Film Show us your Fujifilm GF670 Professional Medium Format Camera

[Isoterica]

my expectations are VERY low. Using it makes me feel like a fraud.I'm going to start a fresh roll on Monday and see if it gets any easier.

You must have used film cameras before It's just a matter of getting back to your roots is all. Even with an old Ansco Memar Pronto.. that I cleaned and resultantly left cleaning marks (first time I did this, I improved!), I got some dreamy-hazy albeit overexposed shots that because of the lens and my ignorance of the camera, would have been boring if they turned out right. Your camera should be far better than that little camera, which ironically everyone wants because of how I hazed it up.

 

[Lawrence A.]

Garry, you must be confusing the gf670 with one of Fuji's other medium format cameras. The gf uses an electronic leaf shutter that is so silent that many users complain that they are occasionally unsure if they have actually taken a photo and that the only way to tell is to attempt to advance the film.

Also, there is no lens cap

The Fuji GS645S has a shutter mechanism that goes KA-THWACK! But I love the thing.

 

[Luke]

Got my first roll back.

*sound the trumpets*

Silence please.......


Frame #1

1st shot by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

 

[Luke]

OK....maybe I didn't load the film right?

2nd frame was überblurry.

The 3rd frame I kinda like. It wouldn't be a keeper for you real photographers. But I like it (and it's the only halfway decent shot on the roll). It's the kind of shot that this camera was made for (if you ask me). Unfortunately, it's not the kind of shot I normally take. I was trying to see the scene the way that Paul might (of course, it's in colour so I already blew it). I may try to convert it to b/w later.

B090522-R1-09-10 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

 

[Luke]

Here's one where I was in a coffee house in dim light. I opened it up all the way which I knew would make a shallow DOF, but that's fine. I only need Lauren in focus...the rest is just atmosphere and context. So I line her up in the rangefinder patch and focus and then recompose (wondering in the back of my mind if I've shifted the plane of focus too far).

Did I just miss my focus on her, or did my "recomposition" by turning a bit throw it that far out?

Also, the dust and debris of the scan is fine with me.....seems like my local camera shop does not charge extra for the scans. It was $8.75 for developing and the disc of scans (which are roughly 1800 x 1800....more than good enough for web use and if I want better, I can do the good ones myself).

B090522-R1-06-7 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

 

[pdh]

Hurrah
(its 530 and I was woken up at 2 by badgers and now I've been woken up by weird dreams and jacadaws, , and I'm on my phone, so its the best I can manage just now)

 

[romi.gilles]

I'm really, really, really wanting to get a tx-2 (or the xpan ii). I've been dreaming about it lately. lol

 

[pdh]

Well, I'd be amazed if the first 12 shots of any new camera were perfect. I've owned precisely 3 digital cameras and without fail my first year's shooting with each was a waste of light ...

So I expect you'll grow into it fine, so long as you enjoy using it.

On the techynickle front, you shouldn't get get a lost frame at the beginning or end of the roll in 120, and it's quite a sharply defined area. Sometimes it's all too easy to let the roll unroll a bit which can cause light leaks round the horizontal edges, but this is a bit different. It's almost as if having loaded the camera and wound it on to the first frame, the back was opened a crack. Or when you loaded the film you wound it on further than the arrow indicator before closing the back and completing the winding on. or the lab did something dumb.

As for dirt and dust, if it's careless scanning, well as you say you can always scan them yourself, but if it's the negatives that are messy, I'd change your lab.
If you've still got a manual 50mm kicking about you can use that as a loupe to examine the negative on a lightbox (smartphone or tablet have apps to convert them to a lightbox)

COlour and exposure look pretty good

 

[KillRamsey]

Well I love the look of that lens, and that film. But I'm trying to think of a way to slowly undermine your confidence in this camera so you get all depressed and sell it to me at a massive discount, "just to be rid of it." I'd appreciate it if you didn't go out and shoot another roll immediately and get better with it.

 

[Luke]

And you gotta do at least one reflected selfie on your first roll....right? Here's me walking the dogs around Scout Lake park. I love this funky old building and seeing the stuff inside and the reflected foliage on the other side of the lake behind me.

B090522-R1-02-3 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

most of the shots seem to have a bit of a magenta cast to them....in particular the shots from this day. Is that some sort of color correction from the lab? Is it related to the amount of green in the photo or the slight overexposure? The film is Ektar 100, btw. Again, after I get my eBay work out of the way today, I'll reward myself with some scanner time and see what all is on these big negatives. Here's some more test shots of no artistic merit to show you the magenta cast (at least that's the way I perceive it). And I believe I had all these shots with the exposure compensation dial set at +1. Obviously, these are straight as shot and processed. If they were worth the time, I could dial back the exposure in post.

B090522-R1-01-2 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

B090522-R1-03-4 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

B090522-R1-04-5 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

B090522-R1-05-6 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

 

[Isoterica]

And you gotta do at least one reflected selfie on your first roll....right? Here's me walking the dogs around Scout Lake park. I love this funky old building and seeing the stuff inside and the reflected foliage on the other side of the lake behind me.

B090522-R1-02-3 by Luke Lavin, on Flickr

Luke! You has made the Art! This is so fun, good for you. And here you were leading us to believe you got nothing out of that camera!

 

[KillRamsey]

I get that same warm red tone from Ektar. It's baked in, I think.

 

[pdh]

I noticed the magenta cast, it could be from slightly poor development (slack maintenance of the machine, old or oxidized chemicals, poor temperature control, that kind of thing. My local minilab only ever used to switch on their machine when I brought in a film, which is why I started to use a mail-order pro lab and then DIY).

The greens reds and yellows are pretty much perfect, aren't they, but the whites and blues and earth tones are a bit off. I see almost exactly the same in some of my DIY colour developing, so I'm guessing a process problem.

Or it might be the scanning.

You should be able to do a bit to correct it in LR or whatever by adjusting the WB (colour temperature)

 

[romi.gilles]

i kind of like it like that. like a filtered effect. i like a lot of the imperfections of film and its processes.