The answer is both simple and complicated. Back in 2012, Eastman Kodak went through bankruptcy, and in order to survive, the company split parts of its business. One result of that was Kodak Alaris (a brand-new company that began in 2013), which took over much of the consumer side of film, including distribution, sales, and branding. Meanwhile, Eastman Kodak retained manufacturing. This meant that the film itself was made by one company named Kodak and sold by another named Kodak. The name printed on the box wan’t entirely controlled by one single Kodak company.
That arrangement worked—until it didn’t. Two separate companies with two interests that are sometimes at odds with each other working together can become tiresome, and I think that’s largely what happened. So recently Eastman Kodak began working to bring more of its film business back under its roof and control; however, one practical problem is that even though they make the film, they don’t necessarily have the rights to use the name that they invented. Some of Kodak’s trademarks are tied up in past agreements. That leaves Eastman Kodak with two options: buy back the rights to use the names, or move on from them. In the case of Portra and T-Max, they have chosen the latter.
Renaming film stocks and recycling old brandnames is not new for Kodak. Ektacolor and Ektapan are actually old names—part of Kodak’s long history—now given new life. Previously, Kodak used the Ektacolor name for color inks and paper. It’s also similar to Ektachrome and Ektar, both iconic film lines within the company. Ektapan was the name of a discontinued B&W film. Kodak has been renaming its film stocks for decades; for example, Kodacolor VR-G later became Gold and Ultramax was previously named Max Versatility.
Sunset Photography – Laguna Beach, CA – Fujifilm X100V – Kodak Portra 400 v2
The problem with this rebranding is that Ektacolor Pro is not nearly as strong as Portra. It’s like Burger King renaming The Whopper to Grilled Meat Burger. It doesn’t have the same ring, not even close. Kodak is going to have a rough transition, but maybe they see it as temporary, and they hope to get the rights to Portra in the near future. The T-Max to Ektapan transition won’t be quite as difficult, but it is certainly a step backwards, as far as branding goes.
The film itself hasn’t changed. Ektacolor Pro 160, 400, and 800 are Portra. Ektapan 100, 400, and P3200 are T-Max. It’s the same emulsions with the same rendering. The box just looks different, as does the name on it. The photographs will look just as you’d expect them to, and from a practical standpoint, that’s all that matters. From a marketing standpoint, this is a tough spot that Eastman Kodak has put themselves in. My guess is that we’re nearing the end of Kodak Alaris, which is probably the power play that Eastman Kodak intends.
For those with Fujifilm X-series and/or GFX cameras, this might not seem important. Who cares, right? I suppose there is a chance that it could cause some confusion for those using Recipes, if (say) someone is looking for an Ektacolor Pro 160 look, but doesn’t realize that it’s called Kodak Portra 160 v2 (as an example). However, the name is secondary to the aesthetic that the Recipe produces. For instance, my Kodak Pro 400 Recipe has a Portra-like look, but it doesn’t have Portra in the name. Whether it’s film or a Fujifilm Recipe, the goal isn’t to chase a label or specific brandname, it’s creating photographs that feel right to you.
Avalon Bay – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF – Avalon Ace
I have an upcoming project that requires the invention of a new Fujifilm Recipe. I’ll have more details on all that later, but the thing to know now is that I created a few different options, but there could only be one winner. This Avalon Ace Recipe is not the winner, it’s the runner up. I didn’t quite like it as much for the project as the one that won. In determining which Recipe would be chosen for the project, I used them all quite extensively (I have a lot of photos that I could include, this is only a small sampling). It was a tough choice. Even though this Recipe wasn’t the winner, I really like it, and I’m excited to share it with you!
I intended for the Avalon Ace Recipe to be especially great for travel photography, particularly coastal images with a lot of blue, and also European architecture. I wanted it to be analog-esque. I studied many film scans from various photographers who traveled across Europe—mostly (but not exclusively) Kodak stocks like Gold and Portra. While this Recipe isn’t specifically intended to mimic any one emulsion, the film-like character of the Recipe should be obvious. It should feel like you have an analog camera with you to document your journey.
Clearing Fog Over Avalon – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm X-E5 – Avalon Ace
The Avalon Ace Recipe is for fifth-generation Fujifilm cameras, which (as of this writing) are the X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, X-T50, X-M5, X-E5, X-T30 III, GFX100 II, GFX100S II, and GFX100RF. There is a mix of X and GFX images in this article, but mostly GFX. One obvious difference is Grain. Fujifilm doesn’t scale their faux grain for sensor size, so Grain looks smaller and more fine on GFX than X-series, and it looks much more pronounced on the X half (you can’t use Recipes on the X half…). If you were shooting film, you would expect grain to be smaller and less pronounced on 120 film than 35mm, and you’d expect grain to be larger and more pronounced on 110 film than 35mm. If you think of GFX as medium-format film, X-series as 35mm, and the X half as 110 film, it’s easier to come to terms with the Grain difference between sensor sizes.
This is a Fuji X Weekly App Early-Access Recipe, which means that it is currently only available to App Patrons; however, in time it will be available to everyone. If you are a Fuji X Weekly App Patron subscriber, it’s available to you right now. Please note: currently there is a caching issue that seems to only affect Samsung Galaxy phones. I’m working on this problem, and will hopefully have it resolved soon. What it means is that if you have a Samsung Galaxy, it might not load the current data, and this Recipe might take days or even weeks to appear. Hopefully a fix will be ready in the coming days. I’m sorry for this issue.
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this Avalon Ace Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-E5, GFX100S II and GFX100RF:
Marilla & Crescent – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Isuzu – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Garbage Truck – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Hotel St. Lauren – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
1901 Ford – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Low Clouds over Catalina Island – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
L74700 – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Guy Wearing Blue in a Boat – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Orange Bicycle – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Boats at a Dock – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Fishing Tackle – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Dock Corner – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Yellow Kayak – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Bird on a Kayak – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Clearing Clouds Over Avalon – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Boats in Avalon Bay – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm X-E5
Blue Sky, Blue Bay – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Lifesaver – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Disney Cruise – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Shore Chains – Avalon, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Rainbow Field – Buellton, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Flower Farm – Buellton, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Colorful Poppies – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Danish Building – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Fake Birds on Yellow Building – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
European Architecture – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Mission Drive Windmill – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm X-E5
Solvang Windmill – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
California’s Nordic – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Building Backside – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
The Landsby – Solvang, CA – Fujifilm GFX100S II
Superstitions Between Saguaros – Apache Junction, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Girl in the Desert – Apache Junction, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 400 more in the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
View of the North Rim from the South – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – 1971 Kodak
I was flipping through the pages of a photo album that my grandma had put together a long time ago, when I saw something interesting. Most of the pictures in this book were captured before I was born, and some when I was very young. I came across a group of color prints that all looked similar. They were warm—very yellowish—with fairly subdued colors, kind of flat-looking, yet with a decent amount of contrast. Blown-out highlights was a commonality among many (but not all) of the prints. A month and year were printed on the border, along with a red fox. Kodak is faintly visible on the back of the paper.
I was very intrigued by the aesthetic of these photographs. It was much different than the prints from my childhood. There was an obvious resemblance to my 1970’s Summer Film Simulation Recipe, although not quite identical. So I set out to recreate it with my Fujifilm X-T5.
Grand Dome – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – 1971 Kodak
From the clues, I determined that the film was most likely Kodacolor-X, which was a popular color negative film from that era. It required the C-22 development process, which was a predecessor to C-41. The prints likely are a bit discolored and faded due to age, and probably looked slightly different when they were newly made. Many of them were square, and those were likely shot on a Kodak Instamatic camera and on 126 format film; the rectangular pictures are from 35mm film. Most of the prints were developed in 1971, although some had dates in 1972 printed on the border. The red fox indicates that it was developed at Fox Photo, which at the time was a popular one-hour photo lab. Interestingly, in the iconic mall scene in Back to the Future, it’s a Fox Photo that get’s destroyed by the VW van.
I made a scan of one of the prints, and it really messed up the look. I did my best to correct it to closely match the print, and I did get pretty close; however, it’s not 100% identical. I didn’t use this scan, but the prints themselves, to create the 1971 Kodak Film Simulation Recipe. I think you can still get a pretty good idea of what the prints look like from the scan.
A scan of one of the prints from 1971. The kid on the right with the trombone is my dad when he was 15.
The aesthetic that the 1971 Kodak Recipe is intended to produce is Kodacolor-X film printed on Kodak paper in the early-1970’s, and viewed today after aging. The most similar Recipe to this is 1970’s Summer, and I’ve included a comparison at the bottom so that you can see the difference. This Recipe is compatible with fifth-generation X-Trans cameras from Fujifilm, which (as of this writing) are the X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, X-T50, X-M5, X-E5, and X-T30 III cameras, as well as the latest GFX models: GFX100 II, GFX100S II, and GFX100RF. This Recipe pairs very well with vintage glass (or inexpensive third-party lenses with character), and is best for sunny daylight scenarios. This isn’t a new Recipe. It was a App Patron Early-Access Recipe for the last two years, but now it’s available to everyone.
Film Simulation: Nostalgic Neg. Grain Effect: Weak, Large Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome FX Blue: Weak White Balance: 5900K, -1 Red & -6 Blue Dynamic Range: DR100 Highlight: +2 Shadow: -2 Color: -2 Sharpness: -4 High ISO NR: -4 Clarity: -4 ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: -1/3 to +1/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this 1971 Kodak Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-T5:
BM&LP RR 6001 – Williams, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Standing at the edge of the Canyon – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Four Kids at the Canyon – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Golden Sunlight in the Canyon – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Garden Wall – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Last of Autumn – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Backlit Backyard Leaves – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Leaf Pile – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Autumn Tree and Grey Sky – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Construction – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Old Saguaro Reaching High – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Pinyon Pine at the South Rim – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Lookout Store Sign – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Swift – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
No Teasing the Horses – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Comparison:
1970’s Summer Film Simulation Recipe
1971 Kodak Film Simulation Recipe
1970’s Summer Film Simulation Recipe
1971 Kodak Film Simulation Recipe
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 400 more in the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
In my Fujifilm said What?! article, I stated that the number one thing Fujifilm could do to quiet the autofocus critics is to make the AF settings more intuitive, and have it programmed to work well for most straight-out-of-the-box. Fujifilm offers a lot of customization to maximize autofocus performance for each person’s specific use-case and preferences; however, a lot of people are unaware that not only can they do this, but they’re expected to. Even if they are aware, they’re unlikely to know what the settings should be for their photography or videography needs. If Fujifilm never improved the AF algorithm or the hardware, and only did this one thing—make it more intuitive—it would be seen an a major improvement by many.
My epiphany came from two places: 1) Camera Conspiracies, who was highly critical of Fujifilm’s AF until he found the right settings for him, and 2) the large number of people who have stated across the internet that they just want it to “work” straight-out-of-the-box. In other words, a lot of people want to power on their brand-new camera for the very first time, and, without making any adjustments to the camera settings, want it to perform perfectly for them. They want it to be much more simple and intuitive than it currently is. In my opinion and estimation, this is where the majority of the AF complaints actually come from, the root cause.
There’s nothing wrong with Fujifilm’s current approach. It works well for a lot of people. Just because the Canikony brands do something a certain way doesn’t mean that Fujifilm should, too. There are certainly pros and cons to the implementation of anything, including AF. Obviously, the cons are not appreciated by a very vocal subset of the community, and they have made this well-known. If Fujifilm is interested in addressing the issue (and I assume they are because they’ve said so), the simplest and most affective way is intuitiveness. Make it as simple as practical.
Captured with a Fujifilm X-T1
So how would it work? There are a number of ways that Fujifilm could tackle it, and I’m sure they’ve already made some steps towards this on whatever they’ve designed for the upcoming sixth-generation X-series cameras. But, if I were a Fujifilm employee (which I’m not), I would suggest this: at initial startup, when the camera is first powered on, after prompting the date and time, I would have a short questionnaire. Skip the questionnaire, and the default autofocus behavior is as it currently is. Answer the questions, and the camera (based on those answers) sets AF up in what should be more ideal settings for that person. The questions could be: Do you usually use AF-S, AF-C or M? Are you primarily a photographer, videographer, or both? Do you most often photograph fast moving subjects, slow moving subjects or stationary subjects? Do you most often photography people, animals/birds, cars/trains/bicycles, or other objects? Do you most often use wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, or mid-range lenses? Do you typically use zooms or primes? I’m sure they could refine that into fewer questions. A total of three sets of questions would probably be sufficient.
Whatever someone answers, that would determine the default autofocus settings. The camera could still be custom set to whatever, but it would give those who choose the questionnaire a better starting point for their specific needs. The camera’s AF would work better for them straight-out-of-the-box. That simple change would likely make many people believe that Fujifilm has improved their AF without making any other improvements. Why? Because Fujifilm’s autofocus system isn’t nearly as bad as some would have you believe—in fact, it’s pretty darn good. Yes, the Canikony brands are better, but not being super awesomely amazing doesn’t make it bad, it only makes is awesomely amazing (instead of super awesomely amazing). The main issue is that people don’t want to set up their AF parameters, they’re largely unaware that they’re expected to, and they don’t really know what settings would work best for them, anyway. Fujifilm can and should do more to help educate their customers on this. But making the camera’s AF more intuitive with a simple questionnaire at initial startup would solve this issue for many.
I remember a long time ago heading out with my old Canon AE-1 loaded with a roll of 35mm film. If I had planned ahead, I might have had a second or third roll in my pocket or camera bag. You were limited by the film you had loaded into the camera, and maybe the film in reserve. Having just a few options felt like a gift. Today, we find ourselves in a very different place. Fujifilm cameras offer a deep set of JPEG controls—there are over 400 hundred Fuji X Weekly Recipes and probably thousands available elsewhere online, so the possibilities seem nearly endless. And yet, sometimes, that abundance doesn’t feel freeing—it feels paralyzing.
Curiously, the more choices we have, the harder it can be to choose. You scroll through Recipes, finally narrowing it down to just seven—which you program into your camera—and head out to shoot. But instead of fully engaging with the scene in front of you, you find yourself wondering, is this the right Recipe? Which of these seven should I choose? Should I switch? Should I find a different Recipe entirely? Would another be better?
Misty Saguaro– Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Pacific Blues
Film didn’t work that way. When you loaded a roll of Kodachrome 64 or Portra 400 into your camera, you were committed, at least for 24 or 36 frames. Not because it was objectively the best choice for every situation, but because it was the choice you made when you loaded the roll. And in that commitment, you weren’t second-guessing, you were seeing. You worked with the light you had, the colors in front of you, and the characteristics of the film you chose. Limitations are not restrictive, they’re clarifying.
Fujifilm Recipes can function in much the same way, but only if we allow them to. The key is not to chase the perfect Recipe for every scenario, but to select a few that resonate with you and stick with them long enough to understand them. Learn how they respond to different light conditions. Discover their strengths, and (just as importantly) their weaknesses. Over time, those Recipes not only become familiar tools, but extensions of your creative voice.
Pool Remnant – Rodanthe, NC – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Tri-X 400
I think a simple approach can be helpful. Narrow your choices to just two or three Recipes. That’s it. Ideally, pick ones that complement each other, such as a versatile everyday color Recipe, a less versatile but stylized option, and maybe a black-and-white. This small set will cover most situations without overwhelming you, and it is more obvious when to choose each. Then commit to them. Don’t switch constantly. Give each Recipe time to prove itself. Use it in different lighting conditions and with different subjects. Pay attention to how it renders colors, how it handles highlights and shadows, and how it shapes the mood of your images. The goal is not to find a perfect match for every scene, but to learn how your chosen Recipes behave.
Once you’ve done that, select a different set of two or three and repeat the process. Then repeat it again. Once you’ve done it five or six times, you’ll have a really good idea of which seven Recipes are your favorites, and when each should be used. It will be second nature. And you might find yourself mostly sticking with a few of the seven, while the majority are only used occasionally when the time is right. When each Recipe has a role, the decision becomes easier because you’re no longer guessing, you’re selecting with intention.
This doesn’t mean you should ignore the wealth of Recipes available. Far from it. Exploration can be a lot of fun. But if you’re feeling overwhelmed by all the choices, consider the suggestion above. Use the tools available in the Fuji X Weekly App, such as the new Filter By Categories feature, to really narrow it down. Then choose only a few, and really get to know them before trying out others.
The question isn’t whether there are too many Recipes—maybe there are, maybe the most ideal one for you hasn’t been created yet—it’s how many you truly need, and how do you find those. For most, we probably need less than we think we do—a few really good ones that match our personal aesthetic preferences and that we’re familiar enough with to know how to get the most out of them. A few well-chosen Recipes, used consistently, will take you much further than a camera full of options you’re unsure of when and how to use. Try out a few and use them for awhile, then try out a few more, until you’ve got a set that you’re comfortable with and have confidence in.
PetaPixel published a couple of articles recently detailing an interview with Fujifilm at CP+. Phototrend also interviewed Fujifilm at this event, which resulted in some interesting answers. PetaPixel’s conversation was much different, so let’s talk about what was said and what it means.
For one article, PetaPixel asked, “How will Fujifilm fix its video autofocus woes?” Fujifilm answered, “There are two improvements we can make, one based on the algorithm and then one based on the device itself. So we have the fifth-generation device now, and so to make an improvement here, we just need to improve the algorithm. That’s the maximum we can do.”
The basic takeaway from the interview is that for fifth-generation cameras, which are the current models, Fujifilm is working on potential firmware updates for autofocus improvement. My guess is that they are taking their time to ensure there are no issues. They want to avoid something like a couple of years ago when the firmware update had a significant AF bug. Maybe this update will be released soon or maybe it will never see the light of day, who knows? Fujifilm did say, though, that they are actively working on it. Also, they are planning to improve autofocus through hardware (think faster readouts, quicker processing, increased memory buffers, better heat dispersion, etc.), which will benefit sixth-generation cameras, which will be here before you know it.
I’m really tired of talking about Fujifilm’s autofocus. For the majority of the last 10 years, this wasn’t a top topic within the community. It’s really only over the last few years that it’s become a big deal, and I find that very odd and quite telling. I’ve discussed this all at length numerous times, so I want to avoid rehashing everything, but some things need to be re-said, I suppose. I’m sure you’ve seen the hyperbolic, troll-like statements that flood the comments section of any article or video even slightly related to this topic.
It’s important to keep expectations realistic. Let’s ground ourselves in reality. The Canikony brands had a major head start in developing AF (going back to the 1970’s), have a much larger R&D budget, can better attract the best and most experienced experts in the field, and have put the majority of their eggs in the AF basket, ignoring image quality improvements or even sometimes to the detriment of IQ (as reported by PetaPixel). Those who expect Fujifilm to have “class leading” autofocus, or at least to have it be on par with the big three camera makers, are living in a fantasy land. It’s not going to happen outside of a major paradigm shift (perhaps AI is that paradigm shift). When you buy a Fujifilm camera, it’s important to know that it’s not going to have AF as good as the Canikony brands—that should be your expectation, because it’s the truth, and it only makes sense if you think about it for a mere moment.
That doesn’t mean Fujifilm’s autofocus is bad. Of course it isn’t bad! If you were to take the lowest-end, bottom-rung, entry-level X-M5, which costs only $900, and hop into your DeLorean, blast some Huey Lewis, go back in time 10 years, and show people that this is what Fujifilm’s autofocus will be in a decade, the camera would impress a whole lot of people. The community would be all excited for the eventual autofocus performance that the X-M5 demonstrated. Hurray for Fujifilm’s future AF! For some reason, the perspective that a lot of people who complain about Fujifilm’s autofocus seem to have is that photography has only been around for a few years. Do we not remember autofocus from any brand 20 years ago? 30? 50? I guess we don’t, because we lack an appreciation for how incredibly awesome even so-called “bad” autofocus is today. That AF system that you call garbage can run circles around the best AF from not terribly long ago, and yet our photography and cinematography isn’t any better than it was back then. I think a lot of people just don’t appreciate how good they have it today.
With that said, there is certainly room for Fujifilm to improve autofocus. I think all of the Canikony brands have reached a point of diminishing returns. They are quickly approaching, are at, or are maybe just beyond the peak of an inverted U-curve. The practical benefit of an AF improvement from (say) Sony helps a tiny fraction of their customers, while for 99.99%, the AF capabilities are already beyond what they need. Now for Fujifilm, who isn’t quite as far along, an AF improvement might have a practical benefit for (say) 15% of their customers, and maybe the next improvement benefits 12%, perhaps 7% for the following one, and so forth, as they climb the inverted-U. They are working on this right now. For the majority of people, though, Fujifilm’s AF is already plenty good enough for most subjects and situations.
Fujifilm’s autofocus is nowhere near as bad as some on the internet would have you believe—not even close—but there is something that Fujifilm could do that would have an immediate major impact on this perception: intuitiveness. It took me awhile to figure out that this is likely the number one issue. People apparently want to take their camera out of the box, throw in a freshly charged battery, and shoot amazing pictures, without ever setting it up. Some of this might be explained by beginners who just purchased their first camera, but I believe the majority are not beginners. In fact, I think (quite ironically) that most are the same people who would tell you that you must shoot RAW, and only amateurs shoot JPEGs. Perhaps this is because those who use Film Simulations and Recipes are constantly in their camera’s menu, so making adjustments and customizations is normal and no big deal. Whatever the reason, there are those who just want the AF to “work” without setting any of it up first. So if Fujifilm were to make a major stride in how intuitive their AF is without improving any other aspect, it would be seen as a big upgrade.
Fujifilm allows you to customize how autofocus works on your camera; however, I think a lot of people don’t realize that not only can they do this, but they’re expected to do so. Even if someone does realize, they probably don’t know how, or what the most ideal settings are for their use case. This is something Fujifilm could have done a much better job communicating to their customers; sadly, in recent times when they have tried, they were heavily mocked for doing so. Far too often, people would rather blame something else than take any sort of responsibility for a failure. Telling people that they’re the problem is never well received. But the truth is that those who complain about Fujifilm’s AF have the power to fix most—if not all—of their woes, and they’ve had this power the whole time. An example of this is Camera Conspiracies, who constantly mocked Fujifilm’s AF until he figured out the right settings for his needs. I think there are merits to Fujifilm’s approach, but either they need to do a much better job getting the word out on how to best use their system, or they need to make it work well for everyone—no matter someone’s individual needs—as factory-default settings.
In the next PetaPixel article, Fujifilm stated, “What we want to do as a company is make sure the photography culture remains for the foreseeable future. If we don’t continue to offer something exciting, fun for the users, then people won’t be really interested in photography itself. That would be a nightmare for us, we believe photography is such an important part of everyone’s lives. We think that’s our mission, to make sure everybody understands and knows that if they ever want to try something related to photography, we’d be there to offer as many options as possible.”
I find that fascinating. If camera makers don’t offer exciting and fun-to-use gear, photography itself is in jeopardy, says Fujifilm. And that makes sense. If the pros and hobbyists get burned out because photography is no longer enjoyable, they’ll quit. If potential newcomers are satisfied with their cellphones and AI-generated images, and no “real” camera seems interesting or fun to them, they’ll never even explore photography in the first place. It’s possible that cameras like the X100VI, X half, X-E5, and GFX100RF are actually saving photography, and are not just gear existing within the industry. It’s interesting to think about, and maybe something that other camera makers should pay more attention to.
This article is already longer than I wanted it to be, so let me wrap this up real quick. The way these two topics relate is that Fujifilm could make a variety of the most exciting gear ever released, but if a bunch of trolls and Negative Nancies (my apologies to anyone named Nancy) complain about it, will those products actually save photography? Maybe, maybe not. I think it’s important for Fujifilm to address the first topic aggressively—not because their AF is bad, but because people can’t accept that it is good just because it isn’t quite as good as the Canikony brands (which apparently makes it trash). Fujifilm’s two options are to better communicate how to best use their AF, or to make it more intuitive and work better out-of-the-box at factory-default settings. The latter is the path that will be best received. The firmware and hardware refinements that Fujifilm mentioned to PetaPixel I’m sure will be welcomed and appreciated, but it doesn’t address what I think is the largest problem, which is intuitiveness. Once fixed, when the fun gear is announced, there will be fewer negative comments that unfairly scare away potential buyers. Or maybe trolls will be trolls, and none of it matters.
There’s a lot of talk within the Fujifilm community about in-body image stabilization (IBIS). Some believe that it is an essential feature that every new camera must have, and others don’t really care if their model has it or not. My position is that for most photographers and most situations, it’s far from a requirement, but it is nice to have from time-to-time. Notice that I said photographers; if you are a videographer, IBIS is much more important.
For still photography, IBIS makes no difference unless you are using a slow shutter speed or a long telephoto lens, and you don’t have a tripod. If you carry around a tripod, IBIS isn’t necessary, but carrying around a tripod isn’t fun, so if that can be avoided I will avoid it. The rule of thumb to avoid blur from camera shake (not movement within the image itself) when hand-holding, your shutter speed should be at least the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens. For example, use 1/30 for a 30mm lens and 1/200 for a 200mm lens. That’s the minimum shutter speed generally speaking—depending on how well you can hold still, you might be able to go slower or you may need to be faster.
The two photos above are great examples of when IBIS comes in handy. Both break the rule of thumb for reciprocal focal-length shutter speed by a significant margin. For myself, it’s pretty rare that I’m using a 1/6 shutter speed, or using a 600mm lens. I’m sure that for some photographers, those are both common situations; however, I would wager that it’s fairly rare for the majority of shooters. If you are not using slow shutter speeds or long telephoto lenses, you probably don’t need IBIS.
I have a number of cameras with IBIS, including my X-T5 and X-E5 that captured the above pictures. But for most of my nearly 30 years of photography, I did not have a model with IBIS. For those without it, are they tough out of luck? Is IBIS essential? Does every single camera released today need to include it?
Above left: Fujifilm X-T30 at 0.4 second exposure with tripod; Above right: Fujifilm X-T30 & Fujinon 100-400mm @400mm handheld.
Of course, the solution that we used “back in the day” (which was not long ago) was a tripod. If you have a tripod, you can use whatever shutter speed you want. Even a monopod helps in marginal situations. But obviously tripods are a pain to lug around, so if you can avoid it, that’s positive. For telephoto lenses, you can use a faster shutter speed, but that might require a higher ISO, which is less than ideal. The two photos above, which were made using an X-T30 (a camera without IBIS), are examples of achieving desired results with a non-IBIS camera—for the left image, I used a tripod; for the right picture, I used a faster shutter speed.
It’s not the end of the world if you don’t have IBIS. In fact, you are in the same situation that the vast majority of photographers have found themselves in throughout the last 200 years. You are in a very, very large crowd. But IBIS can be nice to have sometimes. For some people, it can be an especially useful feature.
The main argument for why every new camera must include IBIS is that the tool exists, so why not include it? There is no harm in having it, and it will certainly be helpful to some. Of course, this ignores that IBIS makes the camera more expensive, most likely larger and heavier (at least a little, maybe a lot), and drains the battery quicker. In the last few years there have been significant strides in minimizing the negative side effects, but it’s unfair if we ignore those aspects altogether. For example, Fujifilm stated that to include IBIS in the GFX100RF, the camera would need to be nearly double the size. I was able to get a sharp handheld image at 1/8 shutter speed (see the image above), so IBIS would only have a minor benefit, yet its inclusion would make me not want the camera due to the dramatic increase in bulk. Perhaps if they are able to engineer it so that the camera stays nearly the same dimensions (like they did with the X100VI), then it would be more practical to include.
In other words, there are tradeoffs. Some people might prefer IBIS at all costs. Some people might prefer smallest/lightest/cheapest at all costs. And most are somewhere in the middle, perhaps leaning one way or another, but overall desiring a good balance of the pros and cons. And that’s where I am. It’s nice to have IBIS sometimes, but it’s far from the end of the world if a camera doesn’t have it. Now, if I were a videographer or I frequently used long telephoto lenses or hiked to waterfalls often, I would likely feel different.
The last argument that I want to tackle for the essentialness of IBIS is that higher-resolution cameras will more easily show camera shake—more megapixels means more need for stabilization. There is some logic to this. It actually has more to do with pixel density than resolution. When more densely packed, a given amount of camera movement shifts the image across more pixels, making small motion blur more noticeable when viewed at 400%. For example, people will say that the 100mp GFX sensor needs IBIS because it has 100mp; however, the pixel density is the same as the 26mp APS-C X-Trans IV sensor. If IBIS isn’t necessary on X-Trans IV cameras like the X-T3, X-E4, and X100V, it’s hard to make the argument that it is a requirement for 100mp GFX models, but you see people make this argument all the time, stating it as if it’s a known fact. An argument that it is necessary on the 40mp X-Trans V sensor (due to the higher pixel density) is a stronger case, especially when you consider that every one of those cameras has IBIS; however, the counter-argument is that while it might very marginally show motion blur more easily, it is buried under more resolution, so when viewed at the same size as an identical image from a lower pixel density sensor, you wouldn’t notice.
For some people, IBIS really is necessary, and thankfully you’ve got lots of options. 10 years ago Fujifilm didn’t offer any IBIS models. The first X-series camera with IBIS was the X-H1, released in 2018. Even in 2020, the X-T4 was your only option (aside from the X-H1, which was already discontinued). Now you have the X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X100VI, X-T50, and X-E5, plus some GFX models. Fujifilm has come a long ways with this, and I’m sure they will continue to make strides. But if you don’t have a model with IBIS, don’t fret. There are a lot of strategies that allow you to get the shots you want without it, which have been used for decades, if not centuries. IBIS is an excellent tool that is extremely helpful (and essential) to some, maybe not helpful at all to a few, and nice to have occasionally but not really essential for most. My guess, though, is that a time will come when every camera includes it, especially as pixel density continues to increase as camera makers chase resolution. A someday 60mp X-series model will certainly need it, and maybe an 180mp GFX camera.
Phototrend interviewed some Fujifilm managers at CP+ this year, as apparently they do every year. Most of the answers were vague and didn’t really reveal anything significant, but a few were interesting. I encourage you to read the whole article. Let’s dive in.
Phototrend: “Last year, you launched the GFX100RF, your first compact camera with a medium format sensor. Was it a commercial success? What do you say to those who would have preferred a brighter lens or a stabilized sensor?”
Fujifilm: “The GFX100RF received excellent feedback from the market because it’s compact and lightweight, making it a practical everyday camera, even for a GFX. We know that many users wanted a faster lens or in-body image stabilization (IBIS). However, from a technical standpoint at that time, this was the best configuration to achieve the smallest and lightest possible GFX.”
Phototrend: “I agree, but some users always want the best possible specifications.”
Fujifilm: “Since the launch of the GFX100RF, many users have expressed additional requests. It’s the first product in the RF line, and we’re taking them into account.The GFX100RF was a real commercial success. It attracted not only existing Fujifilm users but also many new customers to the GFX system. Since they didn’t need to invest in lenses separately, they could enter the GFX world directly. This greatly contributed to the success of this model.In fact, users who have purchased the GFX100RF find that it works so well for them that they no longer worry about the maximum aperture or the lack of stabilization.”
There’s a lot to unpack in that short exchange about the GFX100RF. First, the camera is a big success by whatever metrics Fujifilm uses, which is good to know. All those who said it would flop were wrong. Anyone actually surprised? Second, it’s not going to be the last RF model. I’m not sure if Fujifilm is committing to a future Mark II successor, or if they have plans for another model in the “RF” line that is different than the GFX100RF, or both, or something else entirely. But it sounds like there are plans for some new RF camera(s) sometime in the future. The GFX100RF is more like a medium-format X70; I would love for them to make an X100VI-like version, with a 45mm (35mm-equivalent) f/2.8 lens and IBIS, which would be notably larger, heavier, and more expensive, if for no other reason than those who insist on those things can have the opportunity to buy it. Third, Fujifilm is right: the whole maximum-aperture and lack of IBIS complaints are way overblown, and those who have actually used the camera don’t worry much about those things. The complaints are almost exclusively from those who have never tried the camera, and mostly from those who have no experience with GFX in general.
Phototrend: “Do you have any productions made with the Eterna GFX?”
Fujifilm: “Yes, several projects are already underway. For example, the camera is currently being used in Japan this season for a major television series called Aibou: Tokyo Detective Duo. It’s a very prestigious series, broadcast for over 24 years, one of the longest-running on Japanese television.”
I suspect that a number of television shows, broadcasts, short films, and feature-length movies will be made using the GFX Eterna 55. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few IMAX films are being produced right now. This camera is for a whole different crowd than would typically use Fujifilm gear. Fujifilm has made motion picture film for a long time, and are pretty renown for their broadcast lenses, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they would have an interest in making a professional cinema camera. The feedback seems to be that the Eterna 55 is a great start; however, with anything that is brand-new, there is room for adjustments and improvements, some of which will come via firmware updates, and some will have to wait for a future model.
Phototrend: “One of the major advantages of the APS-C system is its compactness, but Fujifilm currently only offers two true pancake lenses: the 27mm f/2.8 and the recently released 23mm f/2.8. With the success of the X-E5, has the demand for ultra-compact lenses surged? Can we expect more pancake lenses?”
Fujifilm: In addition to the consistently strong sales of the 27mm, the new 23mm is also selling well. The combination of a pancake lens and the camera body creates a very elegant package. We therefore believe there is potential for a future range of pancake lenses. I think that to maintain a compact format, a shorter focal length is more suitable. Therefore, there is potential to develop a new lens in the wide-angle range.”
What caught my attention was the “future range of pancake lenses” statement. I’ve been advocating for that for many years. Now that we have the 23mm f/2.8 to go along with the 27mm f/2.8, I think a Mark II of the 18mm f/2 is next. While more of a Japanese pancake than an American flapjack, it is still quite compact, and close enough to a pancake to be considered in the pancake range. I would like to see something wider, maybe somewhere in the 12-15mm range, and something longer, maybe 40mm-ish. Additionally, an XF version of the 13-33mm lens would be a nice pancake-ish zoom, as well as the proposed 18/30mm dual focal-length semi-pancake that Fujifilm recently suggested. So, yes, more pancakes please!
D Y – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5 & Fujinon 23mm f/2.8 – Reggie’s Superia
Phototrend: “Are you limited to renderings of existing film stock, or are you open to going beyond that?”
Fujifilm: “We have two directions. The first is to expand our collection of film and recipe simulations. The second is to use future technologies to update and refine our existing simulations as hardware and sensors evolve. So we see these two paths as distinct possibilities for the future.”
Phototrend: “So you’re suggesting that a simulation like Classic Chrome could be updated with new technologies to get even closer to the original creative vision, to the ‘ideal’ of this rendering?”
Fujifilm: “Yes, that’s always a possibility.”
Phototrend: I think some people will say, ‘No, don’t change anything.'”
Fujifilm: “Yes, perhaps. But the film simulation is only applied to JPEG at the moment. However, I think that could change in the future.”
I have a couple of things to unpack from this real quick. First, Film Simulation do evolve, and have been evolving from the beginning. That’s nothing new and shouldn’t surprise anyone. In fact, last year someone at Fujifilm told me that this is quite intentional, so that each era of the X-series has its own unique charm. By designing the JPEG output to be slightly unique to each generation, the older cameras are never obsolete, because some people will prefer the charm of those cameras. That’s why you hear people say that X-Trans II is magical, or X-Trans I is special, or there’s nothing like the original X100, or that X-Trans IV is best, etc., etc.. There’s a charm to each, and you might prefer one over the other, something Fujifilm purposefully intended. They will continue to do this with future releases. But the big revelation is at the very end. What is meant by film simulations could be applied differently in the future? I would have had a few followup questions, but that’s where the interview ended. It’s a big mystery, but apparently Fujifilm has something perhaps groundbreaking up their sleeve, and it will be fascinating to find out what it is.
Fujifilm just announced a Fujikina event in Copenhagen, Denmark, on May 9th and 10th, at The Lab. There will be artist talks, masterclasses, live shoots, and photowalks, among other things. I’ll be there. Magnum: A World in Color is a gallery that I’m personally looking forward to, I’ve heard great things about it. I hope that I can attend Jonas Rask‘s masterclass on street photography, which will certainly be great. If you are anywhere close to Copenhagen, be sure to attend what will surely be an epic event. Click here to register. See the full itinerary here.
I’ll be leading two photowalks, one on May 9th and one on May 10th. Both are scheduled for 2:00 PM. If you’d like to attend one of those, you will need to sign up for it, which you can do when you register for the event. I will also be giving a short talk on Film Simulations and Fujifilm Recipes in Studio 4 at 11:30 AM on May 9th and 11:00 AM on May 10th. Outside of that, I’ll be hanging around the Film Simulation station. Even if you cannot attend a photowalk or talk, be sure to stop by and say hello. I would love to meet you and chat with you!
Ann Arbor, Michigan, photowalk in 2024
Fujikina is an event hosted by Fujifilm that celebrates the craft, culture, and community of photography. First launched in 2022, Fujikina brings photographers together for photo exhibitions, presentations, workshops, hands-on experiences, and photowalks in cities around the world. It feels less like a traditional trade show and more like a festival. The name itself is a nod to Photokina, the legendary expo held in Cologne, Germany, from 1950 to 2018. For decades, Photokina served as photography’s global gathering place. Fujikina is not a direct replacement, but it carries a similar spirit: bringing photographers together in person, just in a smaller, more community-centered way and focused specifically on the Fujifilm brand.
Fujikina is not an X Summit. Fujifilm announces new products at X Summits, and not Fujikina. Some Fujikina events have happened near and coincided with an X Summit, but not all of them. When they are synchronized, it typically means that Fujikina is the first opportunity to touch-and-try a newly announced product. I have not heard of any new cameras or lenses being launched around the same time as this Fujikina, but, then again, I’m not in the know, and I have zero inside information. I typically find out the same way that you do. It’s not uncommon for Fujifilm to announce something in May, but whether or not there will be an opportunity to see something brand-new, there will certainly be opportunities to get hands on with cameras like the GFX100RF, X-E5, X half, and more. Either way, it will be worthwhile.
Fujikina Copenhagen is a don’t-miss event. If you are in Europe within a reasonable commute of Denmark, be sure to make it. Mark your calendars now, and register ASAP. I hope to see you there!
I was traveling out of town when Fujifilm held their interactive Focus on Glass live event. While I managed to type out an article from my friend’s couch, I didn’t discuss it nearly as much as I would have liked. Now that a week has gone by, my thoughts have shifted a little. For those who might have missed it, click here to watch Fujifilm’s video and to vote on potential future lens ideas.
First of all, I think it is super cool that Fujifilm has invited their customers to help shape future products. This is a great community-building initiative, and also excellent market research. But, of course, one bad apple spoils a whole bunch, so we can’t have nice things. I read in a few different places some people bragging about voting many times for their favorite lenses, as many as 20 times each day. Apparently the website lets you vote over-and-over-and-over if you want, and some of those who bragged about this claimed that they use an IP address blocker so it won’t register as being from the same person. I have no idea what measures Fujifilm has put in place to prevent someone rigging the results so their favorite option wins, but it appears some have figured out how to get the tally that they want. Sadly, because of this, the vote totals have to be taken with a significant grain of salt. If Fujifilm does something like this again in the future, I hope they are able to safeguard it so that each person’s vote counts the same. I also hope that those attempting to cheat the system don’t sour Fujifilm’s attitude towards community input, but it very well might. It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone else. Shame.
An example of how this could be detrimental is the lens that’s currently in second-place (and not far from first), the 16-50mm f/1.4. On-paper it sounds like a wonderful lens, offering a bright aperture and shallow depth-of-field across a very useful focal-length range. However, look at the projected size and weight, and consider the probable price tag. It would be the 6th heaviest Fujinon X-series lens, and the heaviest wide-angle. This thing would be massive for a “kit” lens, and would likely cost around $2,000, maybe as much as $3,000. I’m sure some would buy it, but most won’t. It reminds me of the Fujinon 200mm f/2, which Fujifilm developed based on a multitude of customer requests; however, once released, it was very slow to sell due to its size, weight, and especially cost. A lot of those who requested it never purchased it. Now, if Fujifilm creates the 16-50mm f/1.4 lens based on the (supposed) demand from this survey, likely becoming available sometime in 2029 or 2030, but it has disappointing sales figures, Fujifilm is unlikely to ask for input from the community again, at least for awhile.
An alternative approach that Fujifilm could pursue is to break it up into two different lenses. For example, maybe a 16-35mm f/1.4 and 35-50mm f/1.4. If they did this, they could potentially add a little to each end, perhaps 15-35mm and 35-60mm or something like that. By splitting it into two lenses, each wouldn’t be so large, heavy or expensive; however, buying both would likely be more bulk and expense than if Fujifilm produced it as one large lens. So there are pros and cons to each idea.
The current leader of the pack is another zoom: 16-80mm f/2.8. Fujifilm thinks that they can make this around the same size and weight as the Fujinon 16-80mm f/4, maybe just a little larger and heavier. That’s truly amazing! This one seems like it could be a legitimate option. I can see it replacing the f/4 version; however, it’s likely to be a bit more expensive, perhaps in the $1,200-$1,500 range.
I don’t want to get down into the weeds too much here. Fujifilm likely has six to 10 different X-series lenses at various stages of development, none of which were included in their survey. Some might get scrapped, but most—if not all—will be released over the next two or maybe three years. We don’t know what these are, other than they’re not the ones in the survey. My guess is an update to the 18mm f/2 is one, but that’s merely a guess. We will know soon enough, though.
Of those lenses in the survey, most will not see the light of day. A few might. I think an update to the 35mm f/1.4 is one, and Fujifilm is using this survey to help guide the direction of it (this might actually be the main purpose of the survey). The 16-80mm f/2.8 is another, if Fujifilm can indeed keep the size and weight somewhere close to the f/4 version. I hope for the 18/30mm dual focal-length semi-pancake, but that’s just my personal wish. Same for the manual-focus lenses, but those didn’t get many votes, so they’re probably toast. My guess is that the cine prime lenses will come whenever the X-series version of the GFX Eterna 55 is announced, and their lack of current development is an indicator that the camera is quite a ways out, too. It’s possible that one or two of the other lens ideas—perhaps the 33mm f/1 and/or 14-140mm f/3.5-6.3—could also come at some point, but their lower vote count (especially the 33mm f/1) might push their priority lower, making their debut in 2030 or 2031 perhaps.
Essentially, the lenses I think we’ll see from this survey are 1) first the 35mm f/1.4 II and 16-80mm f/2.8 (in 2028 or 2029), 2) then maybe the 16-50mm f/1.4 and 18/30mm semi-pancake (in 2029 or 2030), and 3) finally the 14-140mm f/3.5-6.3 and maybe, maybe not the 33mm f/1 (in 2030 or 2031). If an APS-C Eterna cinema camera ever comes, I suspect that some cinema lenses will also be announced along with it. All of the other options are highly unlikely, unless a whole bunch of people start voting for them soon.
I want to applaud Fujifilm for asking the community for input. This is really great. I’m sorry that a handful of people have attempted to ruin it, but I guess that is to be expected, sadly. It will be interesting to watch the lenses released by Fujifilm over the next five years, to find out which ones were under development already, and to see which from this survey Fujifilm decided to create. How exciting!
Last year, Reggie’s Portra, which uses Classic Chrome, was the number one most popular Fujifilm Recipe on Fuji X Weekly, and it’s on track to be number one this year, too. The creator of that Recipe is Reggie Ballesteros (website, YouTube, Instagram), and he just recently published a new Recipe based on Classic Negative called Reggie’s Superia. The two of us talked recently, and he was super kind to allow me to publish his Recipe on this website and in the Fuji X Weekly App—thank you for creating Reggie’s Superia and sharing it with the community!
Reggie Ballesteros, also known as Reggie B, created his famous Recipe nearly five years ago, and I published it on Fuji X Weekly four years ago. It’s steadily grown in popularity thanks to its versatility—it’s one of those Recipes you can use in pretty much any situation. Reggie told me that this new Recipe is not intended to replace Reggie’s Portra, but is an intentional expansion, providing an alternative aesthetic that’s more Fujicolor-like instead of Kodak-esque. He was inspired to create Reggie’s Superia after many requests for his take on the Classic Negative film simulation from the Fujifilm community.
The problem that Reggie found with most of the Classic Negative Recipes he has tried is that they tend to be calibrated for street or landscape photography, and not for portraiture, especially across a range of skin tones. He designed his Recipe specifically to retain depth and richness in melanated skin while simultaneously embracing a film-forward look. Reggie’s Superia is intended to be moodier, grainer, and more contrasty than his take on Portra, prioritizing character and emotion over tonal preservation or strict color accuracy. He told me that it is best suited for directional light, where the photographer consciously chooses to lean into highlights or shadows, oftentimes allowing either very dark shadows or slightly blown-out background highlights as part of the aesthetic.
The Fuji X Weekly Recipe that’s probably the most similar to Reggie’s Superia is Fujicolor Superia 100, but the two are notably divergent in a number of ways. 1-Hour Photo might also be considered somewhat similar. Actually, if Fujicolor Superia 100 and 1-Hour Photo had a baby, it might roughly be along the lines of Reggie’s Superia. If you like those two Recipes, you are highly likely to appreciate this one, too. I used Reggie’s Superia pretty extensively on a trip across Texas, and I really liked the results.
You’ll find the parameters to Reggie’s Superia below, but please watch the YouTube video above first, which explains a lot more about the Recipe, how to use it, and even how to program it into your camera. Once you’ve watched it, then come back for the Recipe parameters. Reggie’s Portra is designed for fifth-generation X-series cameras, which are the X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, X-T50, X-M5, X-E5, and X-T30 III, as well as the latest GFX models; however, you can use it on fourth-generation cameras (except the X-T3 and X-T30), too, with slightly different results (most notably, the color blue will render a little less deeply)—Reggie says not to worry about the small differences, and just go for it.
Film Simulation: Classic Negative Dynamic Range: DR-Auto Grain Effect: Strong, Large Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome FX Blue: Strong White Balance: Auto, +1 Red & -3 Blue Highlight: -2 Shadow: -1 Color: +1 Sharpness: -2 High ISO NR: -4 Clarity: 0 ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: +1/3 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using Reggie’s Superia Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E5 & X-T5:
Backlit Red Oleander Flowers – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Spiderweb on Spent Rose Blooms – Humble, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Drainage Pond – Humble, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Big Brother & Little Sister Having Fun – Richland Hills, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Plastic Ax – Richland Hills, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Lube Express – Humble, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Hotel Windows – Humble, TX – Fujifilm X-T5
Old Main Street Tower – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Buc-ee’s – Madisonville, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Corvette Corner – Humble, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Good (Not Grim) Days – Humble, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Curtain – Richland Hills, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Boot – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Cowboy Jon – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Happy Jo – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Bride & Groom – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Bouquet on a Chair – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Wedding Flowers – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Grass – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Son and Dad – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Light Strand at Sunset – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Red Railroad Lights – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
D Y – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
White Cadillac – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Red Dirt – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Red Neon – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Christmas Lights – Grapevine, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Red Cowboy – Weatherford, TX – Fujifilm X-E5
Comparison:
Factory-default Classic Negative (no Recipe)
Fujicolor Superia 100 Recipe
Reggie’s Superia Recipe
1-Hour Photo Recipe
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 400 more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Fujifilm held a Focus On Glass livestream event, which I’ve included below. A major aspect of it was that you get to vote which three of 14 X-series lens ideas you’d like to see Fujifilm develop in the future. To let your voice be heard, click here. I’m traveling right now and don’t have a ton of time to talk about this, but I wanted to bring it to your attention in case you were unaware, and also provide a few quick thoughts.
The 14 lenses that Fujifilm has identified as potential future releases are 33mm f/1, 18-55mm f/1.4, 16-80mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 II (new optical design and larger), 35mm f/1.4 II (same optical design but weather-sealed), 35mm f/1.4 II (with linear motor), 18mm+30mm dual focal length semi-pancake, soft focus lens somewhere between 35mm and 60mm, 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 w/ghosting (lens flare control), prime with brass (23mm f/2, 35mm f/2, and/or 50mm f/2), manual focus (23mm, 35mm, or 50mm), 90mm f/2 APD, cinema lenses (16mm, 23mm, 33mm, and/or 56mm T/1.2), and 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6. Obviously some of these are more interesting than others, but we all have different tastes and needs, so you get to help choose what lenses come next.
The ones that are more interesting to me are the dual focal length 18mm+30mm semi-pancake, which would be especially great for travel, manual focus lenses, and a v2 of the 35mm f/1.4 (there are three options to choose from! I voted for the WR version). A number of years back Fujifilm had plans to make a 33mm f/1, but they determined it would be too large, heavy, and expensive to be successful, so they made the 33mm f/1.4 instead. In one way or another, there is something intriguing about each of these 14 options. I like the outside-of-the-box thinking for some of them; others are barely different from what is already available. The dual focal length lens idea might be best reserved for an X70 successor type of camera.
Those lenses that seem obvious but weren’t included in the list could potentially already be in the pipeline. The lens ideas that Fujifilm provided are not currently in development, so your favorite concept that wasn’t included might actually come first. A new version of the 18mm f/2 comes to mind—I have no idea if Fujifilm is actively developing that, but they should be, and I hope they are. I take its exclusion as hopeful.
My guess is that some of these, if they are chosen, could come quickly (the brass lenses, for example), while others might take years to develop. Probably the earliest will be in 2027, but it’s possible that one or more might not arrive until 2028 or 2029 or later. I would not expect most of them anytime soon. I think it’s really cool that Fujifilm is including the community in the process. I’m crossing my fingers that this experiment goes well for them, because I’d like to see more of it in the future. Be sure to vote right now, if you haven’t done so already. Also, I would love to know what you voted for, and what lens ideas you’d like to see that weren’t included on Fujifilm’s list, so let me know in the comments!
If you are wondering where I am, well, I’m in Houston, Texas, but I’m leaving tomorrow. It was just a short stop to visit some longtime friends who live out here while my kids are on school break. I have one more destination before returning home early next week. I apologize for any delays in answering emails and comments, and for not posting about this Fujifilm livestream event earlier in the day. Anyway, I’ve got to get up early in the morning, so I’m going to post this and sign off.
According to Fujirumors, Fujifilm plans to launch the long-anticipated X-Pro3 successor sometime in 2027. I have two conflicting opinions regarding the timing: it’s way late, and it’s coming just at the right time. Let me explain.
First, people have been waiting at the edge of their seats for the next X-Pro ever since the X-Pro3 was surprisingly discontinued in late-2022. Many thought that the next X-Pro was going to come in 2023, and when that didn’t happen, they expected 2024. When 2024 came-and-went, surely it would be announced in 2025, right? Well, here we are in 2026, and the camera isn’t coming until next year. That’s a lot of waiting and being disappointed. Will the next X-Pro ever come? And what’s taking so long, anyway?
At the same time, I think that camera manufacturers release new models much too quickly. Why do we need a new iteration every two or three years? For most models, I would like to see seven or eight years become the normal cycle for digital camera succession. Since the X-Pro3 was introduced in late-2019, the next iteration should be released sometime between late-2026 and late-2027, which sounds like what will happen. This should be typical, and not the rare exception. And at one time—before the digital age—it wasn’t uncommon for a camera to be manufactured for seven or eight years, and some wen’t for much longer (the Zenit-E had a 21-year run). Let’s get back to that.
What makes this difficult to appreciate, though, is that Fujifilm discontinued the X-Pro3 over three years ago. By the time the next one comes, it will have been four years or longer, which, according to historical release trends, means that a whole different X-Pro could have existed between the X-Pro3 and its successor. Fujifilm should have continued to manufacture and sell the X-Pro3 for another couple of years; however, a well-documented faulty ribbon cable sacked it. If you could have purchased a brand-new X-Pro3 as recently as last year, the fact that the next version isn’t coming until 2027 wouldn’t seem so bad. But I also understand why one would not continuing to sell a camera with a known fault. That’s the rock and hard place that Fujifilm found itself between regarding this line—they couldn’t keep making the X-Pro3, but they weren’t anywhere near ready for the X-Pro4.
Fujifilm has had plenty of time to come up with something really good (and hopefully well-tested). It will be interesting to see what exactly the camera will be. Once it’s released, nobody will continue talking about how long it took; instead, the focus will be that it’s here now. I look forward to that, whenever that happens in 2027.
Herbie on Route 66 – Antares, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF – 1-Hour Photo
There are 20 Film Simulations on the latest Fujifilm cameras. These Film Simulations are good on their own; however, they can be made even better by adjusting the various JPEG parameters into a Fujifilm Recipe, which are the factory-default JPEG settings fine-tuned in conjunction with a Film Simulation to form a new picture aesthetic. You can do this on most any camera from any brand, but Fujifilm’s JPEG processing engine is (in my opinion) the best in the industry. What you can do with it is more than with most brands, and what people have done is far and away more than any other brand. I’ve published more than 400 Recipes, which you can find on this website and in the Fuji X Weekly App.
But are Recipes actually better than the standard unmodified Film Simulations? Are they all that much different? Are the Film Simulations doing the heavy lifting, and all the other setting adjustments just minor tweaks? Should you use the factory-default settings in conjunction with the Film Simulations? Or is it better to find a good Recipe? That’s the subject of this article.
To clarify, Film Simulations cannot be modified. They are hard-set. You can’t increase or decrease their intensity. What can be modified are the other JPEG parameters, like Tone Curve (Highlight/Shadow), Color Chrome Effect, Grain, White Balance, etc., etc., etc.. When you change those settings—whether a little or a lot—to something other than factory-default (which is 0, Off, or Auto) and combine it with a Film Simulation, that’s a Recipe. I hope that all makes sense.
Fujifilm Recipes can produce a very subtle change to the picture aesthetic, or a very drastic one, or anything in-between. A lot of them tend to lean warm because most Fujifilm Recipes are modeled after film stocks—Kodak was by far the most prominent film manufacturer, and many of their emulsions had a warm cast. Aside from that, in the film era, it was quite common for photographers to use warming filters, further increasing the warmth. So it shouldn’t be surprising that many Recipes also tend to be warm; however, there’s a massive variety of looks possible with Recipes. There’s something for everyone if you look hard enough for it.
As you can see in the examples above, the difference between using a Recipe and not using a Recipe is pretty noticeable. The standard Film Simulations (no Recipe) don’t look bad at all, but the Recipes are definitely divergent, and (in my opinion) better. Of course, this is all quite subjective—there’s no right or wrong way to use Fujifilm cameras, Film Simulations, or Recipes. It’s about finding what works for you and your photography.
The best way to think about all this might be to consider a Film Simulation as the foundation, basement, and first floor of a building. Sometimes that’s all you need—for example, that’s perfect for a quick lube oil change business. Adjusting the settings to something other than factory-default (a.k.a. Recipes) is constructing the third, fourth, fifth, etc., floors into a high rise. When you look at a downtown cityscape, think of all those skyscrapers as Recipes. Some of the buildings are quite tall, some are ornate, some are unusual, others are fairly ordinary, and many are hidden in the shadows. Recipes take a Film Simulation to new heights.
Rainbow over Hoboken – Hoboken, NJ – Fujifilm X-T50 – Pushed Analog
To illustrate how one Film Simulation can produce many different looks, below are eight photos, each made with a different Classic Negative-based Recipe. Each one has its own character. Each produces its own unique picture aesthetic. I could repeat this with all of the Film Simulations. Perhaps one is perfect for you, perhaps none of them are. I simply want to show that one Film Simulation can make a variety of looks depending on the settings (Recipe). Maybe warm, neutral, or cool. Maybe high contrast, maybe low contrast. Maybe colorful or muted. Whatever look you are after, there’s a pretty good chance that a Recipe exists that will deliver that aesthetic. You just have to find it.
Let’s try something new: Recipe of the Month. The idea is to encourage you to try a Fujifilm Recipe that maybe has gone a bit under-the-radar, that isn’t necessarily popular, but is really good. You could consider this a challenge. Use this Recipe just once to see what it does, or use it exclusively throughout March to truly get acquainted with it, or anything in-between. That’s the idea, anyway.
For the very first Recipe of the Month, I selected CineStill 400D v2. This is an Astia-based Recipe that’s compatible with fourth-generation (except the X-T3/X-T30) and fifth-generation cameras, as well as newer GFX models (for those keeping score, that’s the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, X-T30 II, X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, X-T50, X-TM5, X-E5, X-T30 III, GFX100S, GFX100 II, GFX100S II, and GFX100RF). It was collaboratively created by Nestor Pool and myself, and published three years ago. This Recipe is good in a lot of scenarios, but I especially love it for golden-hour photography—if you are just giving it a quick test drive, make sure that you use it during sunrise or sunset, because it’s especially good for that. CineStill 400D v2 is one of my favorite Recipes that use the Astia Film Simulation, and I think many of you will like it, too.
Above: Two pictures I made this morning using the CineStill 400D v2 Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E5.
If you do happen to use this Recipe during the next 31 days, and should you post the pictures to Instagram, feel free to tag me. I may or may not see it (I’m not on social media all the time, and I get tagged in a lot of pictures), but I would love the chance to view some of them. It would be a great way to spread the love for this Recipe, and hopefully introduce even more Fujifilm photographers to it.
If you are looking for a Fujifilm Recipe to try, let me recommend to you CineStill 400D v2. If you want to attempt the full Recipe of the Month challenge, starting today and continuing through March 31st, see what pictures you can create using this Recipe. If you simply want to kick the tires, program it into your camera and capture a few frames during golden-hour light, and see if you like it—you might find it to be your new favorite option. If you don’t like it, well, there will be a new Recipe of the Month in April.
My plan for the Recipe of the Month articles is to include some sort of Recipe roundup with it. In other words, it will be both Recipe of the Month plus Recipe Roundup altogether in one post. I’m not sure what exactly that will look like and if it will be the same formula for each month, or if I’ll change up what it is from month-to-month, but there will be a second (or maybe even third) section to the articles. For March, I thought I’d do a quick recap of the Top 25 most popular Recipes of February 2026 (based on website page view statistics), in order of most-to-least popular. There are certainly a few surprises!
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.
Back in 2018, one year after starting Fuji X Weekly, I published my Agfa Scala Film Simulation Recipe, which was intended for X-Trans III cameras (like the X100F that I was using back then). It was the 15th Fujifilm Recipe published on this website, and the third black-and-white. It’s been a long-time personal favorite; however, I never updated it for the newer cameras. Earlier this year, I decided that this Recipe was long overdue for a refresh, so I set out to make a new iteration. I started from scratch, trying many different adjustments, but ultimately came back to those 2018 settings, with only minor changes.
Agfa introduced Scala 200 in 1992 (renamed Scala 200x shortly thereafter). It was the only commercially available black-and-white slide film ever made (although you could make slides from any B&W film, if you wanted to). It used a proprietary development process known as AP-44. I didn’t shoot much Scala personally, only a few rolls. What was great about it is that you had a finished photo straight from the lab. With black-and-white negative film, the darkroom printing process played a major role in the finished picture; Agfa Scala removed that requirement. Obviously, the intention was that you’d project the pictures onto a screen, which we don’t do anymore (most film you see today are scans). In 2005, Agfa discontinued Scala, as well as the chemicals for the AP-44 development process. The last roll of Scala that I shot couldn’t be developed, unfortunately. Adox introduced a new Scala slide film, called Scala 50, in 2019; however, it’s a different emulsion with a different development process. Interestingly, the old Agfa Scala 200x could be processed in the new chemistry, but with slightly different results.
Route 66 in Rural Arizona – Seligman, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5 – Agfa Scala
Scala was known for deep blacks and glowing highlights. It had a much smaller dynamic range than black-and-white negative film. Like color slides, you really had to nail the exposure, as there was very little leeway for underexposure or overexposure. If you got it right, the results were great; if not, there wasn’t much forgiveness. The film was extremely fine-grained for being ISO 200—it was sharp and looked beautiful when projected. This Agfa Scala Recipe mimics the film pretty well. The camera’s histogram can be very helpful to prevent overexposure. This Recipe is compatible with most fourth-generation and all fifth-generation cameras (as well as newer GFX models), which includes the Fujifilm 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, X-T30 III, GFX100S, GFX100 II, GFX100S II, and GFX100RF.
Film Simulation: Acros (including +Ye, +R, or +G) Monochromatic Color (Toning): WC 0 & MG 0 (Off) Dynamic Range: DR100 Grain Effect: Weak, Small Color Chrome Effect: Off Color Chrome FX Blue: Off White Balance: Auto, 0 Red & 0 Blue Highlight: +4 Shadow: 0 Sharpness: +1 High ISO NR: -4 Clarity: +2 ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: -1/3 to +1/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this Agfa Scala Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-E5, X-T5 and GFX100RF:
Buick in B&W – Seligman, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Truxton Gas Station – Truxton, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Rural Mailboxes – Antares, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF
End of the Road – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Herbie on Route 66 – Antares, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Tom’s Orlando Motel – Truxton, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF
God Bless America – Kingman, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Ranchero – Antares, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Frontier Motel Restaurant – Truxton, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Welcome RT 66 – Williams, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Arizona American – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Happy for Lunch – Kingman, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Bougainvillea Growing Over Backyard Wall – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF
Monochrome Bougainvillea – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5
Coyote Pass – Flagstaff, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Apartment Row – Flagstaff, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Church Steeple – Flagstaff, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Flagstaff Station at Night – Flagstaff, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 400 more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Vista View of Grand Canyon Station – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Kodak Portra 160 v2
Polar Pro released a new lens filter that they claim gives a Portra film-like look to images captured through it. Apparently, that has caused quite the controversy, so much so that PetaPixel wrote an article about it. I think there’s a lot missed in all of this, so let’s talk about it.
I don’t know much about the filter, except that it is intended to create a “soft, organic” look reminiscent of Kodak Portra emulsions like Portra 400, by utilizing a mix of 1/4 white mist diffusion, warming (maybe similar to Skylight or 81A?), and polarizer. Of course the idea that a lens filter will replicate the look of a certain film stock is ridiculous because it’s apples-to-oranges. It’s like saying that certain tires will turn your minivan into a Corvette. Well, maybe the tires can help give your van sportier handling, but the tires are not what makes a Corvette a Corvette. The lens and especially the filter on the end of the lens is not what makes Portra, well, Portra.
I think the mistake that Polar Pro made is outright stating that the filter will deliver a Portra look, although they do qualify in the FAQs section: “The Portra Filter is inspired by the feel and color response of Portra 400, not a one-to-one recreation.” It can help to achieve the general aesthetic, possibly, but a lot will depend on the camera you are using and especially the settings. For example, if you use their filter on your Fujifilm camera in conjunction with the Velvia Film Simulation or Classic Negative, it’s not going to much resemble Portra. If you use Classic Chrome, well, that has a Kodak-esque palette, so maybe it would work with that. The filter might very well be excellent (I have no idea, I’ve never used it), and perhaps it can assist in replicating a Portra aesthetic on digital cameras, but it’s simply not possible for it on its own to make pictures resemble Portra. It requires the filter plus something else, and that something else is never mentioned by Polar Pro. They should have been more upfront about what is required to achieve a Portra-like look using their filter—it’s not too late, they could still do that.
The criticisms aren’t completely fair, though. The “if you want a Portra look, then shoot Portra film” response is predictable. Yes, shooting Portra film is the most assured way to get an accurate Portra look, but film is expensive and inconvenient. It’s like saying, “If you want Italian food, you should go to Italy.” Yes, going to Italy will ensure the most authentic Italian dishes, but it’s not helpful for today’s dinner plans (unless, perhaps, you live there). There are a number of ways to achieve a fairly good Portra look without shooting actual Portra film, including with software, apps, and straight-out-of-camera. This is nothing new and shouldn’t be viewed as controversial by anyone.
It’s very important to note that one film can produce a whole bunch of different looks, depending on a host of factors. Which version of the film (160, 400, 800, 100T, NC, VC, latest iteration, etc.)? How was it shot (box speed, underexposed, overexposed; which lens; filter)? What was the light (sunny, overcast, artificial light, backlit, into the sun, etc.)? How was it handled (refrigerated, developed promptly, or sat in a hot car, expired, etc.)? How was it developed (freshness of the chemicals, pH and temperature of the water, push or pull processed, etc.)? Was it printed (and if so, which paper)? Was it scanned (brand of scanner, profile used, post-processing)? PetaPixel, for instance, gave examples from one photographer and then mocked Polar Pro’s images, saying they’re nothing alike; however, that was extremely unfair because there might be examples quite similar to Polar Pro’s pictures that were shot on actual Portra film (perhaps like some of these), which would undermine PetaPixel’s point, but they apparently didn’t look very hard to find that.
My take on the whole controversy is that Polar Pro brought the criticisms on themselves because their marketing choices weren’t the most honest or helpful; however, many of the criticisms aren’t really fair, either. So I guess I’m not on either side, but more in the middle. I will probably never try the filter. I don’t shoot much film anymore, although I have a couple dozen rolls waiting to be used (none of them are Portra, though). I had a goal at the beginning of the year to shoot a handful of rolls of that film, but so far I’m at zero (there’s still time, though). Using my Fujifilm cameras with Film Simulation Recipes, including some that are Portra-like, is plenty satisfactory for myself, and I just don’t feel the need to use film anymore. But that’s just me. If someone wants to shoot Portra (or any other film), more power to them. If someone wants to buy the filter, go ahead and do so. Someone else might prefer achieving the look via software and presets, and that’s ok, too. I’m sure there are those who completely dislike the Portra look in-general. There’s no right or wrong approach, only what works for each of us individually. Use what you want, and don’t use what you don’t want; worry less about what other people think.
So you just got a Fujifilm camera. Which Film Simulation Recipes should you program first? With over 400 to choose from on Fuji X Weekly and in the Fuji X Weekly App, it can be difficult to know which ones to begin with. This article is a quick-start guide for those wanting to dive into the Fujifilm Recipe world.
Most Fujifilm cameras have seven Custom Settings presets, also known as C1-C7. You can program a Recipe into each of those positions, which means you’ll find seven Recipes below as your suggested starting point. Some cameras (like the X-H2) only have six presets, and some (like the X-S20) only have four. This article assumes that you’ve purchased a fifth-generation model, which (as of this writing) are the X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, X-T50, X-M5, X-E5, and X-T30 III. This list also applies to the latest GFX models: GFX100 II, GFX100S II, and GFX100RF. In other words, these are fifth-generation Recipes, and not for older models (although I might turn this into a series if there’s enough interest in the topic).
If you are unsure how to program a Recipe into your Fujifilm camera, simply press MENU/OK, navigate to EDIT/SAVE CUSTOM SETTING in the IQ Menu set, choose the C1-C7 slot that you want to save a Recipe in, select EDIT/CHECK, enter the Recipe parameters, and hit DISP/BACK to save. If you’re stuck, check out this article (click here) or this video (click here). I also have a short set of slides below that quickly demonstrate the steps. Hopefully, between all of that, you won’t have any issues. It can be a little intimidating and confusing the first time through, but after you’ve programmed a couple of Recipes it becomes quite easy.
What makes a good set of seven Recipes? If each one in the group serves a purpose, that’s a solid group. Just throwing some random ones in might produce a good set, but most likely not. It’s better to be intentional; however, since most newcomers don’t know where to begin, that’s a near impossible task. This article is intended to help with that. If you are unsure which Recipes to try, the set of seven below is what you should use first. Once you’ve tested these out, if there were any that you didn’t love, simply replace those with something else—repeat that enough times, and you’ll end up with a set of seven that are a perfect match for you. Let’s dive right in!
Red Barn – Ronks, PA – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodachrome 64
Kodachrome was the most iconic film, and it stands to reason that you should start with the Kodachrome 64 Recipe. It’s intended for sunny daylight photography, but can sometimes be good in other scenarios, too, just depending on the subject and lighting. It’s a good allrounder for a variety of genres. Kodachrome 64 is essential to try, in my opinion, so you might as well place it in C1.
Misty Saguaro– Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Pacific Blues
The Pacific Blues Recipe is intended for a sunny summer day at the beach; however, I have found it works wonderfully well on foggy or dreary days, too. It’s more dramatic and significantly different than Kodachrome 64, so it offers a good alternative aesthetic that’s still film-like. This is one of my personal favorite Recipes.
Boulder Theater – Boulder, CO – Fujifilm X100VI – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm
With a softer tonality than the previous two, Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm is a highly versatile Recipe that can be used anytime of the day or night. Most of the Recipes in this list will do quite well in certain situations but not for everything, but this one is good almost no matter what you encounter with your camera. It’s a part of the Film Dial set, so if you have an X-T50, X-M5, X-E5, or X-T30 III, it is especially great for those cameras; however, even if your specific model doesn’t have a Film Dial, you can still use it similarly. A quick tip for those with a Film Dial model is to use a Film Simulation that’s not on the Dial (such as Eterna) instead of Reala Ace, since Reala Ace is easily accessible to you. Having a Film Dial Recipe available in your C1-C7 adds a ton of aesthetic versatility.
Corndog – San Francisco, CA – Fujifilm X100VI – 1970’s Summer
The 1970’s Summer Recipe is warm with a retro aesthetic. It’s not going to work well for every subject or situation, but when it works, which is typically sunny midday light and Americana type scenes, it does especially great—some of my favorite photos have been made using this Recipe. It’s the warmest option in this list. If you want a nostalgic look, this is a must-try Recipe.
Boldly colorful, Vivid Velvia is intended for landscape photography where you want the scene to pop. It’s fairly versatile, but probably not the best option for portraits. If you are primarily a landscape photographer, you might find yourself using this one the most.
While C3 will do quite well for nighttime photography due to its versatility, CineStill 800T is specifically intended for photographing after dark. You can use it during the day if you should desire a cool cast, but for the most part you’ll want to save it for after sunset.
C7 — Kodak Tri-X 400
Pool Remnant – Rodanthe, NC – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Tri-X 400
No C1-C7 would be complete without at least one B&W Recipe, and Kodak Tri-X 400 is my go-to option. I love monochromatic photography, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find a better Recipe than this one for it. This might be my all-time personal favorite.
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.
Red Barn – Ronks, PA – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodachrome 64
In an interesting conversation I had recently, someone mentioned that Fujifilm Recipes are great because they provide freedom—freedom from the computer and Lightroom (or other RAW editing software), freedom from indecisive aesthetic choices, freedom from unfinished work (such as RAW files just sitting around waiting to be edited)—but it can be too much freedom sometimes. For example, I’ve published over 400 Film Simulation Recipes for Fujifilm cameras; while having so many options allows you to find a great match for your subject, situation, and style, narrowing it down can feel overwhelming. Perhaps there are too many choices. “Limitations are necessary constraints for creativity,” he told me, “and freedom is most productive when it’s narrowed on purpose.” In other words, intentional constraints. Sometimes, less is more. Finding the “right” Recipe out of hundreds might seem daunting, but even choosing from among the seven programmed into your camera’s C1-C7 Custom Settings presets might be too much.
Something to try, he suggested, is to program fewer Recipes into your camera—perhaps three, or even just one. Instead of scrolling through your C1-C7 options before every shot, try pre-selecting one, two, or three Recipes before you head out, and commit to just those. Use just those for the duration of your walk, day, or trip. When the look is already decided, your attention naturally shifts to light and framing. Instead of asking, “Which Recipe should I use?” Ask, “How can I make this scene work with what I’ve chosen?” When selecting your Recipes (if it’s more than one), consider having one specifically for color daylight, one specifically for color nighttime, and one for black-and-white. If the Recipes are too similar in aesthetic or serve a similar purpose, it makes it less obvious which one to shoot with.
Analog photographers understood all of this instinctively. Loading a roll of film was a commitment for 12, 24, or 36 frames. You accepted the look, learned its strengths and weaknesses, and worked within them. That constraint didn’t stifle expression, it shaped it. On X and GFX cameras, you can benefit from that same discipline by using one Recipe long enough to understand where it shines and where it fails. You adapt rather than escape. Using a single Recipe for an extended period—days, weeks, or a full project—can be especially revealing and rewarding.
Fujifilm Recipes work best when they’re treated like film stocks: chosen with purpose, used with commitment, and understood through experience. When you narrow your options on purpose, the freedom they offer becomes more focused, more useful, and ultimately more gratifying. Freedom in photography isn’t about having endless options at every moment, but about choosing a direction and going far enough down that path to discover something meaningful. When freedom is narrowed on purpose, it stops being a distraction and starts being productive.
Low Clouds Over Manhattan – New York City, NY – Fujifilm X100VI – Kodak Tri-X 400
This is all theoretical, of course, and I don’t want to leave you hanging with that. Let me give a practical example of how this could be implemented. As you might have guessed from the photos in this article, you could choose the Kodachrome 64 Recipe for daylight photography, Fluorescent Night for nighttime, and Kodak Tri-X 400 for B&W. Alternatively, you could choose Pacific Blues for daytime, CineStill 800T for night, and Classic B&W for monochrome. There are a ton of possible three-Recipe combinations, but the larger point is to pick three (or fewer), and use those for an outing, a day, a month, or a project to better familiarize yourself with the strengths and limitations of those specific Recipes. If you do this enough times, you’ll be intimately aware of which Recipe to use for each subject and circumstance you encounter, and you’ll be more in tuned with your personal style.
I have often told people that when I started creating and using Fujifilm Recipes, I experienced a ton of freedom. Photography became more enjoyable to me when I detached editing software from it. Because I was spending much less time at a computer, I had more time to photograph (increasing productivity) and also more time to spend with my family. But as more and more Recipes are created (which is a good thing), it can be difficult to know which to use and when to use them. Narrowing it down through experience—simply by picking one, two, or three and using those for a period—is a great way to help with this. Another option is to use the Categories feature in the Fuji X Weekly App (available for Android and Apple), which can help to really zero in on specific genres, styles, and situations. For example, if you want a retro Americana aesthetic that’s good for midday light, you can find that. By selecting multiple Categories, you can significantly narrow down the selection to assist in finding the perfect Recipe for your needs.
In photography, nothing stays the same forever. Film stocks come and go, and are revised over time. Processes change. Technology advances. New cameras with fresh features are introduced. New techniques are invented, while old ones are occasionally rediscovered. Styles are constantly evolving. What’s “in” one year might be “out” the next, and maybe back “in” sometime later. Everything evolves as it passes from one person to another. As Austin Kleon famously stated in his book Steal Like An Artist, “Every new idea is just a mashup or a remix of one or more previous ideas.” Film Simulation Recipes are not exempt from this.
Most of the 400+ Fuji X Weekly Film Simulation Recipes are at least loosely inspired by photographic film stocks. Some are more strict replications than others, but none are exactly perfect. They’re constrained by the camera’s hardware and programming—it’s simply not possible to replicate specific films with scientific accuracy straight-out-of-camera, although it’s surprising just how close you can get sometimes. I’ve seen photos online that I thought were my Recipes, but they turned out to be actual film; I’ve seen photos online that I thought were film, but turned out to be one of my Recipes. For the most part, though, you can only get so close because you are working within some strict parameters and limitations (limitations should be viewed positively). Basically, consider Fujifilm Recipes as creative interpretations of analog aesthetics—remixing old ideas with new technologies and processes, sentiments straight from Austin’s book.
Pool Remnant – Rodanthe, NC – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Tri-X 400
According to AI (because I’m not a mathematician), there are 1,418,895,421,643,700 possible unique Fujifilm Recipes on the latest X-series cameras. That’s one quadrillion, four hundred eighteen trillion, eight hundred ninety-five billion, four hundred twenty-one million, six hundred forty-three thousand, seven hundred. When accounting for commonly-used settings, the odds of two people independently creating the same exact Recipe are about one in four billion (apparently, if you ignore all of the least common options—for example, most Monochromatic Color for B&W, etc.—the odds are about 1 in 100 million). My best guesstimate is that roughly 8,000-to-10,000 Recipes have been published on various platforms and websites by Fujifilm photographers, which is amazing—I remember when the Fujifilm Recipe community numbered in the hundreds; now it’s hundreds-of-thousands worldwide! We’re nowhere near scratching the surface of exhausting the possible Recipes for Fujifilm cameras—not even close to a fraction of one percent. There’s lots of room for a lot more.
It’s not uncommon to “season to taste” a Recipe for the specific subject or situation, or for the photographer’s personal taste. I’ve encouraged that for nearly a decade, saying that it’s better to make a small adjustment or two to the Recipe parameters and get it to work well for you than to stubbornly stick with some settings that aren’t quite right. Sometimes those adjustments result in only a subtle change, and sometimes they’re transformative. That’s not a problem whatsoever—it’s progress. The evolution of Recipes occurs in three natural ways.
The first is what I’d call a tweak. This is when someone makes a small adjustment to one or two Recipe parameters. Maybe it’s changing Highlight from -1 to -2, or White Balance from Daylight to Auto, or Grain strength from Strong to Weak. These tweaks don’t replace the original Recipe; they personalize it. It’s just seasoned-to-taste a little for your preferences. A good example of this is Reggie’s Portra, which I will occasionally use with DR400 instead of DR-Auto if there is a bright light source in the scene. That change simply tweaks it, and does not make it a brand-new Recipe. When you say, “I’m using this Recipe with a tweak,” that context helps other photographers understand what they’re seeing and how you arrived there, and why they might possibly prefer that small change, too.
The second is a variant. Variants happen when the core idea remains, but the color or tonality shifts enough that it becomes its own expression. Oftentimes it’s when three or four parameters have been adjusted, or perhaps just one if that one setting has a profound effect (such as Film Simulation). Variants are wonderful because they show how flexible an idea can be, and they deserve to be named as such—connected to the original, but clearly standing on their own. A good example of this is Kodak Vericolor III 160, which is a variant of Kodak Vericolor Warm. Stating, “I started with this Recipe, but made some notable changes to get this outcome,” helps photographers understand why they might choose to use the new variation or stick with the original.
The third is inspiration. Sometimes the idea of one Recipe can spark something entirely new. The result might share a feeling or direction, but the settings themselves are fundamentally different. An example of this might be Kodak Pro 400, which was inspired in-part by Kodak Portra 400 v2; while the two Recipes have some commonality, they’re notably divergent. In that case, it’s most accurate to say that a Recipe was inspired by another rather than directly formed by it.
I’m not suggesting this as any sort of formality or rigid rule; instead, it’s simply clarity and kindness. Give credit where credit is due (however, if you don’t, nobody is policing it). When we’re open about how ideas evolved, we make it easier for others to learn and experiment. Credit isn’t about ownership, it’s about storytelling. It helps to trace how an aesthetic came to be, and it honors the shared journey that got us there. Recipes are tools meant to be used, adjusted if needed, and maybe occasionally outgrown. If they help you to make photographs that you care about, then they’re doing their job. If your version of a Recipe looks a little different than mine, that’s proof that photography is still a personal endeavor. If your photographic vision changes over time, and a favorite Recipe is no longer a desired aesthetic, or maybe Recipes in-general are no longer satisfying, that’s all normal, and a part of the photography continuum.
