william_littman1

<p>didn't post</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Dear Users<br /> Since we discontinued our website in 2012 we are often asked to identify earlier models and what the value is today.<br /> Under 1000 cameras have been made in 12 technical models over 15 years.<br /> there are two basic type of cameras <br /> 1)pre perfectible parallelism easily identifiable by two characteristics<br /> the front standard isn't braced and usually don't have a exterior design<br /> these cameras made 2000-2007 range in price now 900-2000 depending on lens and condition.<br /> although there were many intermediate models on the way to parallelism the price has sort of leveled due to <br /> the unavailability of Type 55 and the introduction of perfectible parallelism,</p> <p>2) post perfectible parallelism these cameras are much more reliable and so more desirable and harder to find as fewer were made.<br /> because upgrading an older one to parallelism costs 2500,00 these usually sell for 1000 more if you can find one or more if with a special lens or depending on condition.<br /> 3) we do service all the perfectible parallelism models .<br /> We only make one tech model now which embodies all of the best improvements</p> <p>4) regarding cameras with custom designs the value varies significantly from camera to camera as all one of a kind.<br /> I hope this helps I expect prices will return to 30% higher once type 55 is introduced again<br /> 5) To ensure that the value is genuine we have never bought them back and there is no restrictions on reselling them and we do offer service to second hand users.<br /> I will post a picture of what the perfectible parallelism front standard looks like<br /> thank you</p> <p> </p>

<p>Dear fellow photo.net users<br> We are compiling a list of photo assistants who are proficient in the loading and handling of grafmatic 4x5 holders use of 4x5 film and use of 3x4 polaroid/Fuji films as candidates to be proposed for assisting some of the worlds top shooters while using the Littman 45 camera or The Littman 34 which shoots 3x4 Fuji 100c.</p> <p>These cameras will be offered for rent to clients by one of the most prestigious NYc photo studios and as use of large format is now occasional photographers can benefit by hiring an extra assistant/s who is/are proficient with these tasks rather than get sidetracked into having his current assistants needing to familiarize and with limited success.</p> <p>Please send me a PM if you are confident that you qualify for such responsibilities so as to provide a seamless service.</p> <p> </p>

<p>THE LITTMAN EMPIRE STATE MMXV</p><div></div>

<p>Im obviously biased but dare apply</p><div></div>

<p>Les the reason Polaroid 55 film went extinct was because every year since 2001 when the company was first sold a few fools who had nothing better to do " needed" to get reassurance it would be made in eternum so they would email Polaroid and if they didn't get the answer they wanted they would start threads saying its all over . then when the company was again bought in 2008b finally decided to use the name for the new digital age they didn't want the responsibility of someone else making the product and that it would either be lacking in performance or that it would fail to sell due to declining use both concerns would affect the value of the name and seeing the difficulties that the impossible project has had with emulsions such concerns may not be unreasonable.</p> <p>when a film such as polapan( type 55 ) was polapan has a familiarity or very defined range it is indeed limiting as compared to a standard film but attractive for its defined look,<br> Such was the case with 3M chrome films which had a distinct grain which was very popular in the 80s.<br> When photoshop didn't exist film emulsions and wrattan filters and color meters was the only thing you had to work with.</p>

<p>I agree with you Brian. I prefer Fomapan 100 but users have these Blockages they don't seem go be able to go past a line drawn in the sand. When Polaroid discontinued instant film Fuji still made it and better and at a fraction of a cost and people wouldn't buy it.<br> I am happy that there is a choice. <br> BTW the range of the new t55 film will be close to 100-200 asa as was T 52</p>

<p>it seems that type 55 style film is just around the corner</p> <p>http://www.new55.net/</p> <p>for a comparable and less pricy option for budget conscious users there is Fomapan 100 film developed in rodinal 1/50.</p> <p>the new type 55 isn't free of developing time or fixing efforts and I've always maintained that the difference in effort in developing positive negative emulsions and regular film is there is no difference in effort.<br /> Surely there is a difference in results and the positive aspect is to have options<br /> The Fomapan 100 can be developed into a slide film which approximates the feel of the original 35mm Polapan film .</p> <p>Ultimately there needs to be a fundamental justification for the use of large format and its expense and funky borders cant be it when you can scan old 55 neg borders and have that free.</p> <p>the high definition expectancy originally associated with big film has been satisfied by the accuracy of digital and most people ignore the fact that on a large format camera on a tripod the accuracy was mostly obtained by stopdown and patience aka time exposure.</p> <p>Perhaps some of you have tried to do macro pictures with your smartphone or small powershot camera and noticed it all seems remarkably in focus despite the absurd proximity to the object.</p> <p>then you take a top of the line Mark D or a Nikon 800 and you have to do an absurd amount of stopdown to get even close to that depth of field.</p> <p>the increase of the shallowness is mathematical and unchanged whether the capture is analog or numeric then we come to my point where I have argued for years that the depth of field - parallelism and quality expectations of large format tripod photography really do not apply to hand held 4x5 photography at all! and that realistically you need perfect parallelism in order to do hand held 4x5 using existing light.</p> <p>This was a really hard subject to debate as when the 4x5 style of photography was the only option everything was strobed or they used the f 16 rule.</p> <p>this has never been applicable to slow films of the panchromatic range and people resorted to developing their pulse and posing models against walls and holding their breath etc.</p> <p>this is not conducive to spontaneity <br /> With that said not everyone will need to use type 55 for people photography on the move .<br /> It is good that there is this new option .</p> <p> </p>

<p>I received a call from one of the most respected camera collectors who helped put this whole thing into perspective.<br /> he basically said something which I agree with and is that when the Polaroid camera was first introduced its first model was magnificent and though some of the materials aren't top classe the design of its exterior was deemed with the same importance we have given ours but for that era.<br /> the function was not as great as the kalart rf was not cammed and the front standard arms square angles made it very weak etc etc<br /> Like the original Bantam and many other great cameras had initial magnificent concept models which were then scratched because of costs if you want to know where the money went it was traced to CEO bonuses houses in the Hamptons and trade show sidekicks like call girl sand booze lol.<br /> So in essence our effort is justified as there is a real need to bridge a gap in design which was tapered in the early 60s in favor of consumism which hoped to push relatively functional relatively inexpensive products aimed to sell massively.<br /> A dedicated study of Polaroids marketing plan showed that choosing a thunder gray tone for the models to follow would be appealing to most people and in choosing a design deconstruction<br> and lowering the cost of production the fat cats got bigger checks but the consumer paid the same price as I had expected.<br /> the original design was deemed too professional looking and inexperienced users were threatened by<br /> its impressive appearance when the company was trying to promise anyone even a 5 year old girl could use it .<br /> So in closing he simply said as with Polaroid started on the right track but then deconstructed in favor of consumism as the demand for utility was there but it makes sense at the end of the run when consumism has no longer a need that the original approach has been rekindled thru your project,</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Now sarcasms aside what Mr Arthur said is sort of really applicable in terms of evaluating an effort and function these days.<br> May I remind that the Polaroid camera as Arthur refers was not indeed highly functional but barely adequate to the extent that despite roll films being produced way into the mid 80s these cameras for the most part were usually found virtually unused and collecting dust in attics by the thousands.<br> Note that a conversion was still not necessary to make them usable and yet deemed unattractive by its owners who retired them after an initial novelty period.<br> this is the first proof that conversion isn't the utility behind the Littman camera yet when it was introduced with no bling it caused a storm of similar " just fine" folkloric support for the so called function not sufficiently esteemed to hold any better place than collecting dust in the attic.<br> once the first Littman was evaluated by Polaroid they determined it had a higher utility than the 4 designs camera for what they found justified to en me a OEM partnership so I could produce it.</p> <p>So my point is too often people who only do something if they will get instant gratification that cant simply be assumed.<br> Years ago Tom Hanks had a fun movie about a one hit wonder band " that thing you do' and on theday the band introduces a new song and passionate about it someone in the audience impatiently screams" can you just play that thing you do so we can meet girls"?,<br> That preety much summarizes what I see in the objections y camera project has faced from detractors.<br> the guy who wanted the hot song played so he could score has a hard time understanding how other guys may find a motivation to listen to music and cultivate a taste with no apparent reason since obviously he is married got the girl haha.<br> Taking it a step further we should consider that hot rods and other type of cosmetic modifications arent necessarily lacking in masculinity and quite to the contrary so I could have to disagree with the gender comparison on everything but the fact that some have managed to dismiss technical improvement artistic motivation and aesthetic improvements as having gender issues because these interests are suspected as being valid to impress the opposite sex or impressing the opposite sex as the only motivator to justify efforts.<br> I have an amazing revelation ; there are some out there who take pictures for personal gratification and the function sought is obviously greater than what was previously achieved . People have different needs and in a photography forum that shouldn't be ridiculed but most importantly my audience and I are not deterred in any way after 15 years because the detractions and objections don't speak of my camera limitations but may be those of the observer.</p>

<p>its says ERR CONTENT DECODING FAILED??<br> WHAT IS THIS?</p>

<p>its says ERR CONTENT DECODING FAILED??<br> WHAT IS THIS?</p>

<p>i dont know why the uploads fail on my laptop</p>

<p>artistic but not art</p>

<p>let me try again</p>

<p>again this photo isnt art but artistic</p>

<p>now the following photo is hd and you may consider it artistic if you wish but cannot be art<br> as is the unfortunate case with most photographs when photography can be an art but the bar for<br> an individual photo to be art<br> is by now unsurmountably high after trillions of photographs and established formulas and cliches</p> <div></div>

<p>i will post three photographs I took. <br> One may be art the other two may be artistic but not art<br> the first one is what you would consider low quality in terms of<br> photographic quality and that is because such variable has been<br> fused so to speak to render the whole as a rendering rather than<br> focusing on the excellence of the photographic capture.<br> Its title is "painting with light" and as that is supposed to be one<br> of the accepted definitions of photography I feel this work meets the definition<br> more adequately than a more defined photo which I would describe as capturing with light.</p><div></div>

<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYxoxJCtw5/</p>

<p>now here is a really brilliant light source for these cameras<br />

<p>Mr. Bakker I have offered you direct responses to this question you " aren't sure" about.<br> you eventually agreed there cant be a response that is " sure" most importantly Its not my place to<br> give assurances as I am not the self appointed bureau of criteria.<br> Please let it be<br> I'm perfectly happy if you feel it isn't and at this point if you feel it isn't I will agree with you to avoid the annoyance.</p>

<p>Mr Arthur I cannot speak for someone's personal choice and to say that any aesthetic enhancement of a product equates to crossgender is silly as many products have standard editions and higher end editions and then there are concept editions .</p>

<p>Mr Bakker<br> Im not sure anyone needs a reason to be bitter. Certainly not a justifiable reason.<br> Fashion besides the obvious utility of protective use can provide a means of expression at times which is both healthy and necessary as the Buddhists say well life is a mandala and role playing thru fashion is a choice to induce change. This in itself will be regarded as frivolous by many and its perfectly fine.<br> So I have no idea what would stop bullies from bullying and bitter people from being toxic but know such approach usually speaks badly of the one who takes it and is a road to nowhere.</p> <p>Again the project is called OPUS + ARTE COLLECTION<br> The utility cameras having a standard nice design don't focus on the design as some will prefer a less designed camera. it makes sense to most as you said justified by the performance.<br> when Large format was introduced and no enlargers both art and cataloging were equal contenders for the use. Today its mostly art so it would make little sense to shame artists but most the people who Were into large format then sought it for commercial use so it is not unrealistic that the disdain exists as some people cant get past what they dislike and some focus only on what they like the latter are known as happy people.<br> Then the Arte section of the project makes the same camera and attempts to express artistic pursuit in its exterior as well. Some will embrace it some wont, there's nothing else to it .<br> If you take physics and its laws , answers and resolution begins to occur when less density is present. Please Mr Bakker try being a little less dense and reiterative on what was agreed as answered as much as it could be answered.<br> I am not sure that it does constitute art to everyone . I feel our prototypes for Moma attempts may and as close to target as Possible. when we can in turn affect the outlines as well our chances will be greater and beyond that monsieur who cares.!</p>

Adding bling is just adding bling. As with any object if the summation of original plus enhancements Achieves a result that can be considered art then so it is. Otherwise adding bling is just adding bling. And frankly I am not sure you can be sure but I am sure that isnt relevant. Im not on a quest to demand everyone agrees as that is stupid.