"Infinity and beyond".

You have a couple of OM-3 bodies?
Not sure you know what you have, but this is the rarest of the OM line. Fewer made than any other OM body, and can be worth quite a bit.

By-the-way...B&H probably your best bet for film.

I'm betting on a corrupt card.
Swap it out to a different one and see if it makes a difference.

Are you using the specific paper profiles for that printer and paper combination?
Just having the monitor calibrated isn't enough when printing. The monitor needs to match the printer and paper.

Looks like you're not getting suggestions. I've been there a few times and a couple that will fit into your "close to the road" requirements are...

**Sunrise would be directly behind the old visitor's center (not the new one, but the old one that's now a small museum). Get there before sunrise, but don't give up on this one when the sun just comes up. There will be a distinct shadow of the mountains over your shoulder that will give a really nice pattern to the scene in front of you. Wait it out a while.

**Sunset would be the famous scene of the Watchman mountain from the main bridge just before the turn into the valley. You can set up on the sidewalk of the bridge or go under the bridge for a different view.

Just to get you started. Drive the valley, or drive through the tunnel to the east side. Can't go wrong at any time of the day.

And how would posting an image here (hi-rez or not) help with what a print from Costco looks like?
Unless you could see the actual printed image, I don't see a benefit of looking at his digital image on your digital monitor.
Who knows if the two monitors are even closely calibrated to each other.

Sunny 16 . . . Loony 11

I have the Fuji GW690iii, and have used it only for my "carry around" medium format. For landscapes I use a Mamiya RB67 with a couple of different lenses, so I can't really attest to the Fuji's ability for landscape work. I can tell you that the Fuji images have a "feel" to them that I can't get with the Mamiya. The lens is superb, and the camera is lots of fun to use. You should see the looks on people's faces when you pull that out of your camera bag on the street.

I have just had the brief chance to play with a friends new Fuji GFX 50S digital medium format, and have seen some of his work with it, and I can say that I'm very impressed with the output of that new camera. Does it compare to my film medium format images? We shoot different styles of work, but it would be VERY hard to attain the technical quality of that new Fuji with anything I have. The detail in his images are amazing.

The look between our two medium format images is different. I don't know how else to describe it...just different.

Sorry, but this comment is very misleading to the typical beginning photographer, which the OP appears to be. The main purpose of the ND filter (for the condition the OP asked) is to slow down the shutter speed. Using the f stop or ISO to compensate for the loss of available light would just defeat the purpose of using it.

Not just Ctrl, but you have to push Ctrl and 0 at the same time to make the image full size fit the screen.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you did, but this is how I fill the screen and maneuver around in PhotoShop . . .

--You can size the image to fit the full screen by pressing Control and the 0 key (that's zero) at the same time.
--You can increase size or decrease size by pressing Control and + or - at the same time.
--You can move around in a larger than full screen size image by pressing the space bar. This makes a grab handle (the little fist) that you can move around pulling the screen with you.

To me these keyboard shortcuts come easier than using the mouse to do similar functions.

I know it's a sign of the economic times . . .

but how do we expect brick and mortar camera stores to stay open, when we order from B&H and then run to our local stores for their help when something goes wrong?

Is this the set that sold on Goodwill just a week or so ago?

OK, am I just missing something? After reading 4 pages of back and forth, the OP states that the second picture was taken one full stop brighter (f8 @ 1/200 vs. f8 @ 1/400 for the first). Isn't that just the simple reason for brighter image?

Now that this has gone on for four pages, has anyone noticed the lack of the OP responding to anything.
OR that there never was a question in the original post? Just a statement.

Sure got a lot of people to post a lot of mis-information and opinions. And managed to get a few F-bombs thrown in also.