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

[william_littman]

I thought People were trying to represent That Jones wanted to stop!

 

Well Mr. Jones . If you say" The 127 cam is just SITTING there to show the identical

profile.We can certainly see that you cant tell the difference between something which is black and something which is white. If after all the request for some fairness you still insist that you cant tell the difference in profiles between those 2 cams let me remind you that you have shown they are different, and I have both right here and certain as have been for 4 years that they are entirely different ,but not by looking at it with the naked eye, much less in a photograph

 

Unless you bother to verify evidence it is just something which you are holding in your hand but proves nothing if you refuse the responsibility to give it the required attention .

 

 

Your 127mm cam and my 150mm cam are different and first in an obvious way which you refused to see and then they are different in the same manner as two contact lenses would be different in a photograph if the prescription was not that different. Well Mr. Jones as I said every photographer who has a recent camera with a 150mm lens has that cam and their cameras work unless broken.

 

You started / instigated the threads in PN to Prove I am a blunthead but you have shown that dealing with you and your associates in this matter has a degree of difficulty which exceeds any normal persons ability to comprehend , which Mr. Seward has referred to as "This circus must cause you so much stress and take up so much time" and he is right it is a circus of admitted saboteurs .

 

Mr Jones then comes back again and states" He says there is no difference" I did say that about the cam you presented on top to show " there was no difference" and youdo not understand these matters as to have disputed them at all. period. you can patent two methods of achieving something and utilize the chosen one over the other. I ground many cams in the research and found that it was an imperfect way because you cannot get two identical ones if you wanted to, you could but neither of us has the money for that kind of equipment and grinding per se is an unmeasureable method of modification unless you use the kinds of equipment used in lens grinding.

 

I have your cam and its surface has the textutre as if ground with an 80 grit sandpaper, does not have either a smooth curvature and the grooves made by the grinding are themselves bumps, Mr Schwartz had insisted that applying aditional pressure to a follower mirror tension spring would create a groove in the cam if excessive and excess is what I am trying to insist is not required, but the surface of your cam being that it is initself a pivoting file will eat up the tip of the follower mirror and has already done so even if minimally on a camera that could be said to have less than a few hrs of use.

 

In any event you have no right to force me into this and you had no right to start threads to discredit me and in the end while you hoped to get me commited as prommised so you could retain the podium her we find ourselves after one of your clients invited you in defiance and you proceeded to solicit/ offer your products and introduce mine without consent.

 

As it turns out there are no secret formulas or Trade secrets involved here but an obvious demonstration that none of this should have ever occured.

 

 

In these parts of the world people do not respond well when they see that "some" have ambushed the podium by these tactics.

 

 

Mr Seward says"there is no harm in letting us chatter on " which means you retain the podium and " You have to let someone have the last wordor it will go on forever."

 

When I was told this would stop I understood that my concern was that merchants have engaged in all sorts of inducement at my expense that is what i believed would stop it is not only a matter of fairness and what was prommised but there is a statute which I have made reference to which instructs as what the behaviour regarding inducement is supposed to be.

 

I thank you all , It appears that I am trying to be difficult but it is not difficult but impossible to endure this any longer.

 

Mr benni has verified as has everyone else that this subject was active well before Mr Jones& co.

decided to instigate tsunami in 2003 ..... and it is not a matter of bringing it up or not it is a matter that all solicitation under any premmise must cease and all the tsunamis posted as admitted instigation/ interferance must be removed.

 

as i said there are now 3 threads started by these people discussing conversions if such is legal and does not constitute inducement then it should be able to proceed .

 

I believe we have addressed these issues and hope that what is permissible gets to happen and that has to be known by merchants beforehand and not by disrupting the public but by learning themselves before making public assurances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[camera_conjurer]

Any camera repair technician would tell you this was written by someone way over his

head.<p> WILLIAM LITTMAN has no idea how to build a camera and has the nerve to

insult

the ones of us

who do.<p>If WILLIAM LITTMAN wants this to stop, then all he has to do is take his fraud

patents and go

back where he came from.<p>If he wants us to respect his rights then he should practice

what he preaches and respect ours.<He can sell you all the cameras he wants, as far as I'm

concerned. ( And by the way. WILLIAM LITTMAN is the bad guy here. Dean, I and the rest

have been under attack by this guy for almost the past three years and there doen't seem

to

be anything we can do about it. )

[william_littman]

I received the responses to the comments that Mr Scwartz has made about me and my product from the person who bought it in auction and received it directly from his client:

 

Dear C.L.D M

>here is the followup questionaire , the photographer here in NYC will

>received the same questions in reference to comments made By the person That

>made the camera You bought in auction and then Traded for a Littman I will

>post your comments using your initials and wont reveal your name unless

>required.

>

>

> I would like you to give your educated opinion/ response to such comments;

>please if you post your response please do so under each comment.

>

>

>

>I ask you to be as objective as possible

>

>

>

>" the lack of parallax correction can be easily compensated for" (meaning

>could you utilize such camera and obtain the images you get with a Littman

>after verifying the differences in parallax performance)?

 

I'm not interested in "easily compensated for". I require accurate

framing and focus. My L45S III allows me to frame very tightly even at

close range. I was very surprised to discover how accurate the parallax

compensation is on the Littman. The viewfinder framing on the other

camera was simply not in the same league.

 

>Did you find the focus to be equally effective?

 

Same case as with viewfinder framing. With the Littman I am able to

shoot even with the lens wide open and can easily select my plane of

focus with a precision and ease that is accurate and repeatable. This is

important to me as I greatly enlarge my color negatives and I did not

want to sacrifice any sharpness whatsoever by going with a handheld

camera over my tripod mounted view camera. This level of performance was

not possible with the other camera.

 

>what is your opinion of the camera comparing it as a practical tool and not

>considering presentation or appearance but strictly performance,

 

This other camera is basically a Polaroid 110B with a Graflok back and

groundglass frame taken from a Speed Graphic or the like. The back is

attached to the Polaroid body by means of a flat steel plate.

Consequently a lot of heavy metal is added to the original camera without

removing any superfluous parts that were no longer needed when going from

the old Polaroid format to 4X5". In other words, this camera weighs a

ton and is very heavy to handhold comfortably. Also the Speed Graphic

back is large and awkward as attached to this camera, making this

contraption seem overbuilt and strange to handle.

 

The Littman is totally different as William is not really taking a 110B

and converting it to 4X5. He is only using the parts from the Polaroid

that he needs to create his camera. So the resulting camera is lighter

and easier to handle. It is basic, simple, nothing superfluous. Nothing

gets in the way. Very nice.

 

>" Littman cameras will self destruct because they are built by someone who

>doesn't have the slightest idea of what he is doing"

 

This seems like a personal attack so I do not think it deserves a

response as such. Littman's cameras are very straight forward and

precise where they need to be. I have not encountered any apparent

weaknesses. It seems the most delicate parts of this camera, and of any

Polaroid Pathfinder style camera, are the front struts that support the

lensboard, but they seem sturdy enough to me and only require a modicum

of consideration. No problem at all. The camera is solid and William

supports his product better than most camera makers.

 

>" Littman has deceived the large format community" ( meaning that my camera

>was better)

 

Littman makes some strong claims about the accuracy of his camera.

Honestly I was absolutely surprised when I first experienced how sharp

and accurate my negatives turned out with my L45S III. I was duly

impressed and I was not able to achieve that level of accuracy with the

other camera.

 

>" the only reason people believe Littman cameras are better is because they

>are so expensive"

 

Believe me, I wish I could've found another camera like it for less

money. They are very expensive. About what I paid for my ARCA-SWISS,

but half the price of a Canon 1Ds MkII. But I was not looking for a

Polaroid conversion. I was looking for a handholdable 4X5" rangefinder

camera with accurate focus and framing like my Leica M that would

complement the work I do with my 4X5 view camera. I tried using a

Technika (another pricey camera) but it's a beast to use handheld. The

Littman was the obvious choice for my needs.

 

> Do you feel I am ruining the original cameras and not improving them as

>this person has assured PN with the words" he is ruining them, not improving

>them. "

 

If your goal is to not ruin the original camera then do not modify them

at all. This other camera completely ruins the integrity of the Polaroid

110B by adding heavy steel parts that may add a functionality but does so

in a poorly conceived manner. That is not the case with the Littman

camera. I use mine everyday. For me it is that practical. These other

cameras I would not use at all, except maybe to play around with

sometimes. Just my opinion.

C.L.D.M"

 

I dont need any more of your Johnny come lately turn old garbage into new garbage insults and nobody needs your leverage tactics.

 

I also respectfuly disagree with Mr Scwartz comments and ask him

to respect the policies of this server .

 

thank you

[razzledog]

Thank God, there are now threads where this 'Circus Buffoon' and his idiocy are banned. That`s hopefully the end of it.

[mottershead]

Littman, as I have told you in emails and when you phoned me, if you think you have a legal argument why photo.net should suppress these threads, please have your attorney send me a letter putting forward your legal arguments and claims.

 

I cannot understand your incoherent, rambling, belligerent, posts, emails, and phone calls. As for "being aware" of your patents, I am aware that you have patents, and I have even tried to read some of them. Like many patents, they are written in language that would be impenetrable even if I were an expert on camera conversions (which I am not). I cannot determine what the claims cover -- whether they cover one method of converting certain Polaroid cameras into 4x5 film cameras, or whether they cover any such conversion by any method, as you often seem to be claiming in these threads.

If you have a valid patent on all conversions of Polaroid cameras to 4x5 film cameras, as you seem sometimes to claim, then I recognize that do-it-yourselfers (in the United States, at least) are as subject to it as anybody else, and are liable to being sued by you for infringement. Being a hobbyist is not a defense. But who knows what your patents cover?

 

In any case, I seriously doubt whether permitting hobbyists to exchange information on this web-site about various ways of adapting old cameras (including Polaroids) to 4x5 film cameras represents "inducement" of patent infringement. I doubt whether publishing posts containing information from your patents or photographs of cameras that you have converted using your method can be construed as inducement of patent infringement. But I am not a lawyer. Neither are you and your legal opinion is that last one that I would trust on this subject.

 

When you claim that photo.net is inducing patent infringement, you conveniently overlook that a huge amount of the space taken in these threads are posts from you -- that is, for nearly every post that I am publishing which might explain to someone how to do one of these conversions, I am publishing a post from you threatening them with legal action if they do. Most people would not be aware that you have patents if it were not for the fact that I leave up on the site all of your posts. It is not my fault that you are so incoherent that nobody can understand your claims and that you make yourself seem ridiculous and crazy. I must say that I have been sorely tempted to delete many of your posts -- with their ad hominem attacks and legal threats against other photo.net members and against photo.net, in violation of the photo.net Terms of Use. But I leave them up in order that there be no doubt that photo.net is not inducing patent infringement and so that anybody inclined to do one of these conversions will realize that they might have to deal with you.

 

While I doubt anybody can figure out what you are claiming, nobody reading these threads can be in any doubt that you are threatening them with a patent infringement lawsuit if they come anywhere in the vicinity of a Polaroid 4x5 conversion, and you learn of it. How does that put photo.net in the position of "inducing" patent infringement?

 

Despite all the free publicity photo.net has given you for your patent claims, unfortunately for your cause, your belligerent, rambling, confused posts are as impenetrable as your patents. If you were less belligerent and more coherent, less quick to cite patent law, and more forthcoming with an explanation what you have patent rights to, people might understand their situation better and be less hostile to you.

 

In my opinion, you do yourself no good at all by badgering hobbyists endlessly about your patent rights and constantly threatening legal action against them. These people are not potential customers for your $3000 conversions, and the people who are your customers are not buying the cameras from you because of the patents, but because of the quality of the cameras. You aren't losing buyers because someone learned on photo.net how to do the conversion himself. If you think some of the other posters here are violating your patents, then your recourse is to sue them, not to make threats in public forums. If you won't enforce your patents in court, then others are entitled to think that your threats are empty and that your posts are exactly what they seem like: ranting and raving from a lunatic.

 

Some of the people against whom you are raving are not even American residents, and unless you have patents in Australia and elsewhere on your inventions, they are not affected by your patents.

 

I am not going to engage you again or further on this subject. I am the last person to invite the involvement of a lawyer, but talking to a rational lawyer is preferable to dealing with you. Get one to send me a letter setting forth your arguments and claims with some minimal level of coherency, so that I can review, or have photo.net's lawyer do so. Meanwhile, my tolerance for your endless ranting on my website is rapidly approaching its limit.

 

[william_littman]

Mr Mottershead: I understand your position as a website owner and respect your opinion as well.

 

I felt one thing was the legal issue and another that competitors dispute my work as it has been disputed as being refuse.

 

I will not discuss these issues further

[adrian_seward]

Brian,

 

Thank you, thank you , thank you for your very clear encapsulation of what some of us have been arguing. It is hard to stay clear and even-handed (or even rational) in these discussions and I think you have put it all together very clearly.

[william_littman]

I respect Mr Mottersheds opinion because it is his right to have an opinion and he has stated that he admits to have no understanding of the legal issues and I am not an expert either

thank you.

[adrian_seward]

Good for you. I didn't ask. I was thanking someone else.

[heller_harris]

Brian -

 

I think that it's unfair to accuse Littman of "incoherent, rambling, belligerent, posts" without mentioning the same from Mssrs. Jones, Schwartz and a couple of others. Schwartz, in particular, makes ugly accusations against Littman and Marty Forscher without providing any evidence to bolster his claims.

 

Littman has to protect his patents, popular or not. Everyone on PN seems concerned about Intellectual Property Rights when it comes to their photos, and they should accord the same respect to the patents. If you feel that his patents are not valid, challenge them; if you're not willing to do that, then shut up.

 

Littman, I wouldn't get into a pissing match with these people; there's no profit in it. Why don't you craft a simple warning/explanation of the patent rights, post it whenever this sort of question comes up, and then forget about it. You will have performed your due diligence in defense of the patent and can avoid this sort of ugly confrontation. If anyone violates your patents and goes into business, then sue them, but you're probably going to have to live with DIY hobbyists.

[william_littman]

I thought the hobbyists would keep talking, but I have a question for Jones.

you said there was no modification done to my finder in Aggie camera,nor did you find any difference in the 150mm camera you repaired and which I made .if that is the case does it cover parallax for the lens you installed in her camera? and if so would that be an infringement? remember I was saying that not all claims must be present simultaneously on all cameras.

 

I am not a circus buffoon and have many sets of cams like the ones you posted. I will give a set to my attorney and send one to Mr. Mottershead who says I'm the last person he would trust and then he can announce that there is a difference. thank you W

[kai_griffin]

I thought Brian presented things extraordinarily well in his post above; evidently, you've also been haranguing him privately. His post shut you up for a couple of days, but - what - now you want to talk about Aggie's camera again??!<p>Ever heard of a <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MoebiusStrip.html">Möebius Strip</a>? I think there's a very strong chance that you could be stuck inside one. You might of course be caught in a simple Endless Loop, but Möebius Strips have a twist in them, and there is but little doubt that you're somewhat twisted, so that's where my vote goes. When stuck inside such a loop, the concept of "moving on" is meaningless, and again, there is but little doubt that you are also unable to "move on". You revisit the past like Escher's ants revist the same stretch of pathway over, and over, and over, and over, and over and....

[camera_conjurer]

With all due respect Mr. Harris.<p>I'm afraid you've missed the point of all

this.<p>Littman has been harassing Dean, myself and others for the past three

years.<p>I've posted enough photos on this thread to pretty much prove my point, but I

have plenty more to prove that everything I've said is true.<p>Marty Forscher DID steal

the idea for the fiber optic Polaroid back for 35mm cameras from me. <p>And I can prove

it, especially now, since I inherited the famous "Books of Professional Camera Repair

Service" from the widow of his partner, the legendary Buddy Graves.<p>Don't get me

wrong, Marty Forscher may have been as big a fraud as "The Wizard of OZ", in this case,

but my

working there was a highlight of my life.<p>Buddy Graves, Winfield Moses and the others

who worked there were some of the greatest craftsmen that ever lived, and I'm proud to

have been apprenticed to them. Having worked at PCRS has defined my life,<p>Once,

back in those days, I was offered a job as a 'Diaper Bus Boy' at 'Studio 54', and I turned it

down. I said, " I have a job. I work for Professional Camera Repair!"<p>( I'm SO going to

regret posting that! )<p>ANYWAY, as far as this situation is concerned.<p>There is very

little that can be done if Guillermo E. Litman wants to patent something in the public

domain. The only thing, absent any real 'tortious act' that I can sue Guillermo for, ( Such

as his stopping one of MY autions on ebay as he has others, to do is to try to get

Guillermo to sue me.<p>When I ried to find a lawyer to sue Marty Forscher over the years,

every lawyer told me the same thing. That I had to get Marty Forscher to sue me by stating

in public that he comitted fraud.<p>

So THAT's why my language has been so harsh. I'm trying to bait Guillermo into sueing

me so

that we can get this over with.<p> The second reason I've kept responding to this thread

was to make it so long that it would come up on search engines. In that respect I think it's

succeeded.<p>

Mr. Harris, have you read all these comments ? Have you looked at the photos ?<p> I'm

not doing this just for myself. I think anyone has the right to convert a Polaroid 110 series

camera to 4x5, even Guillermo.<p>And his patent says that only he can, because he

neglected to inform the patent office that doing that is long in the public domain.

[camera_conjurer]

And to answer the original question, Mr. McEvoy, I have a complete set of photos and

instructions of how I convert these cameras to 4x5.

[william_littman]

I believe Mr. Schwartz is correct, in saying that if something is part of the public domain then that should be " obvious" to all and believing that he was so personally involved in having made it and having insisted it was his idea I thought If he wanted to proceed he could have sent me photocopies of the originals as to at least be able to determine some consideration as to whether something was done and when. My reservations came as a results of the responses which I received instead and when patent was issued and he said prior art had been submitted I felt justified that my position was more than justified, subsequent things which he stated as " to get him to sue me" made it even harder to believe.

 

In any event as I have told Schwartz many times after patent issue on this website I didn't object to submission after issue and assume the expense of getting these matters straightened out, I offered to do so last week again. while I can be upset because of the events I don't believe that would be my right to hold that against him on a deadline of issue/ grant something which threatens me. I invite him to submit whatever materials he may have and so this can be resolved once and for all. I am averse to litigation because in the end what matters would be whether it happened or not and I did what I could to determine if it was true. temper tantrums and defiance should not be a limitation as to if he made something and has the right then we might not decide to spend time together but its not my choice who made what before me and I don't believe its his choice to refrain from submitting it, he that he had invented the fiber optic back and Mr. Harris said " prove it".

 

And then when these matters have been online for as long as they have and nobody has been able to" prove it" then I believe we are indeed going around in circles. whatever agreement or disagreement may exist between personalities has nothing to do with this issue, I asked do you have it? he said he had tons of it but then only presented a picture of the front of an old camera and I believe we have gone around for too long. it helps me very little to have a patent everybody insults as silly and if I didn't have what he claimed to have done previously I could still make my camera.

 

In any event I hope he will send me whatever he believes would be applicable. he believed that insulting me to get him to sue me was what was required but I say that if he had what he represented then he would not have needed a suit because he had the evidence at no cost. I need proof and I hope he sends it.

 

When what I got instead was threats that he could use the publicity and then admits again that that was the intention all along I feel more than justified but lets get past pointing fingers and if the intention to achieve resolution existed and apparently exists today then I want to see it.

 

In any event PN can remain a place for photography and you didnt need tsunami because I said/ keep saying that all it takes is a stamp.

[camera_conjurer]

You know perfectly well by now that your patents are

invalid, so I'm not lifting a finger.<p>You have all the evidence you need.<p>You want to

sue me ? So Sue me. If you don't then go home.

[william_littman]

I know that I acknowledge your preference. thank you.

[razzledog]

William Littman er Guillermo, whatever name you prefer, I consider this fiasco has run its course and I`m tired of your incessant rantings. As far as I`m concerned you have written nothing but utter garbage and it has become tiresome. In no way have you assisted Paul or anyone else in their pursuits of the 4x5 conversion of a 110B. I will continue to modify Polaroid cameras anyway I choose and whatever method I choose will not infringe upon any patented method you have adopted. I won`t be modifying a camera that in any way resembles a Four Designs pack film conversion as I consider that conversion as unique. Therefore you and your so called patents will have absolutely nothing to worry about. In future, I will confine all plans, assistance and ideas to postings that will simply not tolerate any intimidation from you. I think Brian summed it up very well, but as usual you cannot leave it be. As for your demands for

'Compliance not Defiance', that ideology was also the belief of Adolf Hitler.

[william_littman]

I agree and respect Brian's Decision. I acknowledge your intentions and I was simply reminding you of the policy you wrote. Thank You and we need not argue further.

[camera_conjurer]

Dean, Guillermo's patents are for converting any Polaroid 110 series camera to 4x5 by

retarding the film plane. ( Which is in the public domain. )<p> Not just for the '4 Designs'

method Guillermo uses. ( That

would be a design patent and not a utility patent, anyway. )<p> Besides that, apparently

Guillermo's 'threatened' foreign patent applications have been turned down, which is not only

further proof of the weakness of his claims, but also that his patents don't apply to you

anyway. <p> Guillermo isn't going to stop harassing anyone until it starts to cost him

money.<p> His whole enterprise is as phony as a three-dollar-bill.

[razzledog]

Does he hold a patent for a 'three dollar bill' also? I wouldn`t be surprised.

Thanks for the info!

[carsten_benni]

Now the topic of the discussion switched again. We are back speaking about Patents.

[razzledog]

Sorry Carsten, we`ll have no more talk of 'patents', That`s now in the past, so now we can resume helping Paul out with his 4x5 Polaroid conversion. Any ideas folks?<div></div>

[camera_conjurer]

Here's how I install a hot shoe. Complete with hand made bezel.<div></div>

[camera_conjurer]

In the photos below are illustrated just a small part of the construction of the flange I

make to attach the Graflok back to the Polaroid 110 cameras.<p>First I tape carefully cut

6061-t6 aluminum strips to two carefully made end blocks.<p>Then, my little friend

welds the corners, careful not to weld the blocks into the ends! ( You can't see it in the

photos, but the blocks have cut corners to keep them away from the weld bead.)<p>

Then, after it cools, I knock out the blocks and slice the 'loaf' into individual

slices.<p>Meanwhile, I've cut some 6061-t6 diamond plate aluminum into Graflok back

sized pieces, and stacked them, three by three, into the Bridgeport vertical milling

machine. Then I machine out the centers to accomodate the slices I made earlier.<p>In

the last photo, you see the pieces fit together, ready for welding, machining, painting and

final assembly. In other words, most of the work is yet to be done !<p>Of course, you

don't have to do it this way, but when I'm finished, the shape of this flange will light trap

to the back of the camera, and theres a solid, precise physical contact from the Graflok

back to the cameras original film plane. My tolerance is for the new film plane being 'out

of perfectly parallel' is .002" (that's two thousanths of an inch. The diameter of a human

hair.)