather the storm on my own and made a lot of typos and have appeared stressed it is because they insist that they are to set up shop and hang up the sign or they will call the next one when their shift is over,

    Regarding secrecy;Few would bother informing customers that they utilize a method of triangulation in order to make determinations or findings and yesterday we were all reminded that it has been used for 2200 years.

    You can all notice that those who challenge my research insisted such a thing would not be required and dismissed / discredited as gibberish while they speak of findings and determinations as to challenge mine, well the fact is that regarding these issues no findings or determinations can exist without the utilization of the triangulation. the only thing that can exist is fiddling and a range of expectation by trial and error and some experience but experience without precise findings is too inaccurate as to be considered as a base for improvements to the point that every time you use that route you have to keep at it until something happens and then you cannot establish a base for comparison. much like when going to an optometrist and trying different loupes until
    satisfied as opposed to having a prescription that can be readily compared to other variables so that the comparison between variables allows for choices in every selection simultaneously. this may not be required to be somewhat within range but is required in order to be able to streamline function and performance beyond adjustment. insistence that would not be required, its dismissal and mockery proves that what would have been needed for determinations was never even attempted which would eliminate the right of anyone whether a competitor or individual to disrupt our work schedule which belongs to our paying clients so that they can be entertained or satisfy their curiosity but most importantly it eliminates any chance that these people could demonstrate any findings or determinations in court existed beyond results by fiddling that would justify their disruption of our work schedule and interference with our ability to sell our product with assurances of things that were not required which were found present in structures obtained and which they have admitted was the case . or when Jones obtained my product and went on to insist that the right cam installed could not work and was puzzled by the fact it was there. I cannot accept confrontation and disruption be permitted after such instances because taunting and mockery is not justified after matters are demonstrated people would normally cease but instead that translates into further and further rallies.

    There is no secrecy just a conviction that this is a no win situation in every regard therefore I expect this site is well informed of the way these people have proceeded and that they have no intention of ceasing the solicitation and while what users write and do may be their responsibility. the site makes no provision or exemption to use the forums for solicitation by anyone, and is expected to move responsively to correct this

    .
     
  39. He has nothing to do with that quote except he wrote it and I agree it doesnt matter . give it a rest.
     
  40. "The people who got to review my camera include some of the most recognized connoisseurs on classic cameras and they were convinced my camera was absolutely novel" Does this mean they considered it to be a joke?
    Why does it matter so much that these 'people' have to be 'connoissers' or 'rich and famous'?
    I`m quite happy for anyone to use my cameras, no matter who they are.
    This persistant name dropping to try and impress has become a bore. What about some unknown with talent?
    Why the continual social climb? So far, all I`ve seen is ill framed, contrived and out of focus shots a 'Lens Baby' would easily put to shame.
    As for having your 'Art Department' assess the works of participants in a 'one day lens test' to see if they fit the criteria necessary to qualify, as well as retain the rights to their works for your future reference, well that just takes the cake.
     
  41. It is all this GIBBERISH regarding all these findings (fiddlings) that confuses everyone.

    Will it be possible to know sometime what QUADRANGULATION means? We know what triangulation is, but we are all at a loss when he hear this quadrangulation?

    What are all these "variables", are they negative distances or patented variables? The photographic community wants to know what is "novel" about the whole thing. How are these variables compared and how are the choices made?( secret hint: assure that they are not required within range).

    The basis for the DOF has been posted in the beginning of this thread. From there, one can determine the variables, they are all related to each other and the basis for the formula is nothing more and nothing less than plain triangulation. This system works still after 2200 years.

    Now, if one fiddles with all of this, and makes a choice within range, which therefore streamlines function, then it is obvious that it eliminates any chance that some people can demonstrate any findings. This is the proof that synergy is at work here.

    In short, and to make things clear: it is a very BLURRY situation.

    What I see is more and more GIBBERISH and DRIBBLE and excuses to deflect the main question. And furthermore, these "conoisseurs" must be all going blind, or be in need of prescription glasses.

    I may state that any camera that cannot demonstrate focus is commonly considered to be a TOY CAMERA. We all have seen plenty of examples of that, some of which are quite successful.

    Will we ever get an independent assessment as how good/bad that camera is? All I see is that the camera needs repair and adjustment. Repair what? Adjust what? The RF, the infinity stop? The hand strap? Further fine tuning of the red button for ergonomics?

    I do not have to repair my cameras, only lemons need constant repairs. But if they are built to be inherently blurry, with the focus behind the photographer, then this is another story. Not even the magic of quadrangulation or synergy can fix that. Is this camera totally crosseyed to attain the claimed parallax correction? Does it need to have more smoke added and the mirrors cleaned?

    The only results that we have been shown are, as stated previously, ...are worse than a LENSBABY.
     
  42. Why would I write, "A few people have written to me about the price of the Littman 45 being
    too high. I really don't like to hear that" ?<p>Could someone explain me that?<p>Maybe I'm
    forgetting something.<p>And what does that have to do with anything, anyway ?
     
  43. What is a joke is that you would suppress the opinions of those who have credentials and accomplishments including the reviews, impede the chance of one of your clients in journalism and dare say it would be you who would be writing the article on the subject. Hierarchy is accepted throughout and you seem to resent it while expect it in your case but I just don't care what the case may be call anything whatever you like and do whatever you like I have paid attention to your opinions and considered them and after you told me"
    oct 13, 2003; 06:05 a.m As it was I who instigated this discussion, I feel that I should have a word in closure

    It is my opinion that a legal Patent should be respected. It also serves as a means of clarification in regard to what can and can`t be offered as an alternative to the modification of the Polaroid camera.The input provided by William Littman in this matter must be considered as words only. such posting has an active role in self regulation.

    You have no regard for the value of the opinions of the most accomplished, my clients or mine so considering that and that you do not honor what you wrote was your own opinion then all I expect is that this site will not allow the solicitation. the rest will be dealt with in court.

    Thank you
     
  44. Moderators, will you please cancel this thread and ban the more vocal participants?

    Mr. Littman is raving. That's unfortunate.

    The people taunting him and inflaming his emotions are behaving like a pack of schoolyard bullies. They're all behaving disgracefully and should be ashamed of themselves.

    I don't know whether Mr. Littman is capable of controlling himself. Based on their posts in other threads, the people pelting him, as it were, with dead fish and rotten vegetables are fully in control of themselves. Their behavior is shameful.
     
  45. Dan,

    On the other hand, it would be a shame to lose the contributions from helpful people because of the ravings of an unhelpful person.

    Best,
    Helen
     
  46. Mr. Fromm, I'm afraid you have this all backwards.<p>Mr. Litman has been making
    outrageous claims against all of us for years, harassing us and our customers and making
    outrageous claims for his cameras.<p>His business practices are, at the very least,
    'questionable'.<p>I'm no 'bully', nor am I a peddler. <p>I just make tools for artists.
     
  47. Mr. Fromm is correct this is shameful and I am partly to blame as having no choice but to defend my product from accusations of gibberish instigated here.



    When there is conflict of interest the truth is hindered by the contributions of those who benefit from them.

    Someone would get offended if they are called as a store clerk when they are the manager showing they value hierarchy yet that someone would also reffer to someone considered as an accomplished photographer and having a product in high regard and have issues regarding that hierarchy due to hang- ups or whatever it may be as to have used words as " apparently well known and respected" to introduce his instigation against me and it gets too complicated partisan and unhealthy and hypocrisy.

    Attributing fault on any given issue does not help the conflict of interest issue regardless.

    Whatever help can be obtained in exchange for support and rallies can be compared to votes in exchange for cash and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    When my clients preffered my product they were labeled as bribed minions assuring that nobody could prefer it otherwise and when someone considers that getting answers at a click of a mouse by those allowed to solicit invites this type of hierarchy
    situation.

    Answering Mr. Bhatal's question because if not Ill never get any sleep
    Quadrangulation is the use of triangulation plus an additional angle as a means to alter one of the three variables in the main triangle in such way as to improve performance after the cam expected performance cannot be improved further.

    A cam is like a prescription for glasses or a key to a lock only one is the best but even at that once that is achieved there is an improvement that can be obtained by the altering of the angles so that while the cam retains the properties interpreting the performance of the actual lens design the angles can be used to improve the performance of the beam in relationship to the cam in question.

    Your mention that a fixed cam pre stamped and invariable for the wrong focal length would be better because it doesn't slip would be like saying that you would rather have a brass key for the wrong lock than one made out of aluminum with the right combination because the second one would brake true so I solved the slippage issue.

    In the future when I am allowed to explain the quadrangulation better I will do so on my site. I don't think this is a question of who may be at fault which will be resolved somewhere else otherwise on top of everything it turns into a buy one because this other guy isguy is a ...that or the other.
     
  48. Dan, I would say that if you had you endured all the threats, intimidation and general nuisance this fellow has given us, (including the threatening phone calls and emails to buyers of our products), you would be of an entirely different opinion.
    This fellow could be well described as a tyrant of the first order, therefore the strong reaction.
    It should come as no surprise that these threads arise on a regular basis.
    When the Ogre realises he has been exposed, or better yet turns his attention to something more suited to his nature, (certainly nothing creative comes to mind), perhaps all the dissent will cease.
    We did not instigate ANY of this behaviour and most will agree it makes for a good laugh once in a while.
     
  49. "Will it be possible to know sometime what QUADRANGULATION means?"

    You probably know this Diwan, but here goes anyway:

    It already had at least one meaning long before WL used the term. Just as triangulation does not refer to the use of three angles, but to the use of triangles, quadrangulation does not refer to the use of four angles but to the use of quadrangles. That's one current use in the outside world anyway - the prior art, you might say. WL's use may be different: that's up to him to explain, and I look forward to reading that.

    Triangulation can be used to define points in three-dimensional space. Fully determinate. No ambiguity, no redundancy.

    Quadrangulation, on the other hand, may be used when less accuracy is required, when you don't need determinacy. You don't mind a bit of slop if it reduces the computational effort. A quadrangle is not rigid like a triangle. That's why quadrangulation isn't the big thing that triangulation is. Because triangulation doesn't use three angles, it uses triangles. There is an important conceptual difference.

    Best,
    Helen
     
  50. Helen:

    Yes, but you still need the use of Trigonometry to resolve the unknowns. The sum of all the angles that encircle a point is always 2pi.

    The inaccuracies will then be attibuted to the significant value that the series to calculate the value of the angle is taken.

    Thanks.
     
  51. Sorry, I forgot to mention that.
     
  52. Helen, I take your point. Most of the participants in this thread are on my "valued contributors" list. That they're so upset and making such angry noises in public is the most distressing aspect of this unseemly brawl.

    Messers. Jones, Littman, & Schwartz, I'd appreciate it if you could find it in yourselves to remove your battles from public view. If you must hammer on each other, please do it in private.

    At this point I don't care which of you is wrong or whether any of you is right, I just want all of you to suspend hostilities and shut up. Until then, a pox on the lot of you.
     
  53. I hope that everyone can expect that what Mr Fromm sugests will not be for today , tomorrow but final.
    it is difficult to see past the tree and see the forest despite the entaglement which is not easy because hostility is what is being nurtured in liew of the pertinent topics
    but hostility cannot be removed from the eqation when someone would have to justify a reason for which they are able to promote products here when everyone else cant




    "We did not instigate ANY of this behavior and most will agree it makes for a good laugh once in a while" " Oct 13 2003 he admited otherwise AS it was I who instigated these discussions" This person is in complete denial of his own admissions and admits to retaining the podium as a means of interference to demote my product" makes for a good laugh once in a while" once that occurs he then pulls out the swatches and starts his promotion; promotion by demotion.

    Any business in photography could come here saying they have an issue with a competitor and then pull out the swatches. they don't because they cant no matter what the case may be. that applies to these people as well. Helen who appears to be very educated raises the issue perfectly".
    On the other hand, it would be a shame to lose the contributions from helpful people because of the ravings of an unhelpful person. " when the fact is it would be shameful to loose an environment free of conflict of interest because a few are willing to rally support and engage in demotion and mockery and interference in exchange for help they value.



    This so called help applies to any product in photography or anything else no more than in this case and Mr. Jones has managed to convince everyone that " his just cause " comes before the needs of everyone else so when every other business in the industry abides by the rules he doesn't have to. refrence to peddling would apply to anyone comming here to promote services and is not aimed at any one individual.



    people can come here and say I make slide pages, I make tripods , I make foam core etc and it doesn't make a difference what they make if they advertise it in the threads

    it is unfair to their competitors even if they have business issues because their issues are no more justification than anyone else's.



    Mr. Jones said that in his opinion a patent should be respected at a time he felt he could get something out of it by doing so and come off good, the other one wrote to a client enquiring about my camera that he didn't like to hear that the price of my product was too high as a means to try to show me he was a nice guy and sent me a copy of that email to show me he was fair but when I insisted the next day that I did have patent application pending and did expect prior art submitted he moved to threaten me to stay away from him because he could use the publicity and has been insisting that my camera is garbage ever since.



    People proven time and time again to change their opinions based on what they can get out of it cant be allowed to stand between businesses and the public admitting to unfairness as interference in the event they feel unfairly treated and allege unfair business practices.

    How could blinding good people into taunting rallies where educated people valuing the truth are willing to support one side no matter what the case may be ?

    The confusion doesn't stem from gibberish mentioning the use of a triangle as a means of evaluation , reference which was only made in the face of the interference as a means to expose that assurances of equality, lack of difference and findings or determinations were just another way to express the taunting.

    When someone has huge admitted reservations challenging the standing granted to products and the accomplishments of the most talented and openly dismisses them as to demote them and does the same with the opinions of those who specialize in the evaluation of products and then proceeds to gradually alienate the standing of a competitor from the public with assurances of findings and determinations he has demoted the competition and promoted himself so these findings must be challenged.



    When you challenge these findings you learn that lens aperture error considered as such is presented as not being a problem in a product such as Polaroid which to most is used for exposure evaluation.



    When you challenge the determinations of parallax error you are assured there is none and several members of PN have already assured otherwise.

    When you read that people claiming their job description ( not their hobby)would mean they would have to be knowledgeable on the subject of the performance of lenses and their differentiation you then read recently this person assured that you would not notice a difference between the performance of one over the other yet years ago he stated"dec 13, 2004 the 127mm Rodenstock exhibit a very shallow depth of field when shooting anywhere near wide open which gives poor results unless focus is bang on.I consider the later multicoated lenses with their apparent greater depth of field "

    It is this ensuing contradiction based on what is in stock that confuses the issues coupled with the rage instilled onto others who then proceed with their own editions of taunting expecting that I should be Einstein before I can sell a camera because I do and omitting that suggested alternatives have issues which I may not confront but

    I made Tons of cameras Like Diwans and abandoned their use due to front standard fluctuation regarding its parallel to the film plane variance at different focal lengths depending on the variance between the length of the arms of the scissor type focusing system coupled with the fact that the front standard being parallel to the film plane depends on a spring loaded tension and the variance which may exist when focusing can easily create an error in excess of the difference between the best lens and an average one coupled with the cam issue and the parallax not being able to be modified for different focal lengths and the issue of fixed infinity.

    While someone may justify it somehow for personal use if made by himself that is miles away from taking that which is totally inefficient in every regard and use that as a means to impede and interfere with the introduction of a commercial product alleging gibberish regarding triangulation while in fact I do not sell triangulation , but I use it and while it may not be required to fiddle I was able to show that those who admit they hope to impede all my sales and or tell people not to buy my product do so as retaliation.

    Mr. Jones keeps making assurances to users responding to questions that the cam using the 135mm lens works better than with the original lens, that would mean that you would just put the lens, do nothing and you are done. this is not the case. Mr. Jones receives a camera for repair from a client of mine who is from his country at such time Jones was keeping me busy with assurances that products were identical except for cosmetics and years earlier when I made the camera I was being diverted to respond to his assurances that no differences existed but when he received it he was puzzled as to why the right cam would work and Diwan joined in the taunting.

    In the end it is proven that none of this is obvious yes assured to be so dismissed as such by using demotion and defamation and telling me that the confusion would stem from the fact that I use triangulation to make determinations is a joke because the guy says he is holding my product with the right configuration and cant SEE why or how it could work and Divan said the same thing , therefore claims of obviousness are bogus and that was years after patent issue. On the other hand those who claim experience and professionalism and that I am an amateur have stood by not challenging these situations because they did not know either if you are willing to go around braking windows on their behalf or support their cause all is well no matter what the case may be and that is the long and the short of it when it comes to tech issues.

    You will find people who have insisted earlier they sold their products because they proffered to use a 100.00 speed graphic because with the conversion you would have needed 3 hands to operate it, then rally the support and go to any effort to succeed while having had expressed reservations about convenience . the result of these instigations yields a few willing to go thru any effort to succeed in order to invalidate the convenience of achieving results effortlessly and on a consistent basis.

    And in any event The fact remains that someone benefiting financially from all this is allowed to confuse the market to his benefit is unfair to the buyers.

    All of the demotion of the value of the opinions of the most proficient is bogus based on the fact that such person has been proven unable to make veritable determinations , shown unable to differentiate what he claims is obvious , that any child could see but he has it in front of him posts pictures showing the error and says there is none. if taunting works as a marketing strategy for the guy and a few get something fin return for taunting as well that justifies nothing is the utmost unfairness and being that such denial exists that everyone justifies it when it is being done live right here in front of everyone coupled with the ensuing lies and denials of what they have written or said then rest assured that these connivances are the reason I had to move to expose them and they will persist in denying it for all eternity because the fact is they are here to sell and as admitted they are here to sell thru use of discredit against me.

    It is a given that when the threads are allowed to be used for solicitation it is misleading and false. recently when someone asked what would be the alternatives for 4x5 hand held use Mr. Jones popped up with his pitch as usual and then Paul Droluck did the same with the Fotman and I believed the question may have been what was an alternative to the Littman but it doesn't matter , what does is that when the Fotman was offered as an alternative Mr. Jones got cocky and replied" hey Paul where is the rangefinder because when you focus up close focus is critical etc etc which is true yet when I said that as a reason for the differentiation when I was confronting Jones years earlier he told me it was a myth.

    I made an adapter for the graflex xl which I also found inefficient and did not produce but It is mentioned because It was tested years ago without the use of the rf and using the best lenses which is the way you would use a Footman and while The Fotoman looks newer

    the function is identical to the camera I post which by now is but a dusty prototype and it was proven that unless you shot landscape or used apertures of f 16 or smaller the camera could not yield comparable results to ground glass work with the same lens at medium or close distance and even at F 16 the ground glass images were superior. expecting f 16 and a shutter speed for hand held use using natural light is rare .

    At another time Mr. Droluck said That the Fotoman worked much in the same manner as the Linhoff technica? how on earth would that be possible it has no movements

    and then one time Mr droluck asked me if I was on drugs and I wanted to r ask him if he was asking to offer me some of what he was smoking when he considered the Fotoman to work much like the Linhof.........less than 1000.00 would probably match the price tag of an older Linhof with a few lenses or any view camera with at least front movements for no more

    Why isn't every other camera manufacturer that meets the question jumping in to plug? It creates unfairness and is misleading because it presents a false image of someone willing to be accessible and come to the mountain which is unfair to the rest . and "some" will go to great lengths to convince you that they are being accessible by doing so while the other guy is difficult and mean and ugly ogre who will eat you alive when the fact is the guy is a dedicated person finding

    and no rangefinder and this is reminded to show the duality which is created when Jones dismisses technical differentiation with me because it doesn't further his cause but brings it up with an attitude when confronting Mr. Droluck because he comes of good.

    Ladies and gentlemen conflict of interest is at the heart of the creative process, creativity is a struggle between interests one has and the willingness to select one over the other depends on how honest you are willing to be to yourself as opposed to being affected by the opinions of others and considering them and including them.

    Whatever issues exist between these people and Myself is no excuse for them to resort to solicitation or solicitation disguised as help because it doesn't help anyone and the few who feel it does and don't mind are reminded it is not up to them, this can not be based on the popularity of the decision when such arrangement is upheld by the fear it will be perceived as unpopular.

    It is not my website I am not the boss but I say that it doesn't matter whether someone may have a valid point on a given issue because nobody could debate the same would apply to any business.

    I feel there is nothing that justifies businesses bringing their grievances as if they were not businesses because that has been used as solicitation and there is nothing that justifies help as an excuse to solicitation because it has been proven people will help themselves to what they are not entitled to

    There is no secrecy that I intend to uphold my patents and how these people feel about that but their original presentation of their so called grievance was proven misleading and malicious and defamatory and not justified because instead of working to submit evidence as required they engaged in connivances to then make me appear as the saboteur and lied and still do. they are selling something and their grievances did not belong in the forums because as Jones threatened me that he would do so and leave it up to the public is in itself solicitation and as soon as he discredited me he told you all that the value of my words was words only and he set up shop.

    The other one did the same threatened me that he could use the publicity and while no resolution was reached on any issue he proceeded to discuss sales and how to interfere with my business. all of it was solicitation and I consider it to be extortion and blackmail and unfair business practice which has remained unchanged.



    My mistake was to loose site of the fact that the original question was solicitation itself because it was made by business for business purposes , the strategy has not changed and it wont and I say that someone unwilling to expose the truths about his own product and disguise them even after they have been determined otherwise and at all cost has a lot of nerve assuming the role of exposing my product as... Now from china? all of these threads are nothing but hipocrecy, I doubt that can be considered as help.

    IF Mr Jones has set these threads as an admitted means of leverage it would be unreasonable to expect hostilities to cease because the threads are intended to further them

    It is unfair to the rest of the members to ask them yet again to take sides once more by asking them to decide whether this type of situation should persist and clearly those who resort to them have no reservation as to engage in them and will feel deprived unfairly when the truth is they ambushed a podium which is questinable and the website may find itself at odds due to allegiances on a situation which was allowed for too long. the self regulation propsed by Jones didnt work and I dont make decisions arround here.



    I hope all photo forums in this website and others will be entirelly free from buisness and conflict of interest. this is a great website with most members focusing on creativity and creative issues and great pictures

    I announced that i would abstain from posting in the threads and have done so . I appologize for my part even though I didnt start the thread It has always been my inetntion to keep solicitation out of PN and I hope the others can do the same on an unconditional manner

    thanks.






     
  54. >Triangulation is 2200 years old but quadrangulation is novel. thank you.

    Bwaaaaaaahahahaha! Boy, no history of math either. Do you always make up things as you go
    along?
     
  55. I am sorry but I am gone so please do not address me so I have to respond.
    The age of 2200 years was specified by someone else and I quoted that , it is irrelevant, it is old enough .
    Mr. Fromm's wish was also addressed to Mr. Jones &Co telling them to shut up but he responds with yet another joke / shows no remorse .
    It is impossible to resolve differences when you are assured there are none even after proven.

    .

    Mr. Fromm wishes for peace and quiet and everyone deserves it.

    All best W
     
  56. All you need to know about Quadrangulation is right here:
    http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~cs507/projects/1998/rachelp/

    As you will see, it is of GREAT importance to all LF photographers.
     
  57. This is absolutely sick!

    Did anyone fail to notice that Jones offered the following as an apology?
    "Dean Jones jun 11, 2006; 03:03 a.m.
    Apologies guys, I only started this thread to make public the fact that Littman`s were available from China, at a much reduced cost, especially pertinent now Mr L has finally gone......." which proves that he started the thread to cause harm ., silence the facts.



    On August 30th 2005 Mr. Jones went to announce on a thread that I was about to be reprimanded by PN using words that indicated he knew beforehand what the owner of the site would say.

    On a different note a student insisting he wanted to copy a littman after visiting my site received instructions and inducement and encouragement/ assurance to proceed on this website by Jones and co. and when we introduced our patent pending designs to the new finishes to our product at the NY photo expo plus which this student attended and examined our new product this student moved to steal the thunder in connivance with Jones and Co. by posting a camera he said to have made for himself copying our designs and " may" have patent, design patent and copyright considerations but this last week he went on to post an identical camera for sale which he claims is a second one on this website for sale again at a time when we had an offer for our own product . having to deal with the Chinese spoof or the knockoff by the Chinese student in NY while it is clear that whoever started the fake auction is related to these people or is one of them. In any event this website is allowing its members to violate my IP , allowing solicitation and allowing businesses to interfere with our work schedule .

    When it is clear that Jones is using the site for solicitation to sell products and everyone is tired of the taunting .I do not need to speculate nor care why this website chooses to allow this individual the solicitation , moves to edit any posts which prove his intention to cause harm,


    He went on to tell everyone in PN how they should think on October 13th 2003" 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 Dean Jones" on every subsequent thread he has either said my contribution is so far of no value and has nullified and suppressed the words of everyone who has tried both products famous or novice alike. in the end he boasts to have accomplished his goal when everyone who disagrees with him has been silenced. congratulations to the preserver of freedom of expression and making sure conflict of interest is not in your way. Silence the facts. treat everything as a joke and proceed to promote yourself as the purveyor of instruction for sale insisting you are a intellectual property fee zone but the instructions you obtained via taunting when you were holding products you admitted couldn't understand why or how they would work, such instructions are your own ideas and therefore are copyrighted ? but be sure to remember that anyone considering the products are different has erratic personalities or is a fruitcake.


    Please have some decency and stop taunting like a 2 year old! and take the spam with you.

    It is not my fault if people keep making assumptions having to do with trigonometry.
    First they said a rangefinder using triangulation would make you dizzy and not to buy it,
    No rangefinder exists without triangulation being present.
    I repeat a rangefinder beam forms a triangle as a means to determine distance in itself while most people expect triangulation to be used as in maps were 2 points of reference may be considered in relationship to actual position to determine linear distance.

    In a rangefinder those 2 points of reference are determined artificially by mirrors within the camera apparatus and distance determination is a result of the utilization of the rangefinder once operational and not the subject I refer to as clearly specified when I stated that while a triangle may be used to measure distance and a LF photographer is not expected to be interested in that or how the chip on his Minolta meter measures exposure but certain it contributes to his photography but he does expect that those who spam his email folder with assurances of experience and bully everyone who disagrees into silence would be capable of determination and seeing differentiations claimed as dismissible. diferentiation is what is expected in order to determine the value of a product.These people use PN to discredit the value of my product and my work while admitting to keep me busy to prevent me from working.

    I explained clearly that my additional work with angles had to do with the fact that in a rangefinder the angles of the triangle formed by 1) subject 2) see thru mirror 3) follower mirror cannot be altered . but the angles of the mirrors which delimit 2 of the corners of such triangle can have an effect on the pitch and behavior of the beam.

    I am speaking of angles outside of what you consider the classical quadrangulation and not intended to be used in the measurement of distance but as to affect the behavior of the projected beam. there is an additional angle which comes into play which I have successfully used to refine the beam.

    As stated by someone earlier the use of a triangulation to determine position or distance is old, no photographer need know it exists when using a rangefinder but it is at work .

    This person and the others have diverted me from my work and the time which belongs to my paying clients when insisting there are no differences. the differences were proven by their own admissions.

    They taunt me to disclose tech data and then say its their own idea? not going to play that game any longer. If the triangulation were not present you would not have a rangefinder. but I am not referring to the measurement of distance but to something else. I can live with these people saying that what I have used and proven is gibberish because I have proven that the most elemental photography knowledge is gibberish to them both in their words and found present in equal manner in structures examined and in our possession.

    I read that " people who come to America should sing the American Anthem in English" I agree. I do .but my English could use some help . I am a photographer and perhaps not the first artist who became interested in science and ideas while not being a mathematician I remind all that I can and have proven the differences in layman photographic terms . whatever improvement may result beyond standard expectancies is not something I need to justify to anyone on this matter because my product exceeded the performance of theirs on the very first model and no angles need be involved in demonstrating that which has been proven in layman's terms.

    Photography is an universal language many greats have never spken or written a single word of english.

    If my use the word quadrangulation is not the right word then I remind all I'm not a mathematician . perhaps I should call it angulations interrelationship between a triangle and a fourth angle or the perfect term will be found when time permits.but in any event if the quadra issue would be clarified then they move to say my camera is made art the expense of the suffering of some poor animalwhen the coverings are synthetic or discredit the name so Whatever!


    The triangulation as a means to measure distance and other standard trigonometry considerations is ancient but my use is aimed at something different altogether and true it should not be of interest to Large format photographers unless it is misrepresented by my opponents as a means to deflect attention to the basics as it is shown below.




    TECHNICAL ISSUES


    Jones recommended installing a lens in shutter with wrong scale with +/- 1/2 stop error on a camera intended for exposure evaluation and saying that is favorable
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=28471484

    when confronted with the facts to remove any confusion he responded with" There is no problem like no problem"
    Dean Jones , feb 26, 2006; 11:39 p.m.
    Well Mr Littman, forget phony formulas and angulations... cold facts are that in this case the pics speak for themselves. Obviously the reason there is NO PROBLEM is easily explained by the fact that there is no problem. Consequently I suffer absolutely NO exposure discrepancy when replacing the 127mm f4.7 with the 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar. The Prontor also features a greater number of aperture leaves, giving a more favourable result. A more important consideration is an accurate shutter speed. Yet another incoherent misconception on your part. It is indeed, sad"

    when I posted a picture using a caliper on the printout to show the error he questioned the quality of my picture? most people would have noticed the error in the images and anyone claiming to give instruction and question the work of others would not have even dared such error much less recommend it, defend it and then persist as if a standup punch balloon. the picture will apear at the bottom of this post.

    I have spent months years arguing with this person on the subject of cams which he first said nothing would be required, it was a myth/ smoke and mirrors . when it was proven otherwise including when he held mine and admitted to not being able to tell the difference or how it would work so I posted a picture of the 2 cams which have an entirely different profile


    http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=28480884

    again attempt was made to deflect the facts by pointing out to the quality of the image by saying/ asking " where does this guy find the time to take pictures of my shutters? and the answer is my picture looks like it was teken from rthe cassini space probe and is a picture of a printout of his using a caliper to show the differences because the picture he took himself which is obviously different he cant see a damn thing. like I have time and money to spend on taking pictures of cams apertures or anything else because he discredits my research.it is absoulutely sick.

    Then I showed a cam with an expected surface needing to be smooth in all cases opposed to the cam he had installed on Aggies camera which was so rough and bumpy that had grinded the tip of the follower mirror. and could never work.


    http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=28480984

    Many here on PN have admitted the parallax correction on the 127mm lens is not true on his or any which do not include his modifications
    "michael schmid , feb 06, 2006; 03:53 p.m.
    hello,
    "recently i built myself a 4x5" camera on the basis of the polaroid 110b(like dean johnes's or l*mtan's)"," when you cnahnge the format of the camera to 4x5 from 3x4 during the conversion, the actual picture on the film is always bigger than the lines in the viewfinder"


    Jones denies it so I will obtain all the cameras he sold to the US and verify he is lying and if that is not the case I will surely apologize but I am certain he is lying.

    On his latest auction he insisted the Ysarex on his auction did not come with any pancake design when everyone knew it IS a pancake design.

    Instead of facing the facts and shutting up he responded
    "Dean Jones , feb 27, 2006; 06:57 p.m.
    I think he`s gone folks......................"

    . seriously it is one contradiction after the other first he says lenses are clearly different to him
    "Dean Jones , dec 13, 2004; 03:38 p.m.
    I consider the later multicoated lenses are far more forgiving with their apparent greater depth of field at larger apertures. Cheers, Dean."


    then Jones at later date when he has no modern lenses in stock says:
    "Dean Jones , feb 09, 2006; 03:56 p.m.Despite the later lens being more advanced, I doubt you`ll see any improvement in quality over the original Rodenstock 127mm!"


    "Dean Jones , feb 09, 2006; 03:56 p.m.
    " Aperture scale will now commence from f5.6 instead of f4.7. The beauty of doing this is that the shutter button will still operate without manufacturing some kind of link from the shutter release button to the Copal`s release arm."
    The beauty of using a Polaroid camera which yields the wrong exposure? . aperture does not commence from 5.6 either.
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=28471484

    When Mr. Jones first made a conversion it could not shoot Polaroid films so in his auctions and on his site for years he represented"
    After much thought and with several attempts, I have perfected the conversion of the early Polaroids to use a film that is still available. These fine cameras, (pictured is a model 110 from the early 50`s) are extremely well made, feature excellent shutters and fine lenses, however suffered from the usual Polaroid type film, that is a pull apart develop before your eyes, expensive and messy film that became unavailable around the early nineties. Such a fine camera is once again in use due to my conversion,"

    All are reminded that the name Polaroid associated with these cameras because they made them at a loss in order to support their films


    "suffered from the usual Polaroid type film, that is a pull apart develop before your eyes, expensive and messy film that became unavailable around the early nineties. Such a fine camera is once again in use due to my conversion,Dean Jones "

    The films used today are still peel apart , before discontinuing the roll film Polaroid assigned the pack film conversion to 4 designs to assure continuity so it is false that films were no longer available and their properties remain unchanged. not to mention that when he claimed to have" perfected" which translated into a spring patio door closer at the end of the camera my product had been in the market for years.

    Interestingly enough after Michael Shmid time was wasted for months with bogus assurances and instructions he now realizes that one of his favorite films is gone
    what is of value to LF photographers is that people dont waste ther F.time and take away their choices with bogus and false assurances and their choices of products taken away by unscrupulous defamation.




    Michael has moved to make a petition to bring the film back
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gq88&tag=

    Keep businesses out of the forums is of great interest to large format photographers That way they can have a chance at the truth and a little peace and quiet.the others also move to trash the quality of Polaroid films and then blame Polaroid for having to discontinue them.

    "Dean Jones , jun 05, 2006; 06:36 p.m.
    Perhaps the camera would be better off manufactured in China? At least they don`t attempt to disguise the facts with rhetoric". The only ones disguising the facts as an excuse to promote products are my opponents because my position is first that no business should be here in the first place and second because in the face of huge and ensuing adversity I have moved to clarify the facts and faced further adversity as a result. give me a break!

    "All you needed to know " you did not . still dont so please find a little decency and stop polluting the forums and peoples in boxes with your spam and solicitation via defamation and demotion and interfereing with refferences of what is of value based on differentiation because you are not entitled to when it is clear you cant tell the difference..

    I made myself available at a huge expense for years to try to confront the tech issues and everything else proved everything that was questioned . What is of value to LF photographers is that people do not wast their time. please stop.
     
  58. Mr. Littman, I thought your camera was a pretty neat idea, and due to your lens/cam offerings, had been saving money up towards a purchase. In the meanwhile you've become a circus of this forum, and while you are correct that you're being teased, it's not as if in your hypersensitivity you haven't been asking for it. I can't be bothered to read any more of your rambling as it makes my head swim, but I can say for certain that I won't be purchasing any cameras from you -- if this's how you deal with criticism, I can't imagine how you'd deal with a frustrating repair issue.

    For your own sake sir, please switch to decaff. You'll be better for it.
     
  59. A 'Quadrangle' was someting I stood in at school.......obviously 'Quadrangulation' was something I should have thought about whilst standing there.
     
  60. "Dean Jones , jun 13, 2006; 11:49 p.m.
    A 'Quadrangle' was someting I stood in at school.......obviously 'Quadrangulation' was something I should have thought about whilst standing there."

    Something you should have thought about whilst standing here is that you have used Photo.net to admittedly create dissent thru justifications which by now have been proven false as a means to promote products and services after which you seem to be the one who must be obeyed when you wrote"

    "Dean Jones , oct 13, 2003; 06:05 a.m.
    As it was I who instigated this discussion, I feel that I should have a word in closure."
    ( You always feel like you should have the last word).
    "It is my opinion that a Patent should be respected. "
    ( if you cant respect your own opinion don't expect others to respect it either and after turning this website into a magnet for antagonism by disrespecting your own opinion you can feel that you should have the last word but it isn't merited)that is why all you can do is tell jokes, sad jokes.

    "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".

    ( great marketing ; tell everyone to respect someone else's rights because it is YOUR opinion while of course completely invalidate and silence mine )

    Claiming self regulation he decreed to start more threads to create dissent

    " 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".


    Self regulation ??????????

    The other day Mr. Jones said "We did not instigate ANY of this behavior and most will agree it makes for a good laugh once in a while.". hypersensitive ?
    some have no sensitivity whatsoever after insisting that posts have a role in self regulation as a trick to instigate some more every time he feels like it.

    I felt it was the right level of sensitivity to have had to confront the tech issues in terms which were photographic for years but most insensitive that such was met with words such as OGRE and so many others , jokes discredit and orders that I should say something of value or leave.And regarding repair what comes to mind is that when Jones held my camera in his hand he had to resort to yet another taunting rally on photo.net to get me to provide him with instructions on how to fix it because he admitted he had no clue.Regarding my work; it takes time. such time belongs to my clients and any justification to have diverted any time to responding to assurances which were false and proven so was because I was impeded from selling my product.when dealing with repair I wouldnd need to taunt these clowns to get instructions but I do need the time to do the work.

    Some have no sensitivity and others have to overcompensate . Ce la vie!

    I gave the tin camera a heart and its more sensitive but the tin men cant tell the difference for obvious reasons and have to tell jokes instead , the joke's on them and decent people are not laughing with them but at them.
     
  61. By the way, Mr. Alpert, G-d forbid that you, or anyone else, should ever have an Albatross
    like this tied around their neck !<p>I just noticed that this post is going into a category
    called, "Large Format photography, Space Cadets."<P>Now, I'm immortalized as a Space
    Cadet...<p>So basically, if you Google. "Space Cadets", you get me.<p>Life just keeps
    getting better and better.
     
  62. "Noah Schwartz , aug 25, 2005; 04:46 p.m.
    The first Polaroid 110 camera I saw 'converted' to 4x5 was brought in to Marty Forscher's when I worked there about 25 years ago"

    You cant claim an idea as yours after saying someone else made it first, stop the flip /flop . if you insist that you have made something for 25 years and there is nothing to show for and threaten someone asking for prior art that they better say away from you because " You Can SURE use the publicity, that is extortion and blackmail and might be a form of obstruction of..... The emphasis is on "SURE" why would someone claiming to have come from a qualified background need to discredit someone else in order to obtain publicity. We all know the answer to that .

    these threads admitted as enticements for solicitation did not start last week but 3 years ago. the grievance alleged is itself solicitation and as explained earlier any business is entitled to the same exposure but none are allowed.

    The fortune anyone is entitled to should arrive from the fruits of their efforts and not by using banana peels and lies to make others trip. Mr. Fromm whom I don't know and have never communicated with said it quite well. It doesn't matter who is right on any given issue. and I say whatever the case may be businesses should not be allowed to instigate dissent as a means to solicitation no matter what the case may be.

    when someone joined the slugfest asking "
    "Noah Schwartz , jun 05, 2006; 11:13 a.m.
    What would be involved in having all Littman listings removed from ebay on the basis that the claims of it being a 'new' camera are false ?"

    that again shows the intention behind their actions, he joined Photo.net to fulfill threats he made against me, and again it is a lie because I note that it is used but a new issue of a modification rather than one which has been used as such for years.

    Please stop betraying peoples trust and grant them some peace and quiet.
     
  63. Absolutely disgusting....Boy how low can you go; now we are down to religion....

    Not only am I Jewish , both Littman and Littman are Jewish names. what is real is that when I was but a small boy Ben Gurion was having tea at My house and while signing a silver bible he told me a story of how My mother had joined Golda Meir and Eleanor Roosevelt in events around Manhattan to raise bonds for the formation of the state of Israel. He said that My parents really helped. My mother was presiding WIZO.

    The capture of Adolph Eichman was orchestrated at my house by Golda Meir who met with the ambassadors of all the courtiers where the plane carrying Eichmann to his trial was to land for refueling because in those days they only had prop planes. Interesting that after the plane left Buenos Aires; the next day 1000.000.000 took to the streets to protest his capture as being a civil liberties violation and most unfair. a few years after that My parents 5 story hardware store was burned to the ground, they thought it was an easy target.and the house where that meeting took place was buldozered and leveled.

    While my grandfather was a photographer for Evita Peron many years before that The family had rented a condominium building my parents owned worth more than 10.000.000 they of course never paid a dime of rent and one day her mother who handled the bribery money just so that rich people were allowed to stay free showed up with a lawyer and had my father sign over the deed to the building, months after that when they confiscated all of my dads businesses and sold then to their friends they sent the money to Switzerland instead of giving it to the poor as they claimed. the money was used to buy a residence outside Madrid Called Puerta de hierro ( IRON GATE).

    After they confiscated my dads businesses they thought he was an easy target and a JEW and Peron had received the gold from the German submarine in exchange for letting the Nazis hide in Argentina so they put my dad in Jail. they thought he was an easy target.

    Years after that when he returned to Argentina and the streets filled with terrorists and leftists guerrillas they tried to kidnap me to ask my dad for random and they thought I was an easy target but I smashed the guys hand with the car door and escaped. I had to exile to Spain for a year and one day on a taxi ride the cab got lost and I got to see the mansion that was bought with my money.

    20 years ago on a train ride from Munich to Milan on an editorial assignment I was forced of the train on the Austrian border by a guard using religious slurs on a night which was 20 below farenheight and almost died from hypothermia in the desolate station, he thought I was an easy target.

    this is only about 10 % of what I have experienced first hand but you don't go around life with a chip on your shoulder using membership to a religion as a justification for everything that happens to you.

    Find a shrink and go away everyone has had to face adversity but not everyone needs to use that as a business card. publicity may cost a small fortune but I did not have to spend a dime when my product was recognized but had to spend a fortune after the threads because these guys would rather find an easy target than have an expense.

    I'm not pleading here. its the rule no soliciting no matter what religion you are from. despite all of that I felt that the teachings of Jesus were phenomenal and he was a Jew anyway so when I had to do the military service in my country I was allowed to attend law school 1/2 day after the basic training and had a chance to learn some great things, I have studied many religions and find greatness in all of them and fail to see how someone could use religious considerations for marketing a product.

    Please go moan somewhere else, life is not a fairytale welcome to reality. with that said we don't need your religious fear mongering, spam or the lies . If you don't like people using discrimination against you and find that unfair perhaps you should consider that not stopping the discredit of others to promote yourself using lies might bring bad Karma .

    I didn't need you to dump your paranoia and present it as if it were mine. you told everyone in Photo. net that I would brake into their email folders and years after you admitted that you said that in order to get me to sue you? You are insane. that is a federal crime to endanger an individual with that type of accusation not to mention the fact that I had little or no internet business for almost a year. do yourself a favor and shut up whatever religion you are from is reminded that I dont judge it based on the behaviour of this individual and I invite everyone to do the same.

     
  64. It is time for this thread to end. As one of the moderators, I am posting that there should be no more posts to this thread. Any further posts will be deleted.
     

Share This Page