Jump to content

New Littman 34 single HD pack film camera.


william_littman1

Recommended Posts

Good Evening Photo.net.

 

Introduction

 

Before saying what I came here to say today I must admit that

time has helped me put things into perspective.

 

I was excesively naive in failing to realise that no matter what the case may be people are equally divided on any issue and nothing one

can do will change that and then it is definitely not worth it.

 

My point is the math on technology and performanse matters somewhat to some.

that is all that matters.

The rest doesnt really matter and I should have been wiser in avoiding pointless arguments.

 

There are no patents on the actual 3x4 pack  film conversion for what refers to the back of the camera.

 

When Polaroid OEM had me speak with Bob at 4 Designs in 2000 he told me that there were no patents on the 3x4 because it was costly.

 

14 years later I have to say I should have avoided the costs myself on other projects...

 

History on the Improvement

 

Before I started making 4x5 cameras I was making a rather simple pack film camera to support my art photography projects.

 

At that time Polaroid had an OEM dealing with pack film and such reputation and having made over 8000 conversions was something

which was rather intimidating.

 

After my first 10 cameras things got out of hand as the clients who I had made them for were the assistants to Annie Liebovits Meisel

Weber Demarchelier Newton etc.

 

In less than 3 months people were trading in their 4 designs cameras and buy mine for double the price.

 

It sounds attractive but it wasnt as it was taking all my time and I was left with little or no time to shoot and then the money wasnt so

great.

 

When I introduced the 4x5 I had to abandon the 3x4 because the larger negative was so crisp and I hadnt yet invented perfectible

parallelism so 3x4 Polaroid was definitely less attractive than 4x5.

 

In 2008 Polaroid 4x5 ceased and eventualy so did Fuji 4x5. All of a sudden peel apart colour film was limited to Fuji 100c.

 

A year ago I finaly got arround to making the first Littman 34 with perfectible parallelism and then made ten which have been in the field

working.

 

We always allow for a year of prototype stage to see what is hype and the opposite which is what the new tech can actualy hype in terms

of results.

 

As I had anticipated adding perfectible parallelism bumps up the quality to aproximate 4x5 quality without having to stop down the lens.

 

For use of the print as final art in scan the new tech suffices. but you can go a step further and use onone true fractals if u wish to go

insanely large.

 

Another option for higher quality is recovering the negative by clearing the black backing though I would rate that as laborious and still

experimental.

 

In the early days of 4x5 camera building I really wanted the perfectible parallelism but I didnt have the money or 7 years to wait which is

how long it took me to launch it.

 

so I modified the lenses instead for a variety of enhancements but when I finaly got the parallelism right the lens improvements were no

longer necessary and clearly less desireable.

 

What is the big deal with this parallelism?

 

Large format lenses were designed optimised for max performance at f22 because using tilts and shifts the old timers figured max

performance at Iris mid range (half way between wide open and f64 was probably the safest bet but when it came down to the smaller

hand held cameras you had to either have. sunny 16(sun) or strobe it.

 

I wouldnt mind sending out a loaner for purposes of a review to a user who has an extensive trajectory of using 3x4 peel apart for

portraiture or fashion.

 

Here is a Front standard parallelism verification shown in several angles.

 

At the bottom the camera film plane is flush with the film plane and secured and a fixed forklift shaped precision grinded jig mirrors the

film plane and so the lens board is deemed truly parallel when all 4 corners touch the fork simultaneously.

 

If the check fails the front standard is reset until its absolutely perfect.

 

 

Important to point out that since the improvement was introduced in 2007 there hasnt been a single request for readjustment of the

parallelism from owners except in cases where actual damage occurred or was extensively forced.

 

This only proves the bracing reinforces the arms and that our new infinity reverse system is not as likely to cause bending problems as the

original may have.

 

Pack film cameras have been arround since the 60s and for most uses seem to perform well.

 

What Im introducing is an improvement for a very high end expectation which is costly to make and Im not representing it as nesessary

for any other purpose than achieving the utmost HD that this film can yield while hand held without needing artificial light or stopdown.

 

If you find this interesting I am looking forward to your opinion.

 

The concesus on instant peel apart film seems to be worthy for testing light exposure or many value it as lesser than wet film.

 

True but it can have a great artistic quality which is quite unique and Fuji 100c is of a higher resolution than any Polaroid color film.

Thank you.<div>00cw3Z-552292784.jpeg.7cd4aae46d8bcf69b1510c75e7cc6927.jpeg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

<p>Respectfully I write: That is a lot of reading for me . . .So is this a film camera for instant pack film then? Will it accept a roll film back of some configuration? How is this camera intended to be used, that is, what niche does this fill? Is this as costly to produce as other high-end conversions?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Drew:

That is a good question.

This is only a pack film camera.What makes sense depends when you ask and who.

When I introduced the 4x5 the pack film camera made less sense because unable to improve technicaly at the

time the 4x5 had more lines and more bokeh as a result of the extra magnification.

As you know 4x5 instant film became less available and then unavailable.

Then the fact is that on a 4 x5 camera the 405 holder doesnt center the pack on the lens.

I started making pack film cameras in 1998 and first few sold for circa 700.

after 6 months of experimentation it turned out my cameras were producing results

which the pros claimed were far superior to the 4 Designs which I felt was really good

I had no idea what were the improving factors as I was just experimenting then and didnt have a long term plan

and something I was doing on my spare time when I wasnt shooting editorials.

But 6months after I started I hadnt raised the price but to my surprise people were paying up to

1500 for a used one because I could only make about 5-6 a month and the word was out so

I then took it more seriously but didnt invest on the pack film camera because the required

investment in the 4x5 would eat up all the income fir 5 years And when Polaroid determined

my 4x5 was already producing results in excess of the original camera they sent me an exclusive

contract as an OEM to make the 4x5 but asked me not to compete with 4 designs and so I stopped

making a pack film camera by January of 2000.

 

For standard expectancies in pack film there is a ton of inexpensive alternatives.

I know that shooting instant film for proffesional jobs makes sense now only if the cost of shooting film makes sense to

the client and if the technical results justify it.

 

As a simply circumstantial fact 3x4 is smaller than 4x5 and then

the perfectible parallelism on the front standard increases the sharpness

enabling shooting wide open with a sharpness which would otherwise require f 11

and if you are in rare situations where you can shoot handheld movement and stop diwn to f 11

That apears to compare to f 22 without the parallelism..

Just numbers on paper but when shooting a film that cant be pushed it is significant to people who

work proffesionaly with instant film.

 

That is the advantage for standard portraiture and snapshots

 

for artistic portraiture using tilt handheld as in the Littman 45

the camera can yield comparable results to what you can see in the video

linked.

 

Then it is also posible to recover the negative of the fuji 100c

the process is experimental and borderline esoteric aporoach

but for art purposes can be very appealing for that very reason

so having a camera that can maximize the performance of such fixed speed film

is also appeling.

 

But the world has changed a lot in the last five years and manufacturing costs have

risen due to the decline in demand so suppliers have doubled ir tripled the costs if just

about anything.

A cable release cost 4.50 when I started making the 4x5 now it costs 17.50

 

Ive only made 20 prototypes of the 3x4 have only one left to sell.

I have prepared batch of bodies in anticipation to a story in American Photo

if I decide to move forward and make it for the public.

So far we just completed the 1 year prototype stage where the camera is used by

pros to determine whether it is just hype or hypes utility.

I am satisfied and if I move forward and proceed witha 25 units a year allotment I can

offer it at 2500.00 .

We no longer take orders for custom cameras .

I was doing that years ago while the research had me working round the clock

but now we have selected the best improvements and so only make one technical

model in 34 and 45 and in regards to design I was also experimenting bk then

but now the designs will be available completed .

 

The price of the 3x4 during prototype stage was 4995.00

This didnt even cover the reserach time but fortunately

the expectations proved justified early so I was able to make ends meet.

 

I do expect it will move forward. I think it only makes sense for artists who require

the extra quality and as they sell their art the cost is super justified when

a shot of 10oc plus thus 3x4 can produce a similar result to

what they were spending thousands per job on type 55 and new 55

Who knows if it will cost 75 100 50 or 200 if it is ever made.

In the meantime my clients have no downtime shooting 4x5 black and white

using fomapan 100 which can be a positive or a negative and when developed

in rodinal 1/50 us virtualy industiguishible from type 55 except you only pay a dollar

a sheet and can push pull etc galore.

So to be perfectly clear this 3x4 camera is not a necesity to anyone except to

someone who can benefit from the highest possible outcome on pack film.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an ad Campaign shot by Famed Art photographer Peter Beard

of Supermodel Stephanie Seymour posing holding one of my earliest

pack film cameras back in the summer of 2000.

As you can see the camera is also used to shoot.

The world was different then and pack film cameras were mostly used

to check exposure a utility that now belongs to the digital camera.

The performance of pack film cameras isnt being questioned but instead

we suggest a higher end performance to those whos work may justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...