I love my Fuji GW690II. The rangefinder patch is a bit dim/low contrast, but I'd bet that if I could find somebody to service it, it would be much clearer. My only gripe...the negatives are too huge for my situation. With my scanning set-up I have to pano stitch together 12 images to get everything. The upshot is the scans are gigantic.
Bought a camera with a roll of what I thought was Portra 160 in it and 8 pictures taken. Thought I'd continue to shoot on it and process it to see what was on it. After I finished the roll I saw it was Portra 160 NC. What is that 20 year old film?
I shot it at EI 100 and processed via ECN-2. Anyway I obviously underexposed it and cross processed it to boot. And even abused it with remjet remover solution. But still turned out legible considering.
Seeing all the big Fuji images posted lately has me itching to take out my GSW690II again.
I was recently on the fence about selling it and cashing in on the increase in price since I bought it 5 years ago (paid $500 with 16 on the counter), but I've decided to keep it for now. I don't shoot it much, but nothing else I have matches it for very long exposures with ND filters. Rangefinder allows framing and composition with filters on and 'T' speed means you don't even need a shutter release.
Here's one from the last time I had it out about a year ago, around 15 minutes on Acros II.
OregonSun wrote:
Seeing all the big Fuji images posted lately has me itching to take out my GSW690II again.
I was recently on the fence about selling it and cashing in on the increase in price since I bought it 5 years ago (paid $500 with 16 on the counter), but I've decided to keep it for now. I don't shoot it much, but nothing else I have matches it for very long exposures with ND filters. Rangefinder allows framing and composition with filters on and 'T' speed means you don't even need a shutter release.
Here's one from the last time I had it out about a year ago, around 15 minutes on Acros II.
I was looking for some medium format to try my hands at something new and it has a special look(Medium format I mean) sometimes and I wanted that too.
The Fuji 690 II or III( I wanted a III but couldn’t find one) felt as a noob quite a bargain considering as much as it felt more portable than most. After having taken it for a spin it confirmed that it’s more light and easy to carry than I even had anticipated.
I don’t have a clear idea about it yet but for a medium format camera, it has some advantages and it is beautiful.
My Gojira Leica.
OregonSun wrote:
Seeing all the big Fuji images posted lately has me itching to take out my GSW690II again.
I was recently on the fence about selling it and cashing in on the increase in price since I bought it 5 years ago (paid $500 with 16 on the counter), but I've decided to keep it for now. I don't shoot it much, but nothing else I have matches it for very long exposures with ND filters. Rangefinder allows framing and composition with filters on and 'T' speed means you don't even need a shutter release.
Here's one from the last time I had it out about a year ago, around 15 minutes on Acros II.
Tina Kino wrote:
... I want something that looks a bit more "classy" / elegant than HP5, and Tri-X 400 ...
I did a very rough comparison between Delta 400, Tmax 400, HP5 and Tri-X with the result that HP5 gave me an actual film speed of ISO400, while the others were slower. That was good enough for me to make it my default ISO400 film. I find it classy enough, but perhaps that's because I am using it in 120 size. Also, once I started loving the grain in other peoples' images, I tried to embrace it in my own, and I have mostly succeeded.
theHUN wrote:
I did a very rough comparison between Delta 400, Tmax 400, HP5 and Tri-X with the result that HP5 gave me an actual film speed of ISO400, while the others were slower. That was good enough for me to make it my default ISO400 film. I find it classy enough, but perhaps that's because I am using it in 120 size. Also, once I started loving the grain in other peoples' images, I tried to embrace it in my own, and I have mostly succeeded.
theHUN wrote:
I did a very rough comparison between Delta 400, Tmax 400, HP5 and Tri-X with the result that HP5 gave me an actual film speed of ISO400, while the others were slower. That was good enough for me to make it my default ISO400 film. I find it classy enough, but perhaps that's because I am using it in 120 size. Also, once I started loving the grain in other peoples' images, I tried to embrace it in my own, and I have mostly succeeded.
For fine grain I either use Acros or digital.
Thanks for your feedback!
I've read many conflicting things about the true film speed of Tri-X, I'm curious what I'll find with my own tests 🙂
And yes, I think everything looks more classy in 120 💁♂️
Canon P, Voigtländer Color-Skopar 35/2.5 LTM, Fomapan 100 (at EI 50). This is the first roll of film I've developed myself since about 1971; the tech at the lab where I bought my equipment said it would be like riding a bicycle, it would all come back to me, but she was wrong...it was a stressful experience but it all worked out in the end.
