Fujirumors shared a couple of new Fujifilm X100VI rumors, and a lot of people have reached out to me asking for my reaction or commentary regarding them. I think it can be a lot of fun to speculate on what might be, but it’s important to remember that all will become clear in just a few weeks, when Fujifilm has their X Summit on the 19th/20th (date dependent on your time zone). I also want to give the disclaimer that I don’t have any inside information, and everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and not too seriously.
The first of the new rumors shared by Fujirumors is that the X100VI will have the new Reala Ace film simulation. Hallelujah! I thought that maybe it might, but it’s good to know that it will. Honestly, Fujifilm should have introduced Reala Ace on this camera, as it’ll have a much bigger marketing impact on X-series than GFX. Also, it’s important to remember that it won’t be 100% identical on X-Trans as it is on GFX, because the sensors are different… the most noticeable divergence will likely be shadow rendering. It will be pretty darn close, though, and I definitely look forward to trying it myself. Also, I’d be (pleasantly) surprised if Fujifilm gives Reala Ace to the X-T5 and X-H2. They should, but they probably won’t.
Dodge Van Steering Wheel – Buena Park, CA – Fujifilm X-T5 – Reala Ace Recipe
The second of the new rumors shared by Fujirumors is that the X100VI will only be 1mm thicker than the X100V. I don’t really know what this means, because (as far as I understand) the thickness is measured from the end of the lens to the back of the viewfinder cover. Within that space there is a lot of room for redesign. I highly doubt that Fujifilm did anything drastic (I’m pretty sure it will look nearly identical to the X100V), but the camera will have IBIS, which also likely means that it has the larger NP-W235 battery. Obviously all of that takes up space, and something’s got to give. Heat dispersion is an issue that must be dealt with. Will the new camera have a different rear screen (maybe similar to the X-T5)? If so, that might require slightly more space. It might be simply that the IBIS unit requires the sensor to be 1mm forward, so the lens needs to be moved 1mm outward to accommodate (this would be my bet). It could also be that the grip is a tad bigger; if it is, some will appreciate that and others might not. I don’t have a lot to say about this other than I’m sure the Fujifilm engineers pulled off a small miracle in the design, but also there is probably a bit more to the story than merely 1mm. There are still a lot of questions, but—like I said—all will be clear in just under three weeks when Fujifilm unveils it.
I’m really looking forward to the Fujifilm X100VI. I have an X100V that I’m not selling, but I’m very tempted by the successor, so I’ve only got a few weeks to figure out how to afford it, if I decide to preorder. The X100VI might just be the most ideal travel camera ever made… that is, of course, my opinion and mere speculation based on personal experience with the X100V and what the X100VI might be. Time will tell, though, and not too long from now, either.
I hope to organize a Fuji X Weekly meet-and-greet type event in the Phoenix, Arizona, area sometime later this year. While I’ve been to a few photography gatherings before, I’ve never hosted one. What I’d like to know is what you’d expect or hope for from a Fuji X Weekly meet-and-greet.
Obviously, it could be really simple. Come say hi, as I’d love to meet you. Let’s shake hands and talk gear informally. This would be the most simple to put together, but maybe the least exciting to attend?
It could be more convention-like, with booths from local camera stores and photography-related businesses. There could be presentations or workshops, and perhaps even guest speakers. A small expo would be a heck-of-a-lot more complex to organize, and would likely require an entrance fee to offset the costs. I doubt there would be enough interest to justify anything like this, but maybe this is what people would most want?
A third option is a group photowalk. Let’s not just talk gear, but use our gear. Let’s meet up somewhere and take pictures, perhaps in an urban setting, or some place that’s especially good for photography. If the location is ideal, it could be all in one place, and no need to drive around (other than to the event).
I’m sure there are many other ideas, and I’d love to hear them. Even if you would never come to Phoenix because it is too far away, I’d still greatly appreciate your feedback. I want to make this event special for those who can attend (and, who knows, maybe it will be the first of many?), but I’m unsure what direction it should go. Perhaps one of these ideas resonates with you, or none of them, or some aspect about one is intriguing but another aspect is not. Leave me a comment with your ideas and opinions!
Also, how likely would you attend this event, for those who live near the area? Let me know that, too, with a comment. I really look forward to hearing your input!
I don’t know yet when this meet-and-greet will happen (or even for certain that it will, although I really hope it will). Most likely it will be either in the spring or fall, but preferably in the spring. As soon as I have more concrete answers, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, your input is much needed, and will help me out tremendously. Thank you!
We talked about the upcoming Fujifilm X100VI a bit yesterday, and today we got another interesting tidbit that’s worth discussing. According to Fujirumors, Fujifilm is planning to release at least one Limited Edition version of the X100VI, and it sounds like it might possibly be available to purchase on launch day.
Of course, Fujifilm has made some Limited Edition models in the past. Who can forget the USA Flag version of the X-A3? Nothing says ‘Merica quite like this.
Fujifilm X-A3 Limited Edition USA Flag
So I thought it would be fun to speculate what Limited Edition versions of the X100VI they could potentially release. Not long ago Fujifilm made the Disney version of the X100V. While I didn’t care for it personally, at least it wasn’t the red, white, and blue X-A3. There are a number of possible options that could actually be really cool. The Brown Edition of the X100F was snazzy, and I was tempted by it at the time.
I’ve thought of several options that Fujifilm could go with. The one that, by far, excites me the most is the Acros Edition, a B&W-only model. I doubt that Fujifilm will do this, but it would be extraordinarily epic if they did, and they absolutely should. Some other ideas are Graphite Silver (like the X-T1/X-T2), Dura Black / Dura Silver (like the X-Pro3), or Brown (like the X100F). Leica made a Limited Edition model with faux patina, maybe Fujifilm will do something similar? How about one with a different lens? They could make a more wide-angle or more telephoto version.
Fujifilm X100V Limited Edition Disney
The Disney Edition doesn’t excite me, but one with the classic Fujifilm logo on it could be decent, if done right. How about one with Mount Fuji? Maybe they should have a Fuji X Weekly model? It could have my Teton X logo printed on the front. Just kidding, of course.
I have no idea what the Limited Edition X100VI will look like. It could be something really cool or extremely outlandish. If it’s especially cool, it will make the camera even more tempting. I suppose that we’ll find out soon enough.
Morning at the South Rim – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – McCurry Kodachrome
I received an email from Anders Lindborg back in November, and the subject line read, “The Last Roll.” Anders explained to me that himself and John Sevigny had co-created a Kodachrome 64 Film Simulation Recipe based on Steve McCurry’s last roll of Kodachrome film, which was (as you likely know) famously developed on July 12, 2010, at Dwayne’s Photo in Parsons, Kansas.
Writing this article has been difficult for me, because of John’s passing. But I hope that this is somehow honoring to him. He was an extraordinarily knowledgable photographer who was always eager to help. It’s a humble privilege for me to share with all of you this Recipe that Anders and John co-created.
“The goal was to create a recipe that both looked and behaved like Kodachrome 64,” Anders wrote. “It should also be based on science, not just trying to look like the real thing during very special conditions. Our starting reference were the photos taken by Steve McCurry on the quite-famous last roll of Kodachrome project. We also studied every little detail of the documentary to find out the exact conditions for how the photos were made. Even that was not enough, so we started to hunt down every single Kodachrome 64 photo we could possibly find. Luck was on our side, as we managed to locate a whole bunch that were actually developed by Dwayne’s Photo.”
Anders continued, “After about eight months of testing every single scenario we could come up with, using similar lighting equipment that was used for the last roll project, we started to feel like we had done all that was possible with the given tools. Everything matched our reference photos, and we both got stunning results with every test we made, but we still decided to test it for just a bit longer to make sure we actually had captured the true spirit of this film. John also travelled parts of the USA and South America, shooting nothing but this recipe for color work.”
Kodachrome was first introduced in 1935, and was discontinued in 2009. There are three distinct eras of the film, and Kodachrome 64, which was introduced in 1974, was in the third and final era. Kodachrome was actually a black-and-white film, and the color dyes were added during the development process. Because of this, it is probably the most difficult film to scan, and, if not properly color corrected, will often have a pronounced blue cast. Even a scan that is carefully corrected can lean slightly blue compared to the slide being projected or viewed on a light table. McCurry’s “last roll” slides were scanned by Richard Jackson, who was regarded as a leading expert on Kodachrome scanning.
Kodachrome 64 slides on a light table – Fujifilm X100V – McCurry Kodachrome
There are some differences between this McCurry Kodachrome Recipe and my Kodachrome 64 Recipe, but there are also a lot of similarities. My Recipe is more like Kodachrome as viewed via a slide projector or light table, while the McCurry Kodachrome Recipe is more like quality scans of the film. There’s a comparison of the two Recipes at the very bottom of this article.
Like the actual film, this McCurry Kodachrome Recipe has a narrow dynamic range, and must be carefully exposed. Pay extra attention to the highlights, because they can clip easily. Also, try to keep the ISO as low as practical. I used this Recipe with the ISO all the way to 6400, and it was fine, but for best results that better match the film, don’t go above ISO 1600. McCurry Kodachrome is fully compatible with all X-Trans IV models—including the X-T3 and X-T30; for X-Trans V, blues will render slightly more deeply, so the results will be just a tad different, but feel free to try anyway.
Film Simulation: Classic Chrome Dynamic Range: DR100 Grain Effect: Weak, Small — Weak for X-T3/X-T30 Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome FX Blue: Off — N/A for X-T3/X-T30 White Balance: 5900K, -1 Red & +4 Blue Highlight: 0 Shadow: 0 Color: +2 Sharpness: -2 High ISO NR: -2 Clarity: 0 — N/A for X-T3/X-T30 ISO: Auto, up to ISO 1600 Exposure Compensation: -1/3 to +1/3 (typically)
Example photos, all camera made JPEGs using this McCurry Kodachrome Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-T30:
Siblings Playing Video Games – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Little Palms in a Pot – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Promenade – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Broken Haircut Chair – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Bougainvillea Below Window – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Bougainvillea & Stucco – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Blossom Along Sidewalk – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Sunny Day Along Suburban Wall – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Suburban Desert Sunset – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Sunset Over Desert Brush – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Golden Coast Blossoms – Laguna Beach, CA – Fujifilm X100V
Comparison:
Kodachrome 64 Film Simulation Recipe (Fujifilm X-E4)
McCurry Kodachrome Film Simulation Recipe (Fujifilm X-E4)
Kodachrome 64 Film Simulation Recipe (Fujifilm X-E4)
McCurry Kodachrome Film Simulation Recipe (Fujifilm X-E4)
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 300 more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
The sensor isn’t surprising to me, because the extra resolution will help improve the Digital-Teleconverter, which is a nice feature to have on a fixed-focal-length camera. It will make this useful feature even more useful. My only hope is that it will scale the faux Grain, something that the X100V doesn’t do, sadly. When you combine the Grain setting with the Digital-Teleconverter, you get some massive-looking grain, which sometimes is preferable, but most often is not. Perhaps there should be a setting somewhere in the menu to enable or disable Grain scaling when using the Digital-Teleconverter. Anyway, I’m not surprised whatsoever about the sensor choice by Fujifilm. Personally, I like the 26mp X-Trans IV sensor just a bit better, mostly because 40mp is overkill and causes storage issues and is slower when transferring files and stuff like that (as Eric Kim used to say, more megapixels equals more problems), but I’d be happy either way, so no complaints from me.
Digital-Teleconverter combined with Strong/Large Grain
The IBIS choice is a bit more intriguing. This one surprises me. And it raises a lot of questions. Will the camera be bigger? Will it weigh more? I think it is possible for Fujifilm to squeeze IBIS into the current-sized model, but I don’t think they’ll be able to keep the weight the same. Of course, I think the new sensor and IBIS will certainly require that Fujifilm use the NP-W235 battery, because the old NP-W126 battery would drain much too quickly. The NP-W235 battery is significantly larger, so that most likely means that the camera will be larger, at least a little, to accommodate. It would be some miracle if they are able to keep the size and especially the weight the same. My guess is that the X100VI will be a hair larger than the X100V (edit/note: Fujirumors is now reporting that the camera will be “basically the same size” and only “marginally” bigger, which you might not even notice), and noticeably heavier; however, that is just speculation. Another question that this raises is regarding heat dispersion. The X100V has some heat issues with video and long exposures. I have to think that the X100VI will be just as prone to that, and probably more so. The old saying seems to apply quite well here: be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. There will be both positives and negatives to adding IBIS.
I know that some will say, “But the Ricoh GR has IBIS, and it’s so small and lightweight and not prone to those issues.” Fair enough, but it is also important to understand that the IBIS inside of the GR III is very basic and not particularly effective. Look, I shoot with a Ricoh GR III, and I have nothing against it whatsoever, but the IBIS in the GR cameras is often very overstated, and not particularly necessary. Most of the time, you could get the same exact shot without it. Someone will say, “But I handheld at 1/15 and it was sharp.” Well, I’ve handheld my X100V with a 1/9 Shutter Speed and managed a sharp picture. I’m sure it makes a small difference occasionally, but the IBIS inside the GR III isn’t anything special, so it’s not a good example for comparison. The IBIS unit in the X100VI will be significantly more robust.
Captured with a Fujifilm X100V handheld at 1/9 Shutter Speed.
For still photography, most of the time IBIS isn’t the difference between getting the shot or not, unless you are using long telephoto lenses, which obviously you won’t be doing on the X100VI. In very dim light situations, such as night photography, it could sometimes help you. If you are photographing waterfalls in the daylight and using the built-in ND filter to streak the water, it could mean that you won’t need a tripod (depending on how good or not you are at holding still). 99% of the time, IBIS won’t have any practical benefit to those using the X100VI for photography. Where IBIS will make an obvious difference is with videography. Those using it as a movie camera will be very happy about IBIS; however, the X100V is quite prone to overheating, so it isn’t a particularly good video tool, and the X100VI might be even more prone to it, and even less useful for video. We’ll have to wait and see. I think the inclusion of IBIS will be more of a marketing ploy (that will definitely work), but it won’t have a huge impact for most people, and some tradeoffs are inevitable for it to be included. It is nice to have sometimes, though.
The other question that the inclusion of IBIS raises is the price. Will the camera cost more? I think most certainly it will. I’m not sure how much, but the X100VI definitely will not be $1,400. My guess is $1,700 or $1,800. It could even potentially be as high as $2,000, although I think they’ll need to do more than just 40mp and IBIS to justify that much. A $300 to $400 higher price tag seems about right for the X100VI.
I have no idea about other potential features. Will it have Eterna Bleach Bypass and Nostalgic Neg.? Yeah, absolutely. Will it have Reala Ace? That could go either way, but my bet is that it does (and the X-T5 and X-H2 won’t ever get it). Will it have the XPan aspect ratio? Probably not. I’m sure there will be a few surprises, but mostly the X100VI will be quite similar to the X100V. It will be an excellent camera for street and travel photography, just like the previous X100-series models have been. I’m excited for it, and if it does indeed have Reala Ace, I might just have to buy it (like I did with the X-T5, because it has Nostalgic Neg.). I don’t know if Fujifilm quite realizes the marketing impact and potential of film simulations.
The upcoming Fujifilm X100VI is definitely not a camera that I need. I’d have to give up something else in order to place the order, but it won’t be my X100V—that’s a camera I plan to keep for a very long time. Does it make any sense to have both an X100V and X100VI? Probably not. I might just have to get it anyway.
Morning at the South Rim – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Upcoming Recipe
Tomorrow I will unveil a brand-new Film Simulation Recipe! I’ve been shooting with this new Recipe for nearly two months, and I think that you’re really going to like it, too. It will certainly be utilized by many of you, and will quickly become a popular choice. I’m not going to give any more details about it until then, so you will want to stay tuned.
Actually, you’ll want to tune in! You see, Season 4 of SOOC Live will kick off tomorrow, and we’re going to discuss this new Recipe in-depth. This is a don’t-miss type of episode. Be sure to follow SOOC Live on YouTube if you don’t already, so that you’re notified of all the new content.
There will actually be two broadcasts tomorrow. The first will be at 8:30 AM Pacific Time, 11:30 AM Eastern. This will be more relaxed and less formal, and will just introduce the new season and explain some changes. It’s kind of like a pre-show. Following that will be Episode 01 at 9:00 AM Pacific Time, noon Eastern. This is the broadcast where we will introduce and discuss the brand-new Film Simulation Recipe. I hope that you can join us for both, but if you can only make one, be sure to tune in to the second.
I’ve included both broadcasts below, so that you can easily find them tomorrow.
Almost two years ago, I stayed at a house in Hammond, Oregon, right off of the Columbia River near where it meets the Pacific Ocean. Even though it’s a river, it is an estuary—a mix of salt and fresh water. At high tide, the river swells several feet higher than low tide. I spent some time on the rocks along the shore, and watched the tide come in and out.
Photographic life is like the Columbia River estuary.
Hasselblad XPan III mockup — Photo by Tony Andersen
Tony Andersen loves XPan cameras. He is from Finland, and has admired Hasselblad for a long time. Tony has the original Hasselblad XPan film camera, and the idea of a digital version excites him. So much so, in fact, that he made a pretty cool mockup of what it could look like—using a Fujifilm X-Pro1. Let’s talk about what makes XPan special, discuss some considerations for a digital model, plus look at Tony’s mockup. We’ll conclude with some current options for XPan photography.
For those that don’t know, XPan cameras were a joint venture between Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the late-1990’s through the mid-2000’s, right at the pinnacle of film. XPan models were interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras that used approximately two frames of 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in a 65:24 aspect ratio. These cameras were quite niche and only sold moderately well when they were new, but today they are highly desirable among landscape photographers who still shoot film, and interest in XPan has been seemingly growing recently. Hasselblad and Fujifilm made two models; Hasselblad called theirs XPan and XPan II, while Fujifilm named theirs TX-1 and TX-2. Interestingly, Fujifilm’s X-Pro, X-E, and (especially) X100 series cameras all share some design elements with XPan, and, in a way, can trace their lineage to those models.
The original Hasselblad XPan camera — Photo by Tony Andersen
While it is certainly possible to crop any photograph to the 65:24 aspect ratio, the problem is that you are tossing approximately half of the resolution in the trash. The XPan cameras didn’t utilize a narrow section of 35mm film to create a panorama, but instead used nearly two frame’s worth of real estate. This allowed photographers to achieve high-quality, detail-rich images in a wide format, yet in a camera that was still relatively compact. If one wanted just a regular 3:2 frame, the XPan cameras were capable of that, too. To digitally recreate this, one would need to have a wide sensor with a good deal of resolution. Ideally, a digital XPan camera should have around 50-megapixels (or more), and produce a minimum of 24mp when cropped to 3:2.
Tony’s mockup of a digital XPan camera began with a used X-Pro1. He chose the camera because it has a similar look to XPan, and has essential features: solid build-quality, hybrid-viewfinder, manual retro controls. It has the original X-Trans I sensor, which Tony appreciates. Plus, “it has a nice shutter click sound, which makes the analogue experience better.”
“I used an angle grinder to remove the edge of the lens side viewfinder frame,” he told me, “so that I could continue to make a seemingly wider viewfinder out of it. Then I measured the original XPan and used filler and plastics to model a wider version of the X-Pro1. I didn’t even know I could do sculpturing. I wanted a camera that looks and feels like the XPan. I’ve been working on the X-Pro1 for over a year.”
“I was able to replicate the XPan color with three different layers of spray paint,” Tony continued. “I made from wood a new grip for the X-Pro1 and put leather around it. I found that the original grip on the XPan was uncomfortable and too small.”
Modified X-Pro1 with a coat of spray paint — Photo by Tony Andersen
Modified X-Pro1 on the workbench — Photo by Tony Andersen
Tony used a Fujinon 16mm f/2.8 lens to replicate a Hasselblad 45mm f/4 XPan lens (both have a full-frame-equivalent 24mm focal length). He used a 3D-printer to create a lens hood that disguises the Fujifilm lens to more closely resemble the Hasselblad. He also has an adapter to use the XPan lenses on the X-Pro1. There were only three lenses made for XPan cameras: 30mm f/5.6, 45mm f/4, and 90mm f/4. An 11mm lens for the X-Pro1 would be necessary to replicate the 30mm, but there is no such lens: you can choose either 10mm or 12mm. For the 90mm, the Fujinon 33mm f/1.4 would be the best bet.
Just recently, Tony added a film advance lever from an old Kiev 6C camera to his X-Pro1. The lever is only for looks, and doesn’t actually do anything; however, Tony envisions that if a digital XPan camera were ever manufactured, a film advance lever could be included, and could serve any number of functions. It could be utilized to cock the shutter like on the Epson R-D1, or it could be a programmable lever that activates various features, such as flash, or built-in ND filter, or something like that.
Hasselblad XPan (left) and faux Hasselblad XPan III (right) — Photo by Tony Andersen
XPan Crop — Fujifilm X-Pro1 — Photo by Tony Andersen
While Tony’s “XPan III” has a 16mp Trans I CMOS sensor, he believes that most ideally such a camera should have a 50mp XPan-shaped CCD sensor. The reason why he would prefer a CCD sensor over CMOS is because CCD sensors inherently behave more like film, and can produce images that appear more similar to analog. Theoretically it is possible to program such a sensor to produce “digital film emulsions” where the aesthetic is partially created at the hardware level, and not just from the camera’s firmware or software on a computer. There are advantages and disadvantages to both CCD and CMOS; however, the camera industry has committed to advancing CMOS technology and has put very little into CCD development. It would be intriguing to explore CCD, but almost certainly any digital XPan camera manufactured today would have a CMOS sensor.
To simulate what CCD XPan photographs might look like, Tony captured some images with his Phase One P65+ (which as a 60mp CCD sensor), cropped them to the 65:24 aspect ratio, and edited the files in Lightroom to resemble Velvia 50 and Kodak Panatomic-X film scans. He believes that it should be possible to achieve similar results straight-out-of-camera from a digital XPan III camera.
XPan crop — “Fujifilm Velvia ISO 50” — Phase One P65+ — Photo by Tony Andersen
XPan crop — “Kodak Panatomic-X ISO 32” — Phase One P65+ — Photo by Tony Andersen
Tony hopes that his X-Pro1 project will bring an increased awareness and interest to XPan cameras, both the film models and especially a potential digital version. “Maybe even catch the eye of Fujifilm or Hasselblad.”
“Fujifilm might be the most logical choice for a digital XPan,” Tony stated, “as it would be better placed in their product line. The GFX 50R could be a nice base to build the new camera on. The GFXPan camera could use the current sensor—the 102mp—modify it to 44x17mm by removing the upper and lower rows to achieve a 65×24 aspect ratio. Then redevelop the firmware to use only this aspect in the viewfinder, maybe redesign the optic for 2.7:1 wide like the XPan.”
It was with Fujifilm’s partnership that the XPan film cameras were made, and it was with a Fujifilm X-Pro1 that Tony made an XPan III mockup. I find the idea of Fujifilm creating a digital XPan camera—called TX-3 or GFXPan—highly intriguing. It could be with a slightly stretched sensor inside an X-Pro body (similar to Tony’s mockup). Much more likely, it would be something in the GFX realm; however, it would need to have the retro controls and styling like the GFX 50R, and not be a PASM model like most GFX cameras. Obviously, either way, it would be a niche product, but it seems like there is enough interest—and a growing interest—that such a camera would sell well enough to be profitable. It would certainly make headlines! People would be talking about Fujifilm, which would be good for Fujifilm.
For some unknown reason, Fujifilm X-series cameras inexplicably don’t have the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option (GFX cameras do, though). I would strongly encourage Fujifilm to include the 65:24 aspect ratio on their X-series cameras with the 40mp X-Trans V sensor. It would be simple for them to do, and it seems like an obvious no-brainer. It would be amazingly cool if they ever produced a digital XPan, but at the very least Fujifilm should offer the XPan aspect ratio as an option in the X-series. Yes, you can do it with post-editing software, but I much prefer to do things in-camera whenever possible.
XPan Ratio — iPhone 14 Pro — RitchieCam App — Slide Film Filter — Photo by Ritchie Roesch
XPan Ratio — iPhone 14 Pro — RitchieCam App — Slide Film Filter — Photo by Ritchie Roesch
I don’t know if a digital XPan III will ever come to fruition, but there are currently a few cameras to consider if you are looking for an alternative. Fujifilm GFX models have the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option, and they also have plenty of resolution and film-like results; however, only the GFX 50R has the retro-styling and controls similar to the film cameras, which means that the GFX 50R is your best bet. Most Fujifilm X-series cameras have the retro design and controls plus film simulations and Film Simulation Recipes; the X-T5 and X-H2 have enough resolution, but you have to crop to XPan post-capture. The Panasonic S1R has sufficient resolution and the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option, but it doesn’t deliver the retro experience or film-like straight-out-of-camera results. My RitchieCam iPhone App also has the XPan aspect ratio; when used with the 48mp 1x camera on the iPhone 14/15 Pro/Pro Max, it has enough resolution, and is an in-your-pocket option that produces film-inspired results straight-out-of-camera. None of these are fully ideal. Hopefully someday Fujifilm and/or Hasselblad will release an XPan III camera with a 65:24 sensor shape. As it stands now, these are your best alternatives to a camera that does not yet—and may never—exist, but should.
I want to give Tony Andersen a big “thank you” for sharing his XPan III mockup and photographs. Hopefully Tony’s enthusiasm for the XPan format will some day result in an XPan III type camera from one of the camera manufacturers. It definitely deserves to happen someday, and Fujifilm seems like the perfect camera maker to do it.
I had read that the National Park Service (in the USA) requires a permit to film at a National Park. I was unfamiliar with this rule, but wanted to do some videography inside the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, so I began to research and figure out the process. Since some of you might be in a similar position, I decided to share my experience, hoping to provide you with some clarity.
There was a legal case in 2022 that apparently changed how you must go about filming inside a National Park or any property that is a part of the National Park System. I don’t want to spend time going over this (you can read about it in detail here if you are interested), but the basic thing to know is that, beginning in 2022, if you are a Creative, you probably need a permit to film in a National Park. Perhaps you needed one before, too (I’m not certain), but you definitely need one now. You might not think that you do, but most likely you do (we’ll get to this in a moment). And apparently if you don’t get the required permit, the National Park Service might just come for you with a hefty fine or worse.
Wanting to do things right and avoid any sort of legal trouble, I began to research if I was actually required to get a permit, and how to go about it. The National Park Service website states that “all commercial filming that occurs within a unit of the National Park System requires a permit.” But recording some clips of the South Rim for a small YouTube channel is surely not considered commercial filming, right? I mean, I’m just me, not some corporation.
They go on to define what exactly commercial filming means: “‘Commercial filming’ means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, feature film, videography, and documentaries. Commercial filming may include the advertisement of a product or service, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props.” So far it sounds like I’m ok to not get a permit. I’m not making a documentary or feature film, I don’t have a market audience, and I’m not using any actors or props. It’s a bit fuzzy, but it sounds like I’m fine.
Morning Shadows – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Fujicolor C200 v2
But they continue. “Federal law requires a permit for all commercial filming, no matter the size of the crew or the type of equipment. This includes individuals or small groups that don’t use much equipment, but generate revenue by posting footage on websites, such as YouTube and TikTok.”
Wait, what?
If you could potentially earn money from posting the footage to YouTube or TikTok or any other website, you’re required to get a permit, because you’re considered to be “commercial filming” by the NPS. If you are monetized on YouTube or push affiliate links in the description, you could potentially earn money. The “generate revenue” wording is a bit ambiguous, though, because the $7.42 I might earn from Adsense for a video (it’s probably not even that much) is nowhere near the cost of producing the content, not even enough to cover the gas to get there, or the lunch I had on the way, or even the park entry fee. It paid for my coffee, but not the blueberry scone. Whatever video I create, the Adsense money will not generate any net revenue, because I’m not actually a commercial outfit, I’m just a regular guy who happens to have been approved for monetization on my small YouTube channel. If I’m not actually earning anything, but losing money, does that still require a permit? It shouldn’t, but apparently it does.
“The primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas,” the NPS website continues. “Examples of this type of filming are productions that use substantial equipment such as sets and lighting, productions with crews that exceed 5 people, and filming in closed areas, wilderness areas, or in locations that would create conflicts with other visitors or harm sensitive resources. All filmers, no matter the size, must comply with all rules that apply in park areas, just like other visitors.”
Maricopa Point – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Expired Velvia
If the “primary focus” of these rules are for production crews that use substantial equipment and that exceed five people, then surely I’m all good to go, correct? I wasn’t completely confident, so I reached out to the National Park Service and spoke to someone at the Public Affairs Office. I told them my exact situation and plans. They confirmed that I indeed needed a permit to film in a National Park. Apparently the “primary focus” statement doesn’t actually mean anything, it’s just there to give false hope and confuse people.
To be clear, even if you’re just pulling out your cellphone to record a couple of short clips while vacationing with your family at a National Park, if you might use those clips in a YouTube or TikTok video (this surely applies to Instagram and Facebook, too), and in some way you could potentially earn income from those clips (even if just one penny), you need a permit, and you must get it in advance before you visit the park. You are a commercial filming crew, whether you consider yourself one or not. If you won’t earn anything (your channel isn’t monetized, you’re not sponsored, and you’re not pushing affiliate links, for example), you’re likely fine, and no permit is required.
This is all very arbitrary and puzzling. It’s as clear as mud. It doesn’t make much sense. It could and should be very simple: answer three questions to find out if you need a permit to film. The first question should be: will you appear to be an ordinary visitor? If the answer is yes, you don’t need a permit. The second question should be: will you interfere with anyone else’s park experience? If the answer is no, you don’t need a permit. The third question should be: will you need any resources from the park service beyond what regular visitors receive? If the answer is no, you don’t need a permit. If you can enter and leave the park and nobody was the wiser that you were doing anything potentially “commercial” then you shouldn’t need a permit. NPS: this is my free gift to you, so please use it. The way it is currently is extraordinarily convoluted, and (in my opinion) dumb.
The other thing that the National Park Service could do is: “[primarily] focus… on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas.” The solution is right there in their own words. Stop focusing on the little guys who are really just ordinary tourists who happen to have a YouTube channel or TikTok account. The Park Service has the power to do this right now today if they were to so choose. It’s literally that easy. If someone in a similar situation as myself inquires about a permit, they could simply respond, “We’re primarily focused on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors. Enjoy your your time in the park.”
Canyon & Mesas – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Xpro ’62
Now, you might be worried that all of this applies to other forms of art, too—say, photography or painting. But, no. Only motion pictures. Only videography. For still photography, there is a different set of rules: for the most part, unless you have a model or props, you don’t need a permit. You could professionally photograph a wedding inside a National Park, and that apparently doesn’t require a permit; however, as soon as you record some clips on your iPhone, you probably do. There doesn’t seem to be any rules for painting canvas inside National Parks.
Now, to the process of obtaining a filming permit.
Each location within the National Park System (which, by the way, isn’t just the 63 National Parks, but 428 “units” across the country) has it’s own exact procedures. It’s not standardized from one park to the next. It seems that most are pretty similar, but there are definitely some variances. Grand Canyon National Park is where I visited, so my personal experience is with that park. You must visit the webpage for the park you plan to visit for exact instructions.
For the Grand Canyon, in order to obtain a filming permit, you have to first inquire and request a form by emailing grca_public_affairs@nps.gov or calling 928-638-7779 (I tried calling that number a handful of times but never got through to anyone other than their voicemail). The form they will send you to fill out is called NPS Form 10-930; however, there is a unique version of this form for each individual park. Some parks have this form on their webpage, but if not (and the Grand Canyon did not), simply Google “NPS Form 10-930 for [enter National Park here]” and it will likely turn up. The form is five pages long, but only three are filled out by you. It’s clear when you fill out this form that it is intended for an actual production company, and isn’t designed for just some person with their GoPro or iPhone or mirrorless camera. The form was easy enough to fill out. I kept my answers short and simple. I scanned it and emailed it back. And waited.
Canyon Between the Pines – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Fujicolor C200 v2
If the National Park Service is serious about you obtaining a filming permit (and purportedly they are), they should have a standardized form that can be filled out and submitted online. There should be a one-stop-shop for this (kind of like the LAANC system for drones, maybe), and not vary depending on the park. In other words, the process shouldn’t be confusing, difficult, or long (like it is currently).
The Grand Canyon requires that your application be submitted a minimum of 10 days in advance of your planned filming. This means no spur-of-the-moment visits. My trip was nine days from my initial inquiry, but the kind folks (and they were indeed very kind and professional) at the Grand Canyon Public Affairs Office assured me that they would expedite my request. Even though I had nine days (and not 10), it seemed like it worked out by the skin of my teeth, and there was little margin for error. Other parks might have different time requirements, so be sure to pay close attention to that.
Five days after I had submitted the application (granted, it was near a holiday weekend), I received a phone call from the Grand Canyon saying that my permit had been approved, and that I needed to pay a $100 application fee. There are a number of other potential fees, including a $150-per-day fee, that I didn’t have to pay, but that you should be aware exist because it’s possible that your filming project might be subject to them. I paid the hundred dollars over the phone (which apparently is how you have to pay it). The permit also allows you entrance into the park, and there is no need to pay the $35 park entry fee. I had already paid for a pass, so this didn’t help me, but maybe it is useful information to you. If you need a pass, then the filming permit will actually “only” cost you $65, since you won’t have to pay the entrance fee. Note that the fees might vary from park-to-park. Also, I had read that some parks require you to purchase insurance, but the Grand Canyon didn’t mention anything about that, nor did I ask.
After paying the fee, I was then emailed a six-page agreement, which is known as NPS Form 10-114 (like the other form, this one also has a unique version for each park). This contract states what rules I must follow while filming in the park. It’s all common-sense type stuff, like obey all the park rules and be responsible. It only required a signature. I scanned it and emailed it back. At this point I thought that I was good-to-go, but I didn’t realize I wasn’t quite done yet. The day before my arrival, on the eighth day after submitting the application, I was informed that my permit had been finalized, and now I was good-to-go. I just needed to make sure I had a copy of the permit (NPS Form 10-114 signed by them, which they had emailed to me at that time) while filming inside the National Park.
Now that I know the process to obtain a National Park filming permit, it’s not a terribly difficult thing to do (although more difficult than it needs to be). It’s a bit time-consuming and confusing and does cost money. It’s a shame that it is even required. The process is not standardized (it absolutely should be). You do need some amount of preplanning, and is not something that can be accomplished last-minute.
I love visiting National Parks, but this does sour it a little for me. It might cause me to travel elsewhere instead. I feel like just because my YouTube channel happens to be monetized, that the National Park Service wants to penalize me for that fact. The reality is probably more like this: some people are making lots of money on social media, and the NPS wants a piece of that pie. Well, so do I, but they just took my entire tiny crumb and then some! Whether you are earning money or not shouldn’t matter. It should be: are you a regular tourist who happens to be filming, or are you an actual production company who will interfere with other people’s National Park experience? They seem incapable of making that distinction, or unwilling to do so.
While visiting the Grand Canyon, which was an absolutely wonderful experience otherwise, my wife commented to me that she didn’t understand why we needed a permit. “We’re just tourists, like everyone else. How would anyone know that we’re making a video?” The fact is that we were ordinary tourists taking our four kids to see this Natural Wonder of the World. I’m sure nobody noticed or cared that we recorded some clips of the big ditch, because that’s what everyone was doing. Nobody there had any idea that we have intentions of publishing a video to YouTube, and even more that the channel happens to be monetized (nor that the monetization status even matters). We weren’t approached by any Park Rangers, and nobody asked to see our paperwork.
I feel like we went through this whole process for nothing. But, you know, we want to follow the rules and (especially) avoid hefty fines, so we did what the National Park Service required. Honestly, they need to change this, and it would be pretty simple for them to do. In the meantime, I have to consider if it is even worth the effort, or if I should just avoid visiting National Parks until someone with an once of common sense finally fixes this. I get that someone doing actual commercial filming would need to jump through these hoops, but the way-too-broad definition used by the NPS forces many to choose one of three things: 1) go through this potentially confusing, overly-arduous, and slightly-expensive process, 2) ignore the rules and hope not to get caught, or 3) avoid the many great National Parks that are meant to be for the “inspiration of this and future generations.” That’s a part of their mission statement. If your art is videography, you might need to find that inspiration elsewhere, which is a real shame.
Which Film Simulation Recipes are the most versatile? What makes a particular Recipe especially versatile, anyway? What does White Balance have to do with any of it? These are questions that I get asked pretty regularly, so I thought I would answer them today.
Let’s start with White Balance, including White Balance Shift. In the analog days, with a few exceptions, film was either Daylight-balanced or Tungsten-balanced. Daylight-balanced film, as you can imagine, was intended for use in sunny daytime scenarios, with a Kelvin temperature around 5500-5600K. Tungsten film was intended for artificial light scenarios, with a Kelvin temperature around 3200K. Because film was made for one of two specific light situations, you had three basic options for use outside of those scenarios: 1) accept the results for what they are, 2) use Color Correction Filters to adjust the Kelvin temperature to more closely match the light, or 3) use lighting equipment to artificially make the light match the film.
Digital cameras have a large number of White Balance options, which, when combined with WB fine-tuning (Fujifilm calls it WB Shift), can match the precise light that you are photographing in. If the White Balance is exactly correct for the light, things that are pure white in real life will appear pure white in the photograph, no color tint. But, just because the White Balance is technically correct, doesn’t mean that it is artistically correct. Nobody said that the White Balance must always be spot-on accurate—maybe you don’t want it to be, for aesthetic reasons. In fact, in the film days, it was quite common for the Kelvin temperature to be a mismatch for the light, at least a little. Kodak—the most popular film maker—was known for making emulsions with a warm color cast. In other words, achieving a perfectly accurate White Balance, which wasn’t particularly common until somewhat recently, might not be desirable. However, in the digital age with Auto White Balance, we’re often used to having a highly accurate White Balance in our photographs, and seeing it not spot-on accurate can perhaps be a bit unnerving, especially if it is pretty far off.
Many of the Fuji X Weekly Film Simulation Recipes are facsimiles of actual film stocks, and often that means using a fixed White Balance. Unless you have Color Correction Filters or are artificially lighting the scene to match the White Balance (both of which are unlikely), if the scene’s light is a mismatch for the Recipe, you can get undesirable results sometimes (just like with film). My best advice is to use a Film Simulation Recipe that is a match for the scene. For example, Fluorescent Night might be a better choice for nighttime photography than 1970’s Summer, since the former is more like Tungsten-balanced and the latter is more like Daylight-balanced. Sometimes the best Recipe for a particular light situation might be obvious, and other times it might not be, and trial-and-error is necessary to figure it out—my Which Film Simulation Recipe, When? series is intended to help out with this.
Not all of the Recipes use a fixed White Balance; instead, some call for Auto White Balance. Newer Fujifilm cameras actually have three AWB options: Auto White Priority, Auto, and Auto Ambience Priority. White Priority leans cooler in artificial light than standard Auto, while Ambience Priority leans a little warmer in artificial light. All three AWB options are intended to produce reasonably accurate White Balances in all light situations. Because of this, Recipes that use AWB tend to be a lot more versatile than Recipes with a fixed White Balance, since you can use them in all sorts of light situations, and not just one. This is much less film-like, but perhaps can be equated to carrying a bunch of different Color Correction Filters with you all of the time. The easiest way to find my Film Simulation Recipes that use AWB is to Filter By White Balance (available to App Patrons) in the Fuji X Weekly App.
White Balance and WB Shift are probably the largest factor in determining the versatility of a particular Recipe, but it’s far from the only factor. Film Simulation, Dynamic Range, Highlight and Shadow, Color, etc., all play a role. One Recipe that uses AWB might be more versatile than another that also uses AWB, and some Recipes that use a fixed White Balance can be surprisingly versatile. However, what one person likes might be different from another, since each person has their own unique tastes. I might like a particular Recipe for a specific scenario, but you might dislike it for that exact same situation.
The pictures in this article were all captured with Film Simulation Recipes that use AWB and that I find to be especially versatile. Use them anytime of the day or night, in any light situation, and for any subject. If you want a versatile option to program into your Fujifilm camera, those are ones to consider. But they are far from the only versatile Recipes, and they might not be the best, either. If one of them stands out to you, I definitely invite you to try it.
Find these Film Simulation Recipes and many more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
There are certain Film Simulation Recipes that are great for regular use. Maybe they’re not completely versatile, and cannot be used effectively in all situations, but they’re good for a lot of photographs. There are other Recipes that are good only for certain instances, such as night photography. There are also some Film Simulation Recipes that I would categorize as fun. They’re not necessarily intended to be used often, they’re not necessarily versatile, and they’re not necessarily even meant for specific scenarios. They’re just for fun, when you want results that are a little different.
While I have included five of these fun Recipes below, I have published a lot more than just five of them. These are ones that I have personally used within the last couple of weeks. I thought if I used them and appreciated the results, perhaps you would like to try them, too. Overall, there are probably a couple dozen Recipes (maybe even more than that) that could be included in this category. Perhaps it’s unfair to say that these are the only fun ones, because in my opinion all of the Recipes are fun, but these are just for fun, if that makes sense.
The five fun Recipes below are not in any particular order. I invite you to try them today!
Find these Film Simulation Recipes and many more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
Cold Morning at the South Rim – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Fujicolor C200 v2
The original Fujicolor C200 Film Simulation Recipe is great! This isn’t intended to replace that Recipe—there’s no need to replace it, since it’s excellent—but instead provide an alternative option for those looking for something slightly different. One film can produce many different looks, depending on a host of factors, including how it was shot, developed, and printed or scanned. In this case, a Fuji X Weekly reader wanted a Recipe that more closely matched his particular Fujicolor C200 scans. Oh, and it needed to be compatible with the Fujifilm X100V and X-Pro3, which the original version is not.
Fujifilm introduced Fujicolor C200 in 1990 as a low-budget, consumer-grade color negative film. I’ve shot a few rolls of it over the years, although it was never my go-to option. Fujifilm gave it a small refresh in 2017. Sadly, in late 2021, Fujifilm began selling rebranded Kodak Gold 200 as Fujicolor C200. Even though C200 is a cheap color film, it has a cult-like following, and many people enjoy its aesthetic and choose it over more expensive emulsions.
Bougainvillea Peeking over Wall – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Fujicolor C200 v2
This Fujicolor C200 v2 Film Simulation Recipe is an App Patron Early-Access Recipe. If you are a Fuji X Weekly App Patron, you have access to it right now. If not, no worries, as it will eventually be made available to everyone, once it is replaced by a new Early-Access Recipe. With the exception of the X-T3 and X-T30, it is fully compatible with X-Trans IV cameras: X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II. For fifth generation models, simply set Color Chrome FX Blue to Weak instead of Strong.
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this Fujicolor C200 v2 Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X100V and Fujifilm X-E4:
Main Street – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Dim Light & Neon Reflections – Tempe, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Coffee Shop Christmas Tree – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Backlit Potted Palm – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Afternoon Jo – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Sitting on a Backyard Bench – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Swinging Seat – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Potted Blossoms – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Artificial Flowers – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
AC – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
The Grinch that Stole a Golf Cart – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Autumn Path – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Autumn Canopy – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Bird on a Cross – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Icy Morning at the Rim – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Canyon Between the Pines – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Morning Shadows – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V
Comparison:
Original Fujicolor C200 Film Simulation Recipe (Fujifilm X-E4)
This new Fujicolor C200 v2 Film Simulation Recipe (Fujifilm X-E4)
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 300 more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
Bell Tower – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – Vintage Print Recipe
This Film Simulation Recipe began when my wife suggested that I should try to emulate a certain look that she had found. I wasn’t successful, but in my efforts I discovered these settings, which I thought looked interesting nonetheless. They remind me of vintage color prints—not from any specific film or process, but just my “memory color” (as Fujifilm puts it) of some old prints that I’ve seen in the past. It has almost a classic magazine quality to it, or even a bit of a post-card resemblance. Whatever it may or may not look like, it definitely has a vintage-like aesthetic that some of you might really appreciate.
Most of these pictures were captured using manual vintage lenses, including—actually, mainly—a Helios 44-2. I also used a 5% CineBloom or 10% CineBloom filter with about half of them. I did this to help achieve an analog aesthetic. The use of vintage glass and diffusion filters aren’t required for this recipe, but you are certainly welcome to do so if you want—I think they help a little to take the digital edge off of the pictures.
This Vintage Print Film Simulation Recipe is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras. For use on fifth-generation models, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Weak (instead of Strong), because those cameras render blue more deeply on certain film simulations. Those with newer GFX cameras can use it, too; however, it will render slightly differently. This was a Fuji X Weekly App Patron Early-Access Recipe, but has been replaced by a different Recipe, so now it’s available to everyone.
Film Simulation: Classic Negative Dynamic Range: DR200 Grain Effect: Strong, Large Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome FX Blue: Strong White Balance: Daylight, +3 Red & -6 Blue Highlight: +2 Shadow: -2 Color: -4 Sharpness: -4 High ISO NR: -4 Clarity: -4 ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: -2/3 to +1/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Vintage Print” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Pops of Bougainvillea Red – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Growing Bougainvillea – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Joshua at a Stucco Wall – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Big Storm Looming in the Background – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Lake, House – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Jon is Happy – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Labyrinth Church – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Saguaro & Dust – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Twin Saguaros – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Saguaro as Seen Through a Saguaro – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Teddy Bear Cholla – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Desert Spikes – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Desert Barrel – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Trumpets Down – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Bright Bougainvillea – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 300 more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
The list of Film Simulation Recipes below are my “Essential 7” for X-Trans I cameras, which are the X-Pro1, X-E1, and X-M1 (the X-M1 doesn’t have the PRO Neg. Hi and PRO Neg. Std film sims, so it is a bit more limited; it doesn’t have C1-C7, either). If you are not sure which Recipes to program into your C1-C7 Custom Presets, these are my suggestions for you to begin with. These are the ones that you must try, in my opinion. You might love all of them, you might only appreciate some of them, or you might not like any of them. Each person has their own styles and tastes, and there’s no one single Recipe that’s universally loved by everyone (although a few seem close). Still, give these seven a try—keep the ones you like, and replace the ones that you don’t.
Arched Window – Ogden, UT – Fujifilm X-Pro1 – Kodachrome I
A couple of important side notes here. First, this list isn’t necessarily made up of versatile Recipes. Like film, most Film Simulation Recipes have specific use cases—such as sunny daylight—so not all of these option will be good for night photography, for example, or perhaps other situations. Also, X-Trans I models cannot save a White Balance Shift within the C1-C7 Custom Presets. You can only save one WB Shift per White Balance type, which means you’ll have to remember to adjust the WB Shift each time you change Recipes. Since X-Trans I was excluded from the Which Film Simulation Recipe, When? series, I decided to take WB Shift into account for this article, and choose Recipes with a variety of WB types. This will make the user experience more enjoyable, but it does exclude some Recipes that might be preferable over others, since I’m avoiding multiple Recipes with the same WB type. For the 7th Recipe, use Daylight/Fine instead of Auto; by doing so, you’ll still get a similar result, and, since the two Daylight WB Recipes share the same WB Shift, you’ll be good to go.
The Essential 7 Film Simulation Recipes to program into your X-Trans I camera first:
Find these Film Simulation Recipes and many more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
I had speculated that it would be called X100Z, but I was wrong. A lot of people thought it would be X100R, but that was also incorrect. Instead, Fujifilm took the boring route, and chose X100VI as the name. How very Sony of them, right?
Will people pronounce it X100-Vee-Eye, X100-Six, X100-The-Sixth, or X100-Mark-Six? I will call the camera X100-Vee-Eye personally; however, it’s not a very exciting name. I’m sure Fujifilm had a list of potential names on a dry-erase board at their Japan office, and they looked at that short list daily for months. After much consideration and deliberation, they chose the option they felt was the safest. Playing it safe is often riskier than being bold, and the potential reward is almost always smaller. Fujifilm should have gone with a striking name, something that rolls off the tongue and stirs the imagination. Something that grabs your attention and demands that you take a closer look. X100V did that, but X100VI does not. X100Z, X100R, X100X, X100G—names like that—stand out much more than X100 VI, X100 VII, X100 VIII, X100 IX, etc.; one set it exciting and imaginative and surprising, while the other is boring and clinical and routine.
The name is probably the least important aspect of the camera; however, a boring name does not give confidence to the rest of the model. If Fujifilm is unwilling to take a small risk with the name, what else about it are they playing safe? The original X100, which launched the entire X-series (note: the X-Pro1, which came out about a year-and-a-half later, was the first X-mount and first X-Trans), was a very daring product that took the camera industry by surprise. Since the release of the X100, Fujifilm has done a lot of risk-taking, and most often it has worked out really well for them. Nowadays it seems as though Fujifilm wants to evolve to become more like the Canikony brands, which too-often values caution and complacency over bold risks.
In any event, I’m sure that the X100VI will be an excellent camera, every bit as good as the X100V, and just a bit better. What will be different about it? Nothing is known at this point. My guess is that it will have the 40mp X-Trans V sensor and processor, as well as the latest JPEG options (maybe not Reala Ace; however, don’t worry, because I have a Film Simulation Recipe that mimics it), but otherwise will be 99% the same as the X100V. That’s only speculation, and as was demonstrated at the top of this article, my guesses are not always right. Fujifilm could very well give the X100-series a pretty significant refresh with the VI iteration, but if the name is any indication, it seems like they plan to play it as safe as they can this time around.
I just released a brand-new RitchieCam App update! If your iPhone didn’t automatically update the App, be sure to manually do it now. There are two new Filters, plus some improvement and feature changes that I believe you’ll appreciate, but I need to explanation some of it—I think it will all make a lot more sense afterwards.
First, the two new Filters: Slide Film and Negative Film! These are both only available to RitchieCam App Patrons, and are not unlocked in the free version.
Slide Film
Captured with the new Slide Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
The Slide Film Filter is reminiscent of color reversal (slide) film. Vibrant and contrasty—yet still versatile—with a touch of analog nostalgia. Set EV anywhere from 0 to -1 for best results.
Captured with the new Slide Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
Captured with the new Slide Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
Captured with the new Slide Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
Negative Film
Captured with the new Negative Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
The Negative Film Filter is bright, warm, and slightly faded, with some similarities to overexposed color negative film by Kodak. Great for sunny daylight situations. For a more faded and retro rendering, try reducing the EV between -0.6 and -1.3.
Captured with the new Negative Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
Captured with the new Negative Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
Captured with the new Negative Film filter on RitchieCam with an iPhone 13.
Next up is Favorites, which has been significantly revamped. Favorites is a Patron-only feature that improves the way you select Filters. You can Star as few or as many Filters as you’d like (including all of them), and arrange them in whatever order makes the most sense for you—providing you with a customizable experience. Whichever Filter is in the first slot is the one that the App will open with when in the regular view (with the tray of Filters).
One thing that’s new is Favorites will now stay open until you close it—even if you close RitchieCam entirely and relaunch, Favorites will still be open until you close it. The Filters (that you have added to Favorites) are activated by scrolling right or left, and the one in the center is what’s selected for use (if you’re not on iOS 17 or newer, you’ll have to tap to select… this might be a good opportunity to update the operating system). This is a more intuitive way to switch between filters, and makes Favorites quite useful for regular use. If you prefer the Filter tray, which gives you access to all of the filters, including the “i” information icon which provides some samples and a brief explanation, simply tap the Star icon to close Favorites. If you are a Patron, you have two different approaches to how you interact with and select the Filters; however, I anticipate that many of you will use Favorites quite often now, and the regular view less.
Another important note is that long-pressing on the Star icon opens the Favorites menu, which is where you choose the Filters that you wish to Favorite and organize them in whichever order you prefer. This is a quicker way to access the Favorites menu.
The Drag-to-Select Filter option, where you press-and-drag your finger across the screen to quickly scroll through the filters, can now be toggled on-and-off. By default it is set to Off. If you prefer this method, be sure to tap the Gear icon and enable Drag-to-Select Filter. This feature didn’t go away, but you must take this step in order to use it. For those who have had issues inadvertently switching the filter when attempting to tap-to-focus, you might consider leaving it Off.
A couple changes were made to Filter Intensity. First, the icon looks a little different (it’s now three parallel lines, where the top line is longer and the bottom line is shorter). RitchieCam will now remember the Intensity you selected for each Filter (previously, it was a global adjustment). Additionally, the icon gives you visual feedback as to the level of intensity you have selected for that Filter (this is pretty slick, in my opinion).
Last but certainly not least, in the Photos view (where you review the pictures you’ve captured), you can now tap or pinch to zoom in and out. This will make culling a lot easier.
The list of Film Simulation Recipes below are my “Essential 7” for X-Trans II cameras, which are the X100S, X100T, X-T1, X-T10, X-E2, X-E2s, X70, X20, X30, XQ1, and XQ2. A few of the older models—X100S, X20, and XQ1—don’t have Classic Chrome, so I have a set of Recipes at the bottom that exclude the Classic Chrome film simulation. To complicate it more, I don’t believe that either of the XQ models have PRO Neg. Hi or PRO Neg. Std (but they also don’t have C1-C7). If you are not sure which Recipes to program into your C1-C7 Custom Presets, these are my suggestions for you to begin with. These are the ones that you must try, in my opinion. You might love all of them, you might only appreciate some of them, or you might not like any of them. Each person has their own styles and tastes, and there’s no one single Recipe that’s universally loved by everyone (although a few seem close). Still, give these seven a try—keep the ones you like, and replace the ones that you don’t.
A couple of important side notes here. First, this list isn’t necessarily made up of versatile Recipes. Like film, most Film Simulation Recipes have specific use cases—such as sunny daylight—so not all of these option will be good for night photography, for example, or perhaps other situations. Be sure to visit my Which Film Simulation Recipe, When?article for a more comprehensive group of options for various use cases. Also, X-Trans II models cannot save a White Balance Shift within the C1-C7 Custom Presets. You can only save one WB Shift per White Balance type, which means you’ll have to remember to adjust the WB Shift each time you change Recipes. The suggestions below do not take this into account; however, the Which Film Simulation Recipe, When? article does, so be sure to read it.
The Essential 7 Film Simulation Recipes to program into your X-Trans II camera first:
Find these Film Simulation Recipes and many more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
The list of Film Simulation Recipes below are my “Essential 7” for X-Trans III cameras, which are the X-Pro2, X100F, X-T2, X-T20, X-E3, and X-H1. If you are not sure which Recipes to program into your C1-C7 Custom Presets, these are my suggestions for you to begin with. These are the ones that you must try, in my opinion. You might love all of them, you might only appreciate some of them, or you might not like any of them. Each person has their own styles and tastes, and there’s no one single Recipe that’s universally loved by everyone (although a few seem close). Still, give these seven a try—keep the ones you like, and replace the ones that you don’t.
Follow the Bird to Salt Lake – Salt Lake City, UT – Fujifilm X-H1 – Cross Process
A couple of important side notes here. First, this list isn’t necessarily made up of versatile Recipes. Like film, most Film Simulation Recipes have specific use cases—such as sunny daylight—so not all of these option will be good for night photography, for example, or perhaps other situations. Be sure to visit my Which Film Simulation Recipe, When?article for a more comprehensive group of options for various use cases. Also, X-Trans III models cannot save a White Balance Shift within the C1-C7 Custom Presets. You can only save one WB Shift per White Balance type, which means you’ll have to remember to adjust the WB Shift each time you change Recipes. The suggestions below do not take this into account; however, the Which Film Simulation Recipe, When? article does, so be sure to read it.
The Essential 7 Film Simulation Recipes to program into your X-Trans III camera first:
Find these Film Simulation Recipes and many more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
The January issue of FXW Zine is out now! Creative Collective subscribers can download it today. Not a Creative Collective subscriber? Join to gain access to this issue plus all pervious issues of FXW Zine and the many bonus articles.
In Issue 26, I discuss 24 Film Simulation Recipes that I anticipate using often in 2024. There are 77 pictures (including the cover) over 54 pages. Enjoy!
