Bee on a Blossom – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X70 – “Kodak Color Negative”
I’ve wanted a Fujifilm X70 ever since I learned of its existence. For those who don’t know, the X70 was essentially a smaller, more wide-angle, and less expensive X100T. Introduced in January 2016 and discontinued in December of that same year, you might think that the camera was a flop, but it wasn’t. Unfortunately, to Fujifilm’s surprise, shortly after the camera launched, Sony suddenly discontinued the 16-megapixel APS-C sensor that the X70 used, and Fujifilm had no choice but to fully move on to X-Trans III as quickly as possible. The X70 was a casualty of that situation. No successor was ever made, supposedly because heat dispersion was an issue with higher resolution sensors that couldn’t be remedied. Even though the camera is six years old now, people love their X70’s—you don’t see very many for sale, and when you do it’s usually for a similar price to, or even higher than, the original MSRP. I was fortunate to find one in excellent condition for “only” $600.
I’ve had this camera for just a few days. After unboxing the X70, I quickly programmed into it the latest recipe that I had been working on with my X-T1 (which is in need of a sensor cleaning), and busily shot with it. Already I love this little camera—not only is it very practical to carry around everywhere, it is so much fun to use! Fujifilm really needs to work hard an its successor, the X80—this should be a top priority, in my opinion.
For this “Kodak Color Negative” Film Simulation Recipe, I wanted to use the Incandescent White Balance. Why? Because you cannot program a White Balance Shift into the C1-C7 Custom Presets (only on X-Pro3 and newer models); however, the camera will remember one shift per white balance type. If each of your presets uses a different white balance type, then you don’t have to remember to adjust the shift when switching presets. Incandescent is a white balance option that I’d not yet used on X-Trans II, so it seemed like a logical place to start.
The aesthetic that I was hoping to achieve with this recipe was Kodak Portra 400. I don’t believe that I succeeded in faithfully mimicking that (sometimes there’s a similarity); however, it does seem to produce a Kodak-like color negative film look, perhaps more like Ultramax, but not exactly that, either. Whatever it does or doesn’t resemble, I personally really like the aesthetic produced by this recipe, and I hope that you do, too.
Johanna in Evening Light – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X70 – “Kodak Color Negative”
This “Kodak Color Negative” recipe is compatible with all X-Trans II cameras that have Classic Chrome, including the X100T, X-E2, X-E2S, X-T10, X-T1, X30, X70, and XQ2. Unfortunately, the X100S, X20, and XQ1 don’t have Classic Chrome, despite being X-Trans II. Those with Bayer models that have Classic Chrome can also use this recipe, although it will render a little different on your camera.
Classic Chrome Dynamic Range: DR200 Highlight: -2 (Soft) Shadow: -1 (Medium-Soft) Color: +2 (High) Sharpness: -1 (Medium-Soft) Noise Reduction: -2 (Low) White Balance: Incandescent, +6 Red & -7 Blue ISO: Auto up to ISO 3200 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured on my Fujifilm X70 using this “Kodak Color Negative” Film Simulation Recipe:
Sunlight Through The Grapevine – Surprise, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Hold onto your hats, because, for this Film Simulation Recipe, we’re going to dive deep into the obscure and practically forgotten history of a unique film called GAF 500. We’re going to explore the intriguing history of GAF, discover what made this film unique, and discuss how this new GAF 500 Film Simulation Recipe came to be. You are in for a treat today!
GAF actually began in 1886 as the Standard Paint Company of New Jersey. After acquiring a holding company in 1928 that had (among other things) majority ownership of AGFA, the company changed its name to General Aniline & Film—GAF for short. Also in 1928, AGFA merged with Ansco, so in addition to acquiring AGFA, GAF also got ownership of Ansco, which was founded in 1842. Originally named E. Anthony & Co., after merging with Scovill Manufacturing in 1901 it was renamed Ansco (“An” from Anthony and “sco” from Scovill). Ansco was headquartered in New York, and was Kodak’s biggest competitor for many decades. The merger with AGFA was intended to bring Ansco’s photography products to a global market, which would allow them to better compete against Kodak.
Then World War II happened, and in 1941 the U.S. government seized and took ownership of GAF and Ansco (separating it from AGFA, which was a German-owned business), and officially merged Ansco into GAF. The U.S. government retained ownership of GAF until 1965, when it sold all of its shares.
Morning Sunlight on a Curtain – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “GAF 500”
In 1967 GAF introduced a revolutionary new film: GAF 500. It was a high-ISO 35mm color transparency (slide) film—the highest ISO color film during its time; the second-highest color ISO film (another GAF emulsion) was rated at ISO 200, so it was more than twice as “fast” (as they called it back then) as the second fastest. 30 years prior to the introduction of GAF 500, the highest ISO color film was rated at ISO 8, so having an ISO 500 option was unthinkable back then, and a lot of people wondered why anyone would need such a high-ISO film. While it was mostly sold under the brand name GAF, it was sometimes sold as Anscochrome 500. Was GAF/Anscochrome 500 any good?
From all accounts, you either loved GAF 500 or hated it. The grain was extremely pronounced. Colors were “good” yet muted (a.k.a. “neutral” or “natural”) and generally considered to be not as “nice” as Kodak’s. It didn’t push-process nearly as well as, it wasn’t quite as sharp as, and it didn’t pair with color correction filters as well as Kodachrome or Ektachrome. It was inferior to all other color emulsions except for one fact: it was fast! You could use it when other films wouldn’t work due to low light. If it was dark and you wanted to shoot color, GAF 500 was your best bet.
GAF 500 had a warm color cast—some described it as orange, some said red-orange, and others stated that it was red—not as warm as some Kodak emulsions, but warm nonetheless. The shadows tended to lean blue. If you pushed the film, it had a purple cast across the frame. Some people liked how it looked when shooting under fluorescent lights or stage lights, and was a popular choice for concert photography.
What people seemed to like most about GAF 500 is that it was gritty yet soft. It was grainy, like a high-ISO black-and-white film, and it was contrasty with a very narrow exposure latitude—it was easy to blow out the whites or block up the blacks; however, it also had low color saturation (or was “more neutral” as some put it) , and the gradations were gentle. It was like a biker ballerina, if you will. Some people loved the aesthetic of GAF 500, and would use it even in bright-light situations just for the look that it produced. Many photographers steered clear of it just because there were “better” options, such as push-processing lower ISO films.
There was a time in the 1970’s that GAF was everywhere. It was the official film of Disneyland, and, for a time, was the only brand of film that you could purchase inside the park. Sears sold GAF cameras and film. Henry Fonda was the spokesman. Despite that, GAF struggled to be profitable competing against Kodak, Fujifilm, and other brands.
GAF made a few minor “improvements” to their ISO 500 film over the years, and (from what I read) it seemed to get “better” towards the mid-1970’s. In 1977, due to sluggish sales, GAF decided to get out of the photography business altogether. GAF/Anscochrome 500 was discontinued, along with all of the other GAF films. The Ansco brand name was licensed out to other companies for years to come, although it was largely used for rebranded films and not original emulsions. GAF 500 was gone forever.
Perhaps thanks to Alien Skin Exposure software, there’s been a renewed interest in GAF 500. Alien Skin has a GAF 500 preset that is supposed to allow you to mimic the aesthetic of the film with your digital images. I’ve used it before, and that’s the closest I’ve come to shooting GAF 500. It’s been awhile since I’ve used Exposure software, so I don’t recall too much about the preset (other than it was grainy). So, for this Film Simulation Recipe, I spent significant time studying whatever I could find on the film. There’s a lot of written information out there, but photographs were hard to come by. Still, I found some, and did my best to emulate the look with my Fujifilm X-E4.
Recreating GAF 500 on my Fujifilm camera was tricky for several reasons. First, I wouldn’t have considered Eterna as the best base (just because it lacks the necessary contrast to emulate a contrasty slide film), but after trying Classic Chrome, PRO Neg. Low, and Eterna Bleach Bypass, I decided to give Eterna a go. Bingo! This one had the right tonality (those “gentle gradations”); however, I do wish that Shadow could be set to +5 to get deeper blacks, but that’s not an option. Another tricky aspect was achieving the warm, reddish/orangish color cast that could still produce a hint of blue in the shadows. Fujifilm cameras aren’t capable of split-toning, so I did my best to approximate this with the white balance; I do wish the shadows were just a little more blue, but it’s not possible without sacrificing the overall warmth. Another challenge was replicating the grain. Fujifilm’s option of Grain Strong Large wasn’t nearly as pronounced as it needed to be, so I set out to supplement it with digital noise using high-ISO. But how high? ISO 1600 wasn’t nearly enough. ISO 3200 wasn’t enough, either. ISO 6400… much closer, but not quite there, either. Should I dare try ISO 12800? Yes, that’s it! More importantly, it looks good, which I had my doubts about.
With slide film, depending on the emulsion, you had to nail the exposure exactly, as the dynamic range was extraordinarily narrow. You didn’t know what you had until you got the film back from the lab (or developed it yourself at home); some frames would be underexposed, some frames would be overexposed, and some frames (hopefully) would be correctly exposed—I found examples of all three when searching for GAF 500 photographs. You can achieve similar aesthetics with this recipe if you want, by either dropping the exposure a little or increasing it a little—the exact look of this recipe will vary some depending on the exposure. While I couldn’t replicate every potential GAF 500 aesthetic with this one recipe, and no recipe will ever be 100% spot-on accurate (because of the limited tools available on the camera, and because the results of one film can vary significantly depending an a whole host of factors), I do believe that this recipe is pretty close to replicating the look and feel of GAF 500 film—at least from the perspective of someone who was born after the film was discontinued, so I never had a chance to use it myself.
Because this “GAF 500” recipe uses Clarity and Color Chrome FX Blue, it is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras, and is not compatible with the X-T3 or X-T30. Those with X-Trans V cameras can also use it, and it should render identically, although I have no first-hand experience to verify that. Those with newer GFX cameras can use it, too, although it will render differently. Because of the ultra high-ISO that’s required, I recommend using your electronic shutter and a small aperture (like f/8, f/11, or even f/16) when shooting in bright light outdoors.
Eterna Dynamic Range: DR100 Highlight: +2 Shadow: +4 Color: 0 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -3 Clarity: -2 Grain Effect: Strong, Large Color Chrome Effect: Off Color Chrome Effect Blue: Strong White Balance: 2900K, +9 Red & -9 Blue ISO: 12800 Exposure Compensation: -2/3 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “GAF 500” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Eat – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Bird Scooters – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Orange Lighter & Abandoned Home – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
FAO JUG – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Why Love? – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Twin Dumpsters – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Garfield – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Overhead Crane – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Oversized Load – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
And So It Begins – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Air Garage & Graffiti – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Can in the Sage – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Suburban Barrel Cacti – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Double Peace – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Table Roses – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Sunlit Curtain – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Yellow Trumpets & Sunstar – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Bougainvillea Branch in the Blue – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Orange Trumpet Flower Blossoms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
I read a couple of articles over the last several days that bothered me, both of which stated that you must shoot RAW. These articles come up often—it’s nothing new. I’ve written about it before, and even before that. The sentiment of “only amateurs shoot JPEG” and “you really should shoot RAW” get old. Those are tired, worn out statements that are largely based on “truths” that are no longer true. My hope with this article is to simply provide a counter-point. This blog and all of you who use Film Simulation Recipes are a strong testament that speaks louder than this article ever could, so I’ll try to keep it brief.
First, I want to make this very clear: do what works for you. If RAW works for you, do that. If JPEGs work for you, do that. If editing JPEGs works for you, do that. If film works for you, do that. Or any combination of those things or anything else, do that. Whatever you have found that works for you, that’s what you should be doing. If what you are doing isn’t really working for you, try something else. There’s no right or wrong way to do things, just different ways, some of which work for some and some of which work for others. Different strokes for different folks, right?
One reason why I think the “RAW vs JPEG” debate keeps coming up is because more-and-more photography consumers (not photographers, but those who view photographs) detest photo manipulation. Photoshop has become a bad word. Whether it’s a photo contest where the winner exceeded the editing allowed by the rules (and so has their title stripped), or the magazine cover where the girl no longer looks like how they really look, or the picture in the news where things were added or subtracted to change the meaning of the image, or the image that’s just been edited so much that it’s no longer believable—whatever the story, sometimes photography consumers feel that photography is dishonest, and the manipulation of an image equals a manipulation of the one viewing it. There appears to be a lack of honesty by photographers, particularly when they edit so much. You might agree or disagree with this sentiment, but the sentiment is real. I know this because I once defended Steve McCurry’s use of Photoshop, and because of this someone accused me in a college paper of wanting little girls to have low self-esteem.
I think a lot of these “RAW is better” articles and videos stem from a response to this sentiment, which is fine. I don’t blame anyone for trying to defend what they do when someone criticizes it. Trust me, I get it. Where I do have a problem is that many times in the defense of RAW the JPEG photographer is insulted. The argument is, “I have to shoot RAW because JPEGs suck.” Or, “Only amateurs use JPEG.” It’s as if the JPEG shooter must be put down in order to make the RAW shooter feel superior. That’s just lame. Yes, there was a time early in the development of digital camera technology where the straight-out-of-camera JPEG was no good and so RAW really was the only viable option for quality images, but that day has long passed, especially for (but certainly not limited to) those who use Fujifilm cameras. That argument is old and tired and no longer based in truth. It once was true, but now is a myth. Perpetuating that myth helps no one. Insulting people definitely doesn’t help.
Of course, Ansel Adams is always brought into this. Well, he was the darkroom master, so obviously he manipulated his photos to a significant degree. Usually an Ansel Adams quote is included, which proves the point that you should never rely on straight-out-of-camera pictures. Adams never would have. Except this ignores his work with Polaroids—he loved Polaroids, something a lot of people are unaware of. There’s a whole chapter (entitled One-Step Photography) in one of his books where he discusses the benefits of not having to use a darkroom. Ansel Adams is hugely inspirational, and his words are highly motivating, but I don’t think he would be strictly a RAW shooter and staunchly against straight-out-of-camera JPEGs—it is a disservice to the legendary master to just assume he would be against JPEGs.
The real arguments that should be made to defend the use of RAW are these: – It’s my art, and as the artist I get to decide how it’s created. I understand that not everyone will like it, but a lot of people seem to, so I’m going to keep doing it my way. – I capture undeveloped digital images that, like film, must be developed through a process, and I have a specific process for it that works well for me. – Images have been manipulated to create the final picture since the beginning of photography—over 150 years!—so what I’m doing is nothing new and well within the traditions of the art. – I enjoy using photo editing software, and adjusting the pictures is half the fun for me.
Straight-out-of-camera JPEG from my Fujifilm X-E4 using the Positive Film recipe.
Notice how all of those arguments are strong, and none of them insults anyone. Unfortunately, there will always be those who disagree, and you’ll never change their minds. Perhaps just being as honest and straightforward as practical will help. If you swapped the sky with another sky, just say so. If you removed people from the frame, don’t hide that fact. Don’t make the manipulations that you did a big secret, which makes people believe that you’re hiding something from them. Or do keep it a secret—it’s not really any of my business what you do or don’t do, and I don’t really care. It’s your art, after all, so you get to decide what you do and what parts of your process you want to keep a mystery.
My process is straightforward. I program Film Simulation Recipes into my cameras, and I use camera-made JPEGs that are unedited (aside from minor cropping and straightening). While I basically don’t edit anymore, I certainly used to. I used to be a RAW photographer. I used to spend up to 30 minutes on each picture in software. That process worked alright for a time, but my current process works for me now. It saves me so much time, it makes creating photographs more enjoyable, it allows me to be more in-tune with my camera and the scene (because I have to get it right in-the-field or else), and I still get the look I want—the aesthetic I would have made if I had edited a RAW image in software. I love it! But I fully understand that it’s not for everyone. If it works for you, great! If it doesn’t work for you, great! If it works for you sometimes but doesn’t other times, great! You’ve got to do what works for you, and ignore those who say that there’s only one “right” way to do things.
The “RAW vs JPEG” debate needs to end. Photography consumers don’t care how you achieved your picture, except in those cases where people feel that they were duped by a heavily manipulated image. I suggest being upfront about how much editing you did, if you did a lot—but that’s up to you, and is between you and your audience. Otherwise, nobody cares if you shot RAW and edited in-software or if it’s a straight-out-of-camera JPEG, or anything else in-between. One process isn’t better or worse than another—they each have advantages and disadvantages, so it is simply a matter of if what you are doing works for you or not. If it works, that’s awesome! If it doesn’t, then try something else. Mic dropped, debate over.
The Fuji X Weekly App is free, yet becoming a Fuji X Weekly Patron unlocks the best App experience! One benefit of being a Patron is that you get early access to some new Film Simulation Recipes. These Early-Access Recipes will eventually become available free to everyone in time, including this new one. In fact, many Early-Access Recipes have already been publicly published on this blog and the App, so now everyone can use them. Patrons help support Fuji X Weekly and, really, without them there would be no App. So I want to give a special “thank you” to all of the Patrons!
This new “Vintage Eterna” Early-Access Recipe is a bit unusual in that there are actually two recipes: one for the X-H1, X-T3, and X-T30, and another for newer models (X-Pro3 and newer). The premise was simple: what would the Vintage Kodachrome recipe look like if I used Eterna instead of Classic Chrome? As it turns out, it looks alright; however, after I made more modifications, it looks much better! I initially created this on my Fujifilm X-E4, but then I wanted a version for my X-H1, so I made a recipe compatible with that camera, and even used it on my X-T30. If you have an X-H1 or any X-Trans IV camera, you can use the “Vintage Eterna” recipe—just find the one that’s compatible with your model. For those with the X-H2s (or soon-to-be X-H2), you can use the version of this recipe that’s for the newer X-Trans IV cameras, and it should render pretty much identically on X-Trans V, but I haven’t tried it myself to know for certain. If you have a GFX camera, one of these two recipes will work on the model you have, but it will render slightly differently (try it anyway, though).
If you are a Fuji X Weekly Patron, it’s available to you right now on the App!
Fujifilm X-H1, X-T3, & X-T30 — “Vintage Eterna”
Cloud Above Roof – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Summer Blossoms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Sky Vines – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Backlit Leaves of Summer – Fujifilm X-H1
Hummingbird Feeder – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Golden Trumpets – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Yellow Trumpet Flower – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Large Stone & Tall Grass – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1 – “Vintage Kodacolor”
This Film Simulation Recipe is called “Vintage Kodacolor” because I was inspired by some old Kodak Kodacolor puzzles that I stumbled across (did you know that Kodak made jigsaw puzzles?). I’m not completely certain which Kodacolor film was used for these puzzles—possibly Kodacolor II—or how much the printing process affected the aesthetic, or even how much the colors have faded and shifted over time. Whatever the case, this recipe does a pretty good job emulating it, and produces a warm vintage-like aesthetic that’s easy to appreciate. There’s some similarities between this and my Kodacolor II 126 recipe.
This recipe has been available on the Fuji X Weekly App as a Patron Early-Access Recipe since December; however, a different Early-Access Recipe has replaced it, so now this one is available to everyone! This isn’t a Film Simulation Recipe that is for every person or every situation, but some of you in the right situations will absolutely love it. I think it is especially good for achieving a vintage look on sunny days and during golden hour.
This “Vintage Kodacolor” recipe is fully compatible with all X-Trans III cameras, plus the Fujifilm X-T3 and X-T30. Those with newer X-Trans IV (and X-Trans V) cameras can use it, too, but you’ll have to decide on Clarity (I suggest 0, or maybe -2), Color Chrome FX Blue (I suggest Off), and Grain size (I would try Large).
Classic Chrome Dynamic Range: DR200 Highlight: +2 Shadow: 0 Color: -4 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -1 Grain Effect: Strong Color Chrome Effect: Off/NA White Balance: 9100K, -4 Red & +4 Blue ISO: Auto up to ISO 12800 Exposure Compensation: -1/3 to +1/3
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Vintage Kodacolor” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-H1 & X-T30:
Tree Behind – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Vintage Phragmites – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Evening Reeds and Sky – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Three Brown Leaves – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Don’t Approach the Great Blue Heron – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Safe Zone – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Sunset Through The Grass – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Evening Light on the Wood – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Flowers No More – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Metal Door – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Cool Dog – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Cardboard Architect – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Holiday Horse Rider – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
It’s my pleasure to introduce you to the wonderful photography of Gerardo Celasco! Although you might not have seen his pictures before, there’s a decent chance that you’ve seen Gerardo. He’s a model-turned-actor (among other things, including internationally competing show jumping horse rider, accomplished volleyball player, and financial expert) who does photography as a hobby. He has a lot of talent, and whatever he does he does very well—photography included.
Although he was born in Miami, Gerardo grew up in El Salvador. He later moved to Texas and studied at Southern Methodist University. His home base is now in California, but he frequently travels internationally, and of course brings a camera along—a Fujifilm camera—to capture the moments.
Gerardo is perhaps best known for playing Miguel Lopez-Fitzgerald on the NBC drama Passions from 2006-2007. He also played Carlos Peña in Moneyball, Mark Kovac in two episodes of Bones, Xavier Castillo during Season 5 and 6 of How To Get Away With Murder, Ty Salazar in Next, and Dr. Nick Vega in a recent episode of Good Sam, among other things.
In the coming-soon-to-Netflix series Devil in Ohio Gerardo plays Detective Lopez. We’ll get more into this in a moment, but below you’ll find the trailer, which you should definitely take a moment to watch right now.
Fuji X Weekly: Hey, Gerardo! I’m truly honored for this opportunity to interview you! Let’s begin at the very beginning: where did your early interests in photography come from? Were cameras and pictures a big part of your childhood?
Gerardo Celasco: We didn’t grow up taking a lot of photos in my family and we didn’t have lots of cameras around when my siblings and I were growing up. My dad was an engineer and my mom worked in sales and retail for a shoe company in El Salvador. To this day, we still don’t take many photos when we’re together. When we’re on a trip we always say, “We have to take more group photos!” And since I always have a camera on me, I’m always the one taking the photos so I’m rarely in the pictures.
Fuji X Weekly: How did you get started in photography?
Gerardo Celasco: I got started in photography pretty early on, but not necessarily behind the camera. When I was in high school I was asked to be the model for a campaign in El Salvador. Roberto Aguilar was the most sought out photographer in El Salvador. No one was doing what he was doing, and I got to be in front of his camera several times—it was my first time being in front of the camera. We became really close friends, and I learned so much from watching him work. He moved to Europe and became a professor in France for a few years, and is now living in London. Roberto was my first influence in photography, but I can also say he was my first influence in “performing” as well. I never went to drama school. I have a degree in Finance from Southern Methodist University—a life in entertainment wasn’t really in the cards for me growing up in El Salvador and the son of entrepreneurs.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What made you pursue photography further, take it more seriously?
Gerardo Celasco: This image [above] is my first one that shocked me when I saw it imported into my computer. I believe I shot it with a Leica D-Lux 4. There was no plan—it was on auto—and I got that “bokeh” everyone talks about. I didn’t know how that happened or how to recreate it, so that inspired me to really learn about the art form. I decided to enroll into a UCLA extension course for Photography, and did that for a few months. That’s where I learned about aperture and depth of field and things like that.
Fuji X Weekly: What was your most memorable photography experience?
Gerardo Celasco: I think that first image I shot that shocked me is the most memorable. It’s what inspired all of my other images. I still love the photo so much. It’s very raw, very real. I can feel so much when I see it. It was shot in El Salvador in La Libertad near the beach. It was sticky and damp. The two women were working and cooking on open fire in that heat. Maybe it’s because I was there, but I feel all of that every time I see the image.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What was your first camera?
Gerardo Celasco: My first camera was one of the really small Canon PowerShots. It was a matte silver. I carried that thing everywhere—way before we had cameras in our cellular phones. The list goes on from there: Canon 20D, Leica D-Lux 4, Canon 5D Mark II, Fujifilm X100T, Sony a7, Fuji X-T2, Fuji X-Pro3—that is the trajectory into mirrorless, but more importantly how I found Fuji. I also shoot film with a Canon AE-1 Program, and my everyday—always with me—Olympus Mju II, which always sparks a conversation or a laugh when I pull it out.
Fuji X Weekly: What made you buy your first Fujifilm camera? What do you shoot with now?
Gerardo Celasco: A trip to Morocco with my 5D led me to give up on my entire Canon photography gear. It was so heavy, and was very distracting. You couldn’t really get away with shooting discretely with a camera that size. At the time my good friend, cinematographer and camera/steadicam operator Eduardo Fierro, was a Fuji shooter. His exact words when I complained about my Canon were “Vendé esa mierda y compráte la Fuji” (which means: sell that shit and buy a Fuji!). So that’s what I did, and the X100T was my first Fuji. I now shoot with the X-Pro3, paired with a Fuji 27mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, or 16-55 f/2.8.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What is your favorite aspect of Fujifilm cameras?
Gerardo Celasco: What I love most about the Fuji lineup—other than the obvious size and price—is the menu and the film simulations. The user interface is great and easy to get around. But for me, the film simulations are what really sets it apart from anything else. I don’t do any post editing on my images (because I haven’t learned Capture One or Photoshop), and I shoot everything JPEG (mainly because I don’t know what to do with a RAW file, and have never felt the need for it). Fuji X Weekly is my go to App for Film Simulation Recipes. Funnily enough, I believe that is how we met: I sent you a DM on Instagram, praising all of your Film Simulation Recipes and the RitchieCam App on the iPhone.
Fuji X Weekly: That’s right! I definitely remember that day—it was a nice surprise, and a bit of a shock. By the way, which Film Simulation Recipes do you like best?
Gerardo Celasco: My favorite film simulations are Portra 400, Portra 800, and the Ilford black-and-white ones. I honestly like the output of the Fuji Portra recipes more than the images I get with my film camera using real Portra 400 film—and it’s also cheaper.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What do you photograph most now?
Gerardo Celasco: I like shooting life, but I don’t like calling it “street photography.” I don’t have a style, and I honestly don’t know what I’m doing most of the time. I just shoot when I’m inspired. And I shoot what seems interesting to me at that moment. But I never have a plan. I just simply shoot, and share my images. I don’t like the pressure of someone asking me to photograph something or an event—I get so much satisfaction in just showing up with a camera and capturing beautiful moments when I haven’t been asked to, and then sharing those moments.
Fuji X Weekly: Who are your photographic influences?
Gerardo Celasco: I don’t have a list of photographers that have influenced me—I can probably only name a handful of them—but it’s not like I’m trying to do what they did. Vivian Maier, Ansel Adams, Garry Winograd, Henri Cartier-Bresson—those names comes to mind without me cheating and looking at my bookshelf.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: How has your acting career influenced your photography?
Gerardo Celasco: Most people think that being an actor influenced my photography, but what it did was enhance it. Photography (in front or behind the camera), was my first step to becoming an actor—I’ve always felt that photography led me to my acting career. Being on set has made me more comfortable in front of the camera but at the same time it inspires me to want to shoot more. I’m always chatting up the cinematographer or the camera operators when I am on a set—mostly I’m just asking lots of questions about composition and lighting. Those men and women know so much, and I just try to learn and soak up as much as they are willing to share. Their work is what inspires me today.
Fuji X Weekly: Tell me about your upcoming Netflix series, Devil in Ohio.
Gerardo Celasco: Ah. Devil in Ohio! I feel like you and your wife have been patiently waiting for that. I think I was shooting that when I found RitchieCam and we started talking, only to find out you were the same person behind Fuji X Weekly! We’re only a couple weeks away from the premiere day. It will air on Netflix on September 2, and all 8 episodes will be available.
The show is based on a book by the same name written by Daria Polatin. Daria is also the showrunner for the show. The story was inspired by true events, which always makes it more interesting. I would describe it as a family drama meets a suspense/thriller. It has elements of both. Emily Deschanel (who I worked with many years ago on the final episodes of Bones), plays Suzanne Mathis, a Psychiatrist who is caring for an underage girl who has turned up at hospital clearly in distress. No one comes looking for the girl, so Suzanne decides to take her into her home until they can find a family for her. Doesn’t take long to realize that the girl has escaped from a cult, putting the family and their relationships in danger. I play Detective Alex Lopez, who is a transplant from big city Chicago. He’s a fish out of water, and by-the-book, but also has no idea what he’s dealing with by taking on this case. We had a great group of actors, great directors, and an incredible crew. I hope people find it and enjoy it!
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: Gerardo, thank you so much for taking time out of your day to allow me to interview you—it’s been such a pleasure!
Gerardo Celasco: I’d just like to say thank you for including me in this. I’m a big fan of Fuji X Weekly, and for you to ask me to be a part of it is really cool.
Check out Gerardo Celasco on Instagram (Here and Here)—give him a follow plus “heart” some of his pictures. Mark your calendars now, and be sure to binge-watch Devil in Ohio on September 2nd!
When the Nikon Zfc was announced in 2021, I preordered it, and waited a long time for it to come. When it finally arrived, I pulled the Zfc out of the box and began to use it, and I was quickly disappointed. I said that it was most similar to the Fujifilm X-T200, yet significantly bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Still, I put the camera through its paces, and even created 11 Nikon Z Film Simulation Recipes using the Zfc. Then the camera went back into its box, and I strongly considered selling it.
Right now I’m working on my full-review of the TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 lens (coming very soon!), and that means using it. In the process, I made four more recipes—I guess I couldn’t help myself! Three of these are black-and-white and one is color. If you add these four to the 14 others, I now have 18 Film Simulation Recipes for Nikon Z cameras!
Obviously, I made these JPEG recipes on the Zfc, so it will render differently on the full-frame models, but I’m not sure exactly how differently, as I’ve never used a full-frame Z camera. The reports have been positive, though, so I assume that they work well, including on the more expensive bodies—I just have no first-hand experience myself.
For those who might not know what “Film Simulation Recipes” are, they’re JPEG camera settings that allow you to achieve various looks (mostly analog-inspired) straight-out-of-camera, no editing needed. It can save you a lot of time by simplifying your workflow, and it can make the process of creating photographs more enjoyable.
These will be the last Nikon Z recipes that I create, as I decided not to keep the Zfc. If you are interested in buying it (bundled with the 28mm pancake and TTArtisan 25mm lenses), let me know. It’s gently used, and has spent more time in its box than out of it. Just send me a message if you are interested. Why am I selling the Zfc? Partly because I have never been fully satisfied with it, and partly because I’ve yet to figure out where it makes sense in my photographic process—it seems out of place in my bag. If sometime in the future Nikon makes a better effort on a similar camera, I’ll certainly consider buying it; however, the Zfc was just not the one for me.
Dramatic Monochromatic
Nikon Zfc — Dramatic Monochromatic
Similarities to using a red filter with B&W film.
Picture Control: Monochrome Quick Sharp: 0.00 Sharpening: +3.00 Mid-Range Sharpening: +2.00 Clarity: +1.00 Contrast: +1.00 Brightness: +1.00 Filter Effects: Red Toning: B&W Active D-Lighting: High High ISO NR: Low White Balance: Cloudy WB Adjust: B6.0 G6.0 ISO: up to 6400
Nikon Zfc — Dramatic Monochromatic
Nikon Zfc — Dramatic Monochromatic
Nikon Zfc — Dramatic Monochromatic
Nikon Zfc — Dramatic Monochromatic
B&W Push-Processed
Nikon Zfc — B&W Push-Process
Resembles the contrast of B&W film that has been push-processed.
Picture Control: Graphite Effect Level: 100 Quick Sharp: 0.00 Sharpening: +2.00 Mid-Range Sharpening: +2.00 Clarity: -2.00 Contrast: +2.00 Filter Effects: Yellow Toning: B&W Active D-Lighting: Extra High High ISO NR: Low White Balance: Direct Sunlight WB Adjust: A0.0 G0.0 ISO: up to 6400
Nikon Zfc — B&W Push-Process
Nikon Zfc — B&W Push-Process
Nikon Zfc — B&W Push-Process
Nikon Zfc — B&W Push-Process
B&W Film
Nikon Zfc — B&W Film
Reminiscent of black-and-white negative film.
Picture Control: Carbon Effect Level: 100 Quick Sharp: 0.00 Sharpening: +1.00 Mid-Range Sharpening: +1.00 Clarity: -2.00 Contrast: +1.00 Filter Effects: Orange Toning: B&W Active D-Lighting: Extra High High ISO NR: Low White Balance: Natural Light Auto WB Adjust: A0.0 G0.0 ISO: up to 6400
Nikon Zfc — B&W Film
Nikon Zfc — B&W Film
Nikon Zfc — B&W Film
Nikon Zfc — B&W Film
Vintage Agfacolor Fade
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Agfacolor Fade
Reminds me of Agfacolor slides from the 1930’s
Picture Control: Graphite Effect Level: 50 Quick Sharp: 0.00 Sharpening: 0.00 Mid-Range Sharpening: +1.00 Clarity: -2.00 Contrast: +1.00 Filter Effects: Red Toning: Blue Green 0.00 Active D-Lighting: High High ISO NR: Low White Balance: Incandescent WB Adjust: A6.0 M1.0 ISO: up to 3200
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Agfacolor Fade
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Agfacolor Fade
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Agfacolor Fade
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Agfacolor Fade
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Ice Cold Pepsi – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Kodak Max 800”
This Film Simulation Recipe is modeled after some prints I found in a box that I thought looked interesting. I didn’t initially know what film had been used, but after locating the negatives I discovered it was something called Kodak GT 800-3, and I had no idea what that was. After much sleuthing, I found out it was Kodak Max Zoom 800, also known as Max 800. The film was shot in 2006 (I believe by my wife), and it was the third and final iteration of the emulsion (this version was introduced in 2000). Max Zoom 800 was replaced in 2006 by the similar Max Versatility Plus 800 (which was around for five or six years before its discontinuation).
Kodak made Max 800 film for point-and-shoot and disposable cameras—specifically, they marketed it for point-and-shot cameras with a zoom lens, which exaggerated camera shake. It was a cheap high-ISO consumer color negative film intended for the novice. It had a large latitude for underexposure and (especially) overexposure, but color reproduction was a little different (some have said “bland” or “weird”) when compared to other Kodak films. Kodak intended the film to be printed on Ektacolor Edge paper, but my samples were printed on Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper (which certainly affects the aesthetic)—this recipe is modeled after my samples.
Winter Greenhouse – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Kodak Max 800”
This Kodak Max 800 recipe is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras. Because it uses the Classic Negative film simulation and Clarity, it is not compatible with the X-T3 and X-T30, unfortunately. For those with the X-H2s, it’s my understanding that this recipe is completely compatible and renders near identically, but I have not tested it to know for certain. Those with newer GFX cameras can use it, too, although it will render a little differently.
Classic Negative Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: -2 Shadow: +1 Color: -1 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -2 Clarity: -4 Grain Effect: Strong, Small Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome Effect Blue: Off White Balance: 7300K, -5 Red & -2 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Kodak Max 800” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Frozen Ponds at a Bird Refuge – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Winter Gate – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Open Gate – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Icy Marshland – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
What Remains of Summer – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Winter Water – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Frozen Marsh Pond – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Nature Trail – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Green Truck – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Santa’s Sled – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Neighborhood Path in Winter – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Trail Closed – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
No Shooting Past the Fence – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Pallets – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Inside Abandoned Shed – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Walking Tunnel – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Farm in the City – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Barnes & Noble Window – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Building Top in Last Light – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Buildings & Palms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Backyard Garden Trumpets – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Illuminated Desert Shrub – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
“We are working on WOW product development.” —Jun Watanabe, Product Planning Group Manager, Imaging Solutions Division, Fujifilm
Fujirumors reported on an article by Digital Camera Life that translated and summarized a video by Map Camera, which featured an interview with Fujifilm Product Planning Manager Jun Watanabe. In addition to the quote above, Jun also said, “I would like to continue working to create ‘WOW’ products with the development team, including me, so that we can meet everyone’s expectations and say, ‘I definitely want to buy this.'”
Before we go any further, I must point out that this seems a little like the “Telephone Game” where one person whispers something into someone’s ear, and that person whispers what they heard into the next person’s ear, and so on, until the last person speaks what they heard, which doesn’t much resemble what the first person whispered. Now add to that a translation of a translation, and we get these quotes by Jun Watanabe, which may or may not be what he actually said. However, for the purpose of this article, we’ll assume that Fujifilm is indeed currently working on products that will make people say “wow”—or at least products that the Product Planning Group thinks will make people say that—and they want to “meet everyone’s expectations” somehow.
There’s a lot to digest, of course. Sometime in the 1400’s, monk and poet John Lydgate stated, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” No one product will “meet everyone’s expectations” but perhaps he simply means that between all of the projects that they’re working on, once they all come out, that there will be a “wow product” for everyone.
Coastal Blooms – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Pacific Blues” recipe
I’m in a unique position here at Fuji X Weekly, because I hear from a lot of Fujifilm photographers—granted, mostly those who shoot with Film Simulation Recipes, which is certainly not everyone with a Fujifilm camera, but a large number nonetheless. I have a pretty good pulse on a large segment of Fujifilm’s customers. I know what would make a lot of their customers say, “I definitely want to buy this!” But Fujifilm has never asked me. I have a lot of valuable feedback that I would be more than happy to give to them, if they’re ever interested.
I think the top two things that would make the Fujifilm photographers in this audience say “wow” are 1) a recommitment to Kaizen updates, and 2) more JPEG options (film simulations and such). For example, the Classic Negative film simulation has more of a wow factor for many of the tens of thousands of people shooting with recipes than the autofocus speed of the X-H2s, and giving that film simulation to the X-T3—the all-time top selling model—via a firmware update is a no-brainer for making your customers happy. I assume, however, that the Product Planning Group is not involved with those things—it’s different departments altogether—so Jun and his gang might completely agree, but it wouldn’t make any difference.
What I thought I’d do with this article, on the off-chance that someone from Fujifilm reads it (maybe even Mr. Watanabe himself), is provide some ideas for “wow” products that Fujifilm photographers would want to buy. These are things that would make people take notice. I don’t think becoming more like another brand is a good way to make people say “wow” (except, perhaps, sarcastically). These are ideas for products that would set Fujifilm apart from the crowd, and not blend in. Ordered from least exciting to most (in my opinion anyway), here’s my list of the 10 “WOW” products that Fujifilm should be making right now!
10. Minimalist Model
Maybe just have this little screen and remove the big one.
The Fujifilm X-E4 is already a “minimalist” camera that people either love or hate, and in some ways Fujifilm wen’t too far, removing too many dials and switches and such. But, what if Fujifilm went even further?
Here’s my idea: no rear screen—just a hybrid viewfinder (maybe like the one in the X-Pro2?). Maybe include the little “box tab” screen of the X-Pro3? No video mode. Incorporate the dual shutter/ISO knob of the X100V. Add back the M/C/S switch. Maybe include a C1-C7 knob (or switch of some kind)? Otherwise, clean and simple. Small and lightweight. This wouldn’t be the X-E5, but a new model altogether, made for the experience of shooting with it.
I’m sure this would not sell like hotcakes, and a lot of people wouldn’t like it, but it would certainly grab headlines. Every camera reviewer would want to get their hands on one, just to try it. A lot of people would want to try it. I would want to try it, and most likely own it. Crazy? Yes. Great? Probably, depending on the design choices—it will be a tough balancing act, though, and making it “just right” won’t be easy.
9. 135mm Lens
135mm focal-length.
Fujifilm has a 90mm prime and a (really large and expensive) 200mm prime, but nothing in-between. I found a vintage Vivitar 135mm lens that I just love using, and it made me wonder why doesn’t Fujifilm have a 135mm prime? They should.
This isn’t something to get carried away with. Should it have OIS (stabilization)? It could, but it definitely doesn’t have to. Should it have a wide maximum aperture? F/2.8 is plenty wide enough. Should it be weather-sealed? Probably, I think that’s more-or-less expected nowadays. This shouldn’t be a $6,000 lens or even a $1,200 lens, but sub-$1,000—maybe around $800-$900.
8. Another Pancake Lens
The 27mm pancake helps make this setup super small and lightweight.
One obvious advantage of APS-C over full-frame is size and weight. A big draw to Fujifilm cameras, from those who in the past shot Canon or Sony or Nikon, is the smaller package. It can be such a pain to lug around big and heavy gear, and after doing that for awhile it’s refreshing to have something less intrusive around your neck. Not only are the cameras smaller and lighter, but the lenses can be, too.
Fujifilm has a number of small and lightweight primes, but only two pancakes: the 18mm f/2 and 27mm f/2.8. The 18mm is long overdue for an update (keep the optics, give it a faster and quieter motor). The 27mm, which was recently updated (but is hard to find because it sells out even before hitting the store shelves), is my personal favorite lens. Why not add another pancake option?
I think there are three potential focal-lengths for the new pancake, but I’m not certain which would be best. My personal top-choice is something longer than the 27mm, perhaps a 40mm f/2.8. This short-telephoto would be good for portraits and walk-around photography. Another option would be something wider than the 18mm, perhaps 14mm (or 15mm) f/3.5. The third option would be something in-between 18mm and 27mm, like maybe 23mm f/2.8. I don’t know which one should be made, but I know that one of them should, because size and weight are a big draw to the system, and having a serious series of pancake lenses would do a lot to emphasis that advantage.
7. GFX100R
This is shape that the GFX100R should have.
I don’t own a GFX camera, but if I did, it would definitely be a rangefinder-styled model. So far, the GFX 50R is the only rangefinder-styled camera in the GFX lineup, and it’s old—almost four years old now. It’s the cheapest GFX model—you can pick one up for $2,850 right now—but maybe it hasn’t sold well, I don’t know (perhaps that’s why it’s the only one). If it has sold at least somewhat well, I think it makes a lot of sense to offer a 100-megapixel updated model with the same sensor as the GFX100S. That for sure would make people say wow!
6. ISOCELL
I captured this picture in 2012 using a Samsung NX200.
This isn’t so much a product as it is a technology. Samsung partnered with Fujifilm to develop the ISOCELL technology that is used in a number of cellphone cameras now. If Fujifilm used a Samsung-made ISOCELL sensor with “Tetra” pixel-binning for X-Trans, that would grab headlines. Imagine a 112-megapixel X-Trans VI sensor that produced 28-megapixel images for high-ISO or extended dynamic range, and otherwise delivered medium-format-like high-resolution pictures. People would take notice!
5. Infrared Camera
Straight-out-of-camera infrared picture on non-converted Fujifilm X-E4.
A number of people want to do IR photography, but the conversion process is invasive and expensive. The only camera-line that makes infrared photography easy is the Sigma SD models, which include a removable IR filter—take the filter off and shoot IR photography, put it back on and shoot normal. I don’t know if that’s particularly practical for Fujifilm, but they could make an already-IR camera model. In fact, Fujifilm did this with the X-T1; however, it was only available for medical purposes, and not sold to the general public.
I don’t think an IR model would need to be the X-T4 (or future X-T5), but something more affordable, like the X-T30 II or future X-T40. Obviously not everyone would go out and buy one, but I think there’d be enough interest to make it worthwhile for Fujifilm to produce. It would certainly be a wow-camera for some photographers.
4. Digital XPan
XPan aspect ratio captured with the RitchieCam App on my iPhone.
The XPan cameras were a joint venture between Fujifilm and Hasselblad, beginning in 1998, that used 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in the 65×24 aspect ratio. While XPan cameras weren’t huge commercial successes, they gained a cult-following—so much so that Fujifilm has included the XPan aspect ratio as an option on the latest GFX models.
My idea is not for a 65×24 crop, but for a camera with a 65×24-shaped sensor. This would require a special-built sensor, which might be both difficult and expensive to procure. I think it would need to be in an X-Pro-like body, and probably should have a fixed-lens… maybe 30mm f/2.8? If it were interchangeable-lens, perhaps it would require two or three special lenses to use the full sensor (for the XPan ratio), or use any other X-mount lens and the camera automatically produces a 3:2 aspect ratio image. To me, the fixed-lens option makes the most sense.
I don’t think a digital XPan camera is especially practical, but it would be a huge headliner. Without a doubt it would make people’s jaws drop, and maybe even their wallets open.
3. X200 (Full-Frame X100)
Imagine this bigger….
I do not see Fujifilm jumping into the full-frame market. It’s crowded, and between X and GFX, Fujifilm can already basically indirectly compete well against it. Still, a lot of people have asked Fujifilm to produce a full-frame line; however, that’s like starting over from scratch, since most of their current X lenses won’t cover the sensor, and the GFX lenses are large and expensive compared to many full-frame options. It would be a huge financial risk that probably wouldn’t pay off. With that said, I do think there’s one full-frame camera that Fujifilm could produce that would be much less risky: the X200, a full-frame version of the X100-series.
It would obviously be bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the X100V. I think the focal-length of the lens should be different, too, so that it is not just the sensor size that separates the X100 line from the X200. Perhaps 50mm? Maybe 30mm? 35mm could be perfect, so it might not be a good idea to mess with it. There should be something more to differentiate the APS-C version from the full-frame, and Fujifilm would have to figure that out.
If Fujifilm did produce this camera, it would for certain have a big wow-factor, and I have zero doubts that people would line up to buy it.
2. X80
Imagine this smaller….
The Fujifilm X70 was doomed from the start. It was announced just three months before the first X-Trans III camera, right when Sony announced that they were not going to produce anymore 16-megapixel APS-C sensors. Fujifilm used their last X-Trans II sensors in this camera (plus the X-E2S), and when supplies ran out, so did this camera. When people asked when they were going to release a successor, Fujifilm stated that the X-Trans III sensor was “too hot” to place inside the tiny X70 body. The closest thing to a successor was the XF10, an inexpensive Bayer model with a PASM dial. But the X70 is much beloved by those who own them—to this day they can be tough to find, and they’re not cheap (don’t expect to find a bargain just because it’s old).
If Fujifilm were to release a real successor to the X70 (which would likely be called X80), it would no doubt be a hit. Smaller, lighter, and more-wide-angle than the X100 series, with the latest technology and JPEG options, would make people look. And buy! I’m confident that this would be a top-seller.
My top recommendation to Fujifilm for a “WOW” product is a monochrome-only camera based on either the X100 or X-Pro line, and called “Acros Edition.” It would basically be Fujifilm’s version of the Leica’s black-and-white-only cameras, like the M Monochrom, M10 Monochrome, and Q2 Monochrom.
What advantages do monochrome-only cameras have over color sensors? For one, all of the pixels are used for luminosity information (not just half, or in the case of X-Trans, 55%), which means more apparent resolution (more detailed image), less digital noise, improved high-ISO performance, and increased dynamic range. You can use color filters with it just like with black-and-white film. And it’s fun and cool. I’d be first in line to buy one, and I’m sure many reading this would be right beside me, as this would be the wow camera of all wow cameras.
I don’t know if any of these 10 product ideas are currently being considered by Fujifilm or not. Their idea of what would make people say “wow” and mine might be two completely different things. Fujifilm’s idea of what might make people say, “I definitely want to buy this,” could be 180º from mine. If Fujifilm should happen to read this, I want to make sure that my ideas were stated, because maybe—just maybe—this could impact future designs in some way. Probably not; however, it’s still fun to dream.
Now it’s your turn! Which of these 10 ideas would you be most excited for? What products would make you go “wow” that I didn’t include in this list? Let me know in the comments!
This article is a follow-up to my Instagram is Dying — For Photographers article that I published last month. It won’t apply to everyone reading this. If you have an Instagram “professional account” or have considered changing to one, this post is for you. Specifically, I wanted to look at what happens when you tap “Boost post”—an option only available for pro accounts—and find out if it’s worthwhile to do. What’s the process? How much does it cost? What do you get in return? Is it worth it?
To start with, I don’t recommend switching to a professional account on Instagram unless you really “need” to. The moment I switched to a pro account, my engagement dropped in half. You do get tools, such as analytics, and various other features in the “Professional Dashboard” to help you build your brand, but, unless you feel those things are necessary, I’d steer clear of switching. Meta basically says that the pro account will help you, but then they handicap you and want you to pay them money to solve it. I have had no interest in giving them my money—I simply want Instagram to show my posts to my followers, but that’s obviously not happening. After publishing that other article and reading all the feedback, I thought it would be worth exploring “Boost post” because there are probably many others who feel similarly, and are wondering if it’s worthwhile to try or just another scammy thing that Meta is doing.
Before I get into this, I think it’s worth going over some of the statistics. I’ve discovered that over the last year my Instagram posts tend to fall into one of four categories. About 50% of my posts get minimal engagement (likes, comments, etc.) and are seen by 15%-25% of my followers. About 30% of of my posts get moderate engagement and are seen by 40%-50% of my followers. About 15% of my posts get strong engagement and are seen by 60%-75% of my followers. About 5% of my posts get exceptional engagement and are seen by 85%-100% of my audience. If Instagram simply showed my posts to more of my followers, they’d get more engagement. Some of you might only see 5% of my posts. Half of you might only see one-in-three posts. I think only about 15% of my followers see all of my posts, which is crazy. You might notice similar statistics with your posts and your followers.
Under each of my posts, Instagram has a “Boost post” icon that taunts me. It’s intended to do that. “If you just press me, all your followers will see this post,” it says. But is that true? I didn’t know. I assumed, but I was ignorant, and I didn’t want to be ignorant. So I tapped it.
When you tap “Boost post” you are presented with three options: more profile visits, more website visits, and more messages. Under your boosted post, which is actually a sponsored ad, is a call-to-action button that will do one of three things, depending on the “goal” you select. I get about 50 messages a day on Instagram already, so I took that option off the table immediately. I ended up running two sponsored ads, and selected “more profile visits” for one and “more website visits” for the other. More profile visits is a call-to-action to visit your Instagram profile. Once there, I have no idea what people do, but they’re apparently taking a look at you. More website visits is a call-to-action to click a link to whatever website you want people to go to (I chose RitchieCam.com). More messages is a call-to-action to get direct messages on Instagram, I assume.
After that, you’ll be asked to “define your audience” so that Instagram knows who to show your ad to. You can select Automatic (“people like your followers”), or Create your own. I chose the latter for both posts. With that, you have to select the interest of those you want to target. Fujifilm is an option and photography is an option, but straight-out-of-camera, JPEG, and film simulation recipes are not—in other words, it’s more broad, and popular brands and common interests are what you have to choose from. Then, you have to select where those people live. I tried United States, but that was too large of a group apparently, so I had to narrow it down by state—you can select about 10-15, depending on the populations of those states. I’m sure smaller countries could have been chosen. You could select specific cities, too. I don’t like how Instagram set this up, but maybe it would work well for you, I guess depending on your situation. For most people, I imagine that Automatic is likely the best option.
Lastly, you have to select your budget ($5, $7, $20, and custom) and duration (1 to 30 days, or indefinitely until paused). For the first post I chose $5 each day for 5 days ($25 total), with an estimated reach of 4,000 to 10,000. The second post I selected $7 each day for 6 days ($42 total), with an estimated reach of 6,300 to 16,000. Tap “Next” to review, and your ad goes live. You can pay with a credit card or PayPal, which you setup the first time through.
So, how did my boosted posts (a.k.a. sponsored ads) go?
The first one, which had the goal of profile visits, was one of those 5% posts with tons of engagement. Unfortunately, when you boost a post, Instagram doesn’t tell you if the accounts reached were followers or non-followers (like they do otherwise), which was disappointing to learn. My suspicion is that they showed it to more followers plus more non-followers—a combination. This post reached over 37,000 people (I have 26K+ followers), so my assumption is that Instagram showed pretty close to 100% of my followers this post, plus 11K non-followers. That’s excellent! I wish all of my posts got this attention. However, Instagram claims that only 5% (less than 2K) saw this post as a result of the ad (less than half the reach that Instagram estimated). And, only 64 people viewed my profile as a result of the call-to-action, which is a small number (I think) for $25. I have no idea if any of those 64 learned of Film Simulation Recipes or followed me or anything else. Was this a rare “exceptional engagement” post because of the ad or in spite of it? I have no idea—I really didn’t get any answers.
The second one, which had a goal of website visits, was one of those 30% posts with moderate engagement. This post reached 15,000 people, and (just guessing) 10K-11K might have been followers. Instagram claims that 26% (less than 4K) saw this post as a result of the ad (significantly less than Instagram estimated). There were (supposedly) 52 people who visited my website as a result of the call-to-action, which isn’t a lot for the $42 spent. I have no way to know if that led to anything further.
I would have to boost a lot more posts to gain any real data to draw any conclusions. The odds are that one of these two posts “should have been” in the common 50% category that receive minimal engagement and views, but neither were. There were three other posts—one before the first ad, one in-between, and one after the second ad—two of which had minimal engagement (seen by less than 25% of my followers), and one had moderate engagement (seen by about 50% of my followers). It makes me think that Instagram does show your boosted posts to more of your followers, but I cannot say that with certainty, or give any kind of guess on how many it might be. It would be great if Instagram had that as an option: show post to all followers. Maybe charge $5 for that. But, that’s not an option. I do find it interesting that one ad was a top-30% post and the other was a top-5% post, so I do believe that boosting a post does just that—boosts a post. Imagine that. But I really don’t feel that the $67 I paid did much of anything other than that.
I think it was good to try, but I don’t think I’ll do it again. I paid about 40¢ per profile visit for the fist ad, and I paid about 80¢ per website visit for the second ad. That’s probably a decent price (cost-per-click) for digital advertisements, but definitely not something that I want to pay—maybe if I was selling something expensive it would be worthwhile. I just want Instagram to show my posts to my followers, and I do think boosting a post does that to a degree, but it’s an expensive way to do it, and not really “worth it” in my opinion.
When the Nikon Zfc was announced in 2021, I preordered it, and waited a long time for it to come. When it finally arrived, I pulled the Zfc out of the box and began to use it, and I was quickly disappointed. I said that it was most similar to the Fujifilm X-T200, yet significantly bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Still, I put the camera through its paces, and even created 11 Nikon Z Film Simulation Recipes using the Zfc. Then the camera went back into its box, and I strongly considered selling it.
After months and months of none-use, and after moving to a different state, I decided to give the Zfc one more try, but with a significant modification: I ditched the lousy Nikkor 28mm lens in favor of the TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4. Why? Because the TTArtisan lens has an aperture ring, and the Nikkor doesn’t. The TTArtisan lens is better optically than the Nikkor, too—I’m much happier with this setup.
Right now I’m working on my full-review of the TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 lens, and that means using it. Initially on my Zfc I was using the recipes that I had already created, but then I decided to make a few new ones—I guess I couldn’t help myself. If you add these three to the 11 others, I now have 14 Film Simulation Recipes for Nikon Z cameras!
Obviously, I made these JPEG recipes on the Zfc, so it will render differently on the full-frame models, but I’m not sure exactly how differently, as I’ve never used a full-frame Z camera. The reports have been positive, though, so I assume that they work well, including on the more expensive bodies—I just have no first-hand experience.
For those who might not know what “Film Simulation Recipes” are, they’re JPEG camera settings that allow you to achieve various looks (mostly analog-inspired) straight-out-of-camera, no editing needed. It can save you a lot of time by simplifying your workflow, and it can make the process of creating photographs more enjoyable.
Vintage Teal
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Teal
Vintage mood with a deep-teal cast.
Picture Control: Sepia Effect Level: 40 Quick Sharp: 0.00 Sharpening: +1.00 Mid-Range Sharpening: +2.00 Clarity: -2.00 Contrast: +1.00 Filter Effects: Red Toning: 7.00 Active D-Lighting: High High ISO NR: Low White Balance: Cloudy WB Adjust: A1.0 G4.0 ISO: up to 3200
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Teal
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Teal
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Teal
Nikon Zfc — Vintage Teal
Redscale
Nikon Zfc — “Redscale”
Similar to Kodak Gold with the film spooled backwards (redscale).
Picture Control: Red Effect Level: 50 Quick Sharp: 0.00 Sharpening: -1.00 Mid-Range Sharpening: 0.00 Clarity: -1.00 Contrast: +2.00 Filter Effects: Green Toning: 6.00 Active D-Lighting: Normal High ISO NR: Low White Balance: Day White Fluorescent WB Adjust: B2.0 G4.0 ISO: up to 3200
Nikon Zfc — “Redscale”
Nikon Zfc — “Redscale”
Nikon Zfc — “Redscale”
Nikon Zfc — “Redscale”
Bright Negative
Nikon Zfc —“Bright Negative”
Reminiscent of brightly exposed color negative film.
Picture Control: Melancholic Effect Level: 100 Quick Sharp: 0.00 Sharpening: 0.00 Mid-Range Sharpening: +1.00 Clarity: -1.00 Contrast: +3.00 Saturation: +3.00 Active D-Lighting: High High ISO NR: Low White Balance: Daylight Fluorescent WB Adjust: A6.0 G6.0 ISO: up to 3200
Nikon Zfc —“Bright Negative”
Nikon Zfc —“Bright Negative”
Nikon Zfc —“Bright Negative”
Nikon Zfc —“Bright Negative”
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
I wanted to follow-up my interview with Troy Paiva (click here to read it), which wasn’t directly related to Fujifilm cameras and Film Simulation Recipes (although it was highly relatable), with something directly connected to the topics that are typically found on the Fuji X Weekly blog. Just as I was contemplating who I was going to interview and what the exact subject might be, I received a message from Matt Giesow of VAST Media, a photo and video production company in Tulsa, Oklahoma. “I have been running my production company for nearly five years now,” Matt told me, “and picking up a Fuji has been a breath of fresh air.” He stated that using Film Simulation Recipes on his camera allowed him to deliver some images immediately to the client, and that his JPEG workflow is “so nice.”
His words echoed in my head for the rest of that day. I felt similarly when I first started in Fujifilm: it was like a breath of fresh air—cool, crisp, mountain air. That was before I had even discovered the great JPEG output of the cameras, and before I had begun to make recipes. It must be even more refreshing nowadays, with so many resources available—such as Fuji X Weekly. It’s an honor to help others also experience that “fresh air” that Fujifilm cameras can provide. I knew that I wanted the next interview to be with Matt, so the following morning I asked if he’d be willing. Thankfully, he was very enthusiastic, and we were able to accomplish it rather quickly. So, without any further delay, here’s my interview with Matt Giesow!
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: Hi, Matt! Thank you so much for taking time out of your day today to do this interview! Let’s begin at the beginning. Tell me how you got started in photography?
Matt Giesow: Hey, Ritchie! I’m a self-taught photographer, dating back to 2017 from “YouTube University”—that, and being on staff at a pretty creative church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, created a great launching pad into the world of photography and videography.
FXW: What was your first camera?
Matt Giesow: An iPhone 4 and the VSCO app. My first camera purchased to learn photography on was the Canon 80D.
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: What were your early photographic interests?
Matt Giesow: I remember when instagram first came out, I tried to make my shots look like film using Insta’s built-in filters [laughter]. Today and I’m still interested in photographing people, places, and things with a nostalgic vintage look.
FXW: What are your current photographic interests? What do you shoot just for fun?
Matt Giesow: I enjoy street photography. Exploring cities—both ones I know and ones that I’ve not yet been to—and finding hidden gems to capture. I also enjoy photographing my family (I’m a proud dad), documenting all of our memories.
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: Tell me about your production company. How did you get started with that?
Matt Giesow: VAST Media started about four years ago with a desire for me to create what could exist. We primarily focus within architecture and the real estate market. I have grown the business from a solo entrepreneur to a full team and a full service company now. It’s been amazing to be a part of it from day one—with the vision of the company—to now continuing to work within the company and have several people alongside me helping to move it forward.
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: What services do you provide?
Matt Giesow: VAST provides real estate listing marketing, brand advertising, and full-scale video production for anyone—from a business owner to a real estate agent to major organizations—that need to share their brand and story.
FXW: What else would you like people to know about VAST Media?
Matt Giesow: What I want people to know is that VAST Media is more than a single person with a camera. From the moment it launched, my goal was to make it not about me but about we. Often people get stuck relying on one solo creative. I wanted to create a brand that, no matter who showed up from my team, was consistent, and the brand was apparent—it’s all under one umbrella, and the product was not contingent upon a single person.
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: What made you pick up a Fujifilm camera?
Matt Giesow: Shooting with Sony cameras throughout most of my professional career, I always wondered about owning a Fuji. This last year I began to experiment with 35mm film photography. I realized very quickly that I love the process of shooting film, but I always want my images right away [laughter]. I found the solution to my problem on the Fuji X Weekly website, where I discovered Film Simulation Recipes. I began to see what shooters like me were doing to scratch that itch. I headed to eBay and quickly found an overpriced Fujifilm X100V and went for it. The X100V is my first and only Fujifilm camera at the moment.
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: What do you like most about it?
Matt Giesow: It’s been a dream to shoot with! So small—it’s a daily carry. I find myself pulling the car off numerous times throughout the day to get out and snap something that, in the past, I would have used my iPhone to capture. I love shooting straight out of camera with the film simulations baked in. It’s totally changed the way I shoot! Enjoying the process now, something that only 35mm film had given me before.
FXW: Which Film Simulation Recipes do you like best and why?
Matt Giesow:Classic Negative is my go-to recipe in most scenarios for color. It fits the vibe and style that for years I tried to edit my Sony photos to look like. It’s perfect for street photography, travel—the reds are just gorgeous! Reggie’s Portra and Kodak Gold 200 are some other big favorites. For black-and-white, Ilford XP2 Super 400 is my go-to for darker, punchier pictures, and Ilford HP5 Plus 400 is my favorite for slightly softer, less contrasty black and white photos.
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: How has using Fujifilm cameras impacted your professional photography and your personal photography?
Matt Giesow: Honestly, picking up a FujiFilm camera has been a breath of fresh air. Over the years I’ve invested a great deal in filling our gear lockers at VAST Media, but I’ve never had a personal connection with a camera quite like I do with my X100V. For me, shooting with a fixed focal length, and working so hard to nail the perfect shot in-camera is causing me to sharpen areas of my craft that I didn’t even realize were dull. This in turn has kindled a new passion for photography that makes me feel like I did back in the beginning. The X100V doesn’t replace my ”professional” arsenal, but it’s a happy addition to every set I am on. The ability to take incredible behind-the-scenes photos on-set straight out of camera and deliver something right to the client’s hands before leaving is something very new—and I love it!
Photo by Matt Giesow
FXW: In wrapping this up, is there anything else you’d like to say?
Matt Giesow: A big “thank you” to you, Ritchie, for Fuji X Weekly! The Fuji community is just a different breed—friendly, helpful, and encouraging. It’s so great.
FXW: Thanks again, Matt, for allowing me to interview you!
I like using vintage lenses because they often have character, and sometimes that character is pronounced in the lens flare. When light is scattered within the lens system, such as reflected between the elements, you get lens flare. Some people love it and some people don’t. Modern lenses are precision engineered and coated to avoid lens flare as much as possible. If you’re one of those who like it and try to incorporate it within your photography, you might be disappointed that newer glass just doesn’t produce very much lens flare; however, there’s a cheap and simple hack for increasing the flare in your photographs.
If you are using a lens that’s not especially prone to lens flare and you want a little more of it in your pictures, it’s very easy to do.
Coastal Blooms – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Pacific Blues”
Sometimes—like “Arizona Analog“—Film Simulation Recipes come together quickly, and sometimes—like this recipe—they don’t. This particular recipe has been in the works for over a year! I’ve made several attempts, and I finally feel satisfied that it is right—or at least as “right” as I’m going to get it. But what is it?
I’ve had a few requests to mimic the aesthetic of Lucy Laucht‘s Spirit of Summer series, particularly the Positano Bluesphotographs. Lucy is most known for shooting with Leica cameras—both film and digital—but she also uses others, and I wasn’t sure what she employed for this project. Recently I discovered that Positano Blues was shot on film, but (as far as I’ve found) she doesn’t discuss which film. I did find a reference (not related to this specific project) that mentioned she has used Kodak Gold and Kodak Portra, and that she digitally edits the film scans to some degree. She mentions using VSCO with her digital images, and I wonder if she also utilizes it with her film, too. When I first saw the pictures in this series, I thought it had a Classic Negative vibe—a film simulation that emulates Fujicolor Superia film. Lucy’s pictures are warmer than Superia typically is, but so much depends on how a film is shot, developed, scanned, etc., on how exactly it looks, and she certainly could have used warming filter. No matter the film and process used by Lucy, there’s a certain “look” to the Positano Blues photographs that is recognizable and beautiful—no wonder why people want to emulate it!
Coast Blue – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Pacific Blues”
While Lucy Laucht’s pictures have a recognizable aesthetic, there are subtle differences between the images. Once you study them closely, you realize that some are warmer and some are cooler. Colors are rendered slightly different in some pictures. In past attempts, I felt like I’d get it “right” for one picture but “wrong” for others; however, with this final attempt, I feel like it’s possible to get close to the “look” of most of the Positano Blues photos. I’m very satisfied with how this one turned out, and I know that many of you will appreciate it, too. Obviously it is intended for a summer day at the beach, but it will do well in many different daylight situations. This “Pacific Blues” Film Simulation Recipe is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras. I assume that it will also work on the X-H2s and newer GFX cameras, but I haven’t tried it to know for sure.
Classic Negative Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: -2 Shadow: +3 Color: +4 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -2 Clarity: -3 Grain Effect: Strong, Large Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome Effect Blue: Strong White Balance: 5800K, +1 Red & -3 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: +2/3 to +1 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this “Pacific Blues” Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-E4:
Pier Feet – Avila Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Water Taxi – Avila Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Harford Pier – Avila Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Bird & Boats – Avila Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Bird ‘Bout To Get Wet – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Ocean Post – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Pacific Plants – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Rocks in the Water – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Central California Coast – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Grass in the Sand – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Beach Frisbee – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Sax at the Beach – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Building Storm Over Desert Ridge – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Arizona Analog”
Inspiration can come suddenly and unexpectedly, and it’s important to be open to it when it comes.
I was at the grocery store the other day, waiting in line to checkout, standing right next to the magazine stand. My wife points out the latest issue of Arizona Highways, which I previously subscribed to, but (with my move from Utah) I let the renewal lapse. She says, “Wanna get it?” I shake my head no, then begin to load the groceries onto the belt. I didn’t want to get it because the subscription price for a year is the same price as four issues at the stand, and because I’m pretty busy right now (still unpacking boxes and such) and I might not read it anyway.
“Do you mind getting me an iced coffee?” My wife asked a moment later. Then, pointing at the stuff on the belt, she stated, “I’ve got this.” There’s a Starbucks in the grocery store, and I was happy to jump out of the line and get a couple of coffees. A few minutes later, just as the barista was done with our order, my wife walks up with the basket of bagged groceries. Sitting right on top was the Arizona Highways magazine.
Old Saguaro – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Arizona Analog”
When we got home, after unloading the car and putting everything away, I thumbed through the August issue. On page 10 was a photograph by Scott Baxter of a rancher wrangling cattle, which was in a small article called Sierra Bonita Ranch (the picture can be seen if you click the link—click on the picture to see the whole thing—I find it interesting how different it appears on my screen vs in the magazine). I grabbed my Fujifilm X-E4 and threw in some settings that I thought might be close.
I snapped a few photos in the yard, then showed my wife. “Those look good,” she said. “This is where I got the inspiration,” I stated as I showed her Scott’s picture in the magazine. She viewed the picture, then gave me a puzzled look. “We’ve only been home 10 minutes. You made this recipe from that picture?”
“Yes!” I replied with a smile. “Wow,” she said, “that’s really amazing!”
Suburban Americana – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Arizona Analog”
This recipe isn’t a 100% accurate match to Scott’s picture—it’s pretty close, but not perfect. Not surprising, it’s closer to the printed aesthetic than the digital look, as I hadn’t yet seen it online when I created the recipe. I considered attempting to more closely replicate the aesthetic of the picture, but I really like the look of this recipe—accurate or not—so I decided not to change it. I have no idea what Scott used to capture his picture… apparently he shoots a mix of film and digital.
Thanks to Scott Baxter, Arizona Highways, and my wife’s thoughtful gesture, the inspiration for this recipe came quickly. It was one of the fastest recipes that I’ve ever created. Certainly it’s not for every person or every situation, but I’m sure for some of you in the right situations, you’ll appreciate the aesthetic that this “Arizona Analog” Film Simulation Recipe delivers. It’s compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras—I assume the new X-H2s, too, but I haven’t yet tested it on X-Trans V.
Eterna Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: -1 Shadow: +3 Color: -2 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -2 Clarity: -3 Grain Effect: Strong, Small Color Chrome Effect: Weak Color Chrome Effect Blue: Weak White Balance: Daylight, +6 Red & -3 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: +1/3 to +1 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this “Arizona Analog” Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-E4:
Pavillion – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
The New West – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Curved Trellis – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Evening Flowers – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Flower Garden Blossoms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Real Bloom over Artificial Turf – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Trunk & Flowers – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Wall Flowers – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Fishhook Barrel Cactus Blossom – Mesa, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Chinook With a Limp Essex, CA, 2002 Photo by Troy Paiva
If you already know who Troy Paiva is and have seen his wonderful night photographs, then you are well aware of how important his work has been to the genres of light painting, urban exploration, and Americana photography. If you don’t know who Troy is… well, you will soon be initiated, and you can thank me later. “Every once in awhile an artist bursts forth with such a profound impact on a genre of art that it forever alters its course,” photographer Ken Lee stated in a Photofocus article. “Troy Paiva is one such artist.”
What Troy is most known for is nighttime light-painted photography of abandoned, forgotten, or neglected roadside Americana. He visits abandoned buildings and old junkyards and even airplane boneyards during full-moon darkness, capturing long-exposure images using artificial lights to add pops of color that aren’t naturally there. His striking pictures have been displayed in art galleries and museum exhibits, and printed in magazines and books, including a couple of Stephen King covers.
The Star in the Window Rhyolite, NV, 1997 Photo by Troy Paiva
My introduction to Troy Paiva came through an unusual book: Weird Arizona. He was a contributor to it (plus some of the other books in that series), and it had a little Route 66 writeup by Troy that included a picture of an abandoned gas station with a strange red glow on the ceiling. Later, I found Troy on Flickr, and even corresponded with him briefly on the location of one of his photographs. I’ve been a big fan of his photography for over a decade; however, he’s been doing this whole light-painting thing since the late-1980’s, well before I stumbled across his fantastic images.
I interviewed Troy recently, and I’m very excited and honored to share it with you. This is a very important article, because I’m certain that many of you can relate to it—I know that I can! Perhaps, like me, you have piles of old slides and/or negatives stored in a box somewhere. Nobody ever sees those pictures. What do you do with them? They can’t be any good, can they? Are they worth the trouble to dig through and scan? Will anyone care about them if you do? Are they even worth keeping? What will eventually happen to them if you do nothing? Those are questions that Troy Paiva recently wrestled with, and I think his answers are both fascinating and inspiring.
Salton City Trailer Salton Sea, CA, 1992 Photo by Troy Paiva
FXW: Troy, I love your photography—your pictures and your process! I noticed that you have been revisiting your old analog images lately—daytime photos from the late 1980’s, 1990’s, and early 2000’s. What made you dig out your old slides?
Troy: Earlier this year I bumped into a set of my images on Flickr—The Mojave Carhenge from 1992—that I had scanned ages ago. They looked bad, with low resolution and converted to B&W. I wanted to find those slides and rescan them, but I put it on the back burner. Later, I needed to re-up on the long-dormant software for my film scanner to do something for a friend, so I used that opportunity to finally dig out those slides—scanning and processing them using 2022 software and skills.
I was surprised by how my perception of those pictures had changed over the course of 30 years—how old and rare and cool the cars in it were. It was weirdly timeless, like it could have been shot in 1982 or even ’72. I put them on Facebook and I got a response that supported these feelings. I looked through a few more boxes of early ’90’s daytime slides—pictures that even I hadn’t seen since the early ’90’s—which seemed to generate the same level of surprise. It didn’t take me long to realize that I should keep going.
Welcome to Nephi Nephi, UT, 1996 Photo by Troy Paiva
FXW: What camera gear did you use back then and what do you use now?
Troy: I’ve always shot with Canon cameras. In the early ’90’s it was a ’60’s vintage FX, an all-manual (broken) match-needle relic for night work, and A-1’s for metered shooting. I switched to the T90 in the late ’90’s—it was a great night shooting camera. I had several running different films. I used the FX forever, right up until 2004. Digitally, I went from the 20D to the 60D to the 6D. Once you night-shoot from a knee-high POV with a swivel screen, you never go back! All the film cameras were used—cheap. I’m pretty cavalier with equipment, and night photography has a way of wrecking and breaking your gear anyway.
In the ’90’s my lenses were constantly changing. All of them were purchased used, and lots of 3rd party junk. They’d fall apart, or get stuck on f/2.8 forever—especially the wide lenses from the early ’90’s, which were loose and wiggly in your hands and the focus fell off hard in the corners—and I’d buy another one for $25 at the flea market. All part of the character of the work: shooting junk with junk.
I used a mix of Ektachrome and Fujichrome, and a little Agfa, too. I would shoot with whatever slide film was on sale.
The Islands of Yucca Interstate 40, AZ, 1996 Photo by Troy Paiva
FXW: What drew you to your subjects back then?
Troy: A lot of the signage imagery stems from my MCM graphic design background. At the time I was working as a designer at Galoob Toys, making Micro Machine-sized gas stations and car washes. I was already obsessed with abandoned roadside long before I ever got to Galoob, and taking pictures of it—day or night—was a natural part of the headspace I occupied.
N’ Fresno, CA, 1995 Photo by Troy Paiva
FXW: What is your process for digitalizing your slides? What challenges have you encountered?
Troy: I’ve had a Nikon IV ED film scanner since about 2001, which I’ve always used to scan my night work to put online. After moving into the digital era (in 2005), it sat largely unused. There was even a long period where it was unusable because Nikon stopped updating the software. Luckily, 3rd party software appeared at some point—I use the one from VueScan. The raw scans are not even close to right, but good enough to get them into Photoshop where I use MANY tools to make them presentable: masked sharpening/noise (grain) control, major HSB adjustments, white and black point shifts—the whole bit. Some also require perspective adjustment, cloning scratches out, creative cropping. Some mix down in a few minutes, some take a half hour to pull together.
The Yuma Cabana Yuma, AZ, 1995 Photo by Troy Paiva
FXW: What differentiates your daytime pictures from your night ones? What is surprising about it?
Troy: My daytime work was more about scouting locations to potentially come back and work later that night. Many of these subjects would have been impossible to do with my full moon technique because they’re bathed with sodium vapor streetlights. Or sometimes I’d get chased back to the car by dogs or some nut racking a shotgun. In many cases, the day shots are the only record.
The daytime work always took a back seat to my experimental night work, so I rarely showed it to anyone. It just sat in storage for 25, 30 years. Occasionally I’d pull some night work for a fresh scan, completely ignoring the daytime work. Why? I wish there was some smart-sounding “I was consciously playing the long game” answer, but, apparently, I was playing it unconsciously.
It’s a part of my photography that longtime followers of my night work have never seen. It mirrors it in many ways, yet doesn’t fall into the trap of having the “light-painted night” aspect take over what the picture is about. They are just “normal” pictures of things, and that makes them easier to conceptually digest.
Also, I’m still scanning. There’s a lot I haven’t even looked at yet. I am intentionally not going through everything at once. I grab a few boxes, or all the work from one trip—cull, scan, and process. Only then do I look at the next few rolls. The picture of my slides (below) isn’t even all of it—there are about 10 carousels full, too. A lot of it is personal things of no interest to anyone but me. Several boxes have nothing worth scanning, but some… every slide gets an “Oh, wow!” when I put it on the light box for the first time.
Troy’s old film slides, mostly from the 1990’s.
FXW: What did you discover through this project?
Troy: I discovered a body of work that almost feels like someone else shot it! Sometimes memories come flooding back as I look through them; for others, it’s, “Where was that again?”
My MO was to specifically shoot the once-loved things that looked like they were on their way out. Most of it was abandoned and heavily weathered, steeped in Wabi-Sabi feelings of accepting loss and finding beauty and nobility in decay. It turns out that my hit rate was good: it seems like 90% of these subjects are now irrevocably changed or just gone. I perform Google searches on most of the sites—looking for them on street view, images, etc.—and in many cases, there doesn’t appear to be any other “intentional” pictures of them made before they disappeared. I’ve run across a couple of motel signs where the only other picture that I could find is in the John Margolies collection in the Library of Congress. It seems like everybody shoots this kind of stuff now, but in the early ‘90s, it was rare and—frankly—kinda weird.
I haven’t parsed out what any of it means. I’m still in the middle of the scanning project, so I’m not ready to sit back and figure out what to do with it yet, except share some of it online and get it seen.
Mom’s Motel Fresno, CA, 1995 Photo by Troy Paiva
FXW: How important is it to revisit your old pictures?
Troy: Once I started to see how much of this rare imagery I had, I began to think of Vivian Maier and Charles Phoenix. Imagine finding this motherlode of daytime and weird night photography of the long lost American roadside in a dumpster behind a Salvation Army! If I didn’t scan and share it, someday when I die that mountain of boxed slides would either end up in the dump, or a thrift store to be found and exploited and re-contextualized by someone else. The 99.9% reality is that it would most likely end up in a landfill, never to be seen by anyone. Once I realized what I was sitting on, I didn’t want any of that to happen.
Time has a way of making ALL pictures better. They’re a record of a moment in time. That moment often seems inconsequential when it happens, but someday you may not be able to experience anything like that moment again because the place or people are gone, and the picture suddenly takes on different meanings that were hidden before. Ever notice when you look at really old magazines you tend to gloss over the articles and spend most of your time looking at the advertisements? The things we don’t think are important or historic now have a tendency to be the ones that end up being more interesting later.
Liquor For Health Yuma, AZ, 1995 Photo by Troy Paiva
I want to give a very big thanks to Troy Paiva for taking time out of his busy day to allow me to interview him and publish his words and photographs on Fuji X Weekly. Thank you, Troy! Many of these pictures have been shared on his social media pages, but a couple of them have never been published before, and you’re the very first (aside from Troy and now myself) to see them! To say that I feel honored is such an understatement.
My hope is that this article has encouraged you to take another look at the pictures you captured years and years ago. Maybe they have a different meaning today than the last time you saw them. Perhaps you’ll be inspired to do your own project similar to Troy’s. It could be time to dust off that old scanner, or even buy a new one. I think this article also illustrates that the photography you’re doing right now is important, even if it doesn’t seem so at the moment. Keep at it, and in time you’ll see the significance of the pictures you captured today.
Bougainvillea Color – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1 – “Faux Classic Chrome”
A little over two years ago I figured out how to replicate default Classic Chrome using the PRO Neg. Std film simulation. I published my findings in a blog post, to hopefully be helpful to those with cameras which don’t have the Classic Chrome film simulations, such as the X-Pro1, X-E1, X100, and X100S. I didn’t make this an official Film Simulation Recipe because it was just emulating Classic Chrome without adjustments (other than Noise Reduction), which I didn’t think was especially exciting; however, I recently found out that this recipe is being used and there’s a desire for it to be included in the Fuji X Weekly App. I’m simply turning those two-year-old settings into an official Fuji X Weekly Film Simulation Recipe.
If you want a recipe that resembles Classic Chrome with DR100, Highlight 0, Shadow 0, Color 0, Sharpness 0, and AWB (without a shift), this recipe is a good facsimile of that. It’s not possible to 100% faithfully mimic Classic Chrome without Classic Chrome, but these settings are pretty close, and as close as you’re likely going to get.
Laughing at a Joke – Goodyear, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1 – “Faux Classic Chrome”
I created these settings on an X-Trans II camera, but all of these images were captured on my Fujifilm X-Pro1. If you have an X-Trans I or X-Trans II sensor that doesn’t have Classic Chrome but does have PRO Neg. Std, you can use this recipe to approximate default Classic Chrome. The results are pretty decent; it’s a solid all-around recipe that’s good for a variety of subjects and situations.
PRO Neg. Std Dynamic Range: DR200 Highlight: +1 (Medium-Hard) Shadow: +1 (Medium-Hard) Color: +1 (Medium-High) Sharpness: 0 (Standard) Noise Reduction: -2 (Low) White Balance: Auto, 0 Red & -1 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 3200 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +1/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this “Faux Classic Chrome” Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-Pro1:
Midday Palm – Goodyear, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Building, Clouds – Goodyear, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Mostly Sunny Bougainvillea – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Garden Trumpets – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Reaching Garden – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Pergola Roof Design – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Pop of Pink – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Hiding Blooms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Scraggly Bloom – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Josh Looking at Something – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-Pro1
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Still shocking to me, I’ve gotten a lot of followers on the Fuji X Weekly Instagram account over the last two years: over 25K right now! I topped 10K followers on May 11, 2021, and 25K on July 9, 2022—it has grown 150% in roughly 14 months. That’s amazing, and all thanks goes to you! I never thought that was possible.
When I reached 10K followers I signed up for a business account. While it certainly has its benefits, it also has one huge negative: Instagram wants me to pay them money to show you, my followers, my posts. They purposefully hide your content from your own followers—if someone seeks it out they will find it, but it won’t show up in their feed—unless you pay Instagram a fee. My engagement dropped in half the instant I signed up for the business account. You might think that engagement—likes, comments, shares, etc.—would have grown at the same rate as the followers, but not so. The average post at 25K has a similar engagement as a post at 10K prior to signing up for a business account. While my followers have increased by 150%, my engagement has only increased by 100%—back to where it was before Instagram cut it in half.
Instagram is a great place to feed your envy. There are people whose pictures suck that have 100K or more followers and are basically earning an income from Instagram. There are people who capture amazing pictures who have less than two hundred followers. I’ve seen both of those circumstances personally, and maybe you have, too. Now I’m not the world’s greatest photographer by any means. I see many, many photographers who are more talented than I who have fewer followers, and I also see the opposite, too. Nobody’s self-worth should come from Instagram, and the followers and engagement (or lack of it) don’t actually mean anything. Unfortunately, it’s more of a popularity contest than anything else; however, Instagram is a good way to connect with others across the world.
Once upon a time Instagram was the place to see wonderful photographs. You could find a lot of inspiration. It still is, but less so now. Why? Instagram (which is owned by Facebook/Meta) recently claimed that engagement in still photographs is down nearly 50% over the last two years, so that’s why they’re focusing on video. I call B.S. on this.
I know two things: Instagram will hide your content if they want to, and Instagram (Meta, actually) doesn’t like competition. Whenever a new social media app comes along that Meta perceives as a threat, they buy it; if they can’t buy it, they make their own version of it to incorporate into their own apps. Right now that competition is TikTok, and since Meta can’t buy it (I’m sure they tried at one point), they’re becoming “TikTok” in order to win—at the expense of you, the photographer.
I believe that Instagram has put into place algorithms to suppress still photography and simultaneously push video content (Reels, as they call it). Then they say that still photography is dying and video is booming, so they need to be video-centric. They’re paying people money to publish videos. I’m not a video guy myself, but by far my most popular post on Instagram is a Reel, with triple the engagement of my most popular still-photography post. Is it because you all are more interested videos, or because Instagram wants you to be more interested in video? In my opinion they’re trying to transform their app into TikTok, which means that photography needs to take a back seat.
You can still be successful on Instagram as a photographer. Since Instagram is pushing Reels so hard, you might consider using those to show your pictures (instead of a traditional post, or in addition to it). I’m personally not a fan of what Instagram is becoming, but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful. A lot of people have discovered my Film Simulation Recipes through Instagram. I’ve made a lot of connections (I get about 50 DMs on IG each day!), and even made some friends. There are definitely still some positives.
I do think the time is ripe for an Instagram-alternative for photographers. I know that many have tried, and no one has really succeeded. I don’t know what its unique shtick should be, but there has to be something that sets it apart. Money is obviously an obstacle, because everyone wants a free app, but an app like that would be expensive to produce and maintain. I don’t have the solution, but I do know that an opportunity exists right now for someone who thinks that they might have the solution.
Now it’s your turn! Do you like or dislike how Instagram is evolving? Would you try an Instagram alternative if there was a good one? Is there a current app that you prefer to Instagram and why? Let me know in the comments!
Thomas told me that this “Pure Negative” recipe is basically a modification of his X-Trans I Kodachrome II recipe for use on X-Trans IV cameras. Because X-Trans I doesn’t have Classic Chrome, Thomas used the PRO Neg. Std film simulation to emulate a Kodachrome aesthetic as best as possible, and his recipe does a good job of that for the X-Pro1 and X-E1 cameras. There are already several excellent Kodachrome options for X-Trans IV; this recipe isn’t intended to replicate Kodachrome, but instead produce good natural-looking results—perhaps there is a little unintentional Kodachrome 25 resemblance, too. Thank you, Thomas, for creating this recipe and allowing me to share it on Fuji X Weekly!
This Film Simulation Recipe is a great general-purpose option. It’s very versatile, delivering excellent results in a variety of situations. The only modification that I made to Thomas’ recipe is Dynamic Range: he prefers DR-Auto, but I set it to DR200. That’s not a big change, as DR-Auto chooses DR200 whenever there is bright highlights in the frame. Select whichever you prefer—either DR-Auto or DR200 is fine. For the Fujifilm X-T3 and X-T30 cameras, ignore Grain size and use a 5% CineBloom in lieu of Clarity (or just ignore Clarity)—the results will be similar. For X-Trans III, you’ll additionally have to ignore Color Chrome Effect, since your camera doesn’t have it. This recipe should be fully compatible with the new X-H2s, although I have not tested it to know for certain.
PRO Neg. Std Dynamic Range: DR200 Highlight: +1 Shadow: +2 Color: -4 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: +1 Clarity: -2 Grain Effect: Weak, Small Color Chrome Effect: Weak Color Chrome Effect Blue: Off White Balance: Auto, +1 Red & -2 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +1/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this “Pure Negative” Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-E4:
Bougainvillea Branch – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
One Blossom Remains – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Prickly Pear – Goodyear, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Arching Palms – Goodyear, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Veiled Wasatch – Layton, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle – Layton, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Pismo – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Brad’s – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Turbulent Waters – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Wave Rider – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Surfer – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Standing on Water – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Golden Ocean – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Fujifilm X-T200 — Fujifilm’s last entry-level camera?
I commonly get asked advice on camera gear. Most often it is which Fujifilm camera to buy, usually by someone who is trying to get into the system—either as a first “serious” camera or switching brands, typically because they want to try Film Simulation Recipes; however, I occasionally I get asked by someone (that knows that I’m “into photography”) who is looking for an entry-level camera for themselves or their teenage kid. If it’s for themselves, it’s because Johnny’s 5th birthday is coming and they want better pictures, or they’re about to take that epic vacation they’ve been saving up for and want to capture the memories. If it’s for their child, it’s because their kid has shown some interest in photography and they want to foster that. Either way, the basic entry-level model is what’s needed.
Whenever I ask about budgets, I usually hear something like, “Under $300.” Sometimes $500 is the upper limit. I’ve been told $150 before. Almost never is it $1,000. In the past the advice I gave was to buy a used entry-level DSLR, like the Nikon D3200, for example, which could often be found somewhere close to the budget—super easy for the novice, yet advanced enough that a budding photographer could learn on it. Later, I would suggest something like the Fujifilm X-T100 or X-A5, which were affordable mirrorless options (and, of course, Fujifilm). Nowadays it’s harder to make a recommendation because the entry-level camera is basically gone.
Those who are “serious” tend to know that they have to spend more to get a quality camera. Much of the time you get what you pay for; however, sometimes these entry-level models were surprisingly good—I was impressed by the image quality of the Fujifilm X-T200, for example. Those who are after quality will typically skip the entry-level and go for a mid-tier option or higher. Those who want a cheap introduction will be satisfied with a low-budget camera. A lot of people—mostly those who would never consider themselves a “real photographer”—used to buy these cheap cameras in droves, but now they don’t.
The reason they don’t is largely because of the cellphone. The camera technology on your phone is beyond good enough for most people and purposes, and it keeps getting more and more impressive. You don’t need a bulky, inconvenient, complicated, and expensive DSLR to capture Johnny’s 5th birthday. You don’t need an interchangeable-lens camera to photograph that epic vacation. Your phone is more than capable of delivering stunning pictures that can be instantly shared. Yes, you could spend a grand on a camera and lens, you could lug it around, you could take classes or watch videos on how to use it since it’s all so confusing, and you could download a bulky photo editing program onto your computer—or just pull out your phone and let its smart technology handle it all for you with just one tap.
It wasn’t long ago that the cellphone killed the pocket point-and-shoot. Now it’s also killed entry-level interchangeable-lens cameras. While I think cellphone camera technology can be (and could continue to become) appealing to “serious” photographers, I don’t think it will have a big impact on higher-end cameras. The market is shrinking from the bottom up—not the top down. If anything, there is an increased demand for mid and high end models. But the lucrative point-and-shoot and entry-level markets are pretty much all dried up.
What does this mean? There are several things. First, those hoping to find a cheap camera will have to get an older model, because less and less are new ones being made. I definitely don’t mind using “old” gear, but others don’t always feel the same—five-year-old tech is practically obsolete and 10-year old definitely is (in some people’s opinions, not mine). Fujifilm’s last entry-level cameras—the X-A7 and X-T200—were discontinued shortly after their release, due to sluggish sales. Right now the mid-tier X-E4 is their lowest-level model, and it is certainly not a “low-end” camera. Other brands have been discontinuing their entry-level options, too. If you want a “real” camera, you’ll need to get a “serious” camera; otherwise, stick with your cellphone.
I think the affect on those with a budding interest in photography will be profound. Either you will learn on a cellphone (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing), or you’ll pony-up for a mirrorless—those who cannot afford the mirrorless model either won’t have their interest fostered and it will fade, or will learn photography differently—good, bad, or indifferent, this will shape the future of photography in some way. Change always has some impact on the future, but we won’t know exactly what it is until we get there.
Another impact that the disappearing entry-level will have on the camera industry is that money must be made somewhere. Camera companies have to make up for the lost revenue. While the trend in tech is that things become cheaper over time, I think we’re already seeing that the top-end is not getting cheaper. It won’t just affect the top, but that is what’s most affected currently it seems; I suspect that it will have an impact across all brands and all tiers to varying degrees. Fujifilm is lucky because their Instax line is still extremely popular and profitable.
The flip side of the coin is that the cellphone camera market is (and has been) booming. Whether it is Apple or Android, the camera capabilities of your device likely had a significant impact on your decision to buy. How many lenses does it have? How much resolution? What kind of computational tricks can it do? The more people spend on cellphones, the more the technology marches forward, and the better the cameras become. It’s really quite amazing what the little telephone/computer/camera in your pocket can do!
Photo by Amanda Roesch using the RitchieCam App on an iPhone 13
Obviously those advancements mean opportunities. I took the opportunity to create the RitchieCam App to bring simplified and intuitive one-step photography to your iPhone. My wife took the opportunity to do some underwater photography—something that she wouldn’t have done with an interchangeable-lens camera, but her iPhone 13 handled it swimmingly well. What that opportunity is for you depends on you—there is an opportunity for certain, you just have to find it and make it happen.
Yes, the entry-level camera is disappearing, and will soon be gone. Much like CDs, Blockbuster, and one-hour photo labs, cheap interchangeable-lens cameras are a thing of the past. It will have an impact on photography, but whether that’s positive or negative depends on your perspective. And I do think there are both positives and negatives. Certainly camera manufacturers have been concerned for some time—if there’s a lesson to be learned, perhaps it’s to do more to bring the mobile photography tech advancements to “real” cameras, too. Those wanting a bottom-end camera are seeing their options disappear. Those hoping cameras will become cheaper as they become better will likely be disappointed, at least for a time. That might look bleak, but I also believe that photography has become more accessible.
How has photography become more accessible if it isn’t becoming more affordable? The phone-in-your-pocket is only getting better, and is being taken more seriously. There’s a reason why the pocket point-and-shoot and entry-level interchangeable-lens cameras have succumbed to it. Many more people have access to a decent camera, and the pictures are easily shared across the world—more pictures are being captured now than ever before, and that’s a huge understatement!
Fujifilm cameras have made post-processing unnecessary. I don’t know how many of you truly understand the impact of this—I have a front-row seat, and I’m just beginning to grasp the magnitude of it. Learning Lightroom and Photoshop have been a prerequisite barrier to becoming a “serious photographer” for years; however, not everyone in the world has access to photo-editing programs, not everyone has a desire (or the time) to learn them, and not everyone enjoys sitting at a computer for hours (or has the time). A lot of people have been on the outside looking in, but now they don’t have to be because the barrier has been removed (thanks to Fujifilm cameras and Film Simulation Recipes). For others, it’s just a fun way to do photography, and has made the process of creating pictures more enjoyable.
Some who are just learning photography, who’ve maybe only used their cellphones previously, are buying Fujifilm cameras and using recipes and getting good results out-of-the-gate; if they had to edit their pictures, they would still be stuck on the software—they’d be making less progress and having less fun. Some who are experienced pros and have been in the business awhile have found that using recipes on Fujifilm cameras has simplified their workflow and made them more productive, while not sacrificing quality delivered to the client (true story I’ve heard several times).
Camera makers don’t like seeing a previously profitable market segment disappear, and that makes them worry about the future. Those wanting to buy a low-budget camera are finding it harder and harder to find. Things are shifting and changing within the photography and camera world. Yet, whether you just want some decent snaps of Johnny’s birthday or are just starting out in photography or are a seasoned pro—or anywhere in-between—there are great opportunities for you right now. The obstacles in your path have never been smaller.
