Photographers who shoot Fuji GW690 i/ii/iii

[RoboRepublic]

I've been tracking shots posted from this camera for a bit on the web, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think "wow, such a unique shot!"
Something unexpected for such a large negative and also, is something quite unlike my experience looking at photos out of RZ67/Pentax 67/Hasselblad V/Rolleiflex

I wonder if the aspect ratio is too close to 135, a format I seem fundamentally disinterested in these days (I'm sure I'll be back soon enough). Or it's possible I'm looking at work I don't find appealing?

I wanted to poll this forum for a well known photographer or two who has shot this camera with interesting results.

 

[Dennis-B]

It's a bit of both. There's been an adage out there for years that states, "A good large negative beats a great 35mm negative every time." While there's a lot of truth to it from a dimensional perspective, one still has to have a superior negative/transparency with better composition, exposure, subject matter, etc. Personally I've taken some real stinkers in medium format; no amount of dimensional superiority made up for them. And medium format is not different in that respect than large or 35mm format.

I'm not jaded in my judgement, just more critical, after seeing a lot of work that just didn't have what I think are the critical elements of photography.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

So you need to see what the camera is capable of in the hands of some great photographer, yet it sounds like you are making a purchasing decision? If this is so, then I don't understand. Any camera is capable of results that go from crap to stardom and everywhere in between. I'm not sure if I'm talking down or at since it is not news images are made by photographer not camera.

 

[RoboRepublic]

No, sorry I don't think I did a good job explaining- my intention isn't too buy the GW690 and friends.

My intention is to explore what I don't seem to find appealing about the images that I've seen out of it, and I'm trying to see if it's just what I've exposed myself to, or if there's something about the aspect ratio, or if it's some other preference I can't name.

Also if some one mentions a photographer, thats new to me, that's a pretty cool bonus

Also, I don't need to see anything, people seem to like the pictures the camera produces and I'm curious to understand, visually for myself, what appeals to them. If that makes sense at all!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

@RoboRepublic OK, that's clear enough. I never look at images from that angle (old tried and true Bresson and Leica is no indication of anything to me, not that I am a blind fan of HCB either).

 

[logan2z]

I wanted to poll this forum for a well known photographer or two who has shot this camera with interesting results.

I guess it depends what you mean by 'interesting results'. One of my favorite photographers is Robert Adams and he has used a Fuji GW690 for some of his work. I don't know if you will find his work interesting, though. Some people find it boring.

 

[albireo]

I've been tracking shots posted from this camera for a bit on the web, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think "wow, such a unique shot!"
Something unexpected for such a large negative and also, is something quite unlike my experience looking at photos out of RZ67/Pentax 67/Hasselblad V/Rolleiflex

I thought the same recently. I've concluded it's down to two things mainly:

1. The format is very close to 135mm, and people tend to try applying compositional rules they were used to with their DSLR or 135mm SLR. I have a feeling, by following the Fuji 690 group on facebook, that many new users of these 6x9 Fuji cameras are full frame DSLR users who want to check if 'they're missing something' by not shooting the biggest non- large format negative they can put their hands on. Many are in it for the technical aspect, mostly.

2. Scanning skills. It takes A LOT of skills to produce a great scan that really shows off the capabilities of a 6x9 negative. It is no less difficult than producing a great wet lab print. Many people jump into 6x9 photography as well as negative scanning at the same time and, overwhelmed by enthusiasm for the new purchase go out there on social media like "first shot with my new Fuji 690 GWIII. LOVIN' THIS THING".

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I thought the same recently. I've concluded it's down to two things mainly:

1. The format is very close to 135mm, and people tend to try applying compositional rules they were used to with their DSLR or 135mm SLR. I have a feeling, by following the Fuji 690 group on facebook, that many new users of these 6x9 Fuji cameras are full frame DSLR users who want to check if 'they're missing something' by not shooting the biggest non- large format negative they can put their hands on. Many are in it for the technical aspect, mostly.

2. Scanning skills. It takes A LOT of skills to produce a great scan that really shows off the capabilities of a 6x9 negative. It is no less difficult than producing a great wet lab print. Many people jump into 6x9 photography as well as negative scanning at the same time and, overcome by enthusiasm for the new purchase go out there on the social media like "first shot with my new Fuji 690 GWIII. LOVIN' THIS THING".

Not sure what you mean by "compositional rules". Rule of thirds works in any format, square, rectangular or otherwise, but it is not a cure for all ills. In fact there is no rule that can make an image all that good if the clicker has no imagination to help it out.

I do agree that crappy scan can ruin a perfectly good image, but I did not read OP's experience as derived from viewing bad scans, which usually can be spotted fairly easily.

Fuji 69 is large, has great potential, but no different than any camera. Due to size it is not a great handling street camera like 35mm RFs, but has advantages over some other MF mostly SLR and View cameras still being faster to engage in most situations. With only 8 frames available it can't be really used in same way as one with 36 frames.

As I don't ever check what camera an image was taken with (except for some LF work due to movements and their effect on given image), I can't help finding them from this one either, but no doubt there are photographs at least as good as from any other.

 

[halfaman]

I wonder if the aspect ratio is too close to 135, a format I seem fundamentally disinterested in these days.

That is my reason for your records. But I don't know why either.

 

[albireo]

Not sure what you mean by "compositional rules". Rule of thirds works in any format, square, rectangular or otherwise, but it is not a cure for all ills. In fact there is no rule that can make an image all that good if the clicker has no imagination to help it out.

In general I find that different composition guidelines will work with varying rates of success in different formats. For my taste, a 6x8 a 6x9 or 6x6 frame will need rather different starting mindsets to lead to a photograph I like.

I might like many 35mm pictures taken within a general rule of thirds guideline, however I find I will like fewer 6x6 photos taken within a rule of thirds guideline, as I find the square frame drives my attention in different ways. I might, for instance, like more 6x6 shots showing some degree of radial symmetry, whereas I will like fewer 6x9 shots showing some degree of radial symmetry.

Based on the above, my suggestion was that I believe a photographer used to taking 35mm photos, and then trying these 6x9 cameras, will possibly try to transpose directly (at least initially) the composition toolset they were used to working with in the 35mm world.

No doubt there is much more at play though.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

In general I find that different composition guidelines will work with varying rates of success in different formats. For my taste, a 6x8 a 6x9 or 6x6 frame will need rather different starting mindsets to lead to a photograph I like.

I might like many 35mm pictures taken within a general rule of thirds guideline, however I find I will like fewer 6x6 photos taken within a rule of thirds guideline, as I find the square frame drives my attention in different ways. I might, for instance, like more 6x6 shots showing some degree of radial symmetry, whereas I will like fewer 6x9 shots showing some degree of radial symmetry.

Based on the above, my suggestion was that I believe a photographer used to taking 35mm photos, and then trying these 6x9 cameras, will possibly try to transpose directly (at least initially) the composition toolset they were used to working with in the 35mm world.

No doubt there is much more at play though.

We can agree there, which still makes no difference ot me why that would have anything to do with outcome. Image either has it, is meh, or does nothing to viewer, regardless of size, format etc.

And rules are there to be broken, especially true in creating impactful images.

If one uses rules to compose, he is not ready, all of his good images are more of an accident than result of evaluative thought process.

 

[albireo]

We can agree there, which still makes no difference ot me why that would have anything to do with outcome.

I don't know. As somebody who started with 35mm and then transitioned to medium format, I'm often wowed by the 6x6 film photography I see around, but no so much by the 6x9 photography. Perhaps:

more 6x6 cameras available > more photographers using 6x6 cameras > more GREAT photographers using 6x6 cameras > more great photos around on 6x6.

Replace 'more' with 'fewer' for 6x9.

Again just guessing here.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Todd Papageorge. Lots of his work is 6x9, and not many options in modern cameras, eh? Here he is talking a bit about using it in a nightclub (or maybe one of the interchangeable lens models?)-

https://www.lensculture.com/articles/tod-papageorge-studio-54

 

[narsuitus]

I started photography with medium format. The square was my favorite aspect ratio.

When I started shooting 35mm small format, it took me a while to get used to the elongated rectangle aspect ratio. I liked the ratio for landscapes but did not like it for portraits or general subjects.

When I decided to get a medium format landscape camera, based on my experience with 35mm film, I decided that a 6x9cm camera with a wide-angle lens would be best. I was right.

For portraits and general subjects with medium format, I preferred the 6x7 aspect ratio.


Fuji Medium Format Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[David Allen]

Anything from “I really like this person’s work” to "wow, such a unique shot!" is only down to the photographer, how they see the world and how they transfer this vision into the final image. The camera is irrelevant (unless it has limitations that stop one taking the photograph in the first place - i.e. minimum focus distance, etc).

I used a Fuji GSW690 II for many years and was very happy with the camera. It suited my work at that time very well. This is probably because:

• I prefer larger negatives
• I prefer to work with one camera, one lens, one film and one developer.

Personally, I would forget trying to be inspired by any single camera and look out for photographers whose work you admire.

Bests,

David.

 

[campy51]

It doesn't matter what camera I use, I still suck at this. So much gear, so little talent.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It doesn't matter what camera I use, I still suck at this. So much gear, so little talent.

Quite a dramatic entry I say But if I may suggest something, keep what you've done thus far. After a few years have another look. Good chance you will have a different opinion of own past work.

 

[yurihuta]

I wanted to poll this forum for a well known photographer or two who has shot this camera with interesting results.

Martin Schoeller

https://www.popphoto.com/photos/2008/12/behind-lens-martin-schoeller/

 

[Ariston]

It really is cliche, but it's cliche for a reason: A camera doesn't make great photos any more than a typewriter makes good novels. If I were you I would find a photographer who's work you enjoy and check their portfolio for the aspect ratio you are interested in. Any camera can make images in that aspect ratio through cropping.

I have a GW690. I haven't gotten any photos I like out of it - not because the camera isn't good enough, but because I'm not good enough.

 

[Huss]

There is a reason the GW690 is called the Texas Leica. Because it pretty much is a 35mm rf camera but much bigger. Including the negative which is the same ratio as 35mm film.
So what you get with these cameras is the same format ratio, but with much greater richness, sharpness and reduction in grain. Basically a hyper quality 35mm image.

Shot on 120 Fuji Superia 400:

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've been tracking shots posted from this camera for a bit on the web, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think "wow, such a unique shot!"
Something unexpected for such a large negative and also, is something quite unlike my experience looking at photos out of RZ67/Pentax 67/Hasselblad V/Rolleiflex

I wonder if the aspect ratio is too close to 135, a format I seem fundamentally disinterested in these days (I'm sure I'll be back soon enough). Or it's possible I'm looking at work I don't find appealing?

I wanted to poll this forum for a well known photographer or two who has shot this camera with interesting results.

i have a Fuji 6x9 and love it. I use it o that I have a massive negative that gives me lots a opportunities for compositionally cropping with little to no loss relative to 35mm. I shoot 4x5 for the same reasons. For me, it’s not about composing for, or using the full negative area, its about having extra real estate for cropping while maintaining some semblance of quality.

I also routinely do the same thing with digital. I’ll take a higher resolution sensor over a lower resolution one any day of the week as it affords more opportunities for creatively cropping, or even more importantly, cropping for different aspect ratios of the intended output. Professional headshots is a perfect example. With one chosen image, I’m often asked to produce a square image for use online, and also produce an 8x10 and/or 11x14 for use with print.

 

[Scott Micciche]

I've used it on occasion, but find it best as a landscape f/8 - f/11 camera. I have had the camera apart to get rid of the 'ping' sound it makes and almost have it nailed down (spring on the wind rack is the bastard

Here are two using Fuji Pro 400h last fall.

 

[Arthurwg]

I have a desert landscape photo by Adam Bartos posted on a wall in my kitchen. I truly love it and I'm convinced it was shot 6x9. So now I want this camera.

 

[ic-racer]

I've been tracking shots posted from this camera for a bit on the web, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think "wow, such a unique shot!"

I'm the opposite, I see so much fantastic 6x9 work I spent many years myself in 6x9. Though instead of a Fuji, like these iconic 6x9 images, I use a Horseman.

 

[ic-racer]

This is my 6x9 work done with a Horseman: