Some Film Simulation Recipes are extremely popular. Some are classics. Kodachrome 64, Reggie’s Portra, Vibrant Arizona, Kodak Portra 400 v2, Pacific Blues, and many others, are frequently used by a lot of photographers. But there are some others that just seem to get used a lot less. Website page-view statistics indicate that the 10 Recipes below are less popular, which I think is confirmed by the infrequency that I’ve seen them mentioned on social media. Just because they’re not as popular doesn’t mean they’re not good—in fact, some of them are my personal favorites.
The list below does not represent the least popular Recipes on Fuji X Weekly. A few of them are in the Top 50 (out of more than 400), which puts them in the Top 12%-15% or so. Compared to the most popular, though, they’re overshadowed. The 10 Recipes below are often overlooked, and they deserve a bit more attention. If you’ve not tried them yourself, I invite you to load them into your camera and create some photographs—perhaps one or two of them will become favorites for you, too.
The Fujicolor Super HG Recipe was created by Thomas Schwab, who has made many fantastic Recipes, including a few on this list. This Recipe, which uses Classic Negative, resembles an older Fujifilm emulsion from the mid-1980’s through the late-1990’s. While it is very similar to Fujicolor Super HG v2, which was a collaborative effort between myself and Thomas, this v1 isn’t nearly as popular, probably because the v2 Recipe is more versatile (due to its white balance); however, this version is really good, and deserves more attention. Fujicolor Super HG is compatible with most X-Trans IV cameras (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4 & X-T30 II); for fifth-generation models, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Weak.
Another Recipe by Thomas Schwab, Fujicolor NPS 160 Pulled is simply fantastic for indoor and artificial light situations. It’s been one of my personal favorite Recipes for years. I highly recommend it if you’ve never tried it. This Recipe, which also uses Classic Negative, is compatible with most X-Trans IV cameras (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II); for fifth-generation models, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Weak.
For whatever reason, Timeless Negative has been my go-to Film Simulation Recipe for holiday snapshots during November and December. It’s quite versatile, so it can be used in a variety of lighting conditions. This particular version uses Eterna and is for most X-Trans IV cameras (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II); for fifth-generation models, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Off. There’s a version of Timeless Negative that uses Nostalgic Neg., which is also really good, for those who have X-Trans V cameras.
The SantaColor Recipe, which uses Eterna, is a fun one. It doesn’t always work well, but sometimes it works really well. It’s another Recipe that’s for most X-Trans IV cameras (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II). You can use it on fifth-generation models, but just note that it will render slightly different.
The Ferrania Solaris FG 400 Recipe is simply Kodak Portra 400 v2 with Eterna Bleach Bypass instead of Classic Chrome. Most Recipes don’t look particularly good when you change the film simulation, but in this case it does. This Recipe is compatible with most X-Trans IV cameras (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II); for fifth-generation models, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Off.
Definitely not a Recipe for every subject and situation, but CineStill 400D v1 can produce really striking results sometimes. It’s the only Astia-based Recipe in this list. CineStill 400D v1 is for the X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, X-T30 II, X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, X-T50, X-M5, X-E5, and X-T30 III cameras.
As you might have guessed, this is another Recipe by Thomas Schwab. I find that it works well for both sunny and dreary weather. Thommy’s Ektachrome uses the Nostalgic Neg. film simulation, which makes it compatible with fifth-generation cameras.
This is an updated version of the Kodak Vision3 250D Recipe, but using Nostalgic Neg. instead of Eterna. This is one of those Recipes that doesn’t always work well, but when it does, it really does! Kodak Vision3 250D v2 is compatible with all fifth-generation models.
Some of my favorite photographs were created using the Vintage Color Recipe. It’s another one that doesn’t always work well, but when it does, it’s really good. This Recipe, which uses Eterna, is for most X-Trans IV cameras (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4 & X-T30 II); for fifth-generation models, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Weak.
Last—but far from least—is 1960 Chrome, which uses Eterna Bleach Bypass and has compatibility with fourth and fifth generation models. The aesthetic comes from several photographs in various issues of Arizona Highways magazine from the 1960’s. If you’re looking for a vintage aesthetic, this is a great option.
Find these Film Simulation Recipes and many more in the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
I have SantaColor on my camera in both Still and Movie mode. Love the magenta tint!
Awesome! I’m so glad to hear it.
Timeless Negative and SantaColor are two of my favorites that I’ve been using for at least a solid year now!
Also, have you seen PARVEC’s video “The Ultimate 35mm Film Comparison – 14 Color Stocks Tested (Part 1)”? It’s an awesome controlled approach to comparing the color response of different film stocks. I’m curious how his observations match with yours on the film stocks you’ve made recipes of?
I hadn’t seen it, but it looks interesting. I’ll probably watch it later today, or maybe tomorrow. Thanks for sharing!
One thing about film is that the results can vary (some emulsions more than others) depending on a host of factors, including how shot (box speed, over exposure, underexposure, the lens, the light, altitude, temperature, etc.), how developed (push or pull processing, freshness of chemicals, temperature, pH balance of the water, how long the film sat after exposure, etc.), and how printed and/or scanned (brand of scanner, profile used, post-editing, etc.). So someone else could replicate his exact same test with the exact same films, and have notably divergent results. And that’s the tough part in making Recipes. Typically I will search out and cull a group of photos of a certain film (especially if it’s one that I don’t have personal experience with and a collection of frames) that have the same or very similar look, and then try to replicate that as closely as possible.
Thanks for the comment!
I absolutely agree with you, there are SO many variables between loading a roll of film and the look of the final scans/prints. That’s one of the things that I really like about this site and the recipes that you and your collaborators make, how much thought and research goes into considering those variables to decide what “look” to try to recreate (and how to recreate it).
The thing I found so interesting about PARVEC’s approach was how relatively consistent and repeatable it is. I think it’s about as accurate a set of comparative baselines as can be made, shooting different films at their box settings/design specifications.
Definitely not authoritative or anything, because it’s just each film stock’s “vanilla” look. But it immediately felt like the kind of approach to data that you might consider when making recipes for stocks like these.
Love it or hate it, I’m genuinely looking forward to hearing what you think!
It was definitely interesting. I think one of the big takeaways is that the scanning and post scanning process plays as big of a role as anything else to get the final look. Would be interesting to repeat the process, except make prints from the negatives instead of negative scans. I bet the results would be much different for most, if not all, of the films. Still a very good watch, thank you for sharing!