marcus carlsson

I have build both a couple of 4x5" and 8x10". I first bought Jon Grepstad's book on how to build a 4x5". But I thought that the format was to small, so I just adapted the drawings to 8x10".

It's not hard and the only thing that is really crucial is the distance where the ground glass lays. The space between the negative and the negative-holder's wall has to be the same. Maybe you don't understand me, but it's pretty obvious in the book.

I'm sorry that I don't have any drawing on my camera though. But you can see the old horse here:

http://home.online.no/~gjon/marcus.htm

/ Marcus

Have you tried www.largeformatphotography.info/forum (a great site dedicated to LF) and eBay?

/ Marcus

Try to take more photos of children when they are relaxed. Eye-contact with children is one of the thing I like.

/ Marcus

Can't you ask your girlfriend to slow down a bit?

I once had a model that reposed rely fast, and I noticed that eventhough my camera didn't had any problem with it, I did. I feel that one has to see the image when taking it and just not take a frame and then hope everything was ok.

But that's me :)

/ Marcus

Kids in that age don't care about sex and if they stand like that maybe it's because they have seen an advert where a woman stands like it.

Man, I'm so fet up with this continues debate. Soon, my baby girl will not be able to eat a banana out in public!!

I agree with the above speakers saying that the title should be removed and actually photoghraphies shouldn't need a title at all.

/ Marcus

Do it like this:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2940947">One Example</a>

<br><br>

No, actually, I don't know what promenent means, but can't you take the guy and put him near some bushes or trees. If you have shallow DOF it may be nice.

<br>

/ Marcus

I have a Sinar F2 and naturally think that you should get one :)

No, seriously it depends if you are planning to hike a lot and then should look for a camera that weight less. I do mostly portrait indoor or outdoor and don't hike with it.

One advantage with Sinar is that you can switch parts and continue to build on the system (everything connects with each other).

/ Marcus

I used to have a 3170 and as you say it won't work for 4x5"

I bought an Epson V700 and sure it isn't cheap, but it takes two 4x5" in one scan, but the most wonderful thing is that the light is moving when scanning and therefore you get very even light on the negative (and not as it is in the 3170 (where you can see the light-tube)).

/ Marcus

Sure it's expensive, but when you stand there and looking at the ground glass with the image upside-down and mirrored it's the greatest feeling in the world. And since setting up the camera and focusing and shooting with it is a bit slower than other cameras, I think that the photograph and whatever is being photographed becomes ONE.

I just love it and mostly I just take one or two shots of my models and I know that I get a damn good picture, so I don't use that much film so now when I have the gear it isn't that expensive. But naturally digital is less expensive, but not a 1/10th of fun (for me)

/ Marcus

Well it depends on you. I can just say my story.

I first started with 135-film. But I felt that it came out to grainy. I built a couple of 8x10" and thought it was wonderful. But due to lack of enlarger I gave it up. I then bought a DLSR, but I gave up that too. I hated it because I feel that it doesn't make me think.

I then bought a Hasselblad and love it, but last summer I bought a scanner that took 4x5" and I build a new 4x5" and I must say that I just love it.

Sure it is bulkier and it takes longer time (I almosts only shoot portrait of children and my hit-ratio isn't that high)

But I just love that it can take 30 minutes or so to just set it up and take ONE picture. I feel that one becomes ONE with the subject and I just love that feeling.

/ Marcus

I agree with Bruce.

I just love LF for portraits just because that you only shot very few negatives and you become one with your subject instead.

/ Marcus

Allison, when I first started to do some street, I was looking to make that perfect shot, like the masters have. But now when I look back. If I would see that perfect shot coming, I would probably not have the nerves to take the shot. And therefor as I said before. The main purpose of the first shots should just to make yourself comfortable. Hey, you won't even have to look into the viewfinder in the beginning. If you have a digital, you won't have any cost taking the testshots.

But I can guarantee you that after a couple of hours shooting you won't have any problems, taking a photo close as 3 feet from your subject.

And one more thing. when you are walking outside to do some street. Always have the finger on the shutter-button (don't know the name of the button) and be ready.

Good luck.

/ Marcus

I can assure you that you are not alone when thinking like this. I think that pretty much every street photographer have felt like this.

However, when you have done some streetphotography a while, you will know that almost none of your subject will knock you down :)

For instance. In the summer you will probably see many tourists taking photos of things that tourists should take. But people won't see you as a photographer that want to take streetphotos. But merely as a tourist.

Naturally I know that now when the fall and winter is coming the tourists will now be that many and you won't blend in that much. But however, I think that the people around you will think of you as a tourist or they wouldn't even mind what you are photograph of.

When I first started I went out on a fairly large city here in Sweden (population 200.000+). I went out all day and thought that the quality of the photo wasn't the main focus here, but I wanted to get over the bad feeling photographing unknown.

I mainly wanted to take images of people doing nothing special. First I told to my self that it was ok to take images maby 30 feet away from the subject. I did this in maybe a hour or so. After that I kept taking pictures closer and closer to the subject. Sometimes I stood in a corner where either tourists would stand or when many people just was passing by. After a couple of hours (with some break in between) I felt that actually none was paying any attention to me. Naturally I took many shots where the subject was just stearing into the camera (as probably I would do to if someone would take my picture when I was walking by).

I also noticed that when I took a photo of someone it is easier if you don't put down the camera as soon as you have taken the photo. For instance if you see a person passing you by, you either will raise the camera quickly or already have it raised. You take the picture, but you don't lower it. The subject will belive that you haven't taken any photo yet.

And try not to look at the person, but look beyond him. But if you accidently get eye-contact, just smile. Hopefully he/she will smile back. Otherwise the hit won't be as painfull since you have a soft face smiling :)

I hope that this tips will make it easier to you. But I can quarantee you that it will feel uncomfortable in the beginnnig, but the photos you take in the beginning isn't taken for the beauty, but to learn that you won't have to ask anybodies permission and you won't be knocked down.

/ Marcus

I have built a couple of 8x10 and 4x5. Unfortunatly I don't have any blu-print. But if you google after Jon Grepstad you may find some nice information.

/ Marcus

David: I will check this later today, but my main question about this is that the film has a mark all the way out on the very end of the film. And what I think, is that the outer end shouldn't be affected by this problem, or am I wrong?

/ Marcus

Donald, Since my last roll had 8 bad images (in a row, starting with number 3, so the last image didn't had any) I don't think it's the Jobo's fault.

I'm started to think that I may have a light leak where you put the inner part togeather with the outer one. I'm sorry that I don't have an image right now, but I wonder if one should change the light trap there too.

/ Marcus

Hi,

My A12 started to leak light for a couple of weeks ago.

<br>

I bought a light trap package from the bay and I have changed the light trap.

<br>However I still have light leak and it's in the same place as before, so I

find it hard to belive that the trap was wrong (eventhough the trap was really

broken so it needed a fix anyway,

<br><br>

But I wonder if anyone of you have had this problem and how should I find it?

<br>NB. I don't get the leakage in every frame, but say 5 frames out of 12 (in

an irregular pattern).

<br><br>

As you see the leakage is all the way out and comes from the side where you has

the light trap.

<br>

/ Marcus

<br><br>

<img src="http://lellou.com/photonet/leakage.jpg" />

You can make a very easy test yourself.

The auxillary shutter is placed where the film-back is placed and the leaf shutter is placed in the lens.

I belive that the auxillary shutter is open as long as you press the shutter.

You can remove the film-back and see what happends when you press the shutter. If you look at the back you will see the auxillary shutter open and stay open as long as you press the shutter. The leaf shutter should open and close accordingly the time being set. If you set it for 1/60 seconds and look in the back, where the aux-shutter is, you will see a short light through the camera and then the leaf shutter will close (you can turn the camera and look into the lens, you shouldn't be able to see through the camera. When you then release the shutter, the aux-shutter should close.

The overexposed images may come from wrong metering?

/ Marcus

I'm happy again :)

After taking a couple of rolls this weeken of my model. I noticed that the images was indeed even better than my 300d. Naturally if I zoom into 100% it won't look super. But I would never do that (the image is 6000x6000).

Anyway. I appreciate you all for taking your time and respond to my questions.

If you want to take a look of the result of the Hasselblad-images you can see them in my portrait-portfolio, called Anna and Anna ii.

/ Marcus

Well, the reason that I was a bit dissapointed is that if you just go to hasselblad.com and look at those images. They look superb. But perhaps they have ran through PS or a digital back was used.

I have found one big error in my handling. You see. When I have developed my Ilford FP4+ 120-film, I used an development chart I found on the 'net. It said that I should develeop the film in 9 minutes @ 20 degrees (D76 1+1). It was just the other day I saw on the paper container around the film that it said it should be 11 minutes!!

Probably the chart I used to use as my guide was for 135-film :)

So perhaps the contrast should be a bit better and therefore I assume that the images would look a bit sharper aswell. At least the eyelashes should be more visible now.

/ Marcus

Leo: Since I intend to shoot my models this weekend I will have my nonanimated subjects :)

/ Marcus

First of all, I have to thank you all guys.

My bad experience with my camera may depend on two things:

1) Since I haven't been shooting film since I had an LF-camera (3 years ago) I have forgotten all about grain and so (even though it didn't show up in my 8x10" camera).

If one look at the eye of the last post, due to it grainy look it looks unsharp to me. I know that it isn't at 1/500 etc and since it looks sharp in the uncropped version, it is maybe what one should expect when magnifying a film.

I should say though that I love the grain in a film, but maybe the grain is one of the reason it doesn't look as sharp as it does when using a digital camera.

2) My Ellen portrait looks ok or pretty good when viewing it in 600x600, but if one takes the original and makes an 100% crop it looks as the last post. I just want to be able to count individual eye-lashes (spelling) and I don't feel that it's sharp enough.

However. I will take photos with my Hasselblad of two models this weekend. Since they will have perfect makeup and their hair layed by proffessionals it may help a bit :)

My camera has the standard Acute Matte (with standar I mean only four black lines in the middle). I have bought a standard (not Acute matte) with microprism. But I think it's too hard to focus with that one when it's dark.

So, when shooting! my models this weekend I will try to rememer that use at least f8 to minimize error in my focusing.

And when it comes to my scanner I feel that I have to buy a newer one, because when I scan a dark B&W I can see the two lamps that light on the film in the picture, but that's another story :)

/ Marcus

Keith:

By the way, nice photos you have. How do you get your images digital?

/ Marcus