Topic: Big Swinger 3000 question

[Mojave]

Just got one of these lovely cams off eBay and it appears to be in wonderful condition. Seriously, this thing looks brand new. I dont see a scratch on it. The shutter works and the YES system appears to be working. The problem that Im having is that even though I get the YES to show up clearly before I trip the shutter, my pix are coming out about a stop, stop and a half too dark. I love what Im seeing and Im sure I can boost the exposure in PS, but I would like to fix this if possible. Im wondering if its maybe the batteries are dying? Dont know for sure so Im coming here to ask.

And man, can this thing focus! I can get sharp images in under 2 feet. I have no idea how close I can get with it. Does anybody know?

Thanks all!

I take that back. It isnt in focus. Just looked like it was until I scanned and blew it up so Im guessing 3 feet is the focus min but if anybody can confirm that, I'd be grateful. 

[moominsean]

pretty sure the focus is down to around 5 feet, though you may not notice until closer. and the "YES" system isn't particularly accurate. i adjust up and down as needed. you will almost never need to put it all the way to dark or all the way light. all you are doing is changing the aperture, everything else stays the same.

if they are coming out too dark, try aiming at the darkest part of what you are shooting. or look at yes and turn it up two notches on the dial. i usually finds that i have to go a bit darker than what it says. one of my favorite cameras! great to have something that works so well for quick shooting...

[moominsean]

Okay the manual says "In bright sun you can come as close as 2 1/2 -3 ft., but noses may look too big; for very close ones, try a side view." It uses "one arms length" as the closest you should be. In shade it says anything closer than 3-4 feet may look fuzzy. My guess is that it is affected by the wider aperture.

The true aperture of 667 is probably 3200 (because they made a repackaged version called Type 3200B), while Fuji may be 3000, so that may have some effect.

The manual offers up the not so useful info that says turn it up or down one for small changes, and two for big changes in light/dark.

[Mojave]

Awesome pix Sean, thank you for sharing! And thank you so much for the information. I will try to turn it lighter by a few notches and see where that gets me. I love this camera!!! I mean, I really love it. Even though the shots I've gotten so far are underexposed, I still love the way they look. I cant wait to get more 3000 speed film. And its so easy to use.

[Mojave]

I adjusted the knob like you said Sean and Im getting much better results. Thank you so much!!!

[hookstrapped]

Damn, Sean and Mojave, great pics in this thread.

What is this Big Swinger 3000 you speak of...?  Must go google.

[Mojave]

Thank you so much Hookstrapped!!! Its a fun, fun camera that I love a lot! I just got it off eBay for something like 25 dollars, or 15 dollars. I cant remember which now. But it takes awesome pix with the Fuji 3000 film.

[moominsean]

nice shot! looks to be taken late in the day. browsing through my pics, fuji film does seem to be darker than 667 in general, with less detail in the shadows. more solid blacks, while 667 has more grays. though it does quite well in bright sunlight, as shown in the palms shot.

since the shutter speed is fixed, there may be variations in shutter speed from camera to camera, as well.

[Mojave]

Holy smokes Sean, that palm shot is just a dream!!! Wow! Love the other two shots as well and thank you for the comparison. I can easily see a big difference in the two films. And yeah, my shot was taken very late in the day after the sun set beneath the clouds but still lit the landscape.

I scanned and inverted the neg. It has much more detail but its very grainy. This is an completely untouched version. I plan to clean it up a bit later.

[hookstrapped]

Holy smokes Sean, that palm shot is just a dream!!! Wow! Love the other two shots as well and thank you for the comparison. I can easily see a big difference in the two films. And yeah, my shot was taken very late in the day after the sun set beneath the clouds but still lit the landscape.

I scanned and inverted the neg. It has much more detail but its very grainy. This is an completely untouched version. I plan to clean it up a bit later.

Love that.  Scanning and inverting the neg...  :chinscratch:

[moominsean]

if you remove that paper border while the film is still wet, you get more image in the goop. there is almost always more detail in the shadows in the negative.

[Mojave]

Thanks again Sean!!! I will pull the paper off next time for sure.