When I first picked up a Fujifilm camera, I didn’t expect it to transform the way I approached photography. Like many others, I’d grown accustomed to shooting RAW, spending hours editing, and often feeling overwhelmed by it all, which can zap the joy right out of creating images. But then I discovered that Fujifilm’s straight-out-of-camera JPEGs are actually really good. I realized that I didn’t need to spend so much time tethered to a screen to create the photographs I loved. It wasn’t just a convenience; it was a revelation.
A lot of people are surprised to learn that Ansel Adams—the master of the darkroom—was a big fan of Polaroid cameras. He wrote a whole book about it, and dedicated a chapter to the concept of what he called one-step photography. Typically, the first step is image capture, and the second is image development, but Polaroids only required the first step (hence, one-step photography). Adams wrote, “The effect of one-step processing on both amateur and professional creative photography has been revolutionary.”
That’s exactly what Fujifilm cameras have achieved with their camera-made JPEGs. It’s the modern version of one-step photography. It’s not just about convenience (although it is certainly convenient); it’s a transformative approach to how we think about photography. It was a game-changer for me, and it might be for you, as well.
Fujifilm’s film simulations are at the heart of the SOOC JPEG magic. Drawing on their rich history in film photography, they’ve poured decades of analog expertise into their digital cameras. These film simulations—such as Classic Negative, Velvia, and Nostalgic Neg.—were inspired by iconic film stocks that once defined entire eras of photography. Each film simulation carries its own personality—Classic Chrome has muted tones and punchy contrast, Acros has rich monochrome depth, Eterna has cinematic softness—that give photographers a starting point that already feels curated and intentional, as if they were post-processed. The connection to Fujifilm’s film heritage makes their JPEGs feel authentic, reminiscent of analog photography—a nostalgic yet modern blend, fusing the convenience of digital with the soul of film.
While Fujifilm’s film simulations are good on their own, what really sets the images apart is how customizable the JPEGs are. You can tweak the settings to create Film Simulation Recipes, which empowers photographers to achieve their style straight from the camera. It’s like having a personal darkroom built into your gear, which enables you to spend less time in front of a computer and more time actually making pictures. I have published nearly 400 Recipes for Fujifilm cameras, so there’s bound to be at least one that is a match for your personal style.
Fujifilm’s SOOC JPEGs encourage photographers to slow down and think more intentionally about their craft. Choosing a Recipe for the scene that is in front of you forces you to consider your creative choices upfront. This process brings a sense of mindfulness that some find refreshing. Getting the image right in-camera is a liberating shift. You can shoot with intent, knowing that the aesthetic you’re aiming for is baked into the photo as you press the shutter. Instead of relying on post-processing to fix an image, photographers are encouraged to get it right in-camera, which is a return to the ethos of film photography, where each frame mattered, and decisions were made before the shutter clicked.
This one-step philosophy—made possible by Fujifilm and Film Simulation Recipes—is sparking conversations about the value of simplicity, the importance of craft, and the joy of photography as an experience rather than a chore. While technology can sometimes complicate photography, Fujifilm has managed to simplify it without compromising quality. In my opinion, the results speak for themselves: more time spent shooting, less time stuck behind a computer screen, and photographs that feel authentic and look great. It challenges the “RAW is best” mindset. Beginners, who might feel intimidated by the complexities of editing software, can achieve excellent results right out of the gate, while seasoned photographers are finding new inspiration in the simplicity and authenticity of this approach.
Camera-made JPEGs are more than just a convenience; they represent a shift in how to think about photography. Fujifilm has created a system that celebrates the art of getting it right in-camera by leveraging their film heritage with creative customization, which allows users to focus on intentionality. Because of this, many Fujifilm photographers are rediscovering the pure joy of making photographs. The revolution may be quiet, but—as more and more choose this approach—its impact is undeniable.
Find Film Simulation Recipes for your Fujifilm cameras in the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
If Fujifilm had any sense, they would be using JPEG-XL instead of JPEG.
They might, you never know. They added HEIF to the X-Trans V cameras, so they could certainly do JPEG-XL.
With that said, I don’t believe JPEG-XL will catch on. I could be wrong, but I just don’t think it will. For this reason, I’m not including JPEG-XL in RitchieCam at this time (even though Apple supports it), as I just don’t see any major advantage to it compared to what else is available.
I would not choose JPEG-XL over JPEG for my photography, especially since JPEG-XL is not universally read by software. It will likely be a forgotten format in a decade, and all the JPEG-XL images will probably be obsolete and difficult to view. That’s a big risk, I think, that photographers really need to consider.
This is why I can’t let go of my Fuji system. I bought a Sony a6700 to try and see the fuss about the af. Sure, it was fast, but color science is still behind Fuji. And the Sony community likes to shoot raw and edit. Can’t seem to find a community on Sony that likes to share recipes for JPEGs; if there’s one, it’s only a few.
The Fujifilm community is pretty unique, and really the best in photography. Something similar has sprung up a bit among a few other brands (namely Ricoh, and to a lesser extent Panasonic and Nikon—for those two, it seems more corporately driven and a bit less organic), but it’s not to the same extent as Fujifilm.
I concur. And Nikon stepped with their new ‘feeling’ way only a while ago and does come from their corporate side in view on Fujifilm success. Like fir the Zf / Zfc after a failed trial with the Df.
Hence I would say it’s quite an opportunistic move (while I love the Zf, and if the Df would have really followed what is now the Zf, I would have stick to Nikon instead of going to Fuji).
Anyhow Fujifilm Community is indeed unique, and Fujifilm is just starting to get more along (like Ritchie regonition, the film still dial, etc).
Ansel Adams would likely see today’s straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) JPEGs as somewhat analogous to Polaroid’s “one-step photography”, but with key differences. While he admired the immediacy of Polaroid photography, he still emphasized careful exposure, composition, and post-processing.
Similarities Between Polaroid and SOOC JPEGs
1. Instant Gratification – Both Polaroid prints and SOOC JPEGs provide an immediate result without the need for a darkroom (film) or RAW processing (digital).
2. Limited Post-Processing – Just as Polaroid prints were difficult to manipulate after exposure, SOOC JPEGs have less flexibility compared to RAW files.
3. Fixed Processing Decisions – In both cases, the processing decisions (contrast, sharpness, color balance) are predetermined by the medium—Polaroid’s chemistry in the past and the camera’s internal JPEG engine today even the recipies are dependent on the camera’s hardware processing engine.
Key Differences
1. Quality Control & Editing – Adams used Polaroids as test exposures, but his final artistic prints came from carefully developed large-format negatives. With digital, he would likely prefer shooting in RAW, which allows for greater control in post-processing, similar to his darkroom techniques.
2. Dynamic Range & Tonal Control – Adams’ Zone System focused on capturing a full range of tones, which JPEGs often compress due to their lower bit depth. Modern digital cameras offer RAW files, which retain far more shadow and highlight detail than SOOC JPEGs.
Would Adams Shoot SOOC JPEGs?
Probably not as his **primary** workflow—he would almost certainly shoot in RAW to maintain control, just as he preferred large-format negatives over Polaroids for his fine art. However, he might have appreciated high-quality JPEGs for quick previews, documentation, or creative experimentation—just as he used Polaroid film.
Adams’ Digital Equivalent Today?
If Adams were a digital photographer today, he would likely use:
• RAW format for final artistic prints (similar to his large-format negatives).
• JPEGs for quick previews or proofing (like he used Polaroid test shots).
• Advanced editing software (Lightroom/Photoshop) as his modern “darkroom.”
Final Thought
While Polaroid’s “one-step photography” and SOOC JPEGs have immediacy, Adams’ artistic process was about control, refinement, and intentionality—something best achieved through post-processing. He might admire the convenience of JPEGs but would likely advocate for shooting RAW and developing the image fully, just as he did in the darkroom.
Like many of us he would shoot RAW+FINE JPEG and use the SOOC if it really met his standards.
I agree and also disagree a little. I think most of what you said is true; however, Adams did not use Polaroids exclusively for test exposures. A lot of people don’t realize that one of his well-known Yosemite pictures was a Polaroid, and that he took Polaroid photography quite seriously. I think, if he were around today, he would use RAW + JPEG, and situationally specific, would either be quite happy with the camera-made JPEG (or maybe lightly edit it), or he would edit the RAW in Lightroom (or other program), with a lot depending on the specific project and intended outcome. Also, I feel like I’m responding to ChatGPT and not a real person.
Actually much the same could be said for JPEGs out of Olympus cameras. Their jpeg algorithm is pretty amazing and they were doing it before Fuji
I’m sure their JPEGs are good (although I’m taking your word for it, I have no personal knowledge), but Olympus is practically irrelevant today. It’s my understanding that OM Systems (what Olympus is now called) is still selling fairly well in Japan, but worldwide it is a minor footnote. If their JPEGs are indeed especially excellent, they squandered the opportunity, as it had no major effect on the camera industry at large.
Olympus/OM Digital have certainly had good JPEG, good color science, going back decades. However, they only approached the capabilities of Fujifilm cameras — the ability to use film emulations and other “pre-editing” in one camera: the Pen-F. It’s possible they return to that with the forthcoming OM-3, at least based on rumors. But if course, every rumored camera delivers all you want until it’s actually announced.
This seems like nonsense to me although the KDE Desktop includes a photo application that says it makes lossless JPEG files. So, that could be what Fuji is doing although they would be larger files.
But, the thing is that JPEG is a lossy compression method with block artifacts that should be obsolete. There is another way to make better compressed photo files which is to use JPEG 2000. And, it’s variable compression includes true lossless.
JPEG 2000 files are smaller and don’t have the block artifacts. It is time to phase out original JPEG. I appears stupid to keep using it. Whether we should switch to JPEG-XL or JPEG 2000 is the next question ❓
JPEG is a good quality format as long as the processor is good (such as Fujifilm’s). I’ve made large prints from my straight-out-of-camera JPEGs that look great. Interestingly, the majority of people save their edited RAW pictures as JPEGs.
JPEG-XL and JPEG 2000 and even HEIF will likely be long-abandoned formats 25 years from now, but the lowly JPEG will still be a common format. The issue is that some people will find it difficult to view their old photographs, depending on the format they used. Perhaps this is a good reason to print more frequently.
In those IT days, obsolescence is a real matter. ‘Standard’ come and goes too many times. I remembered the so to be Holly Graal of the Jpeg 2000 format. It did go quickly in the IT dust.
Hence I do not trust at all HEIF either.
Being in the IT field, long term IT files conservation is a very big issues and concerns. Real headache.
But the original jpeg format is way over due for a revemp / improvement for sure especially with all the camera hardware evolution we have seen. But I would not trust either a private company to lead for a new standard. Must be made internationally, trully open source and accepted / promoted by everyone for the greater good.
With nowadays behaviour and interests it might certainly not happen. And consumer behaviour will certainly not drive the market and make emerge a new standard.
Hence I’ll stick to standard jpeg for a little while longer despit its age and convates.
If there was some international effort, with the endorsement of leading tech companies, that produced a better option than JPEG, it could catch on, I think. I don’t think JPEG is bad. It seems to get an undeserved bad rap, mostly because of poor processors of years past (IMHO). With that said, there is certainly room for an improved format to emerge, and maybe a good time is sooner than later.
On Fujifilm cameras, film simulations should be able to be applied to RAWs once the photographs have been taken.
Most RAW editing software have their own version of the various film simulations, or you could use X RAW Studio or in-camera re-processing. The nature of RAW photographs is that it is the RAW data that needs to be developed, so it’s not something that can be fully baked-in until it is in a RAW editor.
I subscribe totally to the one-step photography philosophy.
Thanks Ritchie for bringing it back to light 👌
I appreciate your kind feedback!