william_littman

"The wider apertures are only beneficial when focusing using the ground glass screen"

the following is a collection of images shot with what he calls a 4x5 conversion both absolutely wide open( night) and at extremely low shutter speeds some with tripod and some without with a vintage lens of much less resolution than his and not film but Polaroid color prints of all things.again sharper than the images we have seen posted here

 

and these images were scanned on a home computer.

 

http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/skgal01.html

 

I'm sorry but what he said is false.

"The wider apertures are only beneficial when focusing using the ground glass screen"

that is an amazing ranting considering many of my clients shoot a lot

of their work wide open thru rangefinder . that would be an expected response from the person who made Mr Hull's camera.

 

Most of the images I get from clients are not drumscaned but in regular home computer scanners, yes if you spend 60-100 dollars on a scan or sharpen everything in photoshop you can also use 35mm.

 

If the truth is presented as if negative outlook for marketing purposes

people may buy into the idea that "works fine" is what you have been shown.

 

I also wished that Mr Hull didnt get caught in the middle or anywhere else for that matter that things are what they are , no more no less.

One thing that remains to be said is that perhaps people also have a right to know what " works fine " means on a 4x5 conversion as he puts it before they take Mr. Hull's word for it or having to do a massive search on what was used for what.

 

the following is a series of pictures taken with a conversion as you like to call it, a modern lens and the use of a rangefinder to obtain such results and creativity aside there is no comparison in the quality of the focus.

 

the lighting conditions are in Mr. Hull's favor because he shot in Mexico and this person shot in northern Europe where the light is several stops weaker.

 

http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/psgal01.html

 

And the following is a collection of images also taken with a similar camera and modern lens but in studio with a smaller strobe aperture obviously of higher resolution I offer both ends of the spectrum expected of what he likes to call a conversion when using a modern lens.

 

http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/hlgal01.html

 

and the following is a collection of images taken with a similar camera and a vintage lens

which is over 50 years old yet the images shot on the first day the photographer held the camera are sharper than those you present shot with one of the sharpest lenses available yet which is what you used. which confirms what I said recently that it is idiotic to use a modern lens unless the cam is accurate because if not the results may be less attractive than those offered by a vintage lens.

 

http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/wc.html

 

 

Creativity aside many of my clients shoot at speeds up to 1 second handheld so no handholding at 60th of a second is not a problem if one hopes to use a large format camera hand held because otherwise you can only expect to shoot when it is sunny.

 

It is my opinion that the truth is that he doesn't mind the fact that it doesn't work fine. that is perfectly all right .

 

all three pictures Mr. hull has posted have the focus behind the subject or in front of it

the point is shallow the depth of field/ lens wide open of 4x5 may be the eyes should be in focus

and the ears out of focus.

 

When my competitors said that anyone who would believe my camera could work better than any 110b would have to say so out of ignorance or disputed the value of my camera Mr. Hull always added a plug on their behalf he will say he didn't say anything bad about my product but his participation and tone and timing created the appearance of " works fine" as if being comparable if not equal and because he wants to drag everything down to be labeled as" 4x5 conversion" title I show what 4x5 conversion is expected to yield on the different setups.

I am moving on as well

Aggie is an exellent photographer and soon to be an editor For large format in an All film related magazine.

 

Jim Galli is an established camera equipment related buisness

I joined this thread in the same manner you joined a thread named after my product to plug your camera as a viable alternative to mine , I didnt ask you to do that either.

 

What I posted was not about 1 user's experience but about what these people say is or isnt required to make these cameras and if you dont believe I have a right to protect my rights or the perception of my product we cant agree.

 

all cameras require service including my own that is not the issue the point is that I dont need to be competed against in any way as you suggest.

 

You posted a thread decribing a product you own , I responded by informing you of claim 8 of that patent will issue shortly and then I informed you that definitive proof has been obtained that my patent claims are required contrary to what those you reccomend have stated.

regarding having no need to negotiate or yield you may want to read this one more time.

http://www.littman45single.com/05ccmc/patentcover.jpg

 

Like I have said if the camera works fine I knew what was required to make it work, now I have verified what these people do to make it work so have many other people who have examined them.

 

I guess if this ever comes up in the real world those who make determinations can read that when I informed you of my rights you replied by telling me to leave you alone and to get in line with everyone else for my share of the market.

 

Like I said you dont know what was done to your camera to make it work and I thought we had agreed on that on the last thread with that said it is you who has to decide whether it is considerate and polite to continue to ignore that.

 

all that would be required is to inform of the existance of the patents, whatever alternatives have to respect them.

 

If you believe that having to defend my rights makes me look defensive then just respect them.

thank you

Patents are public documents, they are in the public domain. I is unnecessary for me to insist if your camera is or isn't an infringement specially since I haven't examined it, however if this were about you taking pictures or your creativity and right to express them you wouldn't have to recommend that others join you on the camera aspect .

 

Post pictures , be a photographer learn as you will that is grand enjoy your right to all your opinions and the patents are and new ones will be in the public domain for you and those who you buy from to exercise their own discretion.

 

At this point I do not need to be cornered by you further, because enjoying my rights and the public perception of them is the reason for their existence.

 

No I have no intention of emailing you I did some time ago but I thought you would respond as usual and would have to either negotiate or yield which is the way you would like things to be.

Last month when Mr. hull was pointed to the words of one of the buyers of These con-versions which you can read by following the link he replied that one bad apple is just one bad apple, now it seems that one would have to learn something and become a rangefinder himself.

 

These merchants have created a business for themselves by insisting my patented modifications are not required and as a result I lost a lot of time and money.

 

I was forced to buy the camera from this woman Aggie who I must say is a very nice lady and from what I have seen posted on apug is also a very good photographer, I was impressed by her landscapes and creative eye.

 

 

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11301&page=2&pp=10

The point is I retrieved the camera this morning from a private mailbox type facility and it was verified in front of the clerk that the aperture ring / dial was frozen as aggie insisted, it did move but had to be forced to do so.

 

The shutter does not fire and all this because the installation of this lens on such camera requires a modification which will also be patented in 10 days.

 

and will read as follows:

 

9. The camera of claim 7, wherein said washer is a washer other than a washer selected from the group consisting of Polaroid Models 110, 110A, 110B, 120, 150, 160, 800 and 900 cameras.

 

this refers to a required washer spacer needed to prevent the lens from jamming.

 

The person who sold this poor woman the lens replied to her on apug that this is because the aperture dial freezes when you activate the aperture preview lever but anyone who owns a copal 0 knows that the aperture preview lever never freezes the aperture dial.

 

These are the people who make a business by insisting I haven't got the slightest idea what I am doing and that my patent claims are not required.

 

Please be informed that Aggie told the absolute truth about everything, and she knows that I told her the lack of spaceror incorrect spacer was the problem the minute I learned what the story was

without having to see the camera in person.

 

Let me just also say that the lens which Jim Galli sold this woman is in perfect working order and reputable and legitimate businesses do not need to be scrutinized or forced into this kind of racket because a few hooligans cant contain their enthusiasm to make false representations in everybody's detriment.

 

It is perfectly fine if Mr. hull as he puts it has no idea what he is doing except when he takes the liberty and bravado to be contentious with those who do such as my established clients who use their equipment on a regular basis on major assignments and he hopes to outdo them because he also has a camera which he says is a wonderful experience.

 

When he proceeded to show us he proved that he is willing to be enthusiastic regardless of what the case may be, his creativity is not questioned , his right to take pictures and post them isn't either but he has proven that as the few others who have acted in similar contentious ways it is not about the picture or photography but about having the last word

and outdoing me at any cost.

 

He made a dedicated effort to tell us all that he felt lucky because he paid less and it works fine then he comes here to prove what I have said all along.

 

Ladies and gentlemen too many events have already proven why my patents are required and if they weren't then these things would work perfectly without need of the improvements.

 

The flip side of it all is that I am loosing my shirt, people now expect me to be God before I can have any kind of peace and quiet and these threads are entirely responsible for decent and unsuspecting people who believe that my patents are not required who are the victims of these scams.

 

If you sell something while insisting it will work without a required modification and it is not true That is unfair to me and may constitute fraud to the buyer then if the modification is found to have been used this person is cheating me, if then it is found that the modification was done improperly maybe the buyer is being cheated?

 

A washer spacer was utilized and it is the wrong thickness and size so never mind the patents if you prefer but mind that those who accuse me are the ones who don't know anything

 

This is yet another proof of why my patents are totally valid and will remain in force for the duration.

 

then regarding the requirement for a cam modification, which is patented by several claims and this person also told buyers that no modification was required, he ground the camera cam to modify the curvature but did so incorrectly and the camera focused on 6 ft and infinity but not at the rest of the farther distances beyond 10 ft.

 

The people who insist my patents are not required have proved they are by instituting the modifications themselves therefore I have no quarrel with someone who says that have no idea what they are doing until they make a dedicated effort to prevail forcefully at any cost despite the evidence .

 

We are all her to learn , I learn something every day yet my opponents say improvement is harmful to these relics and speak of preservation versus innovation, when the tangible camera shows up we verify that the innovation they criticize is required .

 

Mr. Hull the focus on that picture is also everywhere else but on the subject , the shoes appear sharper than the persons jacket and the face is softer than the shoes.

 

That picture is also out of focus, that is a Rodenstock 135 apo sIronar lens of late edition

Like I said the rangefinder doesn't work, you have confirmed it and now I have sufficient tangible evidence of how these conversions are made.

 

At some point you can learn that if things aren't the was you wish they were perhaps you can ask yourself why not accept the way they are, that may be the first step in learning something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we have finally verified is that the rangefinder doesn't work, and also that in order for it to work my patented modifications are required .

 

That is what we have learned , we learn something new every day

No I am not God nor should any of you ask me to be before I can enjoy my rights or be forced to have to defend myself constantly.

 

Because I am not God I ask that until such time when it may be determined otherwise in the right place,I ask that my rights be respected and that this threads no longer be used to obstruct them.

No Mr. Droluck

 

The photo.net non solicitation policy applies to you as well. last week you posted a response to a thread which was close by the moderator saying it was closed due to solicitation you said" even though it wasn't me who started it".

 

a few days later you start a thread stating" 617 first scan

I thought some people would like to see the picture which is not great art but..... then you went on to discuss sales on the thread...

 

well we all have products we would like to sell yet when I started a thread to announce an artistic gallery for picture which were great art and it was deleted citing solicitation.

 

If this is a public forum then the freedom of expression applies to all and not the buddies of the moderators only.

 

Should I have to be on drugs to be able to endure that a handful have no regard for the policies of this server and use it as their personal ebay?

There you go gentelmen, one of the sharpest lenses on the planet and that doesnt even compensate for rf ineficiency,Mr hull insists he doesnt need to get knee deep into the arguments that I may have with those who use photo.net to violate my IP but appears to enjoy sparking them.

 

As a result recent discussion about my product was ended preventing those who are informed about the product their freedom of expression.

 

That is not my product.I didnt make that camera but the title of this thread and the description of the product says It would have to be my product because of what you will read below.

 

 

 

Mr Hull has confirmed the veracity of everything I said by the posting of this photo.

 

Photo. net forbids other members from using this website to violate other members IP.

 

Mr hull was invited to participate in disrupting my IP by unscrupulous competitors In turn he reciprocates the invitation opening the door for them hoping to use the leverage of public opinion to obstruct the enjoyment of my rights / avoid liabilities.

 

However the case may be if a photo has the ears sharp and not the eyes that is a focusing problem.

 

Then there is the fact that we are not living in Oaxca but in the USA

 

In any event people can say they have a wonderful experience when they can keep what they purchase,that it will not turn into a pumkin

the minute you pay for it because of existing patents or 10 days from now when the following claim becomes patented.

 

8. The camera of claim 7, wherein said lens is a lens other than a lens selected from the group consisting of Polaroid Models 110, 110A, 110B, and 120 cameras.

 

I am sorry but if the actual technical truth proven here which confirms everything I sad is not enough then there is the law.

 

I will not continue to plead with photo.net members that they should respect my IP it is required of them when they join.

 

I ask that all fellow members find the civility to respect my rights

or acknowledge the technical facts which are perfectly visible here

 

I will post a link to the patent when it issues

 

These people have tried continue to confuse the market in my detriment to the point that they expect my cameras to be maintenence free when that is ridiculous.

 

Our Product requires regular scheduled maintenance, it works well and if it has our name while it looks like a Polaroid it is because of what we know is required to make it work and keep it working and it is us who has to fix it because we are the ones who know the technology and it is patented.

 

Recently the person who accused me of unfair buisness as an excuse to start threads in 2003 to discredit me and force me to waive my rights by using leverage admitted that one of my customers contacted him after reading the discredit he posted in the threads and that he reccomended that he ask for a refund in liew of a regular scheduled maintenence that is the unfair buisness practice. the next day last month a client read that post and contacted me asking for a refund . there was nothing wrong with the equipment except the graflock tab screws require tightening by user from time to time, that is what they are for and that is what Mr hull is agreeing to endorse help create when he claims to be an inocent bystander .

 

This has gone on for too long and th truth is that a prada shoe box or hush puppies for that matter would yield better results with an apo sironar 135mm lens on one side and a graflock back in the other.

 

There is no mistake here this is yet another forceful disregard of my rights/ disruption to my buisness and nothing else.

Buy the powder before you travel,better to shop where you know where. that is all you need

Polaroid announced the discontinuation of the 4x5 pack films but the senior management wrote me an email assuring that all 4x5 single sheet films would continue to be produced, T55 is a single sheet 4x5 film.

David ,you obviously will want to process a few sheets on location for exposure reasons, those you can place in Ziploc bags with the s sulfite if you can or water.

 

when you get to the hotel process the rest of the sheets, that will save you the hassle of having a bucket in tow while shooting.

 

But process the film before coming back.

 

a quick setup can be to use 1 gallon water jugs as wash/ rinse containers, just cut of the top.

 

to hang and dry you can use hangers and I carry plastic clothes pins which you can get packets of hundreds at a 99 c store and then use

plastic wire ties to attached them to the hangers 2/3 per hanger you can also buy that at 99c store, the hangers you find in the hotel./ ask for more etc.

 

on your final rinse add a drop of photo flow to avoid hard water stains or residue.

 

allow them to air dry, sleeve them with whatever method you prefer.

 

You can travel with the unprocessed negs but the risk of x ray is no greater or smaller than with regular films.

 

I have done both never had a problem yet but being concerned is no fun so perhaps best to process before return.

 

many other methods exist but I used this one when I want to travel without any extra related baggage/ smelly chemicals etc.

I agree ,I am sure if you contakt SKG they have it or can make it for you

That is a very nice photo!

Hi John, let it be. you're ok precisely because it was able to evaporate. Otherwise manufacturers would seal the elements, it is dirt cheap to do so.

 

cells and shutters need to breathe so my idea is to not enclose your cameras in moisture retaining containers such as a Ziploc bag because moisture is everywhere and not an issue unless you confine it.

 

bellows have the same problem, if you use a moisture containing bag/ case they become musty.

 

I think the only kind of moisture you should prevent is actual spillage of a liquid onto the equipment.

 

high humidity/ tropical climates can be a nightmare and in extreme humidity you may need a dehumidifier pouch or even a electrical one.

 

rapid temperature changes can cause what you describe and because the cells can breathe it usually clears well.

 

 

The problem is with older lenses because that is how you get fungus it is a gradual and residual process by which some of the moisture doesn't evaporate soon enough and the condensation occurs in an ambience which the air is musty such as a closet or a plastic bag.

 

I would say if you own any equipment make sure it is not stored in proximity to things which smell moldy in the same confined space.

 

I would rather blow dust off equipment because it has been on a shelf than find it smells like mold.

 

the condensation didn't come from anywhere, all you need is a marked temperature difference and it will happen.

 

ride in a car with the ac blasting in fla and your cameras in one of those zero cases or even a king pelican and then pull out your Nikon on 90 degree weather you better have some patience.

for less archaic methods....the digi egg timer sounds like something worth tying and if you own the new Polaroid 545i pro has a built in digital timer and more likely to be in your camera bag

I think the shorter the T exposure the more critical the measurement.

if you make a 1 second error on a 15 second exposure it doesn't matter that much but if you make an error on a 1-2 second exposure

it is more noticeable.

 

I guess any method can work for the slower speeds .

I have tried many things including triggering a shutter at 1 second repeatedly and recording it onto one of those 20 second digital replay gizmos 20 times

 

then on location triggering the camera exposure with one hand and the playback button with the other and listening to the shutter open and close / 2 clicks per second. great for bracketing

 

It was very accurate and very useful in low light situations but mostly I hate having to wait for the seconds hand on a watch to reach a certain point or having to remember where I started measuring from on each exposure.

 

on longer exposures I have used a Polaroid 120 sec development timer for many years, they are everywhere/ very small and pocketable and have a 1/4 in 20 thumb screw that you can install it on any camera

 

I guess the best method would be the least distracting one, if you are doing a couple of shots only its no big deal but when you are shooting an entire night or afternoon with T that is when you start wishing you didn't have to be as attentive for every millisecond.

 

I prefer to sometimes shoot a 3x4 Polaroid specially if there is a lot of bellow extension and then figure out how long the exposure will be mostly for contrast considerations rather than just exposure

 

I have used the trigger timers as well and found them iffy on the shorter exposures of 2 seconds, if you get an old one you have to clean it and lube it with a good non detergent/ non residue oil

otherwise they can act like an old gummy shutter.

 

Copal press shutters are also a big help when you shoot a lot of repetitive T exposures

as well as grafmatics or whatever method works to avoid moving the camera when reloading cocking shutter etc.

 

For me the most consistent method for accuracy has been to use the shutter's 1 sec mode and trigger it as many times as necessary, if im doing just a few exposures that require seconds it helps you out specially when you are otherwise unprepared or have to be accurate and the best method for bracketting

When I used to assist Peter Beard they would take a 35mm slide and make murals that were up to 20 ft in height and 30ft wide or pretty close.

 

there are drumscans which yield a 4000dpi that was several years ago now they may go even higher but I know that some labs in Ny have flatbeds that go up to 4000dpi.

 

these ultra high res scans are only merited for huge enlargements as there are also commercial printers with higher outputs than 2500 dpi

 

It is true that the smaller the film the better the lens because the film cant offer better resolution so this has to be accomplished by optics.this is possible because when they make a small format lens they can sell many and keep the price competitive and have to offer a competitive quality to stay in the market.

 

 

You can try a zeiss 180 2.8 from the pentacon even for 4x5 portraits if you have a focal plane shutter as an amazing portrait lens you will have to remove the medium format mount and mount it on a board, it wont focus on infinity .

 

another example is the Nikon 300 f 2 or the 2.8. I have used them on a pentax 67 for portraits.

 

not practical or transportable options but easy ways to verify that the smaller format lenses have to be far superior than the LF lenses.

 

 

but in the end the existing res of Lf lenses + Lf film still exceeds the results of the best small format lens on small format.

 

If a Lf lens was made like a small format lens it would have to cost

10x the price and would be overkill in terms of quality.

 

there are also other factors which cause this as the larger the neg the more light is required so the usual 9 element lens of 35mm would prove too slow or would have to be too big in many cases.

 

Anyway if you take a 35mm body and put it on the back of your 4x5 you can easily see that the lf lenses don't give as good results on the smaller film as a smaller format lens but in the end the large neg still wins no matter how good the 35mm lens is to 35mm.the large format lenses are therefore more than good enough and in many cases they are superb!

Absolutely brilliant! you show a very good understanding of the purpose of selective focusing / aperture selection as a means of highlighting your work.

 

So much talk of large neg/ more is better/all in focus but I agree with David that selective focusing can be very useful to give range to someone's work and when many say that medium format suffices I agree that if you stop down the lens / all in focus which therefore reproduce well enough then that is absolutely true even though a large neg would show more texture.

 

When you start getting selective that is when the larger neg becomes more of a requirement and the increased res can show this range better/ texture differences .

 

Nothing wrong with shooting at f64 but I prefer to see range( sometimes). the out of focus areas do not have to appear out of focus all the time a small difference is still a difference .

 

David's method sounds very good . I used to use it or a method very close to it sometimes on my nikormats and had a body without a back with a ground glass permanently mounted which I used to determine the best aperture while my assistants would Polaroid the exposures, then I would do a final Polaroid at the chosen aperture I did this because it is so hard to get differentiation on 35mm.

 

In time this trains your eye to foresee aperture/ subject to lens distance and different values.

 

But that was 20+ years ago, I now use digital as a means of quick verification of what David refers to because ground glass can be deceptive as compared to a 2d image

 

I will use Lf film for the final exposure but digital sounds like a great way to verify the prep stages in 2d.

 

That brings my shooting costs down to a couple of sheets per session and I always get what I want or very close.

 

The great thing about the method is that it is one of the ways to get started on the road to being selective and that in turn it trains you to be able to be very quick .

 

I think its more of a learning/ personal research/ training method than required all the time as after you do it about 20 times and verify the results it is no longer needed but I found the personal experience to be reassuring and saved me a lot of money.

I think it is because the septums brace the film on 3 sides making it less likely to curl or float around. then the septum itself is spring loaded towards the film plane.

 

You may also notice how tightly the film fits into the septum rails as opposed to a film holder where if you shake it you will hear the sheets knock on the ends as they can move freely.

 

 

 

The difference is really noticeable at larger apertures f 2.8-16 but people who shoot f22-64 would not worry too much about that .

 

I think you are right.

Peter; just send me your adress by email and ill ship it.

 

the pattern side must go absolutely flush with the ground side of the glass and on the lens side .

 

use cotton gloves to install it because plastic and scratches easily

Mr. Littman:

In response to your recent inquiry, Polaroid Corporation will continue to

supply instant cameras and film to the marketplace after the merger is

completed.

Here's a link to a press release announcing the merger.

 

Thank you for your interest in Polaroid.

(from the Director of Corporate Communications)

 

 

http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441763267&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302027323&bmUID=1105473353692&bmLocale=en_US&PRDREG=null>