Some people really hate Fujifilm Recipes. Some people even loathe the mere idea of Recipes. Someone once told me that I’m doing much harm to photography by creating and publishing Film Simulation Recipes and encouraging people to use them. Why is it even slightly controversial? What explains the hate?
I don’t have any definitive answers, but my best guess is that most of it stems from the old rule-of-thumb that if you’re a serious photographer, you must shoot RAW. There was a time when RAW really was necessary because cameras sensors were less capable and JPEG engines were not nearly as good. This was especially true in the early days of digital photography, becoming less and less true as the years went on and technology advanced. Some brands have better JPEG output than others, and us Fujifilm photographers are especially spoiled. While you-must-shoot-RAW is generally outdated advice, a lot of people still hold onto it, and preach it as if it’s still gospel truth. For me, relying on camera-made JPEGs changed my life (no hyperbole), by making photography more enjoyable while simultaneously increasing my photographic productivity while simultaneously taking up less of my time that could then be devoted to other things (a win-win-win).
Related closely to the previous paragraph, I think there’s also a bit of gatekeeping. There are some who insist that there’s only one “right” way to do photography, which incidentally is whatever way they do it. All other methods are wrong. Don’t ever listen to anyone who says such things. You can do photography however you want, which can vary dramatically from person-to-person. There’s no right or wrong format, only what works best for each person, which could be RAW, or JPEG, or RAW+JPEG, or something else entirely, or sometimes one thing and other times a different thing.
There’s also a misconception that JPEGs are no good. It’s true that if you want to edit your pictures, JPEGs have far less latitude than RAW; however, if you aren’t editing or only lightly editing, that argument falls flat. In fact, most RAW shooters export their finished edited photos as (wait for it…) JPEGs. So it’s not so much that JPEGs are bad, it’s that they’re not nearly as flexible if you plan to extensively edit—if you’re not editing (or only lightly editing), there’s really no difference between Lightroom producing a JPEG and your camera doing so.
Some people believe that real photography involves two steps: capturing and editing (or darkroom, in the film days). Both steps are equally critical. They’ll tell you that Ansel Adams—the darkroom master himself—proved that two-step photography is essential; however, this ignores that Adams was a big fan of Polaroid photography (he wrote a whole book about it), and even coined the term one-step photography, which he said was “revolutionary” for both professional and amateur photographers. Using Recipes on Fujifilm cameras is a modern day version of one-step photography, where the second step—the editing step—is no longer necessary to achieve great results.
But, but… for best results, you must edit, right? Sometimes, perhaps; other times, not so much. It really depends. I have seen some extraordinary results straight-out-of-camera that you’d never guess were unedited. I’ve seen some camera-made JPEGs that look better than most people’s RAW edits. But it all depends. Sometimes editing a RAW file will produce results that the in-camera JPEG processor isn’t capable of. Either way, it doesn’t matter to those viewing the pictures, who don’t care how a picture was created. The only thing that matters is whether the photographer’s vision was conveyed, and, for a lot of people, Recipes do just that, and for others, it doesn’t. Some dismiss Recipes without even trying them because they assume they’re not good, but maybe they’d change their minds if they gave them a chance.
The analog equivalency of Recipes are color reversal (slide) film, and the equivalency of RAW are negative emulsions; back in the film days, nobody looked down on those who shot slides as less-than, and nobody thought those who shot negatives were better—it was simply different approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages. The tools are different, but the intent is similar. You choose the one that best delivers the desired results.
Lastly, there are some who would say that Fujifilm Recipes are gimmicks, just shortcuts for lazy photographers. They keep people from learning the fundamentals. But Recipes don’t replace knowledge; they reward it. Knowing when a Recipe will do well, how light interacts with it, and when to switch or season-to-taste, takes experience and understanding. It takes more thought and effort while in-the-field to get the most out of them. Just like film, a Recipe won’t save a bad exposure or poor composition. It simply gives you a distinct palette to work within. Nothing lazy or gimmicky about that, just a divergent approach that’s more similar to classic analog photography.
I don’t believe that the majority of the criticisms around Fujifilm Recipes has anything to do with image quality, but about philosophy. Recipes challenge the idea that photography must be software-dependent, requiring the “right” post-processing skills, and a lot of time at a computer. If that isn’t necessary, it might make some feel uncomfortable because their identity as a photographer is closely tied to those things. If editing isn’t actually necessary, and half of your picture quality and aesthetic is determined by the second step, that can perhaps feel threatening and/or distressing, which explains the excessive negativity and combativeness. Then again, not everything is for every person, and that’s perfectly ok. Different strokes for different folks. There’s no right or wrong way to do photography, only whatever it is that works for you personally, which might look very different for each of us. If it’s Fujifilm cameras and Film Simulation Recipes, awesome! If it’s something else, that’s great. Maybe it’s a combination of things, just depending on the situation or your mood. As long as you’ve discovered and are happy with whatever it is, that’s all that matters, and the the naysayers’ words are meaningless.
I think I’ve become apathetic to them and have stopped adjusting white balance. I’ve found that a lot of the aesthetic I like skews warm but then at home ready to post they look to warm. The problem is there are to many recipes out there that function the same. I’ve switched to using 3 universal recipes on the xe5, Gfx100rf and gfx50r that don’t focus on adjusting white balance.
It’s about finding what works for you. It doesn’t matter what anyone else does or thinks about it, only that you get the results you want in the manner that you want to get them. I appreciate the input!
Amen! Just browse any Fujifilm Facebook group and you’ll see the gatekeepers espousing their wisdom. Happens every single day.
It’s so tiring. Maybe they think they’re foot soldiers for the cause? It’s just weird.
If you’re a serious photographer you shoot RAW.
If you shoot RAW you have to post process.
If you have to post process hey, why don’t you buy my PS workshop, or even better my wonderful pack of “Fujifilm presets”?
This is another category…
Yeah, I’ve seen that, too. And I have no problem supporting someone who has had a positive impact in one way or another. For example, Preet, Kyle McDougall, and GXAce (for me). Even though I don’t RAW edit any longer, I’m happy to support in a small way someone I appreciate. But, I’ve definitely seen exactly what you describe from some other people.
Great article and totally agree ….. up to the individual photographer to pick ……. Most presets aside from Fuji’s are more than enough ……. Imagine when AI starts to peek in ….. then what. Have enjoyed your articles for a number of years now. Cheers from Canada ( now vacationing in Portugal )
Enjoy your vacation, Bill! It will be interesting to see how AI will impact photography (it already has begun to in some ways). I appreciate your comment!
Greets.
Anything that facilitates a sale, straight out of the camera, must be the “Right” way.
Post processing for me is never a choice, purely a necessity. Otherwise, just self flagellation.
As painful as needing the transparency retouchers of old, the biggest earners in the trade.
Adding data / captions is plenty for me.
Most modern tech brims with facilities that may or may not work.
Most people only use 25% of their potential options.
Hopefully, they can use what they need and need what they use.
The rest, merely an irrelevance, ideally, an invisible irrelevance.
Occasionally, markets get things wrong, the irrelevances conflict and intrude.
In the UK, our horrible weather and heavy electric cars destroy our roads.
Much is imported from Germany. The Germans have fewer but wider, billiard table smooth roads.
The “felt tip faeries” take style for their vehicles from Le Mans cars, very low profile tyres on big rims.
Grip, handling and potentially sustained high speed braking, irrelevant for a family wagon.
I speak as a sports car competitor of some achievement.
On damaged roads, a pure disaster. My friends in Utica NY will completely concurr on this.
If you find the recipe system instrusive, you have the wrong camera. Mercurys work for me.
If, like me, you dip your T5, only for specific needs / defaults, why should you care.
Leave other consenting adults, to their predilictions.
Malcolm Hayward.
Anything that camera manufacturers do is ultimately to facilitate a sale. I’ve advocated for years now that camera makers should not replace models nearly as frequently, and let each one be more significant. Maybe use firmware updates to keep the “aging” units fresh. For example, we could have gone straight from the X-T3, released in 2018, to the X-T5, released in 2022, had Fujifilm given the X-T3 some more kaizen love and not left it (and the X-T30) on an island within the fourth-generation, replaced much too quickly by the X-T4. To me, four years in-between releases should be the minimum, and very normal. Other models should be less frequent than that. I know a lot of people complain that the next X-Pro isn’t out yet, but honestly six-to-eight years should be the normal for that line. However, the two issues are 1) they discontinued the X-Pro3 awhile ago (and I understand why… the faulty cable) and 2) they stopped given it kaizen updates. If the X-Pro3 were still available and had it received some more firmware updates, there would be a lot less of “where’s the X-Pro4?”. Instead, cameras are replaced with their next edition once every two or three years, which is much too soon, and makes it seem like it’s all throwaway. My first camera was 20 years old when I bought it, and it worked great for the next five years of heavy use (and probably abuse). I’d like to see that type of thing in the digital age. I hope 10 years from now someone buys a 20-year-old still functioning X-Pro2 as their first camera, and gets a whole lot of use out of it for 5+ years. That should be normal.
Fighting against planned obsolescence is probably a losing battle…
…but maybe a “solve” is paid firmware updates, buying some extra features a la carte. Sure, there should be free regular bug fixes and incremental minor AF improvements. However, if you had to pay $50 or such to get Reala Ace and Eterna Bleach Bypass on a X-Pro3, maybe that’s worth it to slow down the too-fast release schedule.
A status quo for that works well for me and a status quo that satisfies the corporate bean counters are very different things. If there’s a way to appease them and get more of what I want in a mostly practical way, eh, it’d be cheaper than a new camera.
The paid firmware idea was floated around a couple years back. I’m definitely not against it, but I get the arguments of those who are against it. If they were to ever do it, for any camera that’s still being manufactured, the firmware update should be free. For cameras that have been discontinued, significant kaizen updates could be available for a fee. That’s my opinion.
Every camera has a default chosen by some guy chosen by their management and that guy is the best of the best and knows what millions of people want (by default), a default that works for every situation. Some people don’t do recipes and don’t edit and they I guess don’t know photos can be made so much better than the stock look or they know but could not be bothered. I used to shoot raw only and edited but eventually I found a colour look I like and have a recipe for that and use it most times and play around with others, I have not found a black and white recipe like that and expect I never will as black and white requires case by case handling. Anyway why should we care if others don’t do as we do, what’s important is that they like their results
Yeah, exactly. If they are happy with the results and process, that’s great. Whatever that is. It shouldn’t matter if it’s different than what most do or not. It should only matter if the photographer is satisfied with it. Thanks for the input!
It’s phony as all get out.
They have to prove that they’re serious, so deride anyone they can conceivably point to as “less serious.” So the perform hate against the target of the day. Recipes. Xhalf. The quote on the top of the Lomo MC-A.
A twisted game of follow-the-leader. It’s more fake than Instagram stars and influencers.
There’s nothing wrong with shooting RAW, nothing wrong with a preference for post-processing. It’s fine to not engage with recipes. Just dislike something and move on.
But when folks have to make a big fuss about how they HATE something, how it’s harmful to the photographic community… it’s all a show. Folks are hunting for upvotes, for clout, for some imaginary cred for being “real” photographers and more serious.
It definitely comes from some sort of insecurity. If I was a psychiatrist, I could probably better define it; instead, I’m more like Charlie Brown at Lucy’s stand….
Well written, well summarized, Ritchie! I personally have never understood why two ways of working couldn’t simply co-exist., indeed similar to slides and negatives, without biting each other.
I’ve done it all, I’ve tried it all for a little over 40 years now, and I never exclude anything. Learned an awful lot though! That’s only because, for me, it’s the image that counts and not the way it is made.
I also believe that many people a really, truly convinced that RAW is the way to go. They lack creative flexibility, but may otherwise be excellent photographers. There are a number of good arguments for that / for them. I don’t disagree with any of these arguments.
Sometimes I want to post-process an image in CR and PS, just because there’s a lot more in it than comes out with the jpg-engine. Usually I know this will happen in advance.
I remember very well the moment I discovered the blessing of good recipes for my T5 and X100VI. Most of the time this recipe solution works perfectly fine, with only minor adjustments to be done afterward. Cropping, some brightness additions, some vignetting. No problem in jpg.
I guess the best of both worlds is to always shoot RAW + JPG. One never knows, later on…
Keep up the good work!
Toine
I personally shoot RAW+JPEG. For me, the RAW stays on the card, and is available should I need to reprocess in-camera (this is definitely helpful for creating new Recipes). How anyone wants to do it is perfectly fine, it’s a personal choice. There’s no right or wrong way, and there’s certainly not just one way. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Interesting article; never thought that these recipes would invoke “hate” in anyone; it’s just another way to have fun with making photographs! Never ceases to amaze me how people can get so “salty” on such innocent subjects.
Anyway, I always shoot in RAW + JPEG. Typically, I rely on the JPEG’s when the photo’s are snapshots/remembrances of social events, meant for quick viewing and sharing. The RAW’s I use for more “serious” photography – as far as my limited skills and knowledge allow – since the RAW’s provide greater flexibility (for instance: Photoshop’s AI noise removal tool works much better with RAW’s than JPEG’s, which is a big factor for me, since I shoot quite a bit in low light and my Fuji XT5 APSC camera does not excel in low-light performance).
For related reasons, I typically choose JPEG recipes that are not too pronounced and reflect skin tones well, which is a must for me. Of your recipes, Ritchie, I often rely on either “Fujifilm Negative” or, for a slightly warmer tone, “Superia Xtra 400” (and for B&W Kodak T-Max 100).
After shooting Fuji for 8 or 9 years, I recently invested in a second system, a Nikon Zf. For the Zf there are also recipes available now (for instance on the Alex Armitage website). Not nearly as many as on Fuji X Weekly, but I really like the rendering of the Nikon files, JPEG’s and RAW’s alike. You cannot include a white balance shift in Nikon recipes; not sure yet whether that is a good or a bad thing. However, what is clever, is that you can import the recipes into the camera and place them in the slot (1 through 9) that you want. Wish Fuji would include that, too.
I recall that some years ago, you reviewed the Nikon Zf. Would be curious to know what you think of the Nikon recipe “system” (although it is slightly off-topic here). Or maybe you are already deeply involved and is Alex Armitage just a pseudonym of your own good self :).
I think I might have been one of the very first to make Nikon Recipes (I might not have been, though, as I’m not really in that community). In the end, I didn’t care for the camera (Zfc) or the JPEG output (I’m sure the Zf is better, though, but I’ve never used it). If you’re interested, here are the Nikon Z Recipes:
https://fujixweekly.com/2022/07/03/11-nikon-z-film-simulation-recipes/
https://fujixweekly.com/2022/08/15/3-more-nikon-z-film-simulation-recipes/
https://fujixweekly.com/2022/08/24/3-bw-nikon-z-film-simulation-recipes-1-bonus-color-recipe/
I think there are parallels between what Nikon is trying to corporately create and what has organically grown within the Fujifilm community. It’s my understanding that when a certain Nikon ambassador in the UK (with a large social media following) stepped down a few years back and switched to Fujifilm cameras specifically to use Recipes, it made some notable waves at Nikon, and that’s when they started their journey towards embracing the whole Recipe concept. It will be interesting to see where and how the idea continues to spread in the coming years.
Fujifilm should definitely allow users to push Recipes to the camera through the X-App, and assign them to C1-C7. Something like that would be well received from the community.
Oh, and I’m not Alex Armitage. I’m not familiar with him or what he is doing.