IS EVERYONE EXITED THAT POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE FILM IS BACK ?

[william_littman3]

<p>My positions on this thread are<br /> A)substantiated by my personal experience where I have made cameras for 18 years and have received thousands of images from users<br /> some are shown here<br /> <br /> https://www.facebook.com/Littman-Opus-Arte-Collection-Photo-Galleries-1164820563535967/<br>

I don't know how to make the link active so please copy and paste if it should be of interest<br /> <br /> and not a single one having film defects except in very rare occasions when a couple were included in a shipment along with a camera sent for repair to show camera malfunction but the norm is that film is to be free of imperfections.</p>

<p>B) when it comes to the manufacturing approach I have never seen Mc Donald's spend valuable and costly time do a video on how the ketchup packet is made and don't see who could benefit in seeing how a developer pod is similarly made.<br /> I have no doubt that if you are waiting for a paycheck and go to the post office only to find out it wont be there until next week because their mail sorting machines get jammed and there is a screen showing how their mail sorting machines operate you may look at it and wonder that things don't quite add up as to the point of being show what is clearly inefficient.<br /> And to which I add that I started making cameras in 1998 and the 4x5 in 2000 and the only reason there is any reference to how the Littman works is because 5 years later people who wanted to benefit from the name recognition taunted me into pointless discussions.<br /> None of the detractors or those who approved in those " camera freak" discussions could substantiate their positions by the images they took and so a whole lot of bandwidth time and nuisance to the rest of the community and no plus side to be seen anywhere.<br /> and finally remembering it was not necessary to tell people how things work to sell them and that perhaps if they don't work people may not be that interested ? <br /> In short I have never seen a video or article by Linhof Grafic Kodak Polaroid Fuji showing irrelevant manufacturing efforts while posting images from defective film</p>

<p>.</p>

[jnanian]

<p>my comment had nothing to do with politics .... </p>

[jnanian]

<p>duplicate post</p>

[william_littman3]

Im sure it didn't but neither you or I set up this cult like project which moves forward on 55 %politics and 45% ( 4x5 ) haha misguided idealism.

The enticement to use the 13-.18 $ per shot film which may work well some day is encouraged with a speed Graphic which sits in the background

and which requires three hands to operate both inefficient and unresponsive which he rates preferable over a Linhof or a Littman.

 

Graflex is out of business

If someone shoots with a linhof or a Littman and gets a bad looking negative then it makes him look bad.

 

If someone shoots with a hit and miss Graflex then its not so clear.

 

But what is misleading is the implied that any old camera which he recently misrepresented "millions havin been produced and rugged"

Which isnt false in itself but misleading as to justifying spending 13_18 on a ??? Film and being led to believe the good ol Graflex or the millions of

Dust collectors will do.

 

Never mind the pro or con in that but a few weeks ago when his clients heavily and unanimously objected to the price

He responded that "he had found that the film was not the most expensive part of the process"

 

Ok let's see

If it isn't the film

If it isnt Grandpa's graflex

Then we what is it?

.........

 

I tell you :

Subliminal misleading Manure and self serving politics laughing all the way to the bank

[jnanian]

<p>it has more to do with the truman show than anything else.<br>

==<br>

i've been using a speed graphic since 1988 and a graflex slr ( D/4x5 ) since like 1996,<br>

neither takes more than 2 hands to operate, and while i don't plan on using the new 55 film, both have<br>

taken great photographs handheld with polaroid film from the 90s. if they did take so much effort<br>

to operate i don't think the press corps would have used both these styles of cameas since about world war 1.<br>

its too bad inorder to elevate your own camera you need to degrade others, and the gear they use.</p>

 

[william_littman3]

The press core world war II 1996 2006 2009 was a long time ago in terms of technical evolution.

After 2011 the required responsiveness snd utility expectancies have changed when you confirm a.need to

Justify a price per shot versus an initial investment in digital

 

Im not putting anything down.

Most people have put down their hand held 4x5 cameras because even at a dollar per shot it can be a dollar too much

 

My clients as do I photograph moments which cannot be replaced because of their eventful nature or because the crew's

hired run in the high 5 figure per day.

 

No doubt that when there are no professional expectancies someone can be happy with " getting something" out of a day

of shooting . Missing a single take out of a shoot date can translate into tens of thousands in reshoot costs.that may fly

eith a few clients but if the photog has to pay himself.... I don't think so.

The us army wasnt going to use a Linhof which was considered a Nazi camera at the time and the jeep had to be

modernized as the earlier versions kept getting troops killed when they rolled over. Now they use the Humvee.

[william_littman3]

<p>The camera is an equal partner with the film in the equation.<br>

None of the 4x5 options are as convenient as Digital but at least my camera can be the closest in responsiveness. not everyone can afford... that's true<br>

The question isn't only whether the cost of film is an issue but whether people have a willingness as do you to defend folkloric choices.<br>

The answer such can be defended less and less as the number shows they are being dropped like flies.<br>

then the next generation comes along and makes a chopper out of an old bike because of the<br>

" cool" factor then that has nothing to do with the utility but here where expense is an issue it is misleading to present the required responsiveness in 2016 as not being an equal concern to the cost of the film</p>

[jnanian]

<p>people believe whatever fairy tales they want.<br>

just like truman</p>

[william_littman3]

I have shown you what is TRUE MAN

the camera/the film justified by the pictures they produce

If you have done pictures of amazing spontaneity and responsiveness with

Those cameras recently please post them.

People believe in fairy tales?

I believe in god

And in photography I believe only in what I see in the form of pictures

Thank you

[jnanian]

<p>there is 100 years of spontinaity made with those cameras.</p>

[william_littman3]

100 years thats how long Grandpa's thought his

RB Graflex took to set.up a shot

 

then the Super D took less ...only a few years so to speak

 

When we did an evaluation in 1998 it actually took 4-6 seconds

.that is circa 400 years in terms of shutter speed

considering to stop the action of a bullet in a picture you need 2000 of a sec

To stop the action of a.person in a spontaneity shot you need at least

250 sec and you are using a 55_100 asa film? Plus you are hand held and moving yourself?

 

You are correct there are a lot of" too new" people surfing the internet who believe in fairy tales

Because there are those who use the internet to whiteout the past and say it was grand double D.

 

Then the spontaneity from the speed grafic was paparazzi style at f16 where the press corps didnt even have

To focus.it was pop pop pop.

 

Tell me where do you expect to get f16 plus 250 sec with a film 100 asa or less?

Are you saying you spontaneouly shoot only on cloudless summer days at the Outback?

 

and.then there is speed of focus and framing

We are talking several seconds at best versus a split second when a split second can be a split secong too long.

Finally you take 100.years of images which is millions of images and then the variable that changes is like in a casting

One dancer is amazing when you play a tune and the next one sucks.

 

Back in the day that was all it was.

Back in the day the difference was always in front of the camera and what the camera could.do fast was very little.

Out of millions of images you can get a decent amount of examples and which will mostly be the subject's charisma versus camera responsiveness.

Also.out of millions of ce'll phone images you can surely put together a decent collection of extremely high quality images where everything worked.

 

But again this isnt a discussion about cameras but film.+ camera today at a cost you object to versus digital.

The rest belongs in a museum -memory lane or the attic.

[jnanian]

<p>the idea that only your camera that you advertise in this forum endless is the only<br>

spontaneous large format camera is absurd. it amazes me that anyone can be closed minded<br>

enough to believe that. no, i don't care about the 17 years worth of upgrades to polaroids already<br>

timeless design you made, or how many hollywood types bought your camera. or how you can use it <br>

with 1 lens ... yes the graflex camera takes 3 seconds to set up. and you can rattle 12 shots out of it<br>

in 12-15 seconds if you want. it has nothing to do with nostalgia, or a sales pitch.<br>

i really wish the moderators would moderate these threads, endless advertising is tedious.</p>

[william_littman3]

J Nanian what is fair is fair.

If this thread was about a film and its price

Was objectable that implies there would have to be a way to do it for less.

Right there you have a competition which you have no objections that one of them should prevail.

 

Everything is by degree and all of these discussions imply a choice whivh implies a competitiveness.

According to most of the photographers proficient in responsive 4x5 work at wider apertures

The Linhof was way more responsive than any other 4x5 until 2000 and then the Littman became slightly more responsive because

That is all that is possible.

I agree you dont have to care but when you start making accusations just because a competitiveness exists it is a contradiction.

New55 or any film'm isnt free and so is the case of a camera.

I also dont care if you are willing to spend endless time saying a Graphic is as good as a Linhof.

 

If instead of A Graflex Super D you would have said a Gowlandflex is responsive and an aid to spontaneity that would be true.

Btw twice as responsive.

Btw My cameras are by now virtualy a hobbie and no longer a business since 2010.

I have used a Grafic for more than 30 years and have 1000 customer feedback.

Those were the makers and shakers at the time when large format was still the only wsy

To obtain high definition images.

It is necessary to maintain some integrity which translates into posting some images that substantiates

That what you claim is indeed an observation from personal experience instead of throwing in the Towel

By hoping the moderators have to bail you out on some some alleged impropriety.

 

It is important to recognize that things evolved.

Where have you read me saying everyone should buy my csmera in the last 7 years?

 

I was very upfront as to the synergy of the film and how it relates to my camera as my motivation for

my questions.

Trust me I shoot a lot more than make cameras.

If you can substantiate the position with personal images I have no problem being surprised

Despite 30 years of personal experience with the graflexes plus 20 more years assisting the most

Proficient.

Thank you