Impossible Knowledge Base/Impossible Films in Polaroid Cameras/Impossible Film FAQs

Will you be producing new peel-apart film?

Worldwide Support
posted this on May 06, 2010 10:45

We won't be able to produce 4x5, Type 100, or Type 80 films, as we don't have the production machinery. These were disassembled along with the factories that used to produce the film when Polaroid filed for Chapter 11.

See for some details on a project that aims to reproduce Type 55 film.

We have produced 8x10 film. Other than the traditional Polaroid peel apart film, our 8x10 film is an integral instant film. The basis of this film is our b&w film material with a film speed of 600 ASA. One pack contains 10 negatives and 10 positives to be shot in 8x10 cameras using the original Polaroid 8x10 holder and processor.

Our plans to produce 8x10 colour material are postponed to an uncertain date.



User photo
Luis M Urbina

Does this mean that once that current Type 100 stock is depleted you won't be able to replace it?

June 14, 2010 02:31
User photo
Worldwide Support
Impossible GmbH

yes, unfortunately.

June 14, 2010 10:28
User photo
Valerie Ardini

I hadn't discovered this until now- this is seriously disappointing. I do hope Fuji will keep producing peel-apart films and I hope Impossible will keep trying to find a way to produce new peel-apart film in the future! A cooperation with Fuji perhaps? Like someone here said, old fuji machines maybe?

April 04, 2011 12:55
User photo
Bob Crowley

It has been known since the beginning of TIP (we call it TIP because IP has a very different meaning in our industry). Anyway TIP has 8x10 peelapart machinery and would have obtained other machinery of they could. It does little good to grumble after all the markets for what you are looking for are small and what TIP has done is addressed the largest portion. I'm glad they did. Keep checking into our New55 project on 4x5 peelapart which is being helped by TIP and by 20X24 Studios. I think you may run out of places to air your complaints though, as there are very few film makers of any kind left. In other words you had better go out and shoot while you can.

The truth was revealed years ago. Said over and over. TIP has been very up front with the fact they have preserved the incredibly complex integral equipment (which I saw in person) and the 8X10 line.   Only. It was revealed and online as soon as the post-Petters idiots at Polaroid started pushing the machines off the second floor with forklifts. You can thank them for their lack of vision and business acumen, and thank unregulated ponzi-like business practices for the rest.

August 13, 2011 13:22
User photo
Bob Crowley

The comment I made on August 13 was in response to another comment that has been deleted by the site moderator, not Valerie's post.

November 11, 2011 02:29
User photo

Ah Polaroid 20x 24 john R.- great guy-straight shooter I visited him several times at hisstudio on BWYnduring the summer of 2000 while working on the prototype for my camera and was pleased to see him  at The Ny Photo Expo Plus  2001 where polaroid introduced the Lttman 45 to the general public..

That was the good news - the not so good was The director of Polaroid OEM informed me on the last day of the show that the following week Polaroid was announcing chapter 11.


T 55 was manufactured fo 6 more years.


Is the 20 x24 studio up and running?

November 20, 2011 20:13
User photo


There is certainly a merit to be recognized in making a positive/ negative film available and those who desire it will certainly appreciate it. I’m one of them


I have tried to resolve this by attempting to post on Mr. Crowley’s blog but my posts were not allowed.


2 years ago I was active in the race to make a positive negative film as well. . It was then that I was contacted by Mr. Crowley who made all sort of assurances as to helping me defend my patents and assuring to understand the hardship an inventor has to experience from unfair competition by unauthorized potential infringers.


He asked me to supply him with a camera to be used for a mutually promotional effort.


A few months later when ready I was alerted by one of my clients that Mr. Crowley was endorsing and plugging an unauthorized competing product about which he had communicated extensively with me wasting my valuable time at a crossroads in our business when we were obligated to respond to patent office actions instead.


Nothing one could say would deter Mr. Crowley’s impertinent and standoffish posture and all he could come up with to justify his actions was " so what'?.


After visiting his blog as of recent and after years of claimed research on a positive negative film what his blog shows is nothing but experimentation by trial and error.


Inventiveness and innovation require that an idea precede any practical application- as a matter of fact when Land introduced his film in 1947 the transition from idea to product was swift because it started with an actual idea. any practical application was an implementation of such idea.


With much less merit and relevance the same can be said and proven in regards to the Littman 45 camera when my ideas were published by the patent office


almost 10 years ago and any practical implementation which followed corroborated the value of such ideas when the product obtained the rating of most responsive large format camera in history.


The technical trajectory on such camera is documented not to be a "making the story as one goes along" but rather a gradual release of gradual utility increases as soon as the resources to do so became available.


the first cameras released in 2000 were mere conversions and having all of the limitations expected of something consisting of 3 sections front middle and back in which only the back has been improved.


In an anecdotic note It was one of our first buyers of 2000 which also happens to be the US rep for Fuji who first noticed the issue in reference to the front standards in the original 110b cameras requiring perfectible parallelism .


Yet when I was finally able to introduce this improvement our product was competed against unfairly and still is by assurances by competitors that this was just a fabrication by me to raise camera prices.


Fuji became a natural candidate for continuation of manufacture of 55 since they had working equipment and experience in instant film. without going into detail I can understand their decision not to pursue such effort amidst a backstabbing environment on one side and a niche market on the other..


Mr. Crowley has positioned himself as the only potential source for this type of film an expects us to be patient until he stumbles upon something which finally works. but such approach as per his posts leaves no room for any sense of entitlement on inventiveness in an area which we have to assume he has some


degree of expertise as film manufacture.


After having assumed the posture of a potential film manufacturer claiming to be experienced I patent matters and after having made assurances to me regarding


my patent rights Mr. Crowley is expected to put his money where his mouth is.


the proper process will determine whether Mr. Crowley’s endorsement of an unauthorized effort is retaliatory - constitutes inducement of infringement of patents or was made in part to shut me off the race to make a positive negative film or to get the most possible attention for his blog as that was what he kept telling me was the purpose of him contacting me and when he refers to the product in question as " most popular" and he had issues with the fact that the requirement to clarify the ongoing misrepresentations had made my product unpopular..


It comes a time where thirst for popularity and ethics collide - this is today.


All of those issues are of no interest to the public and there is no need to enter the speculative as of yet.


What is relevant demonstrable and undeniable is that by what is written to me by Crowley- he being versed in patent law knew that any innovation present on a product he chose to endorse can be proven an innovation attributable to me in the public domain many years before misrepresenting that is deliberate libel .


Mr. Crowley chose to misrepresent the facts by claiming that this product was truly innovative - makes no mention of my product and apparently he has been bombarded by other camera makers who have pestered him on his blog trying to get him to reason regarding his baseless and capricious endorsement.


I tried to post a few facts but Crowley made a final comment telling " other makers should basically mind their own business"


The cameras he claims is the one truly innovative offers interchangeable lenses but hasn’t the required bellow extension for these focal lengths or interchangeable finders and so has no gain in utility whatsoever. any and all improvements present were patented by me years before.


It seems others were concerned with the straw that broke the camels back when it turned out to be that the claimed most innovative 4x5 camera isn’t really 4x5.


And if marginally different- yes cropping has everything to do with margins. And the only lens which could possibly offer coupled combined cropping being a 150 the camera doesn’t allow for tight shots as no bellow extension- a portrait lens incapable of doing portraits.


therefore a series of unrelated claimed improvements which have no synergy from the standpoint of utility and therefore not innovative in an actual sense in comparison to other previously available staples of commerce and definitely no innovation or inventiveness when such is publicly attributed to another years prior in granted patents.


here is a few assurances made to me by Crowley




----- Original Message -----


From: "Robert J Crowley"




Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:25 AM


Subject: Polaroid 55




march 16




I saw your site and admired your cameras and also the excellent drawings in your
patents. I am also an inventor with over 100 patents in the US and outside of
many things, and know that people do not understand the meaning of patents,
which is to teach everyone how to carry out my invention, in return for a brief
(20 years or less) period of exclusivity. Currently I am defending two patents
that have been challenged which is extremely expensive.

You should look at what I am doing and we can help each other out.

The misinformation about patents and the lack of respect for patent holders
stems from this idea like illegal file sharing is a right and music should be
free. Dummies don't understand what it takes to create something new.
Sometimes it is "simple mechanical skill" or sometimes it is an inventive step.
Patents waste a lot of money and I feel sad when someone spends a fortune on
patents (you have got a good deal and they are well done) and never makes any
money at all. I have over 100 and only a couple have made money.

march 17 10

OK so I went and looked and see some of what you have done to make a nice 4X5
camera that you can carry around. If you did those patents at $8K a piece you
got a good deal because they are very well put together I think.

If you can organize small patent holders with our own 271 c type police like the
songwriters have done I will be the first one to sign up. We are a long way
from that right now though. Maybe we could get Paul Williams, head of ASCAP, to
start an inventors chapter, or maybe we put the patents to music and say they
are songs. I hear violins playing.




Fact is he went from claiming my patents were well put together and offering to help defend them to doing the exact opposite








I take the borderline esoteric unmethodical approach to the trial and error on the film as shown in his blog and find a lot of points in common with the blog of the camera in question where the claimed research and development amounted to published instances all by trial and error.




When you go public and post trial and error efforts you are posting an implied admission that the subject matter has zero obviousness to you as of that date so when you later want to rewrite the story as you go along - have the cake and eat it too and mention obviousness I laugh.




a 270mm rotelar was attempted and such labeled a project;)




most of the people reading his would immediately know you need at least 27cm bellow extension . or when a 150 mm xenotar lens was placed on an non reinforced 100b front standard and results posted were taken using ground glass yet we verified that when the camera was put on its side the lens would swing to the side several centimeters even yanking up the whole focusing bed due to its 2+ kilo weight.




that is in what refers to the lack of honesty in what is technical and relevant in the offering of a product which most buyers would have to be informed that the product does not have combined coupled cropping and focusing or the proper bellow extension to justify interchangeable lenses or that combined fixed infinity stop is a technical impossibility because each lens is slightly different in focal length requiring forward and backward individual adjustment for this and because a lack of perfectible parallelism will affect infinity distance differently for different lenses and any variance in vertical parallelism would render the camera unadjustable for 2 out of the 3 focal lengths offered..




In regards to the business itself and in regards to an expectation that patents would be properly researched and respected that is a joke as people only respect patents in fear of the consequences of failing to do so.




When I go to the site and see this person shamelessly and publicly instructs is clients to engage in defrauding the local tax authority and that remains published nobody should assume this person has made any effort to comply and respect our patents .




What a dilemma one one side to expect things be disclosed for what they are and on the other you find people rather opt for an endless self congratulatory list of achievement where the facts don’t fit as another maker once claimed " that would be shooting yourself in the foot- why would anyone set out to make a camera and then do that?"




My answer is because failing to do so ruins the market for everyone especially filmmakers and the reason Polaroid created there OEM division after being blamed for poor performance on their films from botchy conversions and contraptions after they ceased professional camera manufacture in 1972.




I introduced the innovation of lens interchangeability in these cameras but limited bellow extension - shallow depth of field aggravated by potential parallelism error and


the impractical issue of a fixed finder at the end of the day lens interchangeability was demonstrably a direct threat to ruin the utility of a single lens non interchangeable lens camera by threatening reliance and in the best case scenario if this could be somewhat prevented the additional les- lenses could not yield extra utility because of lack of bellow extension or front standard structural issues and or issues mentioned ref infinity settings requiring independence.




And most importantly if the camera can accommodate a wide angle lens due to its shorter bellow extension it is also not coupled for rangefinder or cropping and again pointless as a 200 dollar speed graphic can have lens interchangeability- movements and focus thru ground glass requiring no conversion and is not significantly heavier or inconvenient than a camera that offers absolutely no increase of utility at 10 times the price . why is that being withheld?




From what people tell me in their emails they feel they are being led to believe that it is a Littman camera for less and due to the lens interchangeability therefore yielding more utility at a better price.




that is entirely false!




There is an ongoing conspiracy to defend this travesty by a handful of straw dogs for reasons which do not interest me but the verse rings’ somewhat like' there is nothing wrong with the Littman 45 its just the personality of the maker".




I got along with Mr. Crowley for a few days until I had to draw a line in the sand where 2+2 =4 because I need to in order to sell my product when hypocrites’ change the story depending who they are addressing and what they hope to get out of the conversation.




This whole issue has been deliberately misrepresented as interchangeability being an increase in utility and therefore the Littman being less desirable.




that is demonstrably entirely false - unfair competition - libel and defamatory and the uninformed buyers who end up with an interchangeable lens camera without the expected utility of an interchangeable lens camera are therefore defrauded .




I am posting this here because I have been denied the opportunity to defend my rights on Mr. Crowley’s blog and by these actions I’m being robbed blind -defamed and seriously inconvenienced when people contact me to ask why don’t I offer lens interchangeability in a tone which is derogatory and the failure to make such available thought to be a lesser quality in this case .




When I introduced my patents I was a Polaroid OEM manufacturer under contract- Polaroid still had some active patents on the film and most importantly if less restriction and more cameras they could have sold more film right?




Not at all!




there are more Lf cameras in existence today and then than film can be made combining all emulsions color and black and white. and digital is free and people only buy film again when the expenditure is merited.




This post is made because by tradition film manufacturers have earned the public trust in regards to viable cameras as in the beginning most availability of cameras was offered by the likes of Kodak- Polaroid- Agfa etc.




in those cases the trust was merited and the information disclosed / conveyed was for the most part accurate and truthful.




When the Impossible project got under way it made 2 camera offerings thru Polapremium claiming these were the first 4x5 Polaroid cameras which was false and defamatory




there was no public retraction of correction.- the actions by Crowley as a second blow in this matter are somewhat implied legitimized by a claimed support From the impossible project and it is important to so inform the public so as to minimize future potential damages accrue on top of the extensive careless and unjustifiable discredit already caused so the public can readily be reminded of what is relevant in that when Polaroid was alive and well and making Lots of film they found my patents valuable- valid and worthy of granting an OEM contract for this purpose As Per Mr. Crowley’s words I should expect no less from him and neither should any of you.




It is my right and that of the public to have access to truthful information as to make informed decisions that in essence is what justifies the first amendment.




Mr. Crowley’s announcement that what doesn’t aggrandize his purpose has been deleted by a moderator and how serious that a simple phrase which remains posted may appear somewhat nonsensical/ out of sync is an expectation for another time perhaps when Nixon was in office or for LBJ type tactics.




In closing I remind that while everyone is entitled to opinions- those in a position which by affiliation or claimed trade earns the public trust have a duty to honor such trust




I didn’t ask for the job of having to post this kind of clarification before I can sell my product because they refuse and post it because I have no choice- that is a loose / loose scenario and that isn’t where I should find myself at this point.


In the past I have read that some find this justifiable because they believe I’m the only one getting hurt. Such is the position that could only be taken by someone who as no true direct interest in the matter as seem to have been most of the aggressive responses by tumblers who get drawn onto whatever fight is next because of being aimless- that is nobody’s fault except for those who benefit by exposure when misrepresenting things and when they are clarified as believe that there is no bad publicity. Go figure!


a change is long overdue!




I think Mr. Crowley should continue his efforts to make is film and that the attention he receives be based on the merit and facts of such efforts instead


I thank you




all best William Littman




December 09, 2011 23:13
User photo
Gus Klein

So....what you are saying is that your patents are the ones needed for peelapart, or 4x5?  If so, why don't you make the film?

December 10, 2011 01:16
User photo


i have no film related patents only for cameras

have a great weekend

December 10, 2011 01:29
User photo


It seems a lot of you had a question which is a consequential of lens interchangeability or lens removal for closure.




Should we forget that there were millions of the amateur versions of these cameras and many 100b cameras sitting in attics collecting dust virtually unused after 60 years mainlybecause of parallelism issues and reliance issues.




you take the phrase' reliance hinges on..."




the answer is since i did not need to exchange the lens and risk tolerance errors light trap errors or other hinge type problems I opted for removal ofthe front element




for custom lenses




the stats are as follows




12 years and 300 cameras with custom lenses and not a single ruoned thread




12 years and thousands of remarkable images none ruined due to problems stemming from lens removal.




the original cameras did not require the lens be removed but had a lot of error in linkage- you take a 2 sided holder with 4 mm play in the film chamber and the perfectible parallelism gain is lost anyway so you choose a grafmatic instead.




he guarantee on my new cameras is that if you maintain it and adjust it regularly you can shoot wide open and have a significant gain in quality.




true quality does not work by brand- you buy the German car and will work properly if you tune it up and not by the hood ornament.




When these cameras first came to life the tech culture in America considered waste negilible cost of doing business or usage mainly because of cheap oil.




If the highways have a oil spill line in the middle of each lane who cares- you buy more oil.




the difference here is that in my case the word need doesn’t apply as a usual expectancy.




My market isn’t people buying a camera because they need an overall higher quality but because they seen the ability to have control over selective quality.




When you confirm that the" true sharpness of a lens wide open is shallower than a sheet of computer paper you have to remove potential error in order to have such selective control.




if you don’t retighten the rear screws of a graflock back your selectiveness is first lost sufficiently and what happens next is you get leaks.




and not the other way around. you may not have leaks as the velvet may still prevent that but your holder may not be flush with the camera.




You tell that to someone who uses 2 sided holders and you are wasting your time and his since 4mm amounts to about20 sheets of computer paper.




The reason most Lf photography had to be stop down photography is due to the paramount inefficiency of film holders +lack of parallelism correction in cameras




and other linkage type problems.




but in this application and for the purpose of hand held use we went back to front element removal after verifying it was superior tolerance compliance- less potential error and less maintenance requirement due to installation and removal.




the second question I was hit with most last night is valid as well as I failed to remind that due to the extensive separation between the film plane and lens in large format




there isn’t a significant variance between a 135 and a 150 or between a 120 and a 135 for most users to notice a difference and having the option of one coupled to rangefinder and coupled cropping and the other not coupled the choice is a no brainier.


For those for whom the non significant difference is still relevant from an aesthetic point of view the more reason for which they buy a second camera with the rangefinder and parallax coupled for it.




certainly not inexpensive alternative. the inexpensive alternative while seeking to be able to shoot wide open and have even focus throughout the film plane could be to seek an used older version of the German technical camera if you don’t mind the weight and slightly less responsiveness which is not an issue for those who do not photograph people.




Since i just mentioned the yardstick of excellence in traditional hand held photography let me remind that their product has remained virtually unchanged in principle since world war II and if you look at it today you probably wouldn’t change a thing though a wedding photographer or 2 might come up with a myriad of must haves they marry on to their cameras.




My challenge was to take what is basically nothing but a push cart in essence and have it perform as if a camera twice the weight while adding couple parallax in a quantitative (amount) and qualitative( that shows how things look on film( despite not being slr).




The result is a camera with such qualities if maintained by the user but that otherwise from the exterior looks much like your grandpas 100b and the reason for it being an easy target .




once i reached the maximum tech gain - i went on to focus on exterior design as an area which gives me great creative satisfaction that too was misused to say


so its grandpas 100b but now with bling;)




I wish i would have had just a few more months in 2003 to complete the mold process and the camera would have been mass produced and costing little over 600.00 to the consumer and upgradeable but... people wrote to me threatening that they could use the publicity and then they have been using it since and as I first described




December 10, 2011 18:03
User photo

A few quick answers to follow-up questions

Most applicable 90 mm lens is f 6.8- f9 aperture- that and hand held use with available light are two concepts that don’t fit in the same sentence.


Use of a 90mm lens or wider hand held without a cropping finder is once again something that doest fit on the same sentence if to be read by large format photographers due to the extensive barrel distortion expected.


Use of a 90mm lens or wider without coupled rangefinder on a camera costing 2000 is truly novel indeed since


the scenario requires stopped down iris and thus having zero utility for the application- perhaps the extent of the literary license and self aggrandizing is the reason for the name choice and all of the emphasis placed thus far on English writing skills in related discussions at the expense of photographic principles and reason


And the Littman can support a 90mm lens WITH coupled cropping and rangefinder.


In what refers to my reference to methods used to divert attention from technical merit- relevance and usefulness to fabricated character flaws inviting us all to vote based on character rather than what is truly relevant here are a few examples of this ongoing new trend which is a consequential of 2 factors

1) the decline in presence by accredited journalists due to trade publication /magazine decline starting in 2008.

2) that void being filled by raconteurs who have both never had direct contact with what is being relayed and to whom the answer to the question may be for purposes described in the following 2 articles.

Relevant because it is by that process of misinformation and black propaganda that type 55 was believed to have ceased to be available in many occasions from 2001 to 2008 requiring massive efforts to reassure the market that the product was still available.

the first article deals with the lighter side of sense of entitlement when the dissent is first introduced

as covert self serving and self promotional efforts to advance socially at the expense of our good name in diatribes claiming justification on a baseless and arrogant sense of entitlement .

Once rumor has been brewed sufficiently and accepted as fact the next stage is an invitation that the dissent created against a symbol be turned into action


December 15, 2011 18:43
User photo

A lot has occurred over the  last month and i have a few questions.

 if any of you is familiar with the staff who manufactured 55 at waltham please have them contact m by email.

if the machines were destroyed an e6 machine runs 200 g this one could cost 3 times more. less than a half ass home in foreclosure.


It seems that there is a renewed interest  and i have come up with a plan if i can get the main tech support i have found a n experinced company which would do the actual manfacture one who would distribute it and one who would run the financial. im not a film manufacturer and i dont believe in moonshine.

I leave such pursuits to racconteurs and fiddlers.


And in order to gauge past experiences I have 1 more question which can be answered via the link

thank you





Until I know more i do not wish to meddle in the speculative- raise false hopes or get distracted by opinion.

January 05, 2012 00:46
User photo
Gus Klein


Is this what you are complaining about? or film?

January 14, 2012 21:09
User photo


Twelve years ago when I introduced my camera the internet and blogging was still on diapers. At first I thought responses to issues had some relevance . That was until I consulted a firm specializing on the internet and IP law and the sobering statistic was that on most issues 50 per cent of those polled are in favor and 50 per cent are opposed. It didn't appear to matter whether these issues were crimes against humanity . Economics or technical issues. That is the first aspect- you see a discussion and may see "2 people like this". Does it really matter if people don't like whether 2+2 =4? . Certainly appears to matter so much to people who rate things that it seems to induce change when you are pressured to adjust accordingly.


That is the key problem when what is relevant has to be entertainment before it can be relevant.It is for this reason that  after a couple of years wasting my time being annoyed I grew up sufficiently and learned that popularity is a measure of good politics for the most part and that technical facts tend to be unpopular specially when they justify a higher cost  which can't be justified to those who don't seek a higher quality as the end product is not the subject of the discussion but  having the last word.

I have been heavily criticized as a name dropper  because I focused my efforts and aim based on the opinions of my clients who are the top 1 per cent of the photographic profession and such choice was based on the fact my clients opinions had no concern for the popularity of their comments but were strictly based

on performance .

Perhaps in the future people reading discussions will  find true statistics when reading ratings such as

The littman 45 single camera is agreed to be the most responsive - easiest to use- lightest weight 4x5 camera ( while having the ability of offering all of its functions working at full potential and in synergy) and those opinions are substantiated by the fact that the extensive array of images produced not only has

the technical merit in what pertains to using a big negative but has all of the spontaneity benefits sought of smaller formats present and as such is the only reason that would justify the use of a large format camera hand held at these crossroads in time.

That is what would be amusing to those with a genuine passion for the subject being excellence in photography.

But even on that subject opinion is equally divided.

Some will recognize and admire talent and excellence and embrace it despite the fact they wont be able to go that far they will try to be the best they can and as such recognize the efforts of those with similar pursuits.


The other side of the coin is difficult to ignore especially at these crossroads when  quantity takes precedence to quality.


Those seeking to obtain the excellence in their images which combines technical with aesthetics and spontaneity will do so despite the fact that the decisive moment  is a huge amount of  physical - intellectual - and financial effort  and in which the key factor requires risk taking and proper utilization of a millisecond .


If you pay attention to polls pay attention to this;

12 years of discussions on the subject show that anyone who was willing to be bothered to do what is required to bridge the gap and take this type of photographic approach to the next level said were amused

After the images showcased justified the investment financially- creatively and hence the affinity is neither capricious nor frivolous.


The polls also show that more people are bothered of what they see as unreasonable recognition of those deemed most creative and who view this as elitist . An easy target .


A lot of people have been inflamed by the conversion issue and enlisted  only to find out in most cases that what I say is 100% fact and that if you do not seek the combined qualities of  accurate cropping 100% accurate rangefinder enabling to shoot wide open while mobile - even focus throughout the film plane ; that what the sought to achieve was something else for which this type of camera was probably not their best choice

And considering the cost of 4x5 film were not amused that the subject has been so misrepresented and tainted by a handful which appear to equate amusement with sadism. I have asked photographers to take sides on this to be on their side. If genuine photographic  principle and pursuits is the target that side will also be mine Nobody I know or care about and or respect their opinion  gives a hoot about anything else and that is where we find ourselves thank you .

After 12 years those who sabotage as a means of getting my attention and or to show me who's in charge have wasted 12 years . Me and my clients have no time to waste- what I say is true and can be proven relevant and  genuine to  photographers seking the qualities that would justify my product.

January 17, 2012 11:06
User photo

Cheers to all.

We finally had the opportunity to test the new   Littman perfectible parallelism improvement  alongside wit

h  a new aproach on cam design  which calculates a percentile loss of depth of field the closer you get to the subject and compensates accordingly by stricter tolerances.  stricter the closer you get to the subject.

The results of the tests using Fuji instant materials showed a 200% gain in overall quality as compared to the same aperture used on a camera not having the improvement.

 the translation to layman terms is.  100% viability to use instant 4x5 films without a negative  as final art for magazine or editorial work. or even as a base for murals

People like Bruce Weber had done that for years with the earlier Littman cameras but that required a much smaller aperture.  and which in many cases cancels out the use of natural light.

The prototype of a Xenotar used  while chasing a running model at F2.8  yielded a result superior to the same lens on a tripod focused thru ground glass

at f 5.6 on a camera without the improvements.

This in conjunction with special wet agents that can be used between the scanner and the print   has made it viable for  my customers used to shooting with type 55 but discouraged because of its discontinuation.

The negative had more quality  so we raised the quality of the camera to compensate for the lack of negative and succeded in  achieving the intended results in excess of any anticipated  expectations.

furthermorer we are working closely with a few engineers on a tech similar to video line doubling to raise the quality of the   better textured Littman prints to  a close to negative quality. 


July 19, 2012 23:24
User photo

How is this even remotely possible?

Large format lenses were designed fr optimum performance at F22.  and double dark film holders have an estimated play of 4 mm according to the Schneider website. Using holders which dont have this problem like spring loaded packs  is a good start then what a lens designed for optimum performance at f 22 can use  when wide open  to go from a point of focus like the tip of a nose  to a focused area like an entire face is that the lens projects equaly to all the points on the film corresponding . that is known as true paralellism..

The difference between a negative and a print of the same size is the film has the ability to retain more texture.

True parallelism can raise the ability of the positive print to retain more texture  whern a larger are becoes focuse concurretly using the same aperture.

When asked to describe the quality improvement I would say it gets closer to the feel of a Polaroid 8x10 which can be used hand held but still being 4x5.

Its not the same but  a practical blessing for mobile photography since Polaroid 8x10 would not be practical for most hand held applications.

Of course the quality using wet films in then off the charts  but that was established a few years back so we dont need to get repetitive.


July 20, 2012 00:03
User photo

This year we decided to extend the annual sale of this tech to students and educators thru August 15th

August 10, 2012 22:07
User photo
Ok thanks for the recent inquiries about a 3x4 peel apart camera with perfectible parallelism. We will only produce 20 this year for cristmass but have decided to offer the improvement to cameras which were converted by Bob- 4 Designs. The entire front focusing system is scrapped and replaced with a new one which offers close up capability+ tilt/ swing +perfectible patallelism which raises 3x 4 quAlity significantlyto approximate 4x5 we can only offer 5 of this propietary tech this year . when we do our own batch it will not be advertized- We have moved to service our old clientelle which is dedicated and accomplished editorial photographers and which as one of them have a effortless/ on the same page understanding of what is priority to people who seek cameras for true hand held candid photograohy
August 13, 2012 03:00
User photo

Happy Labor Day everyone! Pleased to release our new facebook page All best and have a great season!

there will be a new folder shooting integral flms by xmass and other new tech from tme to time

cheers w!/Littman45SingleOpusArteCollection

September 03, 2012 21:52
User photo
Happy to report that Littman 45 single Just celebrated its XII Anniversary at the PDN PHOTO +EXPO 2012 you can check our Facebook page for all the latest news. Great success as a result of using the perfectible parallelism to shoot Fuji 100 color film as final art for black and white and color. Also Pilaroid introduced a thermal/ Digital camera at the show- they photographed me with the camera and a sample is posted.all our latest news can be found on this page. our site has not been updated since 2007 namely because most out buisness is strictly word of mouth and mostly proficient professionals and as whatwedo now is one of a kind customization
November 02, 2012 06:04
User photo
Here is a link to the page LEDgo has a great ringlight for the L45s you may see a video of the Show Best wishes to all who were affected by Sandy and a speedy recovery.
November 02, 2012 06:10
User photo

BREAKING NEWS a negative is no longer needed !!!!

As you all know Polaroid discontinued production of instant films and Fuji discontinued production of 4x5 films

a significant development to communicate using synergy of technologies  in that the new Littman 3x4 single camera with perfectible parallelism  enables to photograph using fuji 3x4 prints with out the intervention of lens iris and wide open and obtain very high detail - texture  and even focus thuout the film plane= essential because 3x4 does not have that much bokeh if lens stopped down.

then you take a new digital programing tech called fractals that enables to enlarge to any size without loss of quality or grain increase and you have  a fuji 3000 asa film which can when used with the L34 single produce  results even superior to type 55 and the type 100 c  100 asa color film was tested to enable to recover a color negative  previously by different qusi esopteric teqniques with inconsistent results by abrasion of the Black backing but the results can be inconsistent esoteric and time consuming not to mention unpractical but by using a Newly released L34 single with perfectible parallelism you can override the limitation that 3x4 inch format does not have such a shallow depth of field unless shot wide open .
As the perfectible parallelism ensures absolute sharpness with iris wide open and even focus thruout the film plane
An absolute requisite when shooting instant prints 3x4 inches and still hope for maximum gain.

At a 1to 1 ratio with no enlargement the Fuji prints have great quality and a new digital programming or should I say newly improved tech called fractuals allows you to enlarge these prints to virtualy any size without any visible loss of quality or grain increase.
Of course it does not have the shallow depth of field of 8x10 Polaroid but for hand held editorial capture
You can have outstanding
100 asa color - Desaturate it into black and white and use the curves to aproximate type 55 no sweat.
Or more incredible is to be able to shoot 3000 asa black and white and blow it up to double page editorial with a grain which looks no bigger than asa 200.
Again the tonal range cam be manipulated in this case to look like a3000 asa type 55.
This should be of interest to those who dont need everyone else to like something before they do
And the rest can keep using their ay ay ay phone haha
A batch of 20 L 34 single cameras is being produced for Xmass delivery.
With a lanthanum rare earth vintage 127 lens or a hyper crisp Schneider apo Symmar 120 mm

8 are taken.

June 19, 2013 20:34