william_littman

you can make your own LB camera fairly easy.

 

Unscrew the two thumbhuts that hold the front standard and remove the rails if possible and just use the lensboard handheld with any LF lens. that is basicaly the principle behind the LB.

 

normally you use those lb in a slr but if you are zen enough to use a LB thru ground glass and have the patience to play like that any lens which covers the format can be used as a LB.

 

I was using a 40mm med format on a 35mm camera using a rubber shifting bellow from an old truck back in the early 8os cause of the retrofocus factor i had the room for movement but in LF you basically dont have to do a darn thing except free the front .

I found the contact info for the Fuji rep to our area who is one of the first owners of my product from before we introduced it to the public in 01 and because NYC market for them has such a high concentration of pro photographers If someone would know the answers to these questions I expect it would be him.

 

I have left a message and sent email with the questions regarding p/n films ; he is traveling and will return by the 20th.

 

If I receive a response before then I will post it.

Here is a link to which instant films are currently made by Fuji

and I called them and pleased to inform there is absolutelly no plans for discontinuation of instant film photography

 

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductsInstant.jsp?NavBarId=item778804

Polaroid stopped making holders a year ago.

We had to buy the last 3x4 holders stock and when it came time to finalize the order we were only able to obtain half of what we needed (400)and we are hoping that since so many companies were previously making id systems as fellow Polaroid OEM that we will be able to get these.

 

The Polaroid rep estimated that there are 20.000 plus nib polaroid 545- 545i sitting arround in stores stock or elsewhere plus millions of used holders in the 4x5 in all configurations so I dont think either holder will be an issue no matter who obtains the licence in the future to make instant films.

 

 

Michael;

Fuji has made 2 B/W Fuji films . one is 100 and the other 3000.

I would not concern myself with what is currently make- no longer make because if they obtain license they could make them all

the reason some Polaroid type emulsions are not currently made by Fuji is because there are distribution agreements and other business type issues.

 

One of the major reasons the Polaroid 4x5 business declined is distribution and the film pricing . On the other hand Fuji has a very strong distribution network worldwide for their film products and does not need to depend solely on the US and main European countries when considering the viability of a product and so the cost can be way less. it would have been way less before but pricing agreements prevented that too.

 

Most of my customers are Pro's or dedicated amateurs and shoot wet films and 7 % shoot Polaroid and half of that said they would switch to wet films if instant films were no longer available in the future . honestly I doubt that PN will cease to be available

 

 

Polaroid was bought in 2001 after the original company had declared bankruptcy so none of the old company remained and last time around we continued to be able to obtain " Polaroid" film but while the brand remained unchanged the source was a different as it was a corporation which had acquired the whole company .

 

What has changed now is that the current owner of the name wishes to retain the brand for other products and services and license just the film side of the business and so instead of having a repeat scenario of 01 when the whole thing was up for grabs "they" now say they are getting out of the film end of the business so as to distance the Polaroid name which they wish to retain from it being perceived as

instant photography which we appreciate over here but as you have read that to the consumer market instant film is quasi historic and the corporation needs to separate new tech from what is perceived as declining now rather than at a point where they have to close it because nobody wants it.that would not be good for the name. it is hard to come to grips over here than a corporate name could be more valuable than the films since we hear Polaroid and immediately think of film and that is just the point.

 

It is a no win situation for them or us that things would continue as they were because they were unwilling to try PN 8x 10 and a myriad of other great options because making film was not their trade but a branch of a corporation they aquired.

 

One of the Original big kahunas that retired in 01 told me that the new owners were interested in the corporation for newer tech and would keep the film end of the business until the market stabilized and they also had the time to sort things out.

 

but that doesn't mean that on our smaller scale we should be reading all the wrong signs.

 

The Brand name is priority to them at present and so I am informed that the instant film aspect is also important but now needs to be scaled to the reality of the new market which is basically professional and artistic as opposed to consumer and industrial which has declined significantly

 

perhaps some people think of "Polaroid" as in the Edwin Land days.

 

That ended in 2001 and on that day all accountability for the way business was conducted went out the door along with the old crew.

 

After that day what you have is an investment group who bought a corporation called Polaroid and as far as I'm concerned they did a good job with supply of the films.

You cannot assign any historical liability to them for what happened previously and as far as I'm concerned the ball is still rolling and they are doing what is required to license the tech to someone who can do a good job.

 

As it is an investment group they stand to make a substantial profit if someone takes over the manufacture whereas if it all stops they don't make a dime so I know they are the first ones interested in ensuring a smooth transition.

 

 

I never bought T55 for the borders I think that is deja vu a la eniemme , sometimes used the borders for the look but most the times cropped them but many who don't use it believe that the borders is why people use it.

 

Michael; don't use the regular Holders. Schneider says in their site that you loose at least 2mm of parallelism film flatness or however you want to call it if you do and that is 20x the acceptable error as 1/10 of a mm is enough for infinity to be off in a RF camera to make everything softer. 20x is several F stops wasted for nothing.

 

Use a grafmatic it holds the film flatter than anything else and the septum is spring-loaded onto the film plane and by using shim stock which has the actual thickness of your film you can improve the septums by tapping them into 0 parallelism error .. or use readyload

 

I expect to be speaking with Fuji soon . do not expect any announcements yet as it is too early judging from the press release wording but Fuji always wanted to get more of such products into the US market .

 

I think its time for a change. film is an expendable and not caviar 50-60 bucks for 20 shots of 4x5 is too much for a student not too mention the 8x10 which can cost 150 bucks a box.?

 

the sales of instant films declined.............. 1 box 8x10 150.00 .

if Fuji made it they could sell it for 80.00 and make a profit and the 4x5 could cost 22-28

 

Most of my 4x5 shooting costs me 50 cents per sheet . I don't contact and just make a low res scan to edit and then a hi res of the stuff I like and I would like to see this film go back to costing 20-30 bucks which is something realistic .

 

Sorry for my long posts on this issue but I just had a small winfow of time in which to make them and lots of data . now i have to get back to work. if there is anything of interest as new developments in the licencing aspect i will gladly post further.

 

Thanks cheers w

 

 

 

 

Gary;

Nobody is disputing the news. we knew this would happen since September but the idea is whether the door is closed or whether it is a transition.

the answer is that depends on us.

 

 

 

I had received a communication by Dimodica informing me that the repetitive "I told you so" threads were made on behalf of a plant employee soon to lose his job and on the hopes that the LF community could interfere and impede the plant closure so his friend would not have to loose his job .

 

Once that occured and it has been publicly confirmed that there is a door open to continuity thru licencing I cant avoid insisting that I feel this thread is retaliatory because being "right" by someone telling me to do something to prevent the film being discontinued as the reason these threads were posted so many times and then not participated nor shown all his cards and gone to " talk to us" rather than with us by starting 3 or more threads and then leaving the mess behind.

 

 

 

 

I can understand someone wanting to help a friend keep his job but photographers at least some of them are working people too and their work is taking pictures .

 

I was at central park one day shooting with T 55 and had a few HMI lights and it seems this guy wearing a suit tripped on one of the ballasts and yelled at me " why don't you get some real work'? I turned around and told him why don't you watch where you are going since you just seem to be floating around !

 

I have had to face similar remarks from waitresses ; people working in photo labs or in the photo industry related services where creative people are often referred to as "PITA photographers"- born yesterday.

 

The issue here is that a photographers job is to go out each day knowing that what he needs to come back with and the source of his income does not yet exist except in his mind and I would not qualify someone who has the willingness to gamble his income with every picture based purely on self confidence as someone who was born yesterday.

 

To be a photographer and hope to be gainfully employed you have to be willing to see the glass half full, Some people see that as dishonest and are quick to point out that we are just a bunch of peter pan types who refused to grow up running around with these odd gizmos and toys . A bunch of boys!

 

A few of us knew that Polaroid wanted to transfer manufacture as to its location for cost effective purposes and via license if they ceased to make it entirely and have worked really hard towards that.

 

There is a window of time left in order to ensure continuity . a window of 2 years and so we had no doubt that Polaroid would change

its relationship with the films as the required info was made available at each turn.

 

The globe article confirms that there is a stock sufficient to ensure smooth transition and intent to license. Fuji already makes some emulsions .

 

When a priest baptizes a child he wishes him for a long and happy life and I would not accuse him of being born yesterday if he also failed to tell the kid" by the way you are going to die someday".

 

Nothing in life is forever ; with that said unrealistic expectations are sometimes the thing which prevents us from having the expendables we need and in this case an existing stock- a healthy market and an united LF community would be an appealing scenario for continuity.

 

Discontinuation is an option presented as a future possibility in case the licensing fails.

 

My quarrel is not the verifiable news factor which confirms what I had posted in September but that the events are being presented as final when it is clear that is not the case.

 

Just keep in mind that as photographers you cannot provide anyone with an assurance of what you will come back with from a shoot before you even start it. but day in and day out you get dressed and you go to work and you put up with a lot of unrealistic expectations

and you come back despite all of the disbelief and discouragement with what you believed " could" be possible.

 

My friends your entire lives are based on " it isn't over until its over" and no. We were not born yesterday although I'm sure a lot of people who will have the self confidence when they become of age to go out and do what we do despite disbelief were born yesterday.

 

If Polaroid needs to license the films because it has now focused on other interests I believe we should be working to ensure that is successful rather than cheering the doom and gloom crowd who tells us that a possibility that something may fail to exist in the future should be taken as if it has already occurred.

 

If you can depend on your positive attitude to be a photographer and know this has gotten you thru the day despite the doom and gloom boys then this is a time where your voice should be heard by those considering continuity of this film. by writing letters to Fuji and Kodak and the likes and inviting their spokespeople to discussions here.

 

 

 

It will not be the end of the world if the T55 is gone and you can use the borders of old frames on Photoshop anyway on 4x5 and 8 x 10 anyway as I have done it many times when I wanted a different look or just wanted to add such look to a picture shot with something else

 

 

Polaroid closed a plant in Boston and may close others.

It is true that instant films have declined in the consumer market since in the 1980s you could find some peel apart films in any supermarket.

 

But in the pro world there is a high demand for " some" emulsions"

 

The need to adjust to the new market where a product is no longer a viable consumer product for mass consumption where many emulsions are made and one day people even in the pro end start using the digital camera for the purpose of preview and composition and then shoot film as final product.

 

I have used Polaroid as final product for the last 10 years but very little to test shooting sets as preview.

 

What has been announced recently and confirming what I posted in this website in September of 2007 Polaroid would continue to make these films( making reference to specific professional films in high demand) elsewhere on a year to year evaluation which has been the case for years.

 

If the effort of manufacture would not justify the effort of a large corporation to just make a few films they would license the technology to other film makers.

 

That was confirmed as well in the announcement of the plant closure.

 

I believe that the most desirable films will continue to be available without any change in the short term from the existing stock which is enough for 2 years.

 

I also believe that Fuji who makes a instant film which many Pro's consider sharper and truer r anyway and a 4000 asa black and white film with 1/3 of the grain of T57 and also a 100asa black and white print will obtain the license for manufacture of T55 and the 8x10 sizes and quite frankly Fuji already makes all other required emulsions including tungsten film.

 

 

 

I had been told for years that while the pro market continued to be healthy for some emulsions and even stronger than in previous years the setup had become more of a distraction as the company had ceased making cameras almost 2 decades ago and had moved its resources to research new technologies.

 

To get an idea of the film versus digital and the concern that film photography is close to extinction a few new films in the Large format were recently introduced by large makers and the film manufacturing business is simply getting de centralized from the 2 or three large monopolies and some boutique size manufacturers find that the share of the market warrants the efforts for a small enterprise.

 

Well the share of the market for instant films is as large or larger

than 4 years ago( on specific proffesional emulsions).

 

It is very appealing for a company already making emulsions but a distraction and diversion to a large corporation focusing their efforts on other tech.

 

I can understand that because I am constantly tempted to do things which may be useful such as making parts but which would divert my time from what I should be concentrating on and so I rather obtain the services and products and reliance from those who specialize in such services .

 

I was informed that Kodak has just improved Tmax films as they claim and a few I have asked have said its true.

 

Obviously that will be under certain conditions as if your developer is stronger than recommended or you use extreme times the improvement would be less visible and then not every film appeals to everyone. but us in the imaging world have not always been quick to recognize that in the past we were a minority in the usage of wet or instant films whereas now we have become the market per se.

 

In the past we benefited from the volume sales to the consumer market and based our expectancies of reliance based on that.

 

It is unrealistic and unfair to ourselves to dial a number which is no longer in service and say you are surprised no one answered the call and furthermore disappointed and we should not resist or interfere if someone else wants to make these films instead.

 

 

 

We are now the market for films as opposed to a part of it as was the case in the past and I have to agree that the instant films side of it would be better of as a side or extension of an existing film maker than as a side business for a Corporation who is focusing on other things

 

I spoke to a few shooters about this and they said they agree and the proof could be that Fuji was able to incorporate newer emulsion tech to instant films as a result of their wet film tech research and bring instant film photography to the requirements of pros in the new millennium.

 

Licensing issues and distribution prevented certain emulsions and packaging from certain markets .

 

Just to give you an example of this Fuji makes a system similar to the Grafmmatic which is called " QUCKCHANGE" and not available in the US which has a 10 sheet cartrige and the film comes packaged in cassettes of 10 shots.

 

I have used it on 3 occasions where reloading would have been an issue and on one day I needed to shoot close to 1000 exposures the other 425 and the other 380 and was able to do so without assistants; in the middle of nowhere and without any changing bags .

 

All I needed was a rental car with a big trunk and half of it was unexposed cartridges and half was for the used ones.

 

2small investors who are interested in obtaining license for continuation on the most desirable emulsions but I have the feeling that one of the large film makers will soon announce that talks for licensing are under way or license has already been granted.

 

The whole thing would just be a brand change or packaging change and there is nothing to speculate about what quality to expect in the future since some of the emulsions sold under the current brand were manufactured by Fuji or other companies in recent years already.

 

I think it would be more important to get the quick-change system available in the US than worry about whether Polaroid will be making the instant film or if it will be Fuji since they already make some.

 

the septum's are plastic and can only be reloaded a few times but if it was sold thru photo distributors and available thru photo stores or the internet then we would not have to reload at all and that would be great.

 

 

Some say T55 is only good because of its off beat borders . I disagree but there has been occasions where we shot the job with other films and then used the borders from old T55 negs as a frame.

 

I don't think one needs to worry that the picture and the frame must be packaged together.

 

Since in the end one only uses a few final frames it is quite easy to use scans of old T 55 negs as frames for other pictures as a background in Photoshop by pasting the selected image onto an old T55 neg.

 

and by the way you can do the same on 8x10.

 

I have the feeling that the bottom line is that future instant films may be made in China if Polaroid stops manufacture entirely . that a few print emulsions which dont sell will disapear and that beyond that nothing else will change.

 

 

 

 

A Lf shutter is essentially a clock mounted within a spacer.

 

any shutter which provides the right size between the elements will do and if not you can use shims or machine the rear of the shutter.

 

Because a shutter function is related to chronology obtaining proper function goes beyond the ability to get it to work mechanically and requires it is properly calibrated in the tension of the springs and the lubrication must be non detergent and in older shutters where rust is already present it will be one cleanup job after the next unless you address everything,

 

You either think you save money and end up ruining valuable film or you buy something which is inexpensive like a complete used lens staple of commerce which is sold used in the auction site without requiring the whole amateurish approach and risk involved unless you are fascinated by ending up with half breeds at a cost higher or same than you can obtain something decent.

 

You can buy a problem free lens on the auction site for a couple of hundreds.

 

a copal 0 cost more than that and the proper aperture scale cost as well.

 

The most inexpensive approach is not to make shutter repairs if you are not experienced because the cost of film has gone up and if you plan to use the lens then you expect it to work properly.

 

If you expect it to be iffy and that is Ok my take is that why bother with LF when if cost is the concern and MF is less expensive then if it is expected to work as if a clock but you don't care you are wasting time . Clock - time. Pun intended . time is money.

 

There is no inexpensive way to do what you want to do well and my opinion is that unless it is done well it is not worth the effort .

 

The fact that this came out of a Polaroid and was not costly because of planned obsolescence that ends when you wish to make it viable if what is required isn't present because fixing what didn't cost you or what did has a similar cost.

 

Your best bet is to either buy a complete unit for a price you can afford or buy another ysarex lens which has a problem free shutter or a shutter which just needs cleaning.

 

Someone who puts a shutter into cleaning solution and then blows compressed air into it and gets it to work again is not a shutter repairman by any length and because each instance is different you either know what you are doing or have to send it to someone who does.

 

repairing a clock is inexpensive only of you know what you are doing

with a shutter it is no different but when the thing is old even a good repair is no assurance of longevity because if it needed repair then the wear is already present while a shutter that just works well after a mera cleaning is a shutter which was used less and a better deal over a problem shutter no matter who you send it to.

 

mechanics spacer and aperture scale are there for a reason and precise.

 

I don't think you can do a hack job on shutters and hope that will be inexpensive in the long run.

 

Of course many will say otherwise hoping to appear friendly and proficient but I take the opinion of those who have gone out on the field and got stuck with a shutter malfunction before I accept the opinion of people who tell you that everything can be done half-

 

That is because I used to have this guy who worked for prontor and was involved with the svs and one time I was on an important assignment with one of these lenses on a pack film 3x4 camera versus another one which I tried to save money on and DIY beyond my expertise and I learned the hard way 10 years ago where to draw the line and so I do what I'm proficient at and nothing else.

 

I have had these shutters repaired by the best and in the end the repaired shutters always had problems later wheras the shutters woth little wear may some day have a problem . I choose the latter .

 

Being able to repair a shutter doesn't mean you can make a good camera and not being able to repair one doesn't mean you make a bad one. and then there is the jack of all trades factor and more of a distraction to what I should concentrate on so I stay away from it unless its a turn of the century shutter than nobody wants to mess with

 

It is a job by itself and I can repair almost any shutter I have tried to but have found it to be extremely time consuming if it is expected to be perfect and to last and therefore when it needs more than a cleaning I send it out.

 

In your case without a doubt the most practical solution is to get an identical shutter and which just needs cleaning as everything else is either costly upfront or in future disappointment.

 

A decent aperture scale will run +/- 50 and with out that you might as well just get an identical replacement shutter and live without the aperture preview lever.

 

these were amateur versions made by prontor an a lot of the german folders and 35mm cameras. not worth repairing at all.

 

trust me it is better to find a working replacement as the least expensive solution if cleaning yours proves to be an insufficient effort.

 

 

Dear AAron and everyone else.

this subject has been addressed in full as shown by links posted below.

 

In October

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00N9Hc

 

and in September

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mem6

 

Mr. Dimodica knew - was informed that the closure of the plant would not mean the discontinuation of the film.

despite all efforts by other members to clarify the matter he continued to attempt to insist otherwise and still does.

In October I presented evidence to show that Mr. Dimodica has a personal motive for insisting the closure of the plant would mean the discontinuation of the film. that post was edited in the hopes of keeping the thread less alarmist as I was later informed and because there was still a possibility then that he could believe that the plant closure would equate to the end of the film availability.

 

But after the exchange of posts in October there is no doubt that this is just a plant closure.

 

I take this opportunity to say that some of us who have benefited from the work done by these hard working people who lost their jobs

can consider if there is a place where they may continue to provide excellent service to the photographic community.

 

And I am curious as to whether any help or assistance contact numbers have been set up.

 

I do find it important that those who have worked hard are not left out in the cold but I also find it important that those of us who depend

on these films for our creative work are not left out in the cold either- being misled to believe that this great film will no longer be available by people insisting in confusing the issues despite all efforts made by PN members to clarify the information..

 

 

I do find it important that threads are not escalated by alarmism but what happens when the thread itself is alarmism and I believe the issue has persisted for almost 1/2 a year and if not addressed we will again have to read another " I told you so " in a few months.

 

I think learning that the plant is now closed is info and probably in newspapers anyway

 

Mr. Dimodica tells us that we better start looking for another source of the film. the plant was not the source of the film . Polaroid was and still is and will still be.

 

I ask Mr. dimodica that if he has issues with Polaroid of the nature which he communicated in writing to me he should have posted them

along with the alarmism assuring discontinuation so other members would have a chance to see where he was coming from and why he had resorted to doing this. over and over again.

 

I am glad that the film will still be available and from the same source! I am told demand is very high !

 

The links may mix with the text as Im no computer expert so Im posting them again below

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00N9Hc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mem6

I disregarded the earlier thread by Mr Di Modica after I posted clarification that the films would still be made.

 

 

 

I spoke to Polaroid and forwarded the newspaper article to them and this is the response I received

 

 

(QUOTE) We are shifting around manufacture for cost reasons, the following films will be discontinued

 

Type 59 asa 80 but we will continue to make Type 79 which is ASA 100

TYpe 51.

 

All other films including Type 55 will continue to be made elsewhere.

 

John Zorra

Polaroid Corporation (QUOTE)

 

 

If it were true that Polaroid did not make these films elsewhere today that doesn't mean they can't.

 

I respectfully asked that people would check their sources before making alarming posts of this nature

It is unfortunate that anybody would loose their job and at the same time photographers who buy the films would rather pay less for a box of film. that is each and every photographer.

 

And quite frankly at 74 usd for a box I'm not surprised they decided to get cost effective.

Sorry.

I forgot you were seeking a specific commitement.

the response of course was" for at least another year"

which is the response ; the only one they can give every year.

buying some is the best way to ensure its availability!

NOT TRUE!

the truth is all peel apart films made by Polaroid are still manufactured on a offer and demand basis since the 3x4 was discontinued.

 

The response From Polaroid today was the same response they gave me 4 years ago

There is no plans for discontinuation of the T55 film. the film will continue to be manufactured for as long as there is a demand for it.

 

such evaluation is made on a year-to year basis.

 

T55 is the most sought emulsion they make.

 

Eventually of course it will be discontinued and I have spoken to a few people about the possibility of ensuring its continuation after it is deemed non profitable for Polaroid.

 

How would this be done?

 

A) by ensuring a minimum annual order and having Polaroid make it if they retain such manufacture facility .

 

B) by obtaining license from them

 

C) someone like Fuji might also be interested in making the product since they already make instant films.

 

D) a small enterprise which I have been in talks with has found that the share of the market on a limited number of emulsions offers a commercial interest that a large corporation might not be able to justify.

 

I estimate the film will be made for at least 5 years .

 

As I have posted many times these kinds of specialized products suffer and are placed at risk of extinction by these types of alarmist posts.

 

I respectfully ask that members take the effort to contact such manufacturers directly in the future and post fact rather than

raise doubt and concern!

thanks

The Apo Symmar L offers improvements over the previous version one of them is a wider coverage.

 

Anyway I'm not informed enough as to what types of glass are made or discontinued but what I do know is that the use of certain metals was involved in some aspect the process of taking certain types of glass once made and grinding them and then polishing them into camera optiks and I'm told that another aspect considered are the emissions created by the manufacturing process whether or not a particular composite is utilized.

 

The manufacturing process of each company is proprietary and the fact that a certain type of glass is still around does not tell us what chemicals and compounds are involved and required to reproduce a re issue of an old lens

 

Its hard to predict a need for a lens because preference is so subjective. some lenses older ones make perfect sense on paper but don't sell and some lenses are really sought despite the fact that they don't perform as well .

 

I would say the most interest would be for Tessar , Plannar , Apo Lanthar and Xenotar types.

 

In practical terms the gap between the interest for a lens intended for non digital usage and it being made available to the market has changed dramatically because the whole cost of R+D and manufacture and minimum order is now the burden of the one placing the order as opposed to the past where manufacturers could hope to recover the investment over time.

 

Anyone will make whatever lens you want but you have to pay upfront and it may cost a lot more before it can even be made ; a lot more before it is in your hand and when you do get it its yours and you may have to commit to placing a big order before they even consider allocating valuable personnel and time to such enterprise.

 

If you consider that lenses now made for digital have different properties than those made for film because of the size of the capture area and other tech aspects It is impossible to predict right now what the requirement of the new technology will be and the very nature and fast evolution of that end of the business is where lens manufacture research is headed.

 

In terms of the bottom line a reissue of a basic classic lens today if you wanted to have one of the big manufacturers make it would cost the consumer the same or just about what a Cooke lens sells for.

 

A few years ago there was a reissue of the 135mm Carl Zeiss Plannar in a Linhof Technica shutter ; only 500 were made it was sharper than the original issue but that shows that even a re issue by the same company before the required changes due to environmental concerns took place did not give you the exact same lens and it was costing around 8000.00

Hi Kevin

Here is my recent personal experience with the subject

 

I tried to get Schneider to bring back the xenotar. I mean I did not try that hard just spoke a few times with the guy in charge who's name was Uli and he said the minimum deposit in escrow to start talking is 100-150G and then the minimum order is in the hundreds of units.

 

I would certainly love to get hundreds of Xenotar 135mm lenses and

hundreds of tessars provided they could be multicoated properly and retain the properties of original glass.

 

Unfortunately one of the things I learned from Uli is that a few years back the regulatory Agency that could be compared to the American EPA banned a lot of the metals previously used in lens optiks manufacture and so its unlikely that a true re issue could ever be possible. lanthanum and so forth is a no-no.

 

that was right about the time when they changed the Apo symmar to the Apo Symmar L.

 

The only realistic choice would be to use the old designs and the modern glass techniques and compounds and have the old style optical properties and the new technology which would reduce optical error as manufacture and polishing is now computerized.

 

In the present economic scenario your wish is rather Utopia but when some on my full size large format digital backs are finally made by others the demand for LF lenses will skyrocket.

 

Digital feels like microwave cooking as compared to film looks like oven brick right now only because the size of the capture area in chips is way smaller than 35mm and the look of photography and selective focus is determined mostly by the optical projection and whether you use line doubling or whether you increase resolution a million times in a small capture area you will have proportionately less and less selective focus.

 

Don't give up your LF cameras based on the availability of film or cost because this impasse and transition to digital being what is today is quite similar to the limitation which existed in the early day of photography where there were no enlargers and so everything had to be 1 to 1 ratio today there is no big chips so the imagery looks like fast food or fakish but that just today.

 

In preparing our present inventions we placed a regular computer scanner on the back of one of our modified cameras for this purpose in the horizontal position to avoid error if the sensor would have to travel vertically and lit an indoor scene with continuous light.

 

While the results did not approximate the look of film the optical qualities of large format were retained where as with the use of small chips available today it is entirely lost. this proved my theories sufficiently in order to obtain funding for these complex research and development.

 

let me just say that full frame 4x5 scanning backs have been used since the 90s for still life. they are slow and somewhat inefficient but that will change.

 

The planned obsolescence nature of this industry makes it like the fashion industry in the sense that one day shoes are pointy and the next they are square but the fact is no capture media electronic or via emulsion can replace the optical projection which is what counts in photography as photo which means light and graphy which means graphics .

 

The film the camera and everything else takes second place to the optical projection and the rules which apply to distance from film plane as to enable differentiation.

 

The lenses ; the older lenses are extremely appealing for this purpose and I have informed you of the digital future basically to

remind you that progress goes around in circles and never moves forward in a straight line. The past is important and shall be included in the present as a solid base for the future.

 

Unfortunately the word " New" is often associated to what my friend Charles who shoots TV commercials and compares it to what he calls "The appetite appeal of beer"

 

"Cold luscious golden blond here it is waiting for you".

 

They are going to sell you " NEW" stuff which becomes old in 6 months for the next 5 years and then they are going to tell you that they discovered that they bypassed the aspect of the size of the capture area as being the answer to selectiveness. when they do tell them to call me.

 

Jokes aside the interest is out there but this has become a time of impatience and people accustomed to getting things at a click of a mouse always in a hurry to go nowhere and I doubt anyone will write you a check upfront but if you make something available and have the waiting power there is a definite niche .

 

The second reason for a future need of classical lenses is another one of our inventions that enables imagery fully focused and tack sharp from focus point to infinity and beyond without the requirement or participation of a lens iris.

 

If you then introduce an iris to the equation the imagery surpasses

the expectations of traditional photography but this opens a new door for photography astronomy and filmography where quantity of light can take a second place to quality of light so that one can gently paint a indoor scene with it or walk into a room be mesmerized by

the way a sunray lights a room selectively and not find the limitation of capture sensitivity as an aperture of 1.1 would exceed what you get today at f 11. night photography etc.

 

Like I said everything goes around in circles .

 

Because this invention relies solely on optical projection and without an iris unless you want to digress it depends solely on 2 things a) the presence of absolute parallelism and 2) the presence of a rangefinder which has been streamlined to the sensitivity required for use at such wide apertures .

 

I did not spend the last 10 years of my life doing research so I could make a couple of hundred cameras at a time when film use is in a decline; as a matter of fact while I will use film for as long as it is available all my current and previous efforts were aimed at the future and everything I'm doing today is already prepared to implement it the minute that the new capture technology hits the market.

 

The past was based on size the present is based on transition and the future will be based on size + precision so yes the interest is there and will be more so.

Certainly; first of all because there will be no demise of the camera despite your efforts and second because the comparison was not made to an actual event but relating to the selfishness of the perpetrators which may not be equal in magnitude but as you are again insisting on a demise which is never going to happen do not concern yourself with comparisons and know your actions are sufficiently deplorable by themselves.

I could have also offered the short version response to"I was not aware one should apologies for owning a Littman? If that`s the case, then I do."

 

The fact is that those who have utilized this website to advertise products and services using force and because the strength of the arguments offered in the objective analysis discussions does not benefit them have basically asked everyone who has preferred my product and insists it outperforms others to apologize for owning it and for preferring it . Their supporters have done the same and chased my clients away .

 

 

I do not feel someone should apologize for owning it and have had to divert a lot of valuable time to combat such unfairness.

That was not that cute and most inconsiderate.

You see you have this" all things Polaroid collection" and you have completed the collection for a few grand.

 

All of a sudden you learn that your collection is now incomplete and to complete it you would have to spend 5G which you insist you would rather save . On top of that it appears that on top of the expenditure these novelties you have sought to acquire and collect do not fit your display labeling as well as you wish.

 

So what do you do?

Join photo.net and on your first post you tell everyone to save the 5 g as to avoid the whole scenario. ensure you don't have to spend money you don't wish to spend to just collect it and you may even raise the value of your procession if no one buys the new model as you suggest and you may get to better fit your collecting categorization which is the reason you insist you acquired it in the first place and then you can also get some extra mileage and get some exposure out of it.

For your purposes it was a brilliant move. for everyone with photography in mind it is perceived otherwise.

 

This is a website which has the purpose of furthering photography.

People who read it are interested in responses that would be of assistance to taking better pictures. If there was any use in discussing the benefits of a camera on such website it would have to be intended towards the utility of a camera for picture taking.

 

The editor in chief of this website has raised the bar and created a lot of hope by insisting that responses that help others take better picture are the most useful.

 

Discouraging those who would consider it for its utility ( photographers qualify under such category) because one does not care to use the camera to take pictures as the main purpose and makes a dedicated effort to prevent those who do from benefiting from its convenience.and insists has acquired it because of novelty and collecting interests is not something which the photographic community applauds.

 

I do not believe anyone thinks an apology is worth much unless it is genuine and not something one" should" do but something which one does out of contrition.

Your response speaks for itself.

 

Now I have made several cameras for collectors which are design models as I value aesthetics as an avenue of expression as well.

 

I cannot help if someone chooses to acquire something to collect it but the discussion about the utility of the new L45s VI struts was aimed strictly as to whether such improvement would offer a benefit to the photographic community for the purposes of taking pictures. better pictures make it a better camera.

 

Your response as to discourage others is not new to me, when I first started the project and The L45s proved a major benefit to creative photographers some went on to ask for assurances that I would not make one for their competitors and continued to express disappointment the more the public embraced the camera.

 

I take that as a compliment and as the biggest proof of the value of my camera, such response is only human as everyone tends to be a little protective of the things they love.

 

Such people( some of the most respected in photography throughout the last 4 decades) gave me the strength to persevere and overcome these selfishness diatribes . They might have proffered to have the L45s remain as their best kept secret but as they are not selfish went on to share and volunteer assurances that this little camera had brought them more joy than most cameras they have owned.

 

The photographic community who knows a photographer is not a walking poster boy for a camera realized that such responses praising the Littman ( none of which were paid advertisements or compensated in any way ) Such responses across the board proved the L45s had truly created a fork in the road in large format photography in what regards to utility and convenience / responsiveness/ ease of use.

 

I created it for my own use and after a few days I felt selfish and called my friends and offered to share it with them.

 

When these people assured me it was the smartest thing they had seen in a long time and other similar responses I went on to invest the effort to perfect it.

 

When it was sufficiently reliable I decided it was time to share it with the general public and I have dedicated all of my time to making it better so everyone who trusted me would receive such effort as a means of gratitude.

 

Bruce Weber put it quite clearly when he was interviewed by American PHOTO in 2001" you have to have the willingness to work around it".

 

What this means is that photographers who are used to smaller formats and their ease of use can come to the point in which they wish to have small format convenience and LF quality but while The L45s may be the most responsive Lifer it is not as convenient as would be lets say a Lexica which fits in the palm of your hand and once you realize it is the closest thing which would allow you to have the best of both worlds , there is still a gap that has to be bridged. It gets you closest to where you want to go but you have to have the willingness to invest the personal effort .

 

How much effort? Slightly more than with smaller formats and much less than with Large format cameras.

 

The best Tennis racquet is of no use to someone who does not have the willingness to chase the ball in the first place.

 

Anyone can certainly buy anything but in my opinion and those volunteered by my clients That you own it only after you invest the effort to bridge that gap, you may have one in your procession but I don't feel as if you own it.

 

I'm beginning to come to the realization that it is not a course in public relations which is suggested as something I require in order to sell a camera but by the impositions made by some in these threads and their admitted motivation I would require taking a course in forensic psychology and as I have expressed I do not feel it is worth it. With all due respect my efforts are dedicated to photography and to those who wish to take better pictures and have the willingness to do what it takes to get from point a to point be.

 

I have benefited from the use of better cameras and can prove it and therefore I can truly justify what I assert, the same is assured by my renowned clients who have tried my product and whatever else has been made and you have all been constantly asked to disregard all that and take the word of someone who assures he has not obtained better results from the use of any camera but if you bought his your work would improve as nothing beats his camera, and that he does not care why you buy it or what for.

 

After all if he did not obtain any benefit from the use of one equipment over another and has to spend every day from 9-5 telling everyone to choose one camera over another when he didn't make it as a store manager and then shows up here to tell you to choose his and he doesn't care why you buy it I can understand that to some

people money is money and why the approaches and responses offered here are in juxtaposition. And if he cant obtain a better result from one to another then perhaps he should abstain from representing otherwise and avoid everyone have to endure these fiascos because he moves to change the story the minute money is brought into the equation.

 

It is the same if you admit don't benefit from the acquisition of different cameras when purchasing them/ that they have not been an aid to improve your work then you are obligated to not change the story and engage everyone contentiously because you sell them.

 

 

 

The best camera can only do so much. I have done more than was expected of anyone to improve it, now I wish to see it is put to good use. and as to some people who believe their dollar is worth more than everyone else's I say please hold on to it because letting it out of your hand would not be wise . and to those who have the sensitivity applicable to mergers and acquisitions I remind them that people ask about cameras because they want to use them and someone who just wants to collect them is morally obligated to disclose that when telling others to avoid the whole scenario and not impose that I should have to confront them to expose the facts two months after they discouraged everyone unfairly as I have better things to do with my time and so does everyone else Thanks.

 

What a long post!

yes unfortunatelly it takes very little effort to destroy something and a huge effort to put it back together.

 

I was surprised to learn that some of the cowards who sponsored the 911 attack owned stock in American companies and a lot of real estate in our city just to speculate and make money. It took them less than an hour to level the towers and though the whole community has joined to try to rebuild 6 years have gone by and nothing has happened.

 

I am determined not to allow the same thing happen to my project and so are those interested in its utility as a photographic tool.

 

 

Sure is an absolute falsehood to interfere with someone's ability to perform their work, discredit their improvements with falsehoods here and when I cant find the time to even attend to clerical things like paying for auctions on time or completing my work that is used to create further discredit.

 

 

 

My assistant at work is a carrier for the sups and they have a very busy holyday schedule so I was without help for the longest time plus

having to deal with being attacked for my struts improvements .

 

that thread was started to actually impede the auctions introducing the improvement and raised doubt unfairly

 

Some people take pride in throwing banana peels at your feet and accuse of being clumsy and it appears that there are books that can help you overcome such intentional harm.

 

In my opinion the entire library of congress, the Bible, Koran, Talmud , and every self help book written to date could not help anyone deal better with such a situation.

 

It is true as you can see that these instances are having a harmful effect on my ability to do my work we have just been given one example and Kelly reminded of a lack of information to which I responded that these instances are the cause of the problem therefore as this is proof that membership is being abused as a means to make unfair impositions on our business I would say it is tie for a more truthful scenario which would be that we are able to present things at the pace we are able and that all the banana peels that have been thrown at our feet as to impede our rights in the past not be used to create further discredit.

 

Thank you.

I have received several emails enquiring as to the degree of involvement by a user if the new struts would ever need adjustment.

the answer is; it takes about 5 minutes per side and it is very easy and 100% accurate

The clarification is posted at the bottom of the following page on the posting dated january 15th

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IxgD&tag=

Another falsehood is that brightline projection itself is not unique to the Polaroid 100b as is similar in a leica a graflex xl a 600 se a 180 etc. your comments are the absurdity on the other hand coupled parallax 4x5 camera is unique to the Littman and to other cameras that will sport it when I introduce them or grant licence, and this convenience has been proven very useful and effective and there is a Littman which will be available soon that does not utilize britelines as a means of cropping

 

Another false/ absurdity in your comment has to do with the fact that the britelines which provide and relate to only the cropping have nothing to do with the rangefinder itself which is the centerspot and regarding the Polaroid name and its use and the discontinuation of films like 665 as I said these threads are enough of a burden on Polaroid .

I made such refrence and there is already a new thread a few moments later proving my point.

 

Im not going to answer these guys question as it may be perceived as a means of plugging my camera . but the issue is real and a real concern and Im not going to use the Polaroid name for what they made decades ago for the reasons stated.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JZsc&tag=

Furthermore and most important when you recommended that everyone should abstain from the L45s VI to avoid the scenario if you wanted to tell the truth you could have said"I acquire things and then collect them therefore I would not benefit from this utility improvement for which I see no benefit for my purpose.perhaps you could consider being a little bit less selfish and if you acquire all things Polaroid for your collection that doesn't give you the right to impose I should re label my approach so my camera better fits your Collecting categorization nor to insist because you use your camera very little and it doesn't have a problem others should refrain from obtaining a proven and necessary improvement.

 

 

 

After your comment I had a bunch of major NYC photographers who required to see the improvement before ordering this has caused a lot of delays and a substantial financial loss and they were lucky to have gotten the chance to see for themselves after which a few made comments which amount to wanting to meet you in person to let you acquire what amounted to a serious dose of knuckle sandwich and some words outside what can be posted here!

 

A lot of times those who say they acquire things/ collect them have little consideration for the effort which went into making them possible .

 

When you made such insensitive suggestion last time around perhaps you were unaware of the difficulties and time it took to get your front standard to be within expected range and that you would move to suggest that a way to avoid such problem should be avoided.

 

If you were not a collector but an avid pro who had chosen it for most his work you would have wanted to know that you would not be without a camera for an extended period of time or have a considerable expenditure in repairs if there was a way to resolve the issue instantly and with results which exceeded what was previously possible.and that perfect parallelism could result in a camera that was way more effective to begin with then:

 

I believe you owe the photographic community a genuine apology for such selfishness

 

 

 

Every Polaroid OEM manufacturer is obligated by contract to use his own name when making a product utilizing Polaroid components, To call it a Polaroid would somewhat obligate Polaroid toward the consumer and there is not a single screw / rivet part or measurement or configuration in my product which retains the original design therefore The naming is justified by the new USE/ utility and we are obligated to re name it and of course entitled because the old one is appreciated but the enhanced version is better .

And even if there were no modifications to any finder the utility claims protect our product in other ways.

 

When I introduced the correction of the parallelism issue in folders

which corrects any possible scenario you insisted everyone better stay away save the money as to avoid the whole infringement scenario

when neither the camera problem or the infringement would be a scenario for one who bought it.

Deliberately misrepresenting facts as to harm someone's business is considered defamatory. You have only posted twice in this website and both times what you have posted is substantially false .

 

I will gladly read a book and I have a lot to improve , not everyone is as proficient in writing skills and or public relations.

 

I can understand that some people expect that if they give someone their business they are entitled to patronize you"The client is always right". but I offer a unique product rated as the most responsive in history for its use and have 3 patents on it and literal no time to update my own website and when a few expect me to behave as if a host at a Disney theme park while they are throwing all sorts of banana peels at my feet to make me trip and if I don't then they send me to read books.No thanks the premise is the other way around I have 3 patents and in a few days 4 which basically say it is my way or the highway . That was the premises from day 1 but I have provided an objective analysis which suffices for the best in the profession So I will read books when I have some time after I complete the work that keeps me busy, update my site, see my family for the first time in three years or a friend or have the time to use the Littman as it was created for my own use.The public relations I can offer my clients is to make a better camera for them that is all I can offer at this point. the research has obligated me to allocate time I did not have and this website and"consumers" which expect to pin their brand of expectancies on me while they see im stretched to the limit on behalf of my clients they resort to raising the bar with insensitive expectancies. No thanks.

 

Perhaps when you see that someone is making an extraordinary effort to improve something and is unable to be as rested, have a regular schedule and the normality of a 9-5 job perhaps you can abstain from further unrealistic impositions of writing skills , public relations typography etc .I can consider such book and have no doubt that improvement is required mainly to the perception that people have the right to pose impositions upon me in excess of the services or availability of my time which I can offer. When that is addressed in the near future none of this will have to be a burden on my schedule and you will see how quick things change for the better. Im all for improvement and went on to improve something beyond anyone's expectations and do not need to find myself pleading with anyone reminding them that the law insist they are not entitled to pose impositions upon me outside the terms I choose to offer in my business . that would be the case in a simple private communication and more so when it is public besides I dont need it and i dont welcome it nor do I accept it under any circumstance..

 

The fact is that for the last 7 years the best photographers have treated me with the utmost respect, rolled out the red carpet and treated me weith praise and gratitude which I did not expect or require but it has been the way I have been treated by talented professionals all my life and I do not see where people who make impositions which exceed what I can or am willing to offer feel they are reasonable or that they are respecting me.

 

You cant hope to hire a cab that is busy and if you get mad that's unreasonable. you cant start a cab company if the city has licensed just one company so therefore you realize it is you that has to be patient and wait or you walk.

 

History is filled with examples of people who thought of as great PR men and most people consider them nothing but embellishers. I am considered to have no public relation skills and have placed my product at the very top of the list by its own merit that is twice as valuable and most genuine. The right people really appreciate it as I have verified time and time again. I certainly wish it would have been easier but Im not one to dwell on the past for too long nor Basque in the glory of Novelty for too long and by the time the L45sVI is recognized the first L45sVII will be on its way to someone appreciative and the rest will miss out.

Perhaps big corporations can afford public relations specialists to address instances when people start making a bunch of false statements which cause harm to the business> I certainly cant and cant afford not to clarify the falsehoods otherwise people assume those who are allowed to retain a podium are allowed to have the last word based on first hand experience or are telling the truth. that has not been the case here on this website and has obligated me in excess of my abilities .No small business could withstand the ensuing poking and no matter how you look at it these amount to nothing more than instances that I should be more submissive or surrender as I have been told. I am a hard worker. I'm a decent person and right now I can not choose my priorities I have to concentrate on my work .It takes all my time and energy everything else is on hold until further notice and has been that way for 3 years and as that is 100% the truth everyone making impositions which exceed such reality as to make me appear unreasonable is a liar.

 

 

Novelty is like dating for those who do not like commitmenet wears off fas tlike a honeymoon on the other hand most of my clients are not looking for fireworks and glitter are are not encouraged by Novelty nor discouraged by it . My interest is to dedicate my efforts towards those who are apreciative of the novelty my product can offer their work the novelty which counts is the novelty my product can offer their work and as time goes on the bond grows stronger, they are commited to their work just as much as I am to mine. thats love and it makes everything else which is proposed to me look very unapealing.

 

I didnt spend 10 years of my life to create a camera so it would collect dust. Why dont you sell the camera to someone who can benefit from its use .

I do not have you in my list of clients

Why not just post the same quote you have on your site admitting you dont call your cameras your own because you simply copy others peoples ideas/ namely mine?

".... A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to call itself an original maker in the first place." -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM photographic system

 

 

 

".......Precisely why my camera remains a Polaroid" -Razzledog.

 

Photo.net is responsible for enabling defamation as a means of solicitation it instructs everyone should abstain from.

 

The Littman rangefinder utilizes a mdified Polaroid rangefinder. it is legal to make an improvement to an existing product or part.

 

To publicly insist this is not the case as a means to impede sales is defamatory.

Tony needs an answer? perhaps he and others have a right to expect one which is not biased.

 

Frank R who insisted" Don't do it!

They are clunky, inferior designs that will end up costing you more money than you think.

 

You can spend your money on much better cameras " as you can read by accesing the following thread.

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ijcw&tag=

when i confronted him last time and told him he had to defend his position3 times when he was forcefully confronted by those plugging the conversions he responded that he was able to mantain his position but changed it somewhat because he didnt want to hurt their sales because these guys are helful/ offer free DIY advice

 

 

perhaps he could consider that Mr. Black shouldn't have to pay for the free

DIY others get for free as an admitted reason for these plugs which are

against their own better judgment as they have repeatedly posted in their

own words.

 

 

someone had told me in an earlier thread

Want better? then invite the competition" Sorry guys no one has

the right to use this website as a means to tell me to put out or get out

;that is 100 % illegal you cant assemble to coherse better terms out of a

patent holder or choose to engage in retaliatory defamation if you are not

allowed to vote.

 

When admitted falsehoods are utilized as to create such desired effect in

the real world by the leverage of discredit /membership knowingly misused in

such manner may constitute gatherings for ilicit purposes.

 

 

And because those who have no interest in the concept or financial interests ambush the podium and chase away those who can provide viable answers telling them they are not one of you and to go away. unfortunately i have to cut my losses and abstain from accepting buisness that would lead to futher of the same and file charges for what has occured when circumstance and preparation is complete.

 

Want better? then leave the podium to those who dont have an ax to grind and owners of legitimate/ licenced and legal products. after all if someone wants a useful answer they certainly dont want you to reccomend they buy a camera you would not touch with a ten foot pole but plug it because you get something out of it or you hate his competitor. Photo.net deserves better .

 

Tony should buy the Fotoman as I cant offer him my services nor to anyone who comes to enquire about it here encouraging competition which is forbiden by law and create an opportunity for these handful to defamate my product and induce infringement. perhaps he can expect first hand experiences from legitimate sources instead of reponses made by those who have appropiated the subject as their own while they admit they have no interest in it and have expresssed an interest in the demise of my project when they take every opportunity to insist my response to the poking should serve as a means to hurt sales and then reccomend people should stay away from my product.

 

Mr Flanigan the way you validate history is with proof and your trajectory in photography and opinions must be backed by the wonderful results you obtained therfore

I look forward to seeing the magnificent imagery you have obtained thru the advice you give others and that otherwise you could limit your agressive and contentious position to the place you deserve in this community as a result of your efforts because a lot of people have already confirmed that older rangefinders were not as effective as the Littman and unless you can prove otherwise i suggest you give it a rest.

 

People posting misrepresentations about our product create an imposition for me to have to respond. If you dont like my writting skills Know i write to the best of my ability and the law orders that I am allowed to dictate the terms under which I offer my services and members can not utilize the leverage of discredit to poke me into either satisfying their curiosity or that would validate inducement of competition by others..

 

An objective analisis is definitely required but when I have attempted to adress the tech issues they pick up the remote and bring up the history channel.

calibration alone can not do the job of a cam calibration alone is the aproach of fiddlers

 

Mr flanigan if you admit there is a lack of information in regards to my project I can trace sufficient blame back to you by your ensuing poking and engaging me on non event distractions and deliberately interferring with my schedule preventing me from updating my site. you do this to me every time.

 

 

 

 

The first L45s 1 rf outperformed any rangefinder made before 2002 the new one outperforms my older ones

 

By the way we ship worldwide to everyone who does not engage in these interferances. that is a lot of people. Most people

"

Many folks really probably would just like know the sequence of operation for shooting an image with your camera"

I agree and i have waited 3 years for you to stop breathing down the necks of everyone who could and is entitled to answer while you create dissent out of admitted resentment and whet i tell those folks is that there shall be a website which will offer a chatroom for aLittman owners where they can be free to exchange their views without being attacked for owning a better camera.

 

Well the rangefinder issue and history is identical to the parallelism issue to which you have admitted was present.

A lot of great things are present in old technologies some cameras have 1 asset and many drawbacks and it is false and pointless/ futile to dispense valuable life time to insist that everything made earlier was better.

 

We did get to the moon mostly on cojones some valuable tech stretched to the limit and if you watch a few pbs documentaries you'll see everyone was praying nervously in front of the TV these brave souls would make it back.

 

It would be unfair to say that was worthless and future achievements went on to include such past achievements , continuing to write the book/ not ignoring the past which is a grave mistake just as glorifying it unrealistically is also a mistake.

 

In Europe and south America where I grew up the old are included into the life of the young but in America the old are discriminated against and discarded and its a 2 way st. When I was a student at UM and showed up at the condo to move in the doorman was telling a lovely old lady that children were not allowed by the tenants association. I had to put my luggage down and request a glass of water/ sit down as I was shocked by this insanity

 

People can see that I have a lot of respect for the past , so much that I have included the old technologies as a solid base from where I could truly improve rather than machine some aluminum / anodize it and call it new when there is nothing new unless utility is increased.

 

I make reference to the following discussion where Mr. Fromm pointed out the limitations in the old rangefinders.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ijcw&tag=

 

Things worked in the past otherwise we would not have gotten here but in many cases they were rudimentary and expenditure of time and effort was selective considering only what you could get back.

the race to get to the moon was fueled by the cold war and it was their team against ours but both sides were flying on pushcarts lots of cojones and though it was highly inspirational the whole interest and expenditure died out once they chose wmd's as a new pissing contest.

 

My camera was rated to have outperformed everything ever made in 2002, I could have jumped on Kelly's history bandwagon and stayed in the ivory tower but I found out outperforming others is not much of an achievement after having verified that while mine was the best it could be better . the only true improvement is to outperform yourself. The only respect that matters is self respect and as far as money and worth I can tell you that as a child I met this Tibetan Monk who was making this beautiful mandala out of color sand in my visit to san Francisco when I was 10 and it was so beautiful that I wanted to own it preserve it and he told me that he had spent months making it and that the minute it would be completed he would proceed to destroy it with the stroke of one hand. I told him" Mister you are crazy" and he replied "perhaps"

and handed me this pamphlet which explained the concept of impermanence.

basically you cant take it with you and everything which doesn't receive attention turns to dust eventually or ends up collecting it anyway so I have dedicated my life to overcoming my own mediocrity and I still have a long way to go.

 

To be able to progress one must be realistic and recognize what the past offered and include it, is useful but in most cases rudimentary and can be improved to meet today's technological standards Europeans seem to have more money because they live in the houses built by their ancestors hundreds of years ago while we buy houses made out of plaster where your roof is the neighbors floor rand your floor is someone else's roof, lean too hard on a wall and you end up in someone else's bedroom .

and in a few years it gets torn down so they can build a mall.I can understand why some people have little regard for what is older just as much as I can understand why some people cling to the past and use it to look at the present with resentment . I don't give a rats about the generational wars as I believe in synergy as being the ultimate and only alternative to true improvement. I.e. if you have to demolish a house so you can build a new one you spent 2 times as much time and money and have little time and money to make the new one a good house , I'm not concerned with new I am concerned with good to me new means its better if it is new and uses some old parts but is better then it is new. on the other hand if it is newly made but has no more utility that something made previously it isn't new but old and if it has less utility than something made previously then it is really old.

 

I went to home depot last year and there was a huge line in the paint department and I went over to the clerk and asked why and the guy laughed and said" its spring people have remembered to improve their houses and so they paint it" he said paint was their biggest seller by far ,I'm not averse to improving the appearance of something as an aesthetics consideration and find it rewarding by what the guy at home depot said I would have to assume most people agree, but that is not a utility improvement so first I addressed the technology and then the cover. it may appeal to some and not to others but it is a grave mistake to glorify the past just as much as it is a mistake to ignore it. I have included a few useful things the past had to offer and I have moved on , the result has been favorable.

 

The l45s project started in 2000 in an election year when everyone was concerned about the outcome and the economy and lets say the economy was a lot better.

& years later we have completed the project and the camera is a lot better the economy is a lot............ and I have no control over it but just as the first model made a huge impression on the upper echelon of the profession the L45s VI is having a more favorable effect still and we are swamped, I have no intention of convincing anyone here but would appreciate it as would the general public if there was a moratorium on the classes and generational wars and people can then trust PN as a source of unbiased advice

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a little hesitation on something being " new" as in built from scratch because I have been able to verify that in most cases it proves les beneficial than to include what the past had to offer and turn it into something new based on the utility it can yield rather than jump on the bandwagon where folks are much more attracted by the appetite appeal of anodizing and baked enamel.

 

Mr. Flanigan; you're not that old. If you can breathe and you can use your knowledge you can go out and take some pictures instead of dwelling on the past and you might discover that we are all ageless and that time is but an arbitrary consideration. don't be imprisoned by it and by all means don't use it to distance yourself from the newer generations. That I can only hope.