>>3024286Looks like a light leak, though I've never seen one so odd and precise like that. Might be an issue with scanning, are the 'veins' present on the negative.
I don't think it's a particularly good shot at all. It's underexposed by at least 2 stops, and there doesn't appear to be any visible subject. Chuck it and learn from it.
Do you need medium format? MF gear is heavier, more expensive, and more specialised. Obviously you get more quality, but do you need more quality? Have you found the limits of 35mm? If you're shooting shit like the photo you posted I'd stick with 35mm until you find an actual reason to upgrade.
Fuji 400h is baller shit but it's overpriced. The results will be awesome, especially with a touch of overexposure. If you're still new to film maybe stick with a cheaper stock like Fuji C200 or Kodak Colorplus / Gold 200, where you can afford to make mistakes and experiment. The attached pic is Colorplus 200, for reference.
If you're looking for cost effectiveness I'd encourage you to get into developing your own B&W. It's ludicriously easy, and decreases the price of development hugely. The cost for me to develop 1 roll of B&W film is less than a dollar
