There’s a strange article up on PetaPixel entitled Stop Making Digital Look Like Film by Bimal Nepal, that I want to offer a rebuttal to. I understand that there’s only so much that happens within the photo world on any given day, and on the slow days you might put out a controversial piece (a.k.a. click bait) to get views and such, especially when ad revenue is a major part of the business strategy. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that—after all, I have written some controversial articles, and I also have advertisements on my website—but I do think PetaPixel should be careful not to overplay it, or they risk losing credibility. I can’t imagine that the editors actually agree with this piece (I hope not), but they’re certainly promoting it. An article that explores why people like the film look when using digital cameras would have been significantly more interesting. Published just one day later, Film Photography in 2025 Is Bluer and Less Saturated is actually quite fascinating, and (ironically and surprisingly) somewhat related to the article in question. My guess—based only on the number of comments—is that the click bait article got a lot more attention, and I suspect that will encourage more similar content in the future, unfortunately.
The main problem with Bimal’s piece is that it demands you change your photography. You aren’t doing it right. The title is second-person declarative: “(You) stop making digital look like film.” It’s a command, and you are being told what to do. The body of the post continues the sentiment. It would not be controversial had the author simply stated, “This is why I don’t make my digital pictures look like film.” That’s great. We all have our reasons for doing what we do, and maybe we can even learn from each other. But the article is more like: my way is right, your way is wrong. It’s just like the whole “You must shoot RAW” thing, which is tired, outdated, inaccurate, and needs to stop. It would have been equally as wrong if the author had demanded that everyone apply (say) VCSO filters to their pictures.
There’s no right or wrong way to do photography. There are thousands of paths, and you might take multiple trails at various times. If something works for you, that’s awesome! That’s what matters—finding what works for you personally. If someone tells you that you are doing photography wrong, and especially if they tell you that you must do it their way, I strongly advise you to take that advice for what it’s worth, which is not much of anything, certainly not two pennies (or a click to PetaPixel). You do photography however you want to do photography, whatever that looks like.
I might be reading too much into this, but the author seems to dislike Fujifilm, and especially the Fujifilm Recipe community (that’s you and I), which is known for analog aesthetics on digital images. He never states Fujifilm specifically, but what caught my attention was the mention of Film Simulations. In another PetaPixel article, he seems to dislike mirrorless cameras, or—perhaps more accurately—prefers DSLRs to mirrorless. Fujifilm, of course, does not make DSLRs (at least not since the S5 Pro, which was built on a Nikon D200, and is long discontinued), and all of their cameras for the last 20 years feature Film Simulations. Like I said, I could be connecting dots that were never meant to connect, and making much more of this than the author intended, but it seems like Fujifilm photographers in particular are doing digital photography all wrong, if you were to ask Bimal.
So let me get to the rebuttal. Below are five reasons why a photographer might prefer to make their digital photographs look like film—five reasons why you may want to continue making your pictures appear analog.
Modern digital cameras are really good. They produce images that are especially clean and clear, free from defects and artifacts, which was nearly impossible in the film era. It’s great but also sterile, like a hospital room prepped for surgery. This might be preferable, but I find it boring, lacking character. Adding an analog aesthetic to digital pictures can make them less perfect, which can more easily convey certain feelings or moods. This is just my opinion, and it’s perfectly ok to disagree with it. There’s no right or wrong answer here, just personal preferences. Personally, I don’t like my pictures to appear so perfect, so clinical, so digital.
Film is Appealing
Canon AE-1 – Kodachrome 64 35mm film
The reason why I like the aesthetic of film is because it has character. It has texture. Each emulsion has unique qualities. There are emotions that each look conveys to the viewer. It can be serendipitous, with wonderful surprises. Film photography requires much patience and thoughtfulness. One must have a willingness to fail and an acceptance for when that inevitably happens. Those are good qualities, but they’re born out of frustrating circumstances. I love the look of film, but not always the process of analog photography.
A common response to this article is going to be, “If you like the look of film, just shoot film.” Yeah, that’s great and all, and certainly something I have done for many years, but digital is much faster, more reliable, more flexible, and probably less expensive (depending on how many rolls of film you shoot). Digital cameras are so much more convenient than film, and that’s why I like digital photography. If there’s a way to get the best of both worlds—the convenience of digital with the look of film—that’s a major win-win. And, thankfully, you can get the best of both worlds. There’s nothing wrong with digital photography, there’s nothing wrong with film photography, and there’s nothing wrong with mimicking film-like looks with digital cameras.
The pictures produced by Fujifilm cameras feel authentic and film-like because they reflect in-camera processing designed by Fujifilm utilizing their renown film heritage. When you use Film Simulation Recipes, what you see is what you get, and the pictures don’t require manipulation—they’re not “photoshopped” (which, right or wrong, has become a bad word in recent times). Like using a particular film across a series of photos, choosing one Recipe can give your images a cohesive, intentional, and stylized aesthetic. Not having to edit allows for a simple and efficient workflow, which can save you a lot of time while increasing your productivity.
Last but far from least, shooting straight-out-of-camera JPEGs using Film Simulation Recipes is fun. A lot of people do it because they enjoy it. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me that using Recipes has made photography fun for them again. You should be enjoying the process of making pictures, and if you’re not, it might be time to ask yourself why, and consider if you should make any changes to your process. Maybe you don’t find Recipes and camera-made JPEGs enjoyable, and that’s ok. Different strokes for different folks. But a lot of people do find it fun, and it’s become a big part of the Fujifilm appeal. The Fujifilm Recipe community continues to grow and grow, and for good reason.
These five points highlight why a Fujifilm photographer using Film Simulation Recipes might love making their digital images look like film. Recipes combine some of film’s iconic character with digital’s convenience, consistency, and immediacy. There’s a very large community who appreciates the aesthetics of film and use it to purposefully convey certain feelings and moods through their pictures, but they also appreciate the ease of digital. The ability to combine both into a simplified workflow is quite attractive, which is why so many people are making their digital pictures look like film—and, no, unless they want to, they should not stop.
There’s a digital camera that Fujifilm should absolutely be making right now, and it’s not the X-Pro4, or X-E5, or a full-frame model (although those would be great, too). There’s a specific camera that would fly off the shelves—the X100VI’s historic demand would pale in comparison. What is this camera?
The digital QuickSnap.
The Fujifilm QuickSnap is a disposable 35mm film camera that is beloved for its nostalgic lo-fidelity aesthetic, simplicity, and price. Fujifilm introduced the QuickSnap camera in 1986, with the slogan, “Everybody should enjoy photography with ease.” The QuickSnap was an immediate success, and was immensely popular for a very long time—it was even successful enough to survive the film crash of the 2000’s. People still buy and use QuickSnap cameras; they’re particularly popular for weddings, kids, and lomographers. Many people love the nostalgic experience of one-time-use cameras.
Interestingly, the most sold digital camera right now in Japan is a cheap Kodak digicam. Third and fifth places are also cheap Kodak digicams. Digicams are a dime a dozen (perhaps literally, if you win a collection on an auction site, or rummage through your parents or grandparents house). What’s missing in the photo world is a digital version of the QuickSnap, a film camera that partially inspired the digicam. I have zero doubts that it would be a massive success for Fujifilm, and would probably leave all digicams in the dust.
This is how I envision the digital QuickSnap:
First, it would need a digital sensor that obviously won’t be anywhere close to full-frame, since that would be both ridiculous and expensive. The Fujifilm Mini Evo has a tiny 5mp sensor; it would likely be a mistake to use that one, but they certainly could. I think that a 12mp or 16mp 1/2.3″ would be the most obvious choice, since those can be obtained by Fujifilm rather easily and cheaply. The sensor itself doesn’t matter all that much; however, cost and quality must be balanced extremely carefully. Too poor of image quality will hurt sales, while a too expensive price-tag will also hurt sales.
More important, though, is the picture aesthetic. Fujifilm should program it with their Classic Negative film simulation, including faux grain—something similar to my Fujicolor Superia 800 Recipe. The pictures created by the digital QuickSnap camera should look similar to the pictures that come out of an analog QuickSnap. As much as practical, the pictures need to look alike from the film and digital versions.
Next, it needs to function nearly the same as the analog QuickSnap. It should be super simple: a switch to activate the built-in flash, a wheel to cock the shutter and “advance” to the next frame, a shutter release button, a battery-level indicator, and maybe a one-press picture-transfer to an app. There should not be any LCD or electronic viewfinder to review the pictures.
The very basic optical viewfinder from the film camera should be carried over—the user experience should be as similar to the analog version as possible. Due to the crop factor of the sensor, a new lens will be necessary. The exact sensor size will determine what the lens should be, perhaps something like a 5mm or 6mm f/5.6 plastic lens that’s close to 30mm full-frame equivalent. What is important is that it is focus-free (fixed focus) and produces a similar aesthetic to the film camera.
A critical factor of one-time-use cameras is the film itself; namely, the tolerance for under and over exposure. Since the sensor won’t have this same tolerance, it’s necessary for the digital QuickSnap to have some amount of exposure control. It must have a light meter, as well as some (auto) control over the ISO and shutter speed. For the sake of image quality, the ISO should be capped as low as practical. If Fujifilm could utilize the D-Range Priority technology, I think that would help, too.
The digital QuickSnap should have internal storage that saves only 27 JPEG images. It could count the exposures mechanically exactly like the film camera does, providing an identical experience. Once the 27th picture has been captured, it won’t let you capture anymore until the memory has been cleared, either by wirelessly transferring the images to a mobile app, or via USB. The QuickSnap App should be super simple (and actually work), with an option within the app to auto-connect and transfer once 27 pictures have been recorded, or manually connect and transfer if preferable. The camera should also be able to connect to the Instax app, and transfer (and print) directly from there. The camera should charge via USB, and could also transfer the images using a USB cable. Once the pictures have been removed from the camera, it would then allow the user to capture the next 27 frames.
The QuickSnap App, aside from photo transfers, should have a few simple options, for those who wish to do a little more with their pictures. A retro-styled date stamp. Maybe a few filter overlays that don’t radically change the picture aesthetic (examples: high contrast, low contrast, warm, cool, color boost, reduce color, etc.), and maybe a handful of light-leak affects. The more simple the better. Maybe Fujifilm can even offer a service where 4″ x 6″ prints can be made and mailed out to customers who wish for an even more authentic experience.
While the size and design should still closely resemble the film version, I think the digital QuickSnap must feel a little more sturdy, and not so cheap that it would easily break if dropped. If Fujifilm could offer it for less than $100, that would be most ideal. A camera like that would be a huge hit, thanks to its nostalgic charm, ease of use, straight-out-of-camera aesthetic, and affordability.
DispoLens is a 3D-printed body-cap with a recycled disposable-camera lens on it, made by DispoStudio in Switzerland. The lenses are from Kodak FunSaver and Fujifilm QuickSnap cameras, and you don’t know from which yours is from. FunSaver cameras have a 30mm f/10 lens, while QuickSnap cameras have a 32mm f/10. They’re pretty similar, and it probably doesn’t matter much at all if it’s from a Kodak or Fujifilm disposable camera—either one will produce a near-identical image.
You can’t buy the DispoLens from Amazon or any camera stores, only from DispoStudio’s Etsy shop, where you’ll find it for $51.02 USD. My copy, obviously, is for Fujifilm X-mount, but they also make them for Sony E-mount, Nikon Z-mount, Canon RF-mount, Micro-4/3, Leica L-mount, and Leica M-mount. DispoStudio has a couple of other products, too.
There’s not much to the lens. You twist it on like a body cap. Once it clicks into place, you’re good to go. On your Fujifilm camera, make sure that you have Shoot Without Lens enabled, or else it won’t work.
This lens is “focus free” which means that it is prefocused. About five or six feet to infinity is “in focus” but nothing is especially sharp. The lens is soft throughout the frame, but more so as you move away from the center. Probably eight feet to maybe 50 feet is the most sharp. This is all a part of the charm, which some people will love, and others won’t.
DispoStudio says that “DispoLens recreates all visual organic imperfections that come from using a disposable camera lens, like halation, chromatic aberration, vignetting, softness and imperfect image projection. Please keep in mind that DispoLens does not recreate the colors that film cameras are typically known for.” However, that’s where Fuji X Weekly Film Simulation Recipes come in. If you want a ’90’s film look, I have a number of Recipes to try! Pairing the DispoLens with a Fujifilm camera, my Film Simulation Recipes, and a flash is a great way to recreate the nostalgia of disposable-camera photography from your childhood.
For this project, I used my Fujifilm X-E4, the DispoLens, a Godox Lux Junior flash, and my new Kodak Portra 800 v3 Film Simulation Recipe. I shot 27 frames, just like a disposable camera—I’ve included most of those pictures below.
Frame 1
Frame 3
Frame 4
Frame 5
Frame 6
Frame 7
Frame 8
Frame 9
Frame 10
Frame 11
Frame 12
Frame 13
Frame 14
Frame 16
Frame 17
Frame 19
Frame 20
Frame 21
Frame 22
Frame 24
Frame 26
Frame 27
How does the DispoLens compare to the Xuan Focus Free 30mm F/10 Body Cap Lens? The image quality is very similar—probably identical—but the build quality is much different. The DispoLens is significantly superior. It looks better, and seems much less likely to accidentally break. If you want a disposable camera look, the DispoLens is a great way to achieve that. Find it on DispoStudio’s Etsy page.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 300 more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
Getting an analog color negative film look from your Fujifilm camera is super easy! Pick a Film Simulation Recipe, program it into your camera, and photograph with it. You can get straight-out-of-camera analog-like results that don’t require any editing. But with almost 300 Recipes published on this website and the Fuji X Weekly App, it can be difficult to know which ones to choose. If you are not sure, let me suggest to you the five below. Yes, there are many others that will also get you a color negative film look, so this list is by no means definitive, but it might be a good starting point.
Fujicolor Reala 100 is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II; for X-Trans V, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Weak. Fujicolor Natura 1600 is compatible with the X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II; for X-Trans V, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Weak. Fujicolor Pro 400H and Kodak Portra 400 are compatible with the X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II; for X-Trans V, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Off. Kodak Gold 200 is compatible with X-Trans III plus the X-T3 and X-T30; for newer X-Trans IV models, set Color Chrome FX Blue to Off, set Clarity to 0, and choose a Grain size (I recommend Small).
Find these Film Simulation Recipes and so many more in the Fuji X Weekly App! Download for free today; consider becoming an App Patron to unlock the best experience and support the work of this website.
For those who don’t know, I have my very own iPhone camera app called RitchieCam. The intention of it is to streamline your mobile photography workflow. It’s easy to use thanks to its intuitive design, making it useful for both novices and pros. It embraces a one-step philosophy, as the analog inspired filters deliver images that don’t require editing. If you have an iPhone, download it from the Apple App Store for free today!
Most of you are here, though, not for iPhone photography, but because you have a Fujifilm camera. Back in 2021 I published No Edit Photography: 7 Tips To Get The Film Look From Your Digital Photos, in which I gave some tips for achieving a film-like-look from your non-analog pictures. My advice was: – Shoot with a Fujifilm camera – Use Film Simulation Recipes – Use diffusion filters, such as Black Pro Mist or CineBloom – Shoot with vintage lenses – Don’t be overly concerned with perfectly sharp pictures – Use high-ISOs – Overexpose and underexpose sometimes
Read the article to learn more about each tip. I recommend starting with both of the first two (Fujifilm cameras and Film Simulation Recipes), and then add one or two of the other five tips. For example, if you have a Fujifilm X-T20, you might use the Kodachrome II recipe plus a vintage lens. Or, if you have a Fujifilm X100V, you might use the Fujicolor Superia 800 recipe plus a 5% CineBloom filter. Anyway, you have to find what works best for you, but if you are not sure, that article is meant to provide some direction, which is hopefully helpful to you in some way.
Thank you, Leigh and Raymond, for all the kind words and support! Your video is much appreciated by me. To those of you reading this, be sure to visit their channel, watch the video, give it a thumbs-up, and subscribe if you don’t already.
Note: I wrote this article, which I stumbled across today, over two years ago, but for some reason never published it. I replaced many of the original pictures and corrected some words and grammar, but otherwise I kept it the same.
I love film photography, but digital is so much more convenient. The cost of digital photography is paid upfront, while with film there’s a per-frame cost with each exposure, which is just getting more and more expensive. I rarely shoot film anymore, but I like the look of film. The best of both worlds is when I can get a film aesthetic straight out of a digital camera. That might sound pie-in-the-sky or even pretentious; if I like the look of film, why not just shoot film? If I shoot digital, why not just edit like everyone else?
Fujifilm cameras can create something film-like while delivering digital advantages, and that’s incredible! With digital you don’t have to send off your exposures to a lab or have your own lab set up somewhere in your home. You can know immediately if your frame is any good or not—no need to wait hours or days or sometimes longer. And you are not limited to 12, 24, or 36 exposures. There’s a reason why most photographers shoot digital, yet there’s a reason why some still go through the hassle of shooting film. I think Fujifilm is kind of a bridge between the two.
Rainbow in the Woods – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-T1 – “Kodak Portra 160“
Using software, such as Alien Skin Exposure or any of the many preset filter packs that are available, it’s very easy to turn a RAW file into something that looks analog. I’ve done that for many years, and I appreciate the results. If I can skip the software step and have a finished image straight-out-of-camera, that’s even better. That saves me some serious time! For many people, editing a picture is half the fun, but for me it’s not. I much prefer to not sit at a computer manipulating photographs. That’s just my preference, and it may or may not be yours, and that’s perfectly fine—there’s no right or wrong way, only what works for you. Shooting Fujifilm cameras using recipes to get film-like pictures straight-out-of-camera is what works for me.
I’m amazed at all the different looks that I can get out of my camera using my different Film Simulation Recipes on Fujifilm cameras. Fuji only gives so much control in-camera— they’re constantly providing more customization options with each new generation, but it’s still limited. Despite that, there’s a lot that you can do to create many different looks. It’s possible to mimic various film aesthetics without using any software. Thanks to Fujifilm’s vast experience with film, they’ve been able to infuse into their camera-made-JPEGs an analog soul that’s frankly missing from most digital pictures.
The photographs in this article are all straight-out-of-camera JPEGs that weren’t edited, with the exception of some minor cropping in some circumstances. They’re all from Fujifilm cameras, including an X-E4, X100V, X-T30, X-T20, X-Pro2, X100F and X-T1. In my opinion, in one way or another, they resemble film—an analog look from a digital camera. That’s nothing short of amazing!
10 example pictures, just to illustrate the point:
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!
Digital photography is convenient. You can review your pictures immediately after they’re captured—no waiting for rolls of film to come back from the lab. You can manipulate the images as much as you’d like in software to achieve any aesthetic that you can dream of. You can get extremely clean, sharp, bright, and vibrant pictures with extraordinary dynamic range that just wasn’t possible in the film era. Perfect pictures are prevalent today—a wonder of contemporary photography, no doubt.
Sometimes I think that digital photography is too good, too flawless, too sterile. Perfect pictures can be perfectly boring. Pulitzer-Prize winning author John Updike stated, “Perfectionism is the enemy of creation.” I think that statement is true in multiple aspects. For example, if you are working hard to create perfect pictures, you will not create very many images. I think, also, that creativity is rarely born out of perfectionism. Creativity is serendipitous. It’s not calculated. Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) wrote, “Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.”
With film photography, mistakes happen fairly frequently. You don’t know what you have until you have it sometime later. There are a lot of variables that can affect the outcome, which are sometimes out of your control. Occasionally you accidentally and unknowingly discovery something extraordinary. There’s a lot of uncertainty, and when you fortuitously stumble upon something interesting, there’s a lot of joy in that. Film photography is imperfect—it has flaws—and, because of that, it is rewarding. This is one reason why there’s a resurgence of interest in analog pictures.
Film photography is inconvenient. The serendipity of it is fascinating, but I prefer the instant reward of digital. I’m not patient enough anymore for analog. Don’t get me wrong, I shot film for many years. I prefer how film looks, but digital is more consistent, convenient, cheaper (after the initial investment is made), and quicker, so I choose digital. But what if it is possible to get the best of both worlds? What if you could get the “film look” from your digital camera? What if you could do it without editing. Straight-out-of-camera. No Lightroom or Photoshop needed. Would you try it?
What exactly is the so-called film look? That’s actually a difficult question to answer, because one film can have many different aesthetics, depending on how it was shot, developed, scanned and/or printed, and viewed. There have been hundreds of different films available over the years, each with unique characteristics. Film can have so many different looks that it could take a lifetime to try and describe them all.
Most simplistically, the film look can be defined as a picture that looks like it was shot on film, but really the answer is more elusive than that. The best way to understand it would be to look at pictures captured with film. Find prints from the 1990’s or 1980’s. Photographic paper (and film, too) fades over time, so the further back you go, the more likely it will appear degraded. Maybe that’s something you prefer? There are as many different film looks as there are tastes, and there’s certainly not a one-size-fits-all answer to what exactly film looks like.
Captured on Elite Chrome 200 color reversal film that has faded.
The biggest difference between film and digital is how highlights are handled. With film, there’s a gradation to white that’s often graceful, but with digital it is much more abrupt. Shadows can also sometimes be more gradual and graceful with film than digital, but definitely not to the same extent as highlights, and definitely not always. Another difference is that film grain is usually considered more beautiful and artful than digital noise. With film photography, there are sometimes surprises that stem from gear (or film) imperfections that don’t typically happen naturally with digital capture. Beyond that, digital images can be effectively manipulated in post-editing to resemble film photographs, especially in the era of Lightroom presets and software filters.
There are two responses that I expect to receive. First, someone will say, “Shoot film if you want the film look.” Nobody is going to argue against that, but this article is not about merely getting the film look—it’s about getting the film look from your digital camera, because digital is more convenient. Second, a person will argue, “I can easily get this look with software, so why bother doing it in-camera?” Getting the look straight-out-of-camera saves time, simplifies the photographic process, and makes capturing pictures even more enjoyable. There’s no right or wrong way to do things—I’m just discussing one method, which you may or may not appreciate. If you enjoy post-processing, that’s great! I personally don’t enjoy it, so I go about things differently, which works for me.
1. Shoot A Fujifilm Camera
Fujifilm X-E4.
Fujifilm X-T30.
Fujifilm X100V.
Step One to achieve the film look from your digital photos without the need to edit is to buy a Fujifilm camera. Which one? It doesn’t matter. If you already own one, you can skip ahead to Step Two.
Why do you need a Fujifilm camera? Why not a Canon, Sony, or Nikon? Because Fujifilm has, in my opinion, the best JPEG engine in the industry. They’ve used their vast experience with film to give their digital cameras an analog soul. In other words, Fujifilm has made it easier than any other brand to get a film look out-of-camera. Could you do it with another brand? Sure—I created JPEG settings for film looks on Ricoh GR cameras. You can do something similar with other brands, but, in my experience, Fujifilm gives you more and better tools to do this. The best brand for achieving a film look that doesn’t require post-processing is Fujifilm, so that is why you need a Fujifilm camera.
I’ll recommend the Fujifilm X100V or Fujifilm X-E4, both of which I own and use often. I also own a Fujifilm X-T30, Fujifilm X-T1, and Fujifilm X-Pro1, and those are very capable cameras, too. Additionally, I’ve shot with a Fujifilm X100F, Fujifilm X-Pro2, Fujifilm X-T20, Fujifilm XQ1, Fujifilm XF10, Fujifilm X-T200, Fujifim X-A3, Fujifilm X-E1, and Fujifilm X-M1. It doesn’t matter which model you buy, but, if you can afford it, I would go for one the newer models (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, or X-T30 II), because they have more JPEG options, and it’s possible to get more looks out of those cameras. Don’t worry if a new camera is out of your reach, as there are many quality used options that are affordable.
Film simulation recipes are JPEG camera settings that allow you to get a certain look straight-out-of-camera. They’re basically a customization of the stock film simulations that come with the camera, adjusted to achieve various aesthetics. I’ve published over 175 film simulation recipes for Fujifilm cameras, most based on (or inspired by) classic film stocks. They’re free and easy to use. I even created a film simulation recipe app for both Apple and Android! If you have a Fujifilm camera, you should have the app on your phone. Film simulation recipes go a very long ways towards achieving a film look in-camera. Programming a recipe into your camera is kind of like loading a roll of film, except that you can capture as many frames as you wish on each roll, and change the film anytime you want.
There are a lot of wonderful options to choose from, including Kodachrome 64, Kodak Portra 400, Kodak Tri-X 400, Fujicolor C200, Fujicolor Pro 400H, AgfaChrome RS 100, and so many more! There are nearly 200 of them on this website, plus some more on the Community Recipes page. No matter your Fujifilm X camera, there are some great film simulation recipe options for you to use. I even have a number of unusual recipes, like Cross Process, Expired Slide, and Faded Negative, intended to mimic some alternative analog aesthetics. The three example pictures above are unedited (aside from, perhaps, some minor cropping), just to give you a brief taste of what recipes look like.
3.Use Diffusion Filters
10% CineBloom.
5% CineBloom.
5% CineBloom.
As I already mentioned, the biggest difference between digital images and film photographs are how highlights are handled (and, to a lesser extent, shadows). Diffusion filters help with this. They take the “digital edge” off of your pictures by bending a small percentage of the light that passes through the filter, which causes it to be defocused. The images remain sharp, but a slight haziness is added, especially in the highlights, which produces a more graceful gradation to white.
There are various types of diffusion filters by a few different brands. I recommend Black Pro Mist filters by Tiffen or CineBloom filters by Moment. You want the effect to be subtle, so I suggest a 1/8 or 1/4 Black Pro Mist—I used a 1/4 in the picture at the very top of this article—or a 5% or 10% CineBloom, which I used in the three pictures above; however, I have seen some good results with the stronger options (1/2 Black Pro Mist and 20% CineBloom). A slight effect from a diffusion filter in the right situations can subtly improve a photograph’s analog appearance.
I love using vintage lenses on my Fujifilm cameras, because they often have flaws that give pictures character. Some of the charm of analog photography stems from imperfect gear—that serendipity I mentioned earlier is often from flawed glass. Modern lenses are precision engineered and meant to give you perfect pictures. But they can be too good and too sharp. They’re great if you photograph test charts, but vintage lenses often have seemingly magical qualities that make real-world pictures better, and definitely more film-like. A lot of time you can find these old lenses for pretty cheap, but you do need an adaptor to attach them to your Fujifilm camera.
If you don’t want to buy used gear and adaptors, a great alternative is to get yourself some inexpensive manual lenses, like the Pergear 50mm f/1.8, 7artisans 50mm f/1.8, and Meike 35mm f/1.7. There are, of course, lots more manual options like these, many of which have flaws and character similar to vintage lenses, except that they’re brand-new and don’t need adaptors. Manual lenses are trickier to use, especially if you don’t have much experience with them, but I find them to be a rewarding, delivering wonderfully imperfect photographs.
With digital photography, you have many tools to make sure your focus is spot-on; if you are unsure that you precisely nailed it, you can immediately review the image and zoom in to make sure, and retake if necessary. With film photography, not only are the focus tools much more limited, you don’t even know if you got it exactly right until the film comes back from the lab. If you study classic photography, you’ll notice that many iconic pictures didn’t spot-on nail the focus. You’ll even notice this in old movies and television shows, too. It was common, and nobody cared. It has become a small part of the film look.
Worry more about composition and storytelling, and less about getting perfect focus. In fact, my recommendation is to not review the LCD after each shot to check. Take the picture, and if you got focus perfect, great! And if you didn’t, don’t let the imperfection bother you, but celebrate that a little softness can be a part of the analog aesthetic. A little blur is not always bad, especially if the picture is otherwise interesting or compelling.
One of the big differences between digital and film is that film has lovely silver grain while digital has ugly noise. Grain can be ugly, too, but digital noise is generally regarded as undesirable, and usually it is, while grain is general regarded as artful. Fujifilm has programmed their cameras in such a way that the noise has a more film-grain-like appearance than other brands. It’s definitely not an exact match to any film grain, but it’s certainly better than typical ugly noise. So why not incorporate it into your pictures?
A lot of photographers are afraid to use high ISOs. Back in the film days, I remember that ISO 400 was considered to be a high-ISO film. Some people thought you were nuts if you used an ISO 800 or 1600 film. ISO 3200 film was only for the most daring, or for use under extreme circumstances. Early digital cameras were pretty bad at higher ISOs, too, but camera technology has made incredible progress, and now cameras are pretty darn good at high ISO photography. I routinely use up to ISO 6400 for color photography, and even higher for black-and-white. Those ultra-high ISOs just weren’t possible or practical 10 or so years ago. Now combine high-ISO photography with Fujifilm faux grain (found on X-Trans III & X-Trans IV cameras), and the pictures begin to appear a little less digital and a bit more film-like.
Transparency film often requires a very precise exposure because there’s very little latitude for overexposure or underexposure. Negative film often has a much greater latitude—generally speaking it can tolerate more overexposure than underexposure. Each film is different. But here’s the thing: you don’t know if you got it right until later when the film is developed. In the moment you don’t know for sure if the exposure is really correct. With experience you can get pretty good, and exposure bracketing can help (not something you want to do all of the time because you’ll go through your film too quickly), but it’s almost a guarantee that you’ll end up with a few overexposed or underexposed frames. Sometimes this can affect the aesthetic or mood of the image, and by chance your picture is actually more interesting because of your mistake—that analog serendipity again. If you discover something you really like, you might even begin to do it on purpose (like overexposing Fujicolor Pro 400H by several stops).
Your digital camera has many great tools to help you get the exposure perfectly correct, which is great. And if you don’t get it right, you can know right away, and capture another exposure if need be, or fix it later by adjusting the RAW file. However, purposefully not getting the exposure just right, whether by overexposing or underexposing, is a good way to mimic the film experience, and sometimes you’ll get an unexpected result, which can be a very happy accident. I wouldn’t do this all of the time, but occasionally it is a fun and fruitful exercise.
Step One, which is using a Fujifilm camera, and Step Two, which is using film simulation recipes, are the most critical of these seven tips. You could use Ricoh GR cameras instead of Fujifilm, but I definitely recommend using Fujifilm. Step Three through Step Seven are optional, and they aren’t necessarily intended to be used all together or all of the time, although you certainly can if you want. Pick a couple of them—perhaps diffusion filter and vintage lens or high-ISO and underexposure—and see what results you get.
There are two things that I’d like for you to get out of this article. First, you don’t need software or editing apps to achieve an analog aesthetic. You can do it in-camera. All of the pictures in this article are unedited (except for some minor cropping). This saves you a whole bunch of time, and you might even find the process more fun. Second, I hope that this article inspires you to try something new. Don’t be afraid to experiment. Mistakes can be highly rewarding, and you might even discover something extraordinary.
A few more example photograph:
Vintage Color recipe & 1/4 Black Pro Mist filter.
Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe & 1/4 Black Pro Mist filter.
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!