The Camera as art project finaly launched

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by william_littman|1, Apr 6, 2015.

  1. Hi proud to announce that the camera as art project was finally launched in Nyc during fashion week
    and receiving great responses.

    Posting a first view of our first 3d prototype for Moma. We will do 9 more fore a total of 10 and soon to start a crowdfunding to help
    materialize the remaining 9.
    Also looking for very high end art Galleries who represent high end photography to host the project in Europe Asia and the west coast.
  2. Was unable to post the images will try again this weekend
    In the meantime here's a link to the project images.
    front view.
  5. THE LITTMAN EMPIRE STATE MMXV second view front
  6. The project poster
    We will soon make signed editions by the worlds leading photographers to support the project
  7. Art Deco Poster
  8. The poster image is too large
    Please use the link to view it if you wish
  9. I am sorry to say . . .I don't understand this thread and cannot make head nor tail of the responses. Can anyone help me with this?
  10. Dr Mr Bedo;
    There have been no responses. I am now using a mobile phone which crashed many times while I was trying to post the images. I now shoot as that makes more sense than discussing cameras which have to make sense and don't even after embraced by the entire upper echelon of the profession and yielding consistently outstanding images. That is the only thing which would make sense to me. all else is preferences .
    As for the project it makes sense to me and to my audience and I have learned to focus on what motivates me and excites me rather than what makes no sense to me. Its a matter of having a higher aim in the hopes to have a higher vibration and so goes the law of attraction ... .....
    have a wonderful day all best W
  11. I'm sorry but after that post, William, i have gone from not being sure to being sure i agree with Drew.<br>Please do explain what this is supposed to be about. Might be interesting.
  12. Well sorry that was not my intention but the title of the thread says it all.
    In 2007 i started the camera as art project and at the begining with some
    success but limited and over time we got closer and closer to my target until
    last year some of the designs were deemed as art and those cameras not considered
    objects d art and collected and valued as such.
    The camera posted is being considered as one of the or the
    most beautiful camera ever made.
    Will post more later.
  13. My previous post has a typo. where it says "not considered "should read"now considered"
    Here is the 2013 edition
  14. The 2013 edition
  15. Another view
  16. 2013 3rd image
  17. Moma protptype II
    under construction
  18. Moma II under construction
  19. The experimental design on the Large format digital and analog
    All of these are one of a kind designs & copyright of the poster
  20. Still not quite clear, i'm afraid. Will be me.<br>The aim is to have a modified Polaroid camera recognized as a work of art by the MOMA?
  21. The project goal was to make dual purpose cameras
    opus: work and arte:art.
    The goal has been achieved and the cameras embraced
    for both purposes by the target audiences.

    A paperclip has a much lesser function than a camera modified
    or not and its design was deemed as art by the Moma as was a campbell can
    when my old boss plastered it on canvas

    Look sir If you want to discuss art and try to make sense in a practical way
    its not conducive.
    I have a background in the art world and have worked with some of
    the most significant artists of the 20th century.
    You dont have to like my work nor appreciate it .

    My aim now is to curate an exhibit of the 100 best retrofuturistic
    designs of the 1940s and fifties to include tge medalist tge chevron
    and the german made bantham .
    Then select the best 3 of our designs and include them.

    But you know while the crack at "modified"might have served
    to belittle may I remind you the Moma is American and
    Americans proudly remind every day that they are 100% mutt.
    As is my camera.

    Thanks you just reminded me of a strength I had not seen so clearly.
  22. So an indeed modified camera recognized as a work of art? And that has been achieved?<br><br>Can you tell us more about how and why? For instance why it had to be that modified camera, and not the Polaroid original.<br><br>And where you would draw the line between design (that thing that aims to serve that dual purpose you are looking for) and art?<br><br>And perhaps also why your background would be relevant (sounds like you think it is)?
  23. There was no need for it to be a modified Polaroid. that is just a circumstantial fact.
    I chose these particular cameras because they had the basic framework that would enable my retrofuturistic designs and would also if improvements were implemented bridge some gaps on the technical aspects then I could achieve a camera with my criteria and verifyiable perfection for a predictable and not too extreme expenditure. This I deducted based on the fact that almost a century of camera making had yielded
    a myriad of cameras all which had its plusses and minuses but none for my purpose was without need to bridge some gaps and which implied if I started from scratch and having less experience than the exiting industry it would take forever and end up looking functional but basic utilitarian at best and since I hadn't started I wasn't assured I could even accomplish my technical goals so the idea of having something which worked somewhat and to be able to eliminate the errors and then improve one step at a time became extremely attractive to me even if the " modified" label may make it appear as if less attractive to some.
    When I realized my audience does not think that way I walked into Ken Hansen's with my Pentax 67 gear sold it all for whatever I could get and a month later I had my first prototype.
    I sold 75 cameras in two weeks . it was raw it was unreliable at first but as such even better than what people expected and that honestly scared me as it warned me at the onset that once people perceive something as being better and put it in a box its very hard to then say it needs improvement. better than expected isn't expected.
    but all that is old news.
    The designs have received several editors choice awards from American photo and other publications and are regularly given as gifts on important occasions and also collected as art by people who collect art.
    that was my objective and which has been achieved and the rest of course is a matter of preferences and opinions which everyone is entitled to.
    The original Polaroid camera has a nice functional industrial design which is nice but simply industrial and not art .
    up to now our designs have enhanced the outlines of the original design but our future issues will depart from these outlines to make our own outlines.
    this was also an incremental step as more ambitious and more expense and experience required .
    thank you
    Our future cameras will also
  24. Interesting. the first camera shown is reminiscent of the Kodak bantam Special. I'm curious who you sold the 75 cameras and the variation of the design between them? Were all these Polaroid cameras, modified for modern films? You mention accolades from the photographic community but site no specifics or links to back up your claims. Perhaps we have a language gap here? More specifics would end the confusion many of us feel regarding this. All the best, Lance
  25. Was it circumstantial that it was a Polaroid, or that it is a modified camera? I gather the work of art is the modification and its result, not the camera.<br>Was it the appearance that was recognized as art? Where, would you say, is the difference between these cameras and a Hasselblad Lunar or Stellar? Are they works of art too?<br>Or was it the bridging of the gaps on the technical aspects? Where would you say is the difference between these cameras and the improved versions of the camera manufacturers themselves?<br><br>The most important question however is why these are works of art. Where does your design pass the threshold that Polaroid's design did not? Could you explain a bit?
  26. *not touching this post with a ten-foot pole*
  27. Thank you Lance;
    the 75 was in 2000 when it was an experimental prototype not yet even a littman as we know it since 2001 when Polaroid introduced it to the general public and only a conversion to achieve crowdfunding and get proper jigs.
    by now Ive made over 1000 cameras and the earlest cameras had no significant aesthetic variance.
    amongst the most notorious owners I can remember of the top of my head are
    Bruce weber
    Patrick Demarchelier
    Paolo Roversi
    Paolo Pellegrin
    Raymond Depardon
    Mariano Vivanco
    Gus Van Sant director
    Zach Snyder director
    Michael Norton
    Helmut Newton
    Sebastian Kim
    Henry Leutwyler
    Steven Lyon
    But most working photographers who used them extensively
    rented them from lens and repro like for example Mark Seliger for rolling Stone;
  28. I am glad to contribute to the best of my ability but the road to being incredule is a downward spiral and a dark bottomless pit with decreasing and lower harmonics and anyone who wishes to take that route may not have the appreciation of art as high on the priority list as rule number one would be kindness and consideration sufficient to either agree or ignore what one doesnt find of inerest and choose to focus on what may be of interest rather than have to take out the acid kit as would a pawn shop to verify the carats on a metal because in doing so one has already refused to appreciate unless its validated elsewhere.
    I would say if anyone doesnt consider it art then its not art go him and I am very comfortable respecting that as I will expectin turn this discussion to remain respectful and not a corrosive inquiry thank you
  29. That would imply the engineering involved in the upgrades which
    turned this camera into having the highest perfornance in its category
    in history would have had to make the difference.
    The original camera had great use and utility but didnt qualify as
    more responsive than any other Large format camera.

    This rating was granted by a writer of Popular Photography and who is now
    the senior editor of Popular Photography.

    Some are reluctant to take the opinions of trade publications at face value
    But then the most accomplished photographers all agreed in their own words.

    Some are also reluctant to accept such feedback and then I am shamlessly satisfied
    as a reccognized accomplished photographer myself that these opinions are both genuine
    and warranted by the results and convinced this is the only legitimate test as pushing the limits
    is where performance and reliance counts .

    I am resigned to accept this is what would be considered as the best proof and resigned to accept
    this isnt enough for some and that all the additional satisfaction by amateurs and novices alike will
    also not be sufficient for some.
    But guess what? People dont shoot as much large format these days and I only make about 20utilitarian cameras a year
    now and no longer feel a need to prove anything
    Those who disbelive or dislike have a right to and I have no quarrel with their perceptions.
  30. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand here. The Littman camera itself is being recognized as a work of functional art. This is consistent with MOMA's mission. Precedents include Marcel Duchamp's "In Advance Of The Broken Arm", a snow shovel presented as a form of functional and decorative art.
    I'm hoping that someday Wayne Martin Belger's "Boy of Blue Industries" pinhole cameras like the Untouchable (HIV) model will also be recognized as functional works of photographic art.
    Congratulations, William. In the photography field, crowded with noisy promotions, it's quite an accomplishment to be recognized for contributions in ones lifetime.
  31. The biggest recognition came from Polaroid who after extensive tests under the most rigorous conditions by their criteria
    declared my camera was a significant and substantial improvement over the original offered me exclusive manufacture as
    a Polaroid O E M sent me a contract and after a year of satisfied customers it was them who proudly intriduced it at the
    NY Photo plus expo show with bells and whistles as was the case with Schneider optics.
    The fact is this has never been disputed by anyone accredited and embraced and given a very high plateau by those
    accredited.That doesnt sit well with some and seems to even infuriate because there is a modification involved .
    Please note that for example Popular Photography didnt say the most responsive camera modification but camer
    because to a true photographer what matters is the utility at the moment of taking the picture and if the sum of the parts is better
    then that is what is being looked at. It is obvious Im no einstein or Picasso but also obvious I am no fly by night self apointee and
    I am visiting here to share the progress of the project and not expecting to convince people to buy cameras.

    We all come from somewhere and some carry the torch where others sign off.
    Its the way of the world.
  32. William, you latch on to that question about the modification and believe that aspect infuriates people. But it is the hinge pin in this: (unlike Duchamp's unmodified shovel. With Duchamp it was the fact that he took an everyday item out of its everyday context and put it in a museal context that made the difference) your modification apparently is the thing that makes the difference. So when wanting to know more, it is natural to ask about that.<br>It would be interesting to hear something about that, instead of the list of people who say it is a work of art (the difference between getting to know the artist and his thinking and just seeing a poster advertising an exhibition or the list of people who went to see it).<br>It would also be intersting to hear what you think about the difference between design and art, and what regarding this divide makes the Polaroid be on one side, your camera on the other.
  33. David Lynch recently said, on the topic of
    artists being asked to explain or justify their
    work: "It limits it," Lynch said, when asked why
    he's reluctant to talk about his work in detail.
    "It stops people from intuiting and thinking on
    their own."
  34. In my opinion the camera has two aspects and thus
    the title of the project
    opus being work would be interested in the value of the utility of the original camera plus the modification by now
    indivisible and the modification as is the original end up as a equal partner where the facilitation to use current films
    appears to be the most relevant but is the least of the justifications at this juncture.
    A) because in the begining LF was the only option for hd 4x5 cameras for stopdown photography have been made for over 100
    years and unless you expect to shoot thru rangefinder while using slow films handheld the modification attractiveness is
    questionable as compared lets say to a linhof which is reliable and better suited for all other work.

    B)The proposal of the combination of the original utility plus the modifications in my camera was decided to concentrate
    on making available a synergistic combination of concurrent features which werent already concurrent on other camera
    with the exclusive purpose of being able to shoot as with a leica handheld when the larger negative and separation
    beteween film and lens results in shallower depth of field we introduce perfectible parallelism to enhance performance
    So lens iris intervention is not required for adequate sharpess then the body is made in two halves then expanded onto a
    paralelism containment which results in parallelism similar to that of the medium format made out of a single block
    then the linkeages tolerances are perfected and a cam dedicated to the specific lens and the cropping is coupled and
    differs for the specific lens and the focusing is combined into the same window and eyepiece optics help bridge the gap
    as a rangefinder camera viewfinder can tend to show the outlines of the cropping but when using short to wide angle
    kenses barrel distorsions are a fact so our finder lets you see the aesthetics of how your position in regards to the subject
    will translate on film .
    All this strictly to be more responsive at the decisive moment and since these viefinders werent designed to handle more
    than one lens and the bellows extension cannot accomodate anything larger than 150 mm and still offer closeup tgese
    have remained as one lens cameras having all possible error removed and all posible justifiable enhancement present but
    with that said strictly proposed as a responsive and reliable snapshot camera.
    Obviously this makes it attractive for shooting people and in my opinion has no other use besides hand held travel
    What I have written in this post has been echoed by its supporters for the last 15 years and then it makes little sense to
    others but now serious scientific journals and publications have taken an interest and covering it.
    With all that said it isnt the value of the modification which makes it be art but rather opus as I first said.
    I will address the arte aspect in a separate post
  35. BTW Lex
    I agree with you 100% I dont feel that art can be succesfuly justified in words as liking something or disliking it is
    completely subjective.

    Some of my earlier attempts while more intricate than the original Polaroid arent art but decoratively enhanced as my
    atempts fell short. The original design was also a decorative enhancement.
    What is also true is that the original outlines of the Polaroid design arent without merit and go to be equal partners with
    whatever final result I accomplsh so I cant take full credit nor intend to
    Obviously the utility improvement is a huge effort even if partial and the aesthetic enhancement is sometimes equal or way
    larger effort even if partial and I am not a fan of equating obstacles with accomplishment but the opposite so It
    makes more sense to me to end up with a camera that does what I expect perfectly even if you could say its no good for
    anything else and happy not to have had to start from scratch and I feel equaly about the artistic effort
    So far the Polaroid outline has offered a starting point and by years end I feel
    that I will be able to trancend this framework and venture further
  36. Did David Lynch also say not to take David Lynch's word on that, because it limits it, "It stops people from intuiting and thinking on their own."?<br><br>There is a reason why things are regarded as whatever it is they are seen as. It does not hurt anyone or anything to investigate that. It is what`, amongst others, curators and art historians do for a living. Those people whose acceptance and approval is very much part of the subject of this thread.<br>They did more than just look and say "nice", and there is nothing wrong with that.<br>Words are capable of expressing every shade of subjetive appreciation we can imagine. And there is nothing wrong with thinking and talking about things. It does not detract from, nor does it want to replace the thing that is the subject.<br><br>And you make a good job of it William. From your first post after Lex's i understand that on the one hand it is about technical perfection. Something your modification produced.<br>I still do not where the boundaries between design and art lie, and what makes these cameras the one and not (or no longer only) the other from the second part. That you share the effort with Polaroid is not that important, i think. You did something more, and that more is what matters (else they could have done with a Polaroid camera what Duchamp did with the shovel, and declare that art as it was).<br>I asked about Hasselblad's attempt to 'bling' old Sony cameras, and clearly (well, to me at least. But i don't know if anyone would disagree) that is not enough to turn those into works of art. You mention decorative enhancements, but what was it, would you say, that made people who think, ask and talk about these things sit up and say "Hey! That's art!"? The combination of something that is both decorative and a technically perfect, usable machine?
  37. A camera having an utilitarian purpose can only be art in part at best
    as is the case with architecture.
    The flatiriron building in New York is as close to art as you can get
    while the chrysler building has a top which is art but as
    a whole it balances out somewhat.

    I believe dual purpose objects can be art when the combination of form
    achieve a certain plateau.

    Some automobiles are beautiful but simply great designs and some which
    can have the right marriage of texture and
    firmare art or more art versus good design
    a lambirgini countach is a great design
    a ferrari 350 is art
    as are some early Bugatti
    a cobra or a 6os corvette is a mixture of good design and art accents.
  38. Putting bling on something is either decorative and or de minimis design unless the addtion enhances
    compliments or alters the outline in such a way to transform the whole into sosething which can have a
    sculptural quality
    BTW The Medalist II is clearly art. the chevron way less as its proportions are
    on the amorphic side. The Bantam special design is superb but its proportions can also detract from the art quality.
  39. Surely Duchamp's "Readymades" were originally meant ironically as a poke in the eye of the art establishment that Duchamp once despised? Of course, the only possible response of the art establishment was to embrace and applaud them, and in the process stroke Duchamp's ego to the point where he ultimately became absorbed into that establishment. Mission accomplished by pretentious morons with a vested interest in keeping art elitist (and consequently expensive, collectible and an investment opportunity).
    The camera has democratised art, especially the digital and phone camera. One only has to look at the millions of pictures produced and published on the internet everyday. Not all are works of art - or are they? What can we call "art" anymore after its boundaries have been irreversibly blurred by trivial and mundane "works" entering art galleries worldwide, with their pretentious descriptions hung next to them showing more inventiveness than the works themselves? If anything can be art, then everything is art and MOMA along with every other gallery is a redundant warehouse of outmoded inconsequencialities.
    Yes the camera should be celebrated, but as a liberator of art, not as an objet d'art.
    So, William, does that modified Polaroid actually take pictures?
  40. Since you have asked for clarification about the modification
    somehing interesting was finaly demonstrated last year.
    Many argued that there was nothing required to improve these cameras
    and that all that was required was changing the format back aka
    As many are aware Polaroid ceased making 4x5 films years ago but for
    a while you could still get some.

    When this dried out some of my clients who shoot fuji 100c started asking
    me to make the same modfications I do to the 4x5 but without
    changing the format in other words convert it but to 3x4
    but with the enhancements of the 4x5.
    The result was amazing as the film having less lines than 4x5
    benefited significantly from the perfectiblle parallelism when you
    can get sharp pictures without having to stop down the lens and overall
    quality was significantly enhanced when comparing the same lens installed on the

    new version as oposed to a conversion to pack film I had made prior to starting
    the 4x5 project and had made over 700 pack film cameras back then.

    BTW what we call our utilitarian cameras all have a nice design
    which isnt one of a kind and used on all the non art project cameras
    which this 3x4 features.
  41. this is the new 3x4
  42. my pc keeps crashing i hate digitalllll
  43. im trying again
  44. William, the thing i'm curious about is that line that divides art from design. The utilitarian aspect is quite possibly one characteristic that does put things that have such on the design side of the divide. But when is something that is something else too (such as a camera) also a work of art? Why, would you say, is the Medalist II a work of art, and another camera not? Is it in the quality of the design, such that very good design is no longer design but art?
  45. In my opinion an object which has a use can be an art object independantly of its use
    if its form design and texture are combined in such way as to grant it a scuptural quality as a whole
    versus just having an art accent as would be the hood ornament of a 50s car
  46. How about a camera whose viewfinder doesn't cover the format it takes, or whose rangefinder doesn't match the lens used, or that puts the sculptural quality of its body above the image quality of its lens? A dysfunctional but nice-to-look-at object, versus a practical device that produces superb images. Some objects work on both the aesthetic and practical level, and that is good design.
  47. Agreed
    My cameras both match the cropping for the specific format and precisely match rangefinder with lens at all distances
    when my cameras are delivered.
    Provided maintenance is addressed when needed and which there has been little need in recent years that will continue
    to be the case.
    The awards and recognition from the most demanding professionals on perfomance could hardly come from lack of
    Some people who believe all that counts is the conversion and so buy a Littman second hand which hasnt been
    maintained or updated and rate the camera as if it were new.
    That would expect the whole camera works because its of a certain brand.
    A pirelli tire is the best in my opinion but you have to top it off from time to time
    Trust me I believe in that so much that I spent years arguing in favor of precision
    and was told it us automaticaly present not required or a sales pitch.
    My new cameras come with simple instructions to recalibrate the rangefinder mirror
    and a one year warranty which seems to be overprotection since we get little requests
    for maintenance.
    But we now offer foolproof instrutions for recalibration because the world we live in has
    changed ti where 80% of pakages shipped are tossed in some way during the process and
    more than 50% of the packages shipped are tossed beyond what is cinsidered acceptable.

    I have had packages with cameras thrown from outside the carriors truck all the way to the front
    Or seen packages thrown on to conveyor belts at hubs right in front of my eyes after
    warning thes were fragile and this I am afraid isnt occasional but the norm.

    In short I dedicated 7 years with 10 upgrades to improve performance
    before adding any aesthetics or diverting a second of my time to that.
    And there is signifucant evidence the efforts paid off
    when Popular Photography declared it was the easiest to use lightest weight most responsive
    Large format camera yet .
    Popular Photography covers the amateur photography market.

    then the following year the cameras received thr 2003 American Photo editors
    choice awards also based on its performance since as I said
    there were no aestetics enhancements to the cameras at that time.
  48. But I havent really answered your question.
    The medalist had incredible design on its exterior
    And that in my opinion is art.
    The rangefinder had a revoultionary technology in
    that the image split by optics instead of mirrors
    but the implementation was poor
    the ektar lenses were incredible but the cropping wasnt.
    I loved the camera at a time when I was shooting asa 1600
    Trix At f22 in sunlight.
    So in this exampe the exterior of the camera is art
    the math on the tech is shy of state of the art but due to the fact people shot at f16 in that era
    era the camera had a tremendous following.
  49. Rodeo Joe:
    You said a very good thing but the claimed democratization has its own dark side
    in that while the apps put the world in the palm of your hand the company who makes
    the phone and service providers now get all the revenue.

    Soon you wont have to object to efforts such as mine because
    anything that doesnt feed the machine will be deemed unessesary
    elitist or the other extreme.

    I think either extreme is equaly bad.
    You now pay more than your dad did for filet mignon but get hotdogs filled with god knows what.
    That isnt democratization but dehumanization.

    Fuel costs are down has any airline passed the savings on to you?

    At the time of your grandfather constuction was brick and relatively affordable
    now its gypsum and shitwood and if you have to sell they tell you
    you owe more than its worth if a tornado doesnt get u first.
    That isnt democratizationbut dehumanization.

    I believe art's main purpose is to teach us to coexist despite our differences.
    The so called democratization is a scam by which the only one
    left with a chance for revenue will be the phone the carrier and your chance for a job
    has been sent by phone:) to someone in a country where your so called
    democratization has already showing your future.
    The guy gets a bowl of rice a day and no phone because he might excersise his freedom
    of expression.

    Now that country has millions of millionaires laughing at us saying"
    Look at those Americans" dont have a pot to piss on but they got their principles..

    As far as me while there is breath to be taken and a chance
    to do something I am not going to spend it trying to shame everyone
    into agreeing with me as they would not really agree but just yieldand that is
    not artful living.
  50. this is a photo of The introduction of the Littman camera by Polaroid and Schneider Optics at the 2001 NY Photo plus EXPO.
  51. I need a new computer lol
  52. 2003 editors choice
  54. Hopefuly this time it works
  56. American Photo Editors choice design award LITTMAN TROPEN KAMERA TYP (F) X FRAU This camera was designed for a woman who is a portrait photographer and is an ode to photgrapher Peter Beard whom I used to assist and whose art photos command the highest prices in art photography reaching upwards of 800.000.
  57. The choice camera for on set photography.

    Superman Batman 300 Watchmen director Zach Snyder
    explains why he clings to this technology despite the
    obvious conveniences of digital capture.
  58. Another prototype under construction
  59. Lex to what you said I must add it feels silly to have to stand in front of people and say this is art :) My art haha This was 5 years ago our 10th anniversary edition Littman Tropical camera THE SAHARA I Tried many things for many years until I finaly found my "tone" so to speak. Because of the nature of the 3rd dimension you have two choices a you can chisel down a block as in sculptute And how it applies to the learning curb on this equates to having tried efforts until I found the right path. The other alternative is what I now use which is more comparable to painting where you have a sketch and then you color it. You have to be very experienced have dexterity in many areas to succeed with this approach and you cant make any errors as translating the drawings into the pieces costs a fortune and takes a long time. So the process of elimination was an inevitable first step but it is limited in that removing excess isnt going to turn something into what it isnt specialy if you expect clean lines but too steep a curb if you arent completely clear on how to go from a-z.
  60. The first performance review
    American PHOTO
  61. The First Performance Review
  62. The Second performance review by Bruce Weber
  63. Page 2 Bruce Weber
  64. Page 2 Weber
  65. Page 3 Bruceweber
  66. Final page of BW review
  67. Now Rodeo Joe
    One more thing since your comments were very intelligent
    A camera shouldnt put apearance over performance
    and both are important in different degrees performance taking priority.

    As I have said that was my approach yet to my surprise appearance similarities
    on the outlines were used to dismiss the improvements and then the character gender
    or race was used to dismiss the opinion of those who embraced it.

    So in the end it was made to appear as If I was the only one liking it and so since everything
    else had already been dismissed and belittled by compartmentalization then my character
    was presented as being the only difference as all else was compartmentalized using dual values.
    Esentialy summarizing to say that the math mattered to me only and many guys who have used
    others where the math may be 2+2 :5 say they are happy so why should we take your word
    that 2+2 :4 is the only math? Obviously that cant be the case and obviously a character flaw of yours
    Which you should work on.

    That is in what refers to performance improvement being dismissed as cosmetics when there were no cosmetics.

    Then when the performance is rated as best in history but the company also makes
    concept cameras then someone asks if BTW does it also take pictures? haha.

    Not everyone seeks a camera that its exterior is extermely aestheticaly enhanced and that is why
    There was a fork in the road in our project.

    The camera for work only has the performance and its exterior has not been
    ignored as you suggest form and function should coexist but isnt a one of a kind

    The more intricate efforts should not be considered as that is me and that one over there
    isnt namely because being one of a kind the one which is truly you
    shouldnt have to be anyone else.

    And then most importantly as a tool is an extension or bridge of the user
    lets notice that while I would rush to agree with you
    it seems we choose those who lead us by their gender race and character more than
    whether they can do their job and it would appear that
    getting a job of any kind is also largely influenced by this.
    So this nonsensical dichotomies are what makes no sense to me
    and after 15 years I am focused on what matters to me and also that what actualy
    matters to my cudtomerd and the contradictions have nothing to do with the project as seem to
    be present in every aspect of choicemaking these days and quite silly in my opinion.
  68. What is the purpose of the camera as art project?
    How does it make sense.

    As pointed out effectively by someone and quite unfortunately
    Great art has been cornered into museums and private collections
    for no other reason that the trend is giving you less and charging you more.

    Great architectute with solid construction and inspirational value was demolished
    with a promise to make way for the world of tommorow as per the world
    fairs of the 20th century but what you got was a cookie cutter cement pour which
    cost more identical in every city in America a stiffle to the imagination and less than

    When I saw the Medalist first I said to my dad.
    Made in America?
    Those Americans have balls I want to go there
    where good ideas are incentivated.
    Times change and sometimes art can imitate life
    but now I am doing this as a beacon of hope and maybe
    someday a kid visiting the Moma will look at one of my cameras
    and tell his dad America is a place where they encourage creativity.

    That is the long term goal.
    The short term is that product makers have told me
    are inspired by a return to aesthetics and are making changes to make more
    inspirational designs.
    This of course is a change by incremental steps and if people with deep pockets
    may be the first to be able to afford one that is only circumstsntial but everyone
    benefits . You may not own one I may not afford my choice one but we all own
    a hope for a better future without having to choose function over form.
  69. "What is the purpose of the camera as art project? How does it make sense."
    ... Is indeed the question still left unanswered. Why is it art, and not design? What, would you say William, is art? And what, in turn, is design?
    I think i understand that your cameras are art because they celebrate creativity, celebrate the guts of people like Loewy and Teague who thought that things should both work and look good. They are, however, celebrated industrial designers, and despite that samples of their work can be found in musea of art, they are still regarded as designers, not artists.
    And, what would you say, isn't there a fundamental difference between art and design indeed, that does justify that? Or is the difference between art and design only such that when you make things look extremely good they are works of art, with no more to it (art) than that?
  70. In this context, modern art, there are fewer
    distinctions between design, form, function and
    concept in perceiving an object or action as art.

    In this context, the Littman isn't necessarily
    art merely because the maker declares it so (in
    fact, he hasn't), or because a functionally
    converted camera has been dressed up in new

    It fits the modern art context because of the
    actions of its enthusiastic owners who are
    themselves artists (in the classical sense of
    producing works on paper), who not only use it as
    a tool but regard it as a fetish, a source of
    inspiration, even a muse.

    The activity of using a transformative instrument
    in pursuit of putting ones vision to paper on a
    very particular way is, arguably, a form of
    performance art.

    And the act of articulating such intentions also
    fits the modern art concept. There is no shortage
    of excellent photographers using beautifully
    crafted utilitarian instruments in pursuit of
    their craft. But the ability to articulate
    concept and intention is what distinguishes some
    photographers and their instruments from the
    crowd (again, note Wayne Martin Belger and his
    Boy of Blue conceptual pinhole cameras, each
    crafted toward a particular theme).
  71. I'm not sure modern has anything to do with it.<br><br>The way their brushes, chissels, pens etc. themselves can become works of art is not that they are or have been used to create art, nor that they are cherrished as tools, or muses, that help them create art.<br>Intention is a good word in this context. A work of art is not just intentional in the sense that it is meant to be a work of art, but indeed also in that it expresses some meaning, some concept. It is a carrier of intent. An instrument.<br>Without saying anything about these particular cameras (i'm still not certain what to think of them) : the fact that a tool is both good and nice to look at does not suffice. It can be great design. When an instrument is made to do something in particular and do that as well as no other tool can do, it still is a tool used to articulate some concept and intent as good or as bad as its user is capable of.<br>When does the instrument itself become a work of art? Is the intent of being a good instrument that is made to look good as well enough to make it so? Then what is design?
  72. Haha I tried repestedly to answer the question but you dont feel i did.
    And please keep in mind It feels quite stupid and presumptious to stand
    here and tell what is and isnt art. All one can do is say what is art to you.
    Design is neither required nor always present.
    A sculptor csn chisel away without a plan and end up with a work of art on one case and in another
    may follow a blueprint as may an architect snd have fidelity to the blueprint
    but the design may fall short of the math of what constitutes art and succeed
    in the design but fall short.
    Not every well executed good design turns into art.
    In the case of the painter his first draft sketch may be art but if the addition of paint
    doesnt compliment the sketch then the effort may be nullified..
    Design may or not be a component of an art piece.
    Something isnt art because of fidelity. that is craftmanship.
    Art isnt art because something looks really good as some great sculptures and paintings
    challenge fidelity of form. I dont think there is one true accepted answer to the question.
  73. Well, i agree that it could be an impossible question. That's probably why there is so much said and written about it: trying to grasp something that may be ungraspeable because it indeed is quite different for different people. But it will always be something interesting to explore anyway, to hear what other people think and have to say.<br>So thanks. And good luck with the project.
  74. Lex you are right that a synergy of functions which yields an increased
    utility may be considered state of the art and has and somebody as Joe could contend that
    digital offers more responsiveness and wouldnt be wrong but you give up the big
    neg so for the big neg this is state of the art .

    You could also say its use and appreciation has yielded a following and under the parameters
    you specify that could be considerd art.
    But I do contend in fact that as you well said citing the parameters of modern art that some not all
    of my cameras meet the sculptural requirements to constitute an object d art independantly of its function.
    I do feel the utility somehow lessens the artistic effort in the marriage but what Joe said is very valuable
    in that art shouldnt be limited to museums.
    When the art can yield a dual purpose as "the camera which has a math that may be state of the art produces great art
    can be an object d art induces that it will be used and displayed instead of going in a camera bag.
  75. Moma prototype III
    under construction
  76. The St Regis this is our third prototype I wish I had a better picture but we were very rushed at the time this was actualy my first attempt at a more ambitious aproach but has been on hold as was too steep a gradient 6 years ago when I took the first crack at it.
  77. Mr de Bakker:
    Thank you for your good wishes.
    Duality not resolving is based on the nature of Polarity
    as you cannot have a 3rd dimension without duality.
    Going Darwin insiting on a single cause or answer to all
    and which has to resolve now tends to always point to yield having to choose
    function over form and no room or need to go beyond
    that point.
    It is only when combining yet more factors that you can have an universal
    This is why the word i used most often to describe the convenience of
    my camera is "synergy".

    Now obviously to an incredule synergy being invisible doesnt exist
    and can be easily dismissed as the proficiency of the user.

    Regarding the importance of criticism and critics and criteria
    my first response in this discussion that it is better to focus ones attention
    on what one is passionate about than to try to shred everything to bits in the hopes
    you can then put it back together an now using logic it may make sense.

    In my opinion and which now has a ton of scientific evidence to support it
    Starting with the research by Dr Emoto in Japan on water and the effects of criticism.
    the curse to the incredule is without fail that what he distrusts will inevitably disapoint him.
    So being practical and having worked with or for some of the best photographers my choice
    to focus on that wavelength isnt elitist in a classist manner but simply being practical knowing
    confidence is the key ingredient in all effort and that my camera can then make a difference.

    There may by a value to a critic but there is no doubt a critic cannot overcome his own self criticism so
    as to excel as an artist or in an artistic effort always distracted by should I or shouldnt I and as my
    camera is aimed at responsive photography only and I can only make a few I have been succesful at avoiding
    instigating people into using my camera for the wrong reasons and that is why the outcome has been so positive.
  78. The following camera is our 2012 Anniversary edition Deco folding
  79. Littman Tropical camera deco folding
  80. The Littman Gatsby
  81. Now I will post some of my earlier efforts which date between 2007-2010
  82. Early efforts
  85. Could someone tell me why my text is first confirmed
    but when i go to add an attachment it says problem with
    your imput so i have to change the text and have to try several
    times before it confirms the attachent? and ends up looking untidy.
  86. In order to appear inline with the discussion forum threads, photos need to be in JPEG format, 700 pixels or less in dimension, and have a caption (any standard ASCII character will do).
    Otherwise, larger photos, those in PNG or other format, and without captions, will appear as clickable links.
    Also, there are occasional system glitches. There's a 15-20 minute edit window. If it takes longer than that to attach a photo, it's necessary to start over and attach the photo in a new post.
  87. Thank you Lex
    I was aware of that.
    I think I may have connectivity issues
    and the system can be robotic:)

    BTW nice picture of the cat in the margin
  88. I wish to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far
    for the intelligent responses which I find very useful.
  89. Rodeo Joe: In response to your question to whether these cameras can take pictures or only meant to be looked at I am posting an image I took which has the kind of qualities which have been consitently obtained thruot the years by me and others and for which most people would attempt with 35mm or medium format but the claimed synergy of this camera has made it an option to retain responsiveness and hd concurrently. Honestly few use it exclusively any more . I just pull it out when the shot makes sense and snap a few sheets otherwise digital as you said does the job for all quickies and commercial applications but when it comes to artistic this alternative is still way ahead of the game.
  90. Here is another shot I took with a Littman
  91. An early Littman tropical camera
  92. Lets take a minute to examine the value of design
    and the shame response to what is belittled as ostentacious.

    I will use the automotive industry to attempt to make an analogy.

    Lets start with the supercar/ sportscar sector.
    The audience of this market encourages good design great texturing and innovative technology.
    Guess what?
    They get what they asked for.

    Those who buy also get signaled out as having their motivation as being mostly justified by
    in an attempt to curb enthusiasm by those who object.

    Now lets take the consumer family car and utility vehicle sector.
    There is a growing trend of political correctness and aversity to ostentation
    and excess justified by the ridiculous defassages of 2008 etc etc
    and a real disparity in resulting revenue none of which is fabricated or immaginary.

    With this said about all this being true is that to add insult to injury this sector shoots itself
    in the foot so to speak even further when in attempting to shame ostentation and excess in design
    those who evaluate the feedback assume this sector has an aversity to intelligent design.

    Guess what?
    This sector also receives what it asks for .
    But I have to ask myself if it is what it wants.

    There was a kink in the road at some point.
    No idea who made the first egged shaped minivan
    with bug eyed headlights which sold out probably
    because of incentives and then tge competition assumed
    people liked the design as things are usualy appreciated
    for what they appear to be and then the kink became a trend.

    In the 80s it was the box angular k car and today many consumer
    vehicles look cartoonish or have cartoonish looking features as accents.

    My point and which automotive experts agree is a consumer market car
    buyer may not want a ferrari but he also doesnt want a bug eyed pile of
    ferrous oxide to be which reads"Its not ostentatious cost as much as if it were
    and Im acting proud but I have no idea how I ended signing on to this".

    Just consider your grandpas mustang
    have residual value after half a century and your kid is proud
    to drive it.
    If his grandson goes to college decades from now and has to
    drive some of the abominations made today he will park it several
    blocks from school and if he gets caught he will shame you haha
    karma baby karma.
    This is why I chose to pick up where others left off.
    Its the way of the world very olympian organic environmentaly friendly
    and proven as truly constructive.
  93. Now lets move to architecture and housing as I keep being reminded
    by annoying talk shows as to the role of inflated value in the real estate crisis
    and its effects which still linger after a decade and which seem to flare up every
    decade in different degrees.The cause is only one.

    In Europe and other parts of the world you inherit a house which has either been in your
    family for hundreds of years or has been arround for a long time.

    If its conveniences fall short in the pushbutton department a relatively inexpensive addition
    brings it up to date and which may leave some room for quality of living and expenditures.
    This is less true today as a result of Europe and other countries using credit cards to
    buy more planned obsolecence products and less solid real estate.
    And in America where you have more great architects than photographers a large portion of the housing
    uses less than desireable architectural design which is selected from catalogs and its style isnt stylish and to
    describe it you have to add "ish" when comparing it to desireable design.
    These are some of the side effects of things that are sought for being entirely new efforts and so please excuse
    any lack of elocuence on my part or english writting skills when I ask how does this make any sense to anyone?
  94. Let's see. There is good taste and there is bad taste. What is considered as such varies a bit (sometimes more, sometimes less) with time. And there are rubbish products that are bought anyway because of the taste of the moment, and ones that are good enough that they will last, and remain as they are, over changes in taste.<br>You decided to latch on to design of yesteryear - let's call it classic - because (i think) the taste of the day is not yours and because you think that today's bad taste is the result of people wanting something that is not classic and not the result of things like of different life styles, different economy and such. Ostentation is frowned upon because of political correctness and not because of different tastes, the economy etc.<br><br>So it is ostentation that needs to be freed from an undeserved bad reputation? And that is what design is about?<br>Do you think that people dismiss/'shame' your cameras because of them being too ostentatious, too 'bling'?<br>Please continue.
  95. I think you misunderstood me somewhat.
    I like good designs both classic and modern.
    I like a lot of the current designs.
    A lot of supercar designs are ok
    Some luxury vehicles have intelligent designs now
    but some are a crossbreed between the good and bad design

    And in the consumer market I believe design is now breaking with
    all norm purposely to accelerate replacement.
    Check google do a search for stories on thousands if acres if new unsellabe
    vehicles which the car companies have to store but wont reduce prices so as
    I said you pay mire for less.

    When the claimed utility of the upcoming model is attractive and the outlines
    are more generic and non descript it is an easier sell as replacing your cell phone
    every time there is an upgrade.

    The consumer market in the automotive industry is not interested in you getting attached
    to a car for 20 years.
    My family once had a Mercedes with a million miles on it.
    Now the industry has stopped worrying about patents as
    much on parts and instead came up with the"cluster" concept
    which makes it less attractive to make after market parts
    and then since the cars come with maintenance included they also
    cut out the diy alternative and so keeping a car long term makes no sense
    any longer.

    I dont presume the priviledge of being targeted.
    I did years ago partly inexperienced partly as a knee
    jerk reaction but as I tried to explain in the post to which
    you responded to I would find it way more reasonable when
    objecting to a character flaw to avoid attacking the good things in
    life and presenting "them"as associated or resulting from a character
    flaw because as a result that invites intelligent design be replaced with
    that which I find has the character aproximating tge cartoonish.
    And I say that because the outlines and accents look as if someone blew up
    a granade inside the cad program :)

    No when my camera had no aesthetic improvements my creative clients were being
    attacked and shamed as"fashionistas artists having mire money than sense"
    MY response has always been that large format handheld only makes sense
    at this crossroads if you have the willingness to pursue an aesthetic quest
    and if that is deemed presumptious and unessesary whoever feels that way
    can use digital.

    By now I dont feel targeted and reccomend that those who have creative talent or
    tastes which arent completely seamless because they are nurtured tastes instead of
    what is in the menu so to speak will be criticized and should dismiss the criticism.

    My point was and which is by now irrefutable.
    The average consumer now pays more for all and gets less
    and when he gets more it us usually fillers empty calories
    and questionable design when instead of asking for what he wants
    spends his time shaming good taste or creativity.
    Its as the saying goes
    you get what u ask for.
    My point if you attack luxury and creativity as a character flaw of the rich
    you get less and pay more because you asked for that and in
    a righteous manner. They listened.
  96. A candid snaphot by Chloe Credpi
  97. Typo the previous photo credit is Fionna Singer and not Chloe Crespi
  98. Another early design
  99. 2007 design. The Littman Kings Cross was the first design attempt concurrent with the introduction of perfectible parallelism the picture clears up if you zoom in until ir depixelates
  100. Another editorial portrait of a dance company
    by Henry Leutwyler
  101. Now, exactly why can't exactly the same shots be done with a hand held Linhof, Wista, Graflex, Pressman, etc..
  102. Please note that requires that all photographs posted must have been TAKEN by the poster. Posting anyone else's work, even with permission, is not permitted and such images will be removed. For further information see and
    "You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created yourself"
    It doesn't matter if the usage is editorial, it doesn't matter if credit is given. The requirement is that anything you post you must have taken yourself. You may LINK to other images in their original location of course, but not post them inline on
  103. Thank You Bob
  104. Something in all this reminds me of Bruce Jenner's "transitioning" from male to female. Clearly, he was proven to be highly functional as a male, something like the Polaroid camera was in the first place. But now his somewhat cosmetic, or decorative transformation to womanhood has taken him beyond his initial construction. Perhaps he too has become "a work of art?"
  105. My great great great uncle on my mothers side of the family
    Is one of the 19th century's most renowned traditional painter/
    Portraitists and one of the earliest photographers known.

    A pioneer and enthusiast of the Daguerrotype process.

    One of the upsides of the camera as art project is that It will enable
    us to produce an annual lot of 10 cameras aimed at sponsoring the
    work of those who have a passion for alternative processes .

    These utilitarian cameras with fixed design would be offered to the artists
    at 50% of retail price.

    Delivery once annualy by cristmass.
  106. So it is about your camera having had some "aesthetic improvements" so that your "creative clients" are no longer "attacked and shamed a 'fashionistas artists having mire money than sense' "?
    If people are shamed for using what are perceived as too expensive tools for the job, applying some aesthetic improvements to those tools may make people rethink what they feel about those tools, such that questions as the one Bob Salomon asked would no longer arise (or if anyway could be rebutted by pointing at the looks of the tool)?
    Does it? Is that not exactly what would give good cause for criticism along the lines of "fashionistas artists having mire money than sense"? Pointing out that the cameras are technically well made could indicate that these artist who buy your cameras do indeed have enough sense regardless of how much money they also might have. But the defence is in the aesthetics? The fashionista bling applied to those cameras (as opposed to more "utilitarian cameras") must make the difference? It's not just a fashionista's bit of bling because it is turned into a more ostentatious fashionista's bit of bling? That line of defence will not work, will it?

    The Big Question however remains unanswered: if, how and why those aesthetic improvements would turn your cameras into works of art.
  107. "an annual lot of 10 cameras aimed at sponsoring the work of those who have a passion for alternative processes .
    These utilitarian cameras with fixed design would be offered to the artists at 50% of retail price."
    That isn't sponsorship. If you were actually doing these as a sponsorship then you would give them the cameras to use.
    In effect, what you are offering, is no different then a special student price.
  108. Mr Salomon:
    You are right technicaly it would be comparable to student price
    and the sponsorship isnt the norm so to speak but in selling them the cameras
    at cost affording the service and costs would be absorbed by the more intricate designs
    And so that was the message I was trying to convey.
    We did have rental cameras available thru Lens And Repro from 2000-2010 but unfortunately
    they closed.
    As of January 2015 the utilitarian cameras are available for rental from Pier 59 Studios in Nyc.
    We will however have a student contest for a camera thru a trade Publication in 2015.
  109. Adding bling is just adding bling.
    As with any object if the summation of original plus enhancements
    Achieves a result that can be considered art then so it is.
    Otherwise adding bling is just adding bling.
    And frankly I am not sure you can be sure
    but I am sure that isnt relevant.
    Im not on a quest to demand everyone agrees as that is stupid.
  110. Mr Bakker
    Im not sure anyone needs a reason to be bitter. Certainly not a justifiable reason.
    Fashion besides the obvious utility of protective use can provide a means of expression at times which is both healthy and necessary as the Buddhists say well life is a mandala and role playing thru fashion is a choice to induce change. This in itself will be regarded as frivolous by many and its perfectly fine.
    So I have no idea what would stop bullies from bullying and bitter people from being toxic but know such approach usually speaks badly of the one who takes it and is a road to nowhere.
    Again the project is called OPUS + ARTE COLLECTION
    The utility cameras having a standard nice design don't focus on the design as some will prefer a less designed camera. it makes sense to most as you said justified by the performance.
    when Large format was introduced and no enlargers both art and cataloging were equal contenders for the use. Today its mostly art so it would make little sense to shame artists but most the people who Were into large format then sought it for commercial use so it is not unrealistic that the disdain exists as some people cant get past what they dislike and some focus only on what they like the latter are known as happy people.
    Then the Arte section of the project makes the same camera and attempts to express artistic pursuit in its exterior as well. Some will embrace it some wont, there's nothing else to it .
    If you take physics and its laws , answers and resolution begins to occur when less density is present. Please Mr Bakker try being a little less dense and reiterative on what was agreed as answered as much as it could be answered.
    I am not sure that it does constitute art to everyone . I feel our prototypes for Moma attempts may and as close to target as Possible. when we can in turn affect the outlines as well our chances will be greater and beyond that monsieur who cares.!
  111. Mr Arthur I cannot speak for someone's personal choice and to say that any aesthetic enhancement of a product equates to crossgender is silly as many products have standard editions and higher end editions and then there are concept editions .
  112. William, you keep talking about shaming, bitterness, dislike and disdain. But i'm still dense i guess, and still can't figure out how that figures in this. Was it a motivator for the project? If so, how does that sit with the "not a justifiable reason" and "its perfectly fine", and such? If not, what is the role this shaming etc. plays in this all?<br><br>But still the as yet unanswered, and most interesting, question is why the design of the exterior of these cameras constitutes art.<br>You mention attempts to express artistic pursuit, but what artistic pursuit is it? What are you trying to achieve that moves the exterior design of these cameras from being design to being art?
  113. Mr. Bakker I have offered you direct responses to this question you " aren't sure" about.
    you eventually agreed there cant be a response that is " sure" most importantly Its not my place to
    give assurances as I am not the self appointed bureau of criteria.
    Please let it be
    I'm perfectly happy if you feel it isn't and at this point if you feel it isn't I will agree with you to avoid the annoyance.
  114. now here is a really brilliant light source for these cameras
  116. i will post three photographs I took.
    One may be art the other two may be artistic but not art
    the first one is what you would consider low quality in terms of
    photographic quality and that is because such variable has been
    fused so to speak to render the whole as a rendering rather than
    focusing on the excellence of the photographic capture.
    Its title is "painting with light" and as that is supposed to be one
    of the accepted definitions of photography I feel this work meets the definition
    more adequately than a more defined photo which I would describe as capturing with light.
  117. now the following photo is hd and you may consider it artistic if you wish but cannot be art
    as is the unfortunate case with most photographs when photography can be an art but the bar for
    an individual photo to be art
    is by now unsurmountably high after trillions of photographs and established formulas and cliches
  118. again this photo isnt art but artistic
  119. let me try again
  120. artistic but not art
  121. i dont know why the uploads fail on my laptop
  124. Now sarcasms aside what Mr Arthur said is sort of really applicable in terms of evaluating an effort and function these days.
    May I remind that the Polaroid camera as Arthur refers was not indeed highly functional but barely adequate to the extent that despite roll films being produced way into the mid 80s these cameras for the most part were usually found virtually unused and collecting dust in attics by the thousands.
    Note that a conversion was still not necessary to make them usable and yet deemed unattractive by its owners who retired them after an initial novelty period.
    this is the first proof that conversion isn't the utility behind the Littman camera yet when it was introduced with no bling it caused a storm of similar " just fine" folkloric support for the so called function not sufficiently esteemed to hold any better place than collecting dust in the attic.
    once the first Littman was evaluated by Polaroid they determined it had a higher utility than the 4 designs camera for what they found justified to en me a OEM partnership so I could produce it.
    So my point is too often people who only do something if they will get instant gratification that cant simply be assumed.
    Years ago Tom Hanks had a fun movie about a one hit wonder band " that thing you do' and on theday the band introduces a new song and passionate about it someone in the audience impatiently screams" can you just play that thing you do so we can meet girls"?,
    That preety much summarizes what I see in the objections y camera project has faced from detractors.
    the guy who wanted the hot song played so he could score has a hard time understanding how other guys may find a motivation to listen to music and cultivate a taste with no apparent reason since obviously he is married got the girl haha.
    Taking it a step further we should consider that hot rods and other type of cosmetic modifications arent necessarily lacking in masculinity and quite to the contrary so I could have to disagree with the gender comparison on everything but the fact that some have managed to dismiss technical improvement artistic motivation and aesthetic improvements as having gender issues because these interests are suspected as being valid to impress the opposite sex or impressing the opposite sex as the only motivator to justify efforts.
    I have an amazing revelation ; there are some out there who take pictures for personal gratification and the function sought is obviously greater than what was previously achieved . People have different needs and in a photography forum that shouldn't be ridiculed but most importantly my audience and I are not deterred in any way after 15 years because the detractions and objections don't speak of my camera limitations but may be those of the observer.
  125. I received a call from one of the most respected camera collectors who helped put this whole thing into perspective.
    he basically said something which I agree with and is that when the Polaroid camera was first introduced its first model was magnificent and though some of the materials aren't top classe the design of its exterior was deemed with the same importance we have given ours but for that era.
    the function was not as great as the kalart rf was not cammed and the front standard arms square angles made it very weak etc etc
    Like the original Bantam and many other great cameras had initial magnificent concept models which were then scratched because of costs if you want to know where the money went it was traced to CEO bonuses houses in the Hamptons and trade show sidekicks like call girl sand booze lol.
    So in essence our effort is justified as there is a real need to bridge a gap in design which was tapered in the early 60s in favor of consumism which hoped to push relatively functional relatively inexpensive products aimed to sell massively.
    A dedicated study of Polaroids marketing plan showed that choosing a thunder gray tone for the models to follow would be appealing to most people and in choosing a design deconstruction
    and lowering the cost of production the fat cats got bigger checks but the consumer paid the same price as I had expected.
    the original design was deemed too professional looking and inexperienced users were threatened by
    its impressive appearance when the company was trying to promise anyone even a 5 year old girl could use it .
    So in closing he simply said as with Polaroid started on the right track but then deconstructed in favor of consumism as the demand for utility was there but it makes sense at the end of the run when consumism has no longer a need that the original approach has been rekindled thru your project,
  126. ".....the function was not as great as the kalart rf was not cammed and the front standard arms square angles made it very weak etc etc"
    What are you talking about?
    The first Polaroid Land camera was the model 95a which was a zone focus camera with a lift up peep type sight on top of the body (which was brown) and a lift up spring with a small ball on its end which was on the front standard. The ball had a red ring around it. For distance shots you used the ball to frame, for close ups you used the red ring. You had to estimate the distance, there was no rangefinder of any type on the camera or packaged with the camera. We owned that camera when it was originally introduced.
    It was replaced by a slightly revised model. the 95b.
  127. Sorry, slight correction, the first Polaroid was the model 95. The second in that series was the 95a. Neither had a rangefinder.
  128. hi bob
    when was the land 600 portrait camera made, do you have any idea?
    it has 6 shuttered 1/150 f16 lenses in a grid and takes 4x5 film holders ..
  129. Sorry, no. You hould be able to find it on Google.
  130. Though not maintained/updated for quite a while, a good online resource for Polaroid camera history is the Land List.
  131. hi bob, i have been searching google for 4 years LOL it is an obscure camera ..
    QG thanks, i now that i went there i remember i have been there before ... it is not listed there ...

Share This Page