Polaroid 110b to 4x5 graflok conversion-any instructions available?

I really want one of these cameras, and I think I could probably pull

off the conversion by myself. I was wondering if there are any

pictures online of the process. Since paying someone to do it looks

like it's in the $800 range at least, I would like to give it a shot

on my own.

 

Seems like surgery could be done with a hacksaw and some files and the

back could be glued on with JB Weld.

 

Any ideas?

There are good instructions all over the place, but one set can be found on the Land List, the definitive Polaroid camera website. These instructions are, however, for converting the camera to accept the 405 pack film back, not a 4x5 Graflok back that would allow non-Polaroid film to be used. The 405 still gets you the ability to shoot P/N film (type 665 I believe) which is the goal for most people. I am going to guess that an old Speed or Crown Graphic might be the best source for a Graflok back if that particular conversion is possible.

 

http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/how2-packconv.htm

SHHH!

 

Don't let Littman hear you!

Thanks for the link. I think I saw that one, but I definitely want to use 4x5 film. I guess the process is probably pretty close though. Maybe I should just buy the parts and make it work.

Paul,

 

It is not difficult to do the conversion to what you want. The most difficult thing is to find a Graflok back somewhere, I would not know where to find one at a reasonable price rather than buying a Graphic camera and take the back out.

 

The picture below shows what I have done to a Pola 110a. The "b" model are running exorbitant prices on the auction site nowadays.

 

I made mine from a cheap 5x7 picture frame. Took the best part of an afternoon and not too much JB Weld epoxy. Works fine, crude, but fine.

 

I have the measurements for the wooden frame, I can send these to you if you drop me a line. Measurements for the wood frame size and where to cut the back. This back cuts easily with a new hacksaw blade, blade only, the whole saw will give you skewed cuts.

 

Then roughen the edges of the back, glue the back and find matte( Krylon ) black paint to give it a more "professional" look. That is all. So, counting all tools, hobby saw, new hacksaw blade, and the frame, plus the goop and the paint... The conversion should not cost you more than $7.00 if that much.

 

In the picture you see the two upper and lower tabs, these are in there to hold the grafmatic holder that I have. The pegs on the top and bottom rail are for rubber bands to hold the sheet film holder.

 

This camera with the Rodenstock lens takes as good photos as any $1000 camera. LF should not be expensive at all, and it is not if you look at it this way. Anyhow, drop me a line if you want more info.

 

Best of luck to you, I hope that this will give you some idea of the end result.<div></div>

Here are 2 very clear instructions;"Dear William,

Per your request, the statute that governs induced infringement is 35 U.S.C. ?271(b), which states: "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."

Therefore, if a third party intends to induce specific acts of infringement or acts that cause an infringement they will be liable as a patent infringer."

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

 

So doing so publicly with the admission of intention might not be a good idea. specially since courts may triple damages if the infringement is proven deliberate.

 

Here is another instruction and this one may interest Mr Mottershead and the precedent may also apply to inducement of infringement if the condition of publisher is determined as PN is/ has been aware of our Patents for years and chose to leave the stuff published.

 

 

 

this will be considered in ref to all the slander and interferance of our buisness and IP which PN has knowingly allowed.

http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html#defamation

Mr Littman,

 

Just wondering, do you have a patent on modifying one vintage camera with parts from another vintage camera?

 

I'm really confused by your response and not even sure if it was supposed to go on this thread. Can you explain what you are saying here? Are you saying that if I buy a Polaroid body and a graflok back, I can't cut them apart and glue them together?

 

Thanks

Not only that, he seems to be saying that it infringes his patent if anyone tells you how to

do it.

 

I have been happy with my speed graphic, but at this point I want to convert a polaroid

myself just out of spite.

"How to <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00694G">Win Friends and Influence People</a>", by William Littman (sic)

Diwan,

 

I just took a look at the first post you made about your conversion. It looks like it is

working well for you, and I love the way you did it. The fact that you kept it so cheap and

everything was homemade is really keeping with what I think is the spirit of these

conversions. I keep hoping to find a 110 at a yard sale or something, but so far I have

only found a 900.

 

Very nice work!

just get a speed graphic!

We graffed old Polaroids to old 4x5 backs in the 1950's in 4H club. There was an article in a camera magazine back then about doing these type of mods. I dont think we spent more than 10 to 20 bucks for the whole affairs. We used old spring back Speeds that were junkers and the Polaroids when 2nd hand. The 4 element lenses were coveted. We did this because we couldnt afford a real speed graphic back then in 4 H club. The fixer we used was old WW2 surplus fixer in a huge metal drum. The films we used was outdated WW2 Tri-x in 4x5 in sheets. That was a different era. In my dads era folks made their own trays with paper and wax sealed them. I suppose those pre WW2 trays will be patented soon too :)<BR><BR>

Paul ; imagine reading about this conversion in a camera magazine; then building a kludge working camera as a broke kid. Imagine learning 1/2 century later you have done wrong; not knowing it would be patented 1/2 century later. Thus all those cool things you learn from magazines and others you will get in trouble in 2055:).

Kelly - If you could produce proof of the 4H conversions and a magazine with instructions, then it would constitute "prior art" and could be enough to overturn the silly patents. The trouble is, there's not enough money in it for anyone to bother.

Dear Mr. Flanigan you seem to have a lot of time on your hands and that is fine you have made 9821 posts in 3 years wow and in such haste you may have forgoten some of them...., in any event when these matters were being discussed and at the time when it would have made a difference you stated otherwise as it is shown below

 

KELLY FLANIGAN oct 04, 2003; 11:05 p.m.

We hand cut 4x5" ortho films; and loaded them in old Polaroids; in 4H club 4 decades ago; as a grade school poor mans 4x5 folding camera. So what is he actually patenting? Conversion of Polroid cameras to 4x5?

 

If what you state now was true 2 years ago when it would have made a difference you would have said so then because that was the actual topic of the discussion, you didn't , you stated otherwise.

 

If at the most crucial time in these discussions you insited that what happened at that club then was that you loaded them "into" the polaroid that yields a 3x4 image on 4x5 everyone has done it, that is not a conversion.

 

then you changed your story several times as have the rest, please......

 

Furthermore I have asked you to submit any proof of prior art so it would be considered, that you choose as have others to resort to these endless contradictions is interference, defamatory and most inconsiderate.

 

Then on oct 05, 2003; 12:11 a.m.you went on to reveal /violate my privacy by revealing the purchasing habits of my business as to instigate interference , that is also against the policies of this server.

 

A few months ago you tried a similar sly remark and It wasn't well received by the participants and you apologized.

 

I cant help it if a few are scanning this server 24/7 for opportunities to gain influence at the expense of others and the only influence which appears acceptable to them is to see others yield to the mob.

 

As I have stated these matters have been thoroughly examined and it is on that basis that I ask that the interferance cease .

 

it is the law and it is the policy of this server;

Terms and Conditions of Use

Intellectual Property Rights

You will not use the Site to violate anyone's copyright, trademark, (intellectual property rights), or (privacy rights).You agree not to post or transmit any (defamatory), abusive, obscene, threatening or( illegal )material,

 

There is no need to test my resolve on these matters, I have all the evidence that the statements made in my detriment are false by admissions made in later threads by the same people, I have samples of products made by "all" interested parties in case I need to proceed and the means to .In the meantime it is my right to proceed without these interferances because everyone agreed to when they joined PN and because this is really a very simple matter you park your car at a garage and when you wish to retrieve it you simply present your ticket and the very nice people will gladly give it to you and on these matters the ticket has to be submitted for consideration to the USPTO , we have gone thru this repeatedly after which I have posted the statutes which govern these matters because it in not acceptable that a few opportunists keep using PN to do something which is knowingly wrong.How to win friends and influence people seems to be the motive for what"Some" people say arround here

and I really could care less, I have a lot of great friends who care a lot about me and my product rated most responsive yet.

 

Those who rush in exitement and find opportunity to cause harm or expect you to give up something before they can like you are not anybodys friends.

 

So after 2 years It is quite easy to decide what to do, Ill dedicate time to my friends and my clients and make sure that isnt tampered with further.

Mr. Littman,

 

In leiu of what I really want to say, i will say "go away".

 

You do yourself and the photographic community a disservice. I'm betting that no one

reads your posts anymore. I know I didn't.

 

If you want to sell the world's best conversion, do so. Yours is probably it. If you want to

sell the world's only parallax-corrected version, do so. Yours is the only one. You have no

real competition, and it is absolutely shameful to try to prevent hobbyists from pursuing

their passions in this way. I am embarrassed for you.

 

If you can still sell any cameras with the reputation you've got, good for you. But the fact

is that do-it-yourselfers like us are NEVER going to buy one of your cameras even if we

want one. The only thing I have ever spent $3000 on in my life is a car, and that wasn't

much more than $3000. So get over yourself. The market for your conversion is

extremely limited, and if you have a lot of expensive parts sitting around, it is not because

of people like Diwan or even Dean Jones. If I find a 110, I will convert it and then you can

sue me. And a fat lot you will get. In the meantime, go away.

In lieu of what I really want to say I will tell you that my car is worth slightly over 3g but I have had to pay more than several times that to acquire conversions made by these so called hobbyists to find and in the presence of witnesses that the conveniences that we offer and they state are not required, smoke and mirrors or untrue were present to different degrees in all cases and I am not talking about parallax correction or the conversion to 4x5 only at this point .

 

I have examined many units and never yet found one which only had a format conversion, these hobbyists insist these modifications are not present, that is false, they state they are not required, that is false so I also remind you that I haven't knocked on any " true hobbyist " door to see if they infringed my patents but because you or no one else can guarantee what others may do with information which is made public and clear evidence shows that in the past members have made permisive asurances to the general public based on opinions It is my duty to remind all that there is a statute which clearly states that if anyone goes on to make a tangible structure which can be determined to be a patent infringement as the result of any form of inducement given by a third party then the 3rd party is considered as a patent infringer even if he never made used,or sold anything. It is considered as indirect infringement and after 2 years of seeing that some members of this site are unwilling to respect such law based on personal preferences It was my duty to make this publicly known to the publisher of this website because we have no intention on waiving our rights based on their popularity after verifying as has everyone else that their discredit stems from the words of Pn members who are merchants posing as hobbyists while using this website as a base for the solicitation in competition against us and in violation of PN policies.

 

This statute is the law and the policy of this website that every member agree to respect when they joined.

I cannot honestly tell what it is that you are trying to say here. You seem to be saying that

if only a format conversion is done then that is permissible and that what you are

concerned about is the copying of the other improvements you do. That would be a

perfectly reasonable position and a great relief to many. However, in that past you state

that any conversion to use the full 4x5 film area is covered by your patent.

Ah, I see now after several readings that what we are arguing about is the fact that

photo.net may be disseminating information about your conversions. (At least I think

that's it. Nothing is ever clear here.) I've got news, so is the patent office. In seconds,

anyone can see your patent and see many if not all of the secrets to what you do. If I look

at the patent and then infringe it, is the patent office liable? How about my ISP? If I do it

at work is my employer liable? This is silly. If you want to keep a trade secret you don't

patent it.

 

You say that you have never knocked on the door of a true hobbyist. That may be true in

a constricted sense, but it seems to me that that is what you were threatening when, in

your first post in this thread, you warned the original poster not to build his own camera

and warned all of photo.net not to advise him in the matter.

 

I will comment no further on the facts or on what I think about your approach and

treatment of others. I myself am feeling quite worked up over this matter, and I don't

intend to lose my temper and risk getting banned from photo.net. I hope that this thread

can return to the original subject rather than your patent.

You re correct the patent is a public document and it is made public so people can establish what can and cant be made by others.

 

Anything not patented is permissible or determined by the existance of prior art, the place to submit that at this point is the USPTO. That is the only response which anyone can give you which is valid.that is the only thing that is considered reasonable

 

To instead resort to these discussions repeatedly instead of submission is not only unreasonable but unfair.

 

If a private user wishes to make something for himself then he can review the patents and establish what can be made that is the law.

 

I can not determine what others have made before me, on these matters nobody but the USPTO can do that much less go on to make permissive assurances of what is permissible to the General public, again The USPTO has to make that determination after examining prior art.

 

That has been known by all interested parties for years, some even insisted they submitted it and then said they didnt and then said they would etc. when i have verified that was accompanied by a lot of defamation and false statements and public leverage that i should yield my rights or face discredit I.

 

It would have also eased my mind more If I had known the answer two years ago instead I have had to endure this type of circus like atmosphere because people expect their mind must be at easy without regard to the steps required.

 

I do not / can not make determinations ,only the USPTO can.

 

I understand that is not the answer you may want to hear but it is the only valid answer anyone can give which is true. and if after this long things remain the same is because some people have misrepresented the so called prior art or the extent of it to the point that nobobdy can expect me to believe it either so my answer is that I will accept whatever determination is reached by the USPTO and in the meantime I can say that after carefully reviewing what has been stated by all and after examining what others make my feeling is that nothing will change, I know now more than ever that my patents are justified because I have had sufficient proof of that and the most important one was established yesterday in a review of a camera made by the person who insisted that prior art was submitted to us when the truth is it never was and yesterday I was able to verify as have others that my cameras are made better and that it is not that people assume that because they are more expensive,

 

And when I find modification to be present but represented as not required not utilized in the work of somebody disputing the value of my claims or patents I have to insist that if prior art exists it be directed to the appropiate channel , The USPTO, that is permissible ,everyones right and we have no objection to that.

 

let me make something clear, the patents determine what can and cant be made to instead use public leverage as this forum to change that is what is considered as unfair threatment to others.

 

The proof is that at each turn the people asking the question end up saying that you either ease their mind and tell them what they want to hear or they will loose their temper.

 

I will expect PN and its members to uphold its Ip policies as posted in the terms of use page

 

thank you.

All right guys... New idea for all you tinkerers out there that would like to do 4x5 on the super cheap... Here are the instructions...

 

Get a Kodak autographic model 3, throw the back away and glue a cheap 5x7 picture frame in the correct position with Liquid Nails ( cheaper than JB Weld ). Cover the remaining holes and slots with thick opaque cardboard and do not even bother to paint it ( save a $2 for the Krylon paint ).

 

Afterwards get the contraption to focus on hyperfocal for f/8 and glue the lens carriage at that point.

 

Insert some film...

 

 

The moral of the story:

 

The autographic cameras have nice uncoated Anastigmat or Rectilinear lenses that around f/11 are really good, really good, trust me. Super cheap and great lenses for 4x5 coverage.

 

The autographic cameras are super lighweight because they are made like a tin can. The leatherette weighs more than the tin aluminum.

 

Composition is done through the little optical contraption that they come with. Amazingly so ...some of the Kodak model 3, late models, have rangefinders !!! WOW !!! Avoid these, you can wear your eyesight on these trying to insert your eye in the little window.

 

The Kodak autographic cameras are today useless and worthless because film is unavailable and also super ugly. These cameras do not need repair parts, because if the camera or something in this camera breaks, parts from another camera will do nothing for you. Use super Liquid nails to secure the broken part or better, just ditch it and fabricate another one.

 

The Kodak camera so "doctored" can accomplish results that are comparable or identical to any other camera ( Pola, Speed Crown and others homemade).

 

If the Pola will cost you $50, the Kodak will cost you $20, when all said and done. That is a reduction of one half the price, beware, it may break your Saturday matinee movie budget.

 

The rangefinder in my Pola is useless because with the Grafmatic back on I cannot see a bloody thing out of it or in it. I use the ground glass for focusing or do some zone focus. So, who cares if it is parallax corrected or what. I do not, useless to me. I wear glasses and have a long nose... hehehe...

 

Use the ground glass for focusing. Even with my Pola and the Grafmatic, it is impossible to do "machine gun" shooting. ...It is the nature of the beast.

 

 

Best of luck to everyone out there with their sights on achieving super inexpensive 4x5 photography. 4x5 beats anything today and it does not need to be expensive. If I get inspired, I may even make myself a prototype and publish the drawings and instructions as a free intellectual property.

 

Best to all.

Hello there!

Just want to add that I am very happy with the conversion from Dean Jones/Australia and he is a very nice man and its a joy to communicate with him. btw: I am a very happy user of a Rolleiflex and a Minolta Autocord too. Did Rollei sue Minolta for using the TLR method in their cameras? Not that I know. Its all about preferences and competitions.

Not everybody in the fifties could afford a Rollei so there were dozens of other mf TLR cameras around. Its good to have choices!!

Thanks for the kind words Heiko! I sincerely hope there`s no law against repairing a Littman 45, as I found trying to make sense of the logic behind this camera extremely interesting, It seems there`s no secrets to the 'pas par hasard' conversion afterall. I found a 150mm lens fitted to Polaroid 110B with a rangefinder calibrated to 127mm quite interesting.

If anyone requires help or advice converting an old Polaroid 110B to 4x5, please let me know. If anyone would like closeup pics of a 'parallax corrected' rangefinder, please let me know. If you wonder about the mystery surrounding the fitting of a 900 (110B) finder to a 110A, effectively making it into a 110B, again let me know.

The best thing about NOT having a patent is the freedom to upgrade the design at any time, as well as not having to constantly ram it down everyone`s throat.

Cheers 4x5 er`s!<div></div>

This individual represents that the good thing about not having a patent is the freedom to upgrade your design freely. that is false, absolutely stupid and that is a lie.he speaks of intellectual property free zone and what they are zones where people give away Intellectual property which does not belong to them for free. that is illegal, it is against the policies of this server, it goes greatly to show character and substantiate all our concerns.

 

Companies who obtained proper license in the 50s would not be sued for doing so, and whatever they did was their choice.it also shows that it is a good idea for businesses to address their issues via proper channels but as Jones threatened to do this and as you can read he continues to fulfill his promise then he wishes to leave it up to you. It is not up to you or him it is up to the Patent office any other way to put it is interference.

 

if we speak of choices I will preserve mine and clearly those who choose to act illegally and induce infringement are likely to support each other specially when owning two of the best products for half a century and getting no attention that is why a few trying to make friends and influence people have chosen to act illegally.

 

Otherwise regarding legitimate choices we will soon offer less expensive alternatives to our products for those who have a financial consideration.

 

sure a few will believe those who give away what isn't theirs are nice but I am interested in other kinds of people and finally the public has come to understand what this is all about.

 

A client of mine emailed the following the other day"I do continue to feel strongly that these internet

listserv arguments are a complete waste of time and are populated by

spiteful amateurs who are just looking

for the kind of attention that their photographs do not get."

 

It all made sense to me when Scott made the comment about gaining friends and influencing people, at first I was puzzled but then it helped clarify all this for everyone .

 

 

I do not believe these people can read: it is illegal to encourage, instruct, induce someone to infringe on a patent if someone does so publicly for over 2 years coupled with threats to discredit made earlier because they could use the publicity, that is also illegal.

 

If someone tells you to desist your IP rights or they will present this as it has been " to let the people decide" meaning PN members that is also illegal, Nobody but the Patent office can decide .

 

To present it otherwise as to interfere is not the actions expected from nice people.The public has understood this clearly.

 

Mr. Jones told all of you in 2003 that in his opinion a Patent should be respected.

 

When Mr. Jones biggest supporter , Frank Petronio was expelled from PN for intellectual property / Copyright violations Mr. Jones gave us yet another piece of legal advice" we should all know by now that the law is an ass" . If I were you I would not take legal advice from these people.

 

Anyway Petronio had stated in a different website that he enjoys torturing those who drink reverend littman Kool-Aid,then he stated that he had bought one of Jones cameras but that he sold it shortly after because you would have needed 3 hands to operate it and decided his 100.00 speed graphic was a better choice.

 

Thank you Mr. Petronio god forbid that I said to not have pursued the mere conversion for that very reason and this person and the other few got into this to gain friends and influence people the wrong way, but in the end the truth comes out.

 

Regarding the torturing of people which was promised you can read in earlier threads that after Mr. Jones had solicited Aggies business by making promises and assurances on a thread and discussing business right there but when she received the camera and proceeded to report on it as promised she was bashed by Mr. Jones and the rest who represent to enjoy torturing people.

 

Below you can see a picture of the back of her camera which allows two newspaper clippings to be inserted freely into the dark chamber into two leaks the entire length of the chamber top and bottom, no ramanant of sealant was found, none was used , the camera was never checked before shipping and which would fog the film instantly without ever having to take a picture yet days after that Mr. Jones started a thread to inquire if an airport x machine would fog his film....?? he has continued to defamate her character stating that her purchase of his camera shows " the darker side of human emotion" and when she in turn stated that she would report on her experience with a littman which she traded for her camera Jones and his friend again prevented her by implying that she would not have the right to prefer it or it would have to be a result of something illicit? what preferences are we talking about.

 

 

 

This website policy agreement insists that you will not use the website to violate another members IP that would also mean" much less resort to constant actions to induce others to violate it"

 

It is illegal to induce infringement and those who are found to have done so will be charged.

 

The law states clearly that it is not about preferences and competitions and the public has reassured me sufficiently that they now understand that Mr. Jones has preferred to resort to this kind of

circus for financial gain and PN has played in all of this in clear contradiction of all its policies by allowing it.

 

Another website removed all of Jones solicitation disguised as defamation with the following comment" self promotion of products" so that is a choice too and a very good precedent.

 

Mr. Jones stated clearly that Aggies suffering and the endless defamation of her character and the suffering he created had helped his sales and that he obviously isn't an ogre because someone else decided to order cameras?...

 

when she attempted to explain he reminded her that she was a woman then petronio told us all that on of my most notorious clients bought my camera because he takes pictures of naked boys for 3000????.

If he believed in Jones or his product so much he would have kept the camera but what he did was get rid of it and admit I am right and admit that he enjoys torturing me and my clients anyway , that is what it is all about These are not nice people who admit they have an ax to grind or they owned a rollei for 50 years and didn't get to have the last word about it so if this appeals to some for the wrong reason it is not my fault, if Jones represents that a client of mine has facilitated one of my products and in turn he represents that he is willing to disclose trade secrets that is illegal it also proves to all law abiding people what is the extent of Mr Jones integrity.

 

When Aggie complained about her camera she was told to shut up so we bought it and verified that what she stated was true.

 

 

On the other hand these matters are disclosed because Jones chooses to continue to utilize the leverage of potential disclosure of trade secrets, IP etc as a means of self promotion .

 

These photographs were not taken by me and were taken in the presence of several people of a camera which has been previously verified by Aggie and her friends.

 

This camera has several modifications present which Jones insisted for years they were not only not required but would not be present in his products.

 

Furthermore he made a full anecdotic admission of those modifications right here on PN on apr 03, 2005; 05:59 p.m, he also posted a picture identifying the unit in question, which is the unit we have.

 

 

I will also have access to any and all cameras that Jones has sold to the US which can be subpoena and be made available to counsel for free by the courts or may resultin a default judgemnt.

 

MR. Jones posted elsewhere that he had obtained such camera to which he referred to as "original".... and genuine...."which required attention.

 

It required our attention and any law abiding person can not justify that while an Ip holder is diverted from being able to give such attention by these illicit diversions admittedly instigated by Jones he then turns around and presents that as our fault as a marketing strategy.

 

Anyway the Polaroid's shown should have been entirely black from just being in the dark chamber of a camera. we have had occasional pinole leaks anyone can but to send out a camera that fogs all film instantly and then bash the buyer as being the darker side of human emotion shows you who you are dealing with here.

 

That few applaud does not impress anyone any longer because good people can now see that a few would "prefer "that matters were up to them , well it isnt and it wont be.

 

 

 

 

At this time I have to ask Mr. Mottershead to intervene after yet another threat to disclose trade secrets has been made and I thank the public for finally understanding these matters and the last word will the one of the courts very soon until then here is the last word it is not my word but the law

 

If a camra requires attention then calibration requires attention and is not a finding.

 

Everything else is confidential and included in patent aplication Pending and while obtaining something may not be ilegal to do so to disclose IP pending or trade secrets publicly is. so Mr Mottershead waht Mr Jones is doing is very serious and your responsibility because he has used your site to announce it.

 

"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." 35 U.S.C. ?271(b),

 

One of the purposes of the patents is to ensure I will be to be able to give my products the required attention, forcing competition thru defamation to interfere with that as has been the case for almost 3 years is not the actions of nice people,

 

It is known to all that it is not up to the public , Jones or anyone but the Patent Office an that is the absolute last word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<div></div>