Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective | FUJI X WEEKLY

36 Frames – Fujifilm X100V – Kodachrome 64 Recipe – All Manual

Posted on December 9, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

*Red Freightliner* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100V – Kodachrome 64 – Frame 05

Back in the film days, most of the cameras I had were fully manual. No auto or semi-auto modes. No autofocus. Manual everything. In the digital age, modern cameras are pretty good at taking care of some tasks for you. You can afford to be a little lazy and still get the shot with ease. It’s a marvel of modern camera technology!

Nowadays I mostly shoot in Aperture-Priority (with Shutter and ISO set to A), or occasionally Shutter-Priority (with Aperture and ISO set to A). Only on rare occasions do I manually select shutter, aperture, and ISO. It’s not uncommon that I manually focus, especially if I’m using a vintage lens, but most of the time I’m allowing the camera to autofocus for me. It’s just easier. But sometimes easier isn’t better. It’s good to stay in photographic shape, and to challenge yourself from time-to-time.

I decided to challenge myself yesterday to this: shoot 36 frames (like a roll of film) with the same film simulation recipe, using manual everything. Manual aperture. Manual shutter. Manual ISO. Manual focus. The camera I chose was the Fujifilm X100V, and I loaded it with my Kodachrome 64 film simulation recipe. I headed out right at sunrise.

This was my experience.

Note: this was a Creative Collective article, but now it is available to everyone.

Before I get to the photographs, I want to briefly point out why a camera like the X100V is so great for this exercise: you don’t need to dig through any menus to change anything. It’s all clearly marked on knobs and switches on the body. The aperture ring is on the lens, as is the focus ring. A switch on the side activates manual focus. The shutter is controlled by a knob on the top, and the ISO is controlled by a ring around the shutter knob. It’s as close to a film experience as you can get from a digital camera. Yet you have modern tools, such as focus assist and histograms, to help you get it right. Of course, the same thing could be said for many Fujifilm models, and not just the X100V.

One other technical note I’d like to point out is that I had a 5% CineBloom filter attached to the lens, which only makes an extremely subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. I figured it was worth pointing out.

I’m going to jump right into the pictures, then I’ll end with a little commentary about this experience. Here we go!

Frame 01:

Frame 02:

Frame 03:

Frame 04:

Frame 05:

Frame 06:

Frame 07:

Frame 08:

Frame 09:

Frame 10:

Frame 11:

Frame 12:

Frame 13:

Frame 14:

Frame 15:

Frame 16:

Frame 17:

Frame 18:

Frame 19:

Frame 20:

Frame 21:

Frame 22:

Frame 23:

Frame 24:

Frame 25:

Frame 26:

Frame 27:

Frame 28:

Frame 29:

Frame 30:

Frame 31:

Frame 32:

Frame 33:

Frame 34:

Frame 35:

Frame 36:

This was a fun photographic exercise! I thoroughly enjoyed going all-manual and shooting 36 frames with the same film simulation recipe to mimic the good ol’ film days. I’d recommend this project to anyone, and I encourage you to give it a try, too.

Since I hadn’t shot fully manual all that much in the last few years, I really found myself out of practice. There’s more to mentally consider with each frame.

On one hand, I wasn’t always focusing in on why I was using the settings I did. I believe that I needed to think beyond, “Is this correctly exposed?” And consider more, “Which specific settings would be best for this exposure?” These things used to come more naturally to me, and it’s because I was doing it all of the time. I practiced it frequently back then. Now that I almost always let the camera sort some of it out, full manual takes more intentional thought, and I didn’t always do that. For that reason, I really believe I could benefit from doing this project on a regular basis.

On the other hand, going all manual slowed me down a little, which made me capture better pictures—at least a little—or perhaps more simply, I got the picture I wanted without snapping three-to-five exposures to do it. In most cases, I captured only one image, as I tried hard to get it right the first time. I couple of times I didn’t, so I made a second attempt. Normally I’m a bit lazy, using the spray-and-pray method to ensure I got a good exposure. It’s quick and easy to snap several pictures of the same thing, and choose later which one is best; however, it’s even better to make just one exposure and have confidence that it’s good.

You might notice that I used ISO 320 for all 36 exposures. I decided at the beginning that I was going to stick with one ISO because in the film days that’s what you had to do. I selected ISO 320 because that’s the lowest ISO available for the Kodachrome 64 recipe.

It was a partly-to-mostly overcast day, but at sunrise the sunlight was pouring out between the clouds. For that reason I started out with a faster shutter speed, but soon the sun disappeared behind the clouds, which allowed me to slow it in order to use a smaller aperture. Later the sun peaked through again, and I increased the shutter speed. Often the light changed between shots, and I used small aperture adjustments to get a correct exposure. I didn’t always get the exposure as correct as I would have liked, which was a result of not making the necessary adjustments with the rapidly changing light conditions (basically, not paying as close of attention to everything as I should have).

20 years ago when I shot real Kodachrome film, if I got back from the lab five or six slides out of the whole roll that I was really happy with, I’d call it a success. So, with that same standard, I’d call this excursion a success. My five favorite frames are 05, 06, 08, 19, and 21. Which frames do you like the best? Let me know in the comments below.

I hope you give this challenge a try! It’s a great way to keep yourself in photographic shape. I discovered that I’m not in as good of shape as I thought I was, so I’m going to keep practicing, and I’ll do this challenge again very soon.

ISO — How High Can You Go?

Posted on December 3, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

*Dark Cloud Over The Dark Mountain* – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X-T30 – “Ilford HP5 Plus Push Process” film simulation recipe — ISO 25600

When it comes to ISO, how high can you go? On your Fujifilm camera, how high is too high? 3200? 6400? 12800? 25600?

This article will explore the topic of high-ISO photography on Fujifilm X cameras. Can you bump it more than you think? Will it look good printed? How does it compare to film? Those are the questions that this post intends to answer.

Note: this was a Creative Collective article, but now it’s available to everyone.

This all started by accident. Two accidents, actually. The first one was back in 2019 when I mistakenly chose ISO 51200 instead of Auto-3 ISO on my Fujifilm X-T30, which happily turned into the Ilford HP5 Plus Push Process film simulation recipe. The second accident was similar, and happened in July of this year. I have the front wheel of my Fujifilm X-E4 set to adjust the ISO (because the camera doesn’t have an ISO dial), and I mistakenly pushed it and unknowingly set the ISO to 51200! I snapped what I thought could be a wonderful picture while at an aquarium. A couple of minutes later I realized my mistake—and I initially panicked, because the opportunity came and went. Then I remembered the Ilford HP5 Plus Push Process recipe, which requires a minimum ISO of 25600, and I knew that I could RAW reprocess in-camera the picture with that recipe, which is what I did (except that I set Grain to Weak and Small instead of Strong). You can see the photograph below:

*Fujifilm X-E4 at ISO 51200 — click here for bigger*

The results, honestly, are pretty darn impressive. Seriously, this is ISO 51200! I remember back in the film days that ISO 400 was considered to be high-ISO—that’s what the “H” stands for in Fujicolor Pro 400H. ISO 3200 was crazy high, and only for extreme situations or the truly brave. The fact that I use ISO 3200 on any of my Fujifilm cameras—going back to X-Trans I—and don’t even think twice about it is a testament to the advancements of digital technology. It’s truly amazing! And it’s not uncommon to go even higher than that. But would my ISO 51200 picture look good enough when viewed larger than internet and social media sizes? Would it look good printed?

With color photography, on X-Trans I & II cameras, I like the results up to ISO 3200. On X-Trans III cameras I like the results all the way to ISO 12800. On X-Trans IV cameras I like the results up to ISO 6400. Black-and-white is another story, though. On X-Trans I & II I like the results up to ISO 6400. On X-Trans III & IV, you can max it out. While some digital cameras are known for their high-ISO performance, and ISO 51200 is no big deal, going that high on an APS-C sized sensor is nothing short of incredible! Fujifilm does not get enough press for just how miraculous this is.

Wanting to see how the aquarium picture would look printed, I sent it off to the lab. I also printed the Dark Cloud Over The Dark Mountain photo because it was captured at ISO 25600 and I was curious how it would compare to ISO 51200. For the fun of it, I also printed a picture captured on actual Ilford Delta 3200 film. I had the lab make 8″ x 12″ prints of all three images.

*Actual Ilford Delta 3200 film — click here for bigger*

I captured some images of the prints, which you’ll find below. It’s hard to tell anything by looking at them on the web, so I want to talk about them. First, all three pictures appear good printed at the 8″ x 12″ size. The lab seemed to print the aquarium picture a little darker than I had expected—by maybe 1/3 stop. That was disappointing, but otherwise the quality was good, and I wouldn’t have any issues displaying these on my wall. I think all three could have been printed larger. I suspected that 8″ x 12″ would be the largest that I’d want to print an ISO 51200 exposure before it would degrade, but after examining the print, I do believe it would look fine even larger, perhaps 12″ x 18″. The ISO 25600 exposure could probably do well printed at 16″ x 24″ and maybe larger.

The obvious thing about the ISO 3200 film picture is the size of the grain. It’s huge! This was 35mm film, so the grain from Ilford Delta 3200 in 120 format wouldn’t appear quite so large. This brings up a point about Fujifilm’s faux grain and the digital noise, which is a little film-grain-like on Fujifilm cameras, that I’d like to mention: the size of it is more like medium-format than 35mm. This isn’t universally true—low-ISO films often had extremely fine grain. Generally speaking, however, even with Grain set to Strong and Large at a high-ISO, it’s not going to be anywhere close to the size of 35mm ISO 3200 grain, and not ISO 1600, either, and maybe not even ISO 800. Medium-format film is much larger, so the magnification isn’t nearly so much when printed, and the grain appears finer, and a lot of times I think Fujifilm cameras produce a grain-look that’s more similar to that.

Let’s look at the prints!

Like I said, there’s not much that you can really tell by looking at these pictures of the prints. It’s something you have to view for yourself. If you’ve captured an ultra-high-ISO picture on your Fujifilm camera, try printing it, so that you can see for yourself the surprisingly good quality. I think you’ll be shocked at just how usable these supposedly unusable ISOs actually are.

And that’s the point of this article. Is ISO 51200 or even ISO 25600 ideal? No. If you are after optimal image quality, my advice is to keep the ISO at and below ISO 800. But if a little graininess doesn’t bother you, and you’re not planning on pixel-peeping or printing posters, the photographs captured at these ridiculously high ISOs are sufficiently good. In fact, their graininess and softness actually gives them a more analog-like feel.

While I made the mistake of accidentally shooting at ISO 51200, you might try using high-ISOs on purpose, especially for black-and-white photography. If you are not comfortable going as high as these pictures, start off with something higher than you normally go. For example, if ISO 1600 is your typical max, try ISO 3200. If ISO 3200 is your typical max, go to ISO 6400. And so on. How high can you go? The sky is the limit! Actually, ISO 51200 is the limit, because that’s as high as the camera will go, but you get the point.

FXW Zine — Issue 01 — December 2021

Posted on November 30, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

Introducing the FXW Zine, a publication of Fuji X Weekly!

This new eZine is an extension of this website and a part of the Creative Collective. If you are a Creative Collective subscriber, then you can download the inaugural issue of FXW Zine right now (below).

What’s in the December issue? How big is it? There are four articles: Behind the Picture: The Story of Jacob’s Ladder, The Beauty of Grey, Perfectly Pine, and Photograph Before It’s Too Late. There are 17 photographs, including the cover image (above). This issue is 12 pages long cover-to-cover. I hope that you find it entertaining and inspiring. I plan on this being a monthly publication, but I don’t want to promise that in case I have to skip a month here and there, but it should be roughly a once-a-month thing.

If you haven’t joined the Creative Collective (learn more about it here), consider subscribing today to get access to bonus articles and the brand-new FXW Zine.

Note: This was a Creative Collective article, but it is now available to everyone.

View and download Issue 01 of FXW Zine here:

FXW Zine December 2021 Download

Blurry Bokeh Balls As Abstract Art

Posted on November 23, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

*Bokeh Abstract* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Retro Gold” recipe

Bokeh is an often discussed aspect of picture quality. A lot of people use the term, but I don’t know how commonly it is understood. Bokeh is a misspelled Japanese word that means fuzziness. In photography, it is used to describe the out-of-focus portion of a photograph. Good bokeh simply means that the quality of the blurry part of an image is pleasant. Obviously what is “good” is subjective, as different people have different tastes. When there are bright points (such as lights) that are out-of-focus in a picture, the camera will render them as blurry orbs, which are sometimes called “bokeh orbs” or “bokeh balls” or “bokeh circles” (depending on who you ask). Sometimes when people discuss “bokeh” they’re specifically talking about these orbs and not the rest of the blurry part of the picture, even though technically all of it is bokeh, and not just the bokeh balls.

In this article we’re going to purposefully create blurry bokeh balls as abstract art. We’re going to do some things in the name of creativity that might seem photographically unusual or even outlandish.

Hold on tight, because things are about to get fuzzy!

Note: This was a Creative Collective article, but now it is available to everyone.

*This is a common use of “bokeh balls.”*

The picture above is an example of how you most commonly see bokeh balls used in an image. The method is simple: subject closely focused to the lens, large aperture, and some background lights. In this case, the subject is holiday decor, the lens is the Fujinon 90mm f/2 at f/2, and the background is a lit Christmas tree. The bokeh balls aren’t the subject—they’re the background—although without them the picture would be a lot less interesting.

A similar technique can be used to make bokeh balls a more prominent part of a picture. Photograph wet glass, such as a car window, focusing on the drops, with some lights in the background. The two pictures below are examples of this. The first is a wet car windshield. The drops in the center are in focus, which is also where the bokeh balls are. Because of contrast, the water drops are secondary to the bokeh, and the fuzzy light circles are the subject. I used a Fujifilm X100V for this picture, programmed with the Kodachrome 64 film simulation recipe. The second picture is actually the glass from a picture frame that I removed and took to downtown Salt Lake City. I sprayed it with water, and focused on the drops. The city lights in the background became bokeh balls, which (again), because of contrast, is the subject. I used the Fujifilm X-T30 and 90mm f/2 lens, and the Jeff Davenport Night recipe.

*Out-of-focus lights are the subject of this picture.*

*Even though you also notice the water, the lights are the subject of this picture.*

Let’s take this a step further. What if none of the picture is in focus? What if everything is fuzzy? Certainly nobody actually purposefully captures a completely unfocused picture, right?

One technique is like the picture below. You can still tell what everything is. Even though the picture is entirely fuzzy, you know that it’s a tree with some string lights in it. It was captured with an X100F at f/2.8, manually focused short of the subject so that it would all be out-of-focus.

*I don’t have to tell you that this is a tree.*

Let me pause for a moment to talk about gear. In this case the camera doesn’t really matter, but the lens does—sort of. You can use any lens, but I find that telephoto tends to work better than wide-angle. The larger the maximum aperture the better—I used f/2.8 or larger. The close-focus capability of the lens is another factor to consider; you don’t need a macro lens, but it’s good if it can closely focus. You will manually focus the lens—typically, you’ll focus it to the close end, although occasionally you might focus to infinity if you are photographing something close.

What I wanted to do with this project is capture images like Bokeh Abstract at the very top of this article. The pictures would need to be completely out-of-focus (like the one above), but where you cannot tell what it is (like the top picture). Something more fanciful and even perhaps dreamlike—maybe more like that moment between sleep and wake when we’re wiping the slumber from our eyes and attempting to become aware of our surroundings but aren’t quite there yet. I wanted to create abstract art.

Let’s look at some images!

*Lights on the front of a Costco building.*

What’s great about this type of photography is that very ordinary and not especially photogenic scenes can become extraordinary. Yes, the tree covered in holiday lights could make a nice picture if in-focus, but out-of-focus it’s much more interesting. The other scenes I promise were not particularly intriguing, but make for compelling abstract pictures nonetheless. These are subjects that you might typically encounter in the course of your day, and, as long as you have a camera with you, the opportunity to create art is there for the taking. These were all captured after dark (after all, you need points of light, and, while not impossible, it is much less practical to do this in daylight), and with days getting shorter (in the northern hemisphere), the opportunities increase to create blurry bokeh balls as abstract art.

You don’t even need to leave your home! Crumple up and then unfold a small sheet of tinfoil. Shine a flashlight at it and—boom!—instant bokeh orbs to capture. That’s how I made the two photographs below. If you are bored one night, try this technique, and see what you capture.

*Shining the light from different angles creates different looks.*

What about the picture at the very top? What is that?

The story behind Bokeh Abstract is interesting. I was sitting on my living room couch, getting ready to transfer the pictures from my camera to my phone. The camera was sitting on my lap, and when I powered it on, that’s what I saw on the rear screen. My four-year-old daughter has a mermaid blanket that’s covered in sequins, which was right in front of me reflecting the ceiling light. I quickly captured it before anything changed. After I snapped the picture, she got up and left the room, taking the blanket with her. It really was by happenstance that the lens was facing just right (and out of focus just right), and I had the awareness to snap the picture the moment that I saw it. That was an easy-to-miss picture opportunity that I was fortunate to capture. Keep your eyes peeled for not just lights, but reflected lights, too!

The Oxford dictionary defines abstract art as “art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.” I don’t think any of these pictures will ever find themselves in an art exhibit, but they’re absolutely abstract art nonetheless. Maybe they’d make an interesting series if I captured enough of them.

Now it’s your turn! As the days get shorter, opportunities increase to create abstract photographs. Use a large aperture and don’t focus correctly, so that the points of light in the frame are bokeh orbs. See what interesting colors and patterns (or even randomness) that you can discover.

Are You A Better Photographer Than A Middle Schooler? — Photography Challenge

Posted on November 21, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

*Jonathan capturing pictures for his middle school art project.*

Do you remember the television gameshow hosted by comedian Jeff Foxworthy called Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? If not, the premise was pretty simple: answer questions from elementary school textbooks, with the most difficult questions taken from the fifth grade. Actual fifth grade students were on hand to offer help if the contestants should need it (and they always did). It turns out that most adults don’t remember the things they learned in elementary school—only two people ever won the million dollar grand prize. Those who lost had to admit on camera that they were not smarter than a fifth grader.

My 12-year-old son, Jon, is taking an art class in school, and one unit of this class is on photography. A project that he had to complete for this was to capture 10 photographs, each using a different and specific element of art. I let Jon use my Fujifilm X-E4 with a Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 lens attached. I did this same project right along side him, and I used a Fujifilm X-T30 with a Fujinon 35mm f/2 lens attached. Were my pictures going to be better than a middle schooler’s? How about you—are your pictures better than a middle schooler’s?

Let’s do this challenge together! There’s no prize, but it will be fun.

Note: this was a Creative Collective article, but now it’s available to everyone.

The “Are You A Better Photographer Than A Middle Schooler?” photography challenge is this:
– Capture 10 pictures
– Each picture needs to incorporate a different element of art
– The 10 “elements of art” for this project are:
1. Balance
2. Color
3. Contrast
4. Framing
5. Line
6. Movement
7. Pattern
8. Shape
9. Space
10. Texture

For this challenge, Jonathan and I went to a small downtown in Bountiful, Utah. The location for this project doesn’t matter, but I chose this spot for us because I thought we’d encounter a good variety of subjects that might make things a bit easier. We spent maybe an hour doing this, all during the “golden hour” because that’s when good light is most commonly plentiful, and good light is often a prerequisite to good photographs. If you are looking for advice to improve your photography, let me offer this: concentrate capturing pictures during the hour immediately following sunrise and the hour immediately before sunset. I programmed the Fujicolor Superia 1600 recipe into the X-E4 because that’s what Jon chose (via the Fuji X Weekly App). I used my Porto 200 and Cross Process recipes on my X-T30.

Now, to the pictures!

Element of Art: Balance

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

This was a more challenging “element of art” to capture photographically than I expected. Maybe my creative mind wasn’t running on all cylinders for this particular image, or perhaps there just wasn’t a lot of opportunities for a “balance” picture. For my image, I was trying to find where the bench balanced between the vertical, horizontal, and diagonal lines. I don’t think I was particularly successful. This image would have worked better in black-and-white, and definitely if there had been a person sitting on the bench. Jon said of his picture, “I was balancing the door with the trashcans.”

Element of Art: Color

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

Color was a much more obvious and easier element of art to incorporate. Jon found a vibrant jacket in a store to photograph, while I used the Cross Process recipe to make the colors in my image stand out.

Element of Art: Contrast

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

Contrast can be tackled a number of different ways—I took it more literally. The building (which was partly in the sun and partly not) was reflected in the car window, which made it appear more contrasty, and the Cross Process recipe helped accentuate that. Jon said of his picture, “I saw the white sign with black writing on a black pole.”

Element of Art: Framing

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

Jon framed his subject (the monument) with flowers. I framed my subject (the words “Studio 10” twice) with a window frame. Framing is easy, framing effectively isn’t always easy. My picture for Color was probably a better example of framing, but I was thinking of color and not framing when I captured it.

Element of Art: Line

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

I used the stair’s railing as leading lines to the door. Jon said of his picture, “I used the lines on the sidewalk to take you to the vertical lines of the poles.” Having lines run from the corners of the picture to the subject is an effective way to guide the viewer through an image.

Element of Art: Movement

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

Jon did some panning with a slow shutter speed to incorporate this element of art into his photograph. I used a slow shutter speed, too, but kept the camera still and let the moving objects blur as they passed through the frame.

Element of Art: Pattern

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

What drew my attention to this photo opportunity was the Albert Einstein quote in the window situated above the trashcans, and I thought of the potential commentary of it. How does the picture fulfill the Pattern element? Obviously the bricks are a repeated pattern, but what I saw was the trashcans and the electrical box with a similar shape. Perhaps this picture is a stretch for this element. The natural patterns in Jon’s picture are a little more obvious.

Element of Art: Shape

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

Jon and I both photographed circles, although much differently. I think there’s a lot of opportunity with this element for creativity, but we didn’t do much to explore it. Mine was captured near the very beginning of our outing (before the creative juices were flowing), and Jon’s at the very end (when he was looking for anything to fulfill the Shape element).

Element of Art: Space

Jon’s picture:

My pictures:

For this element of art, Jon photographed a large empty room that looked even bigger because of a mirror running across the back wall. The small streak of light leads to a barely visible stool, and perhaps a ballet shoe sits on the floor. I photographed a largely empty room for this element, too, although not nearly as spacious-looking. Jon makes an appearance in both pictures. I think this element would be easier in a rural environment.

Element of Art: Texture

Jon’s photo:

My photo:

Jon was really unsure of how to capture Texture, so I suggested to him that we do some double-exposure photography for this. It worked out pretty well, although this is certainly not the only way to tackle this element of the challenge.

Conclusion

This challenge was actually more difficult than I thought it was going to be. It’s not necessarily hard to photograph these 10 elements of art by happenstance throughout time, but to purposefully seek these things out and create an interesting photograph of them is a whole different story. It’s definitely something that I want to try again!

Doing challenges like this are good because they keep you in photographic shape. Musicians constantly practice. Athletes constantly train. Photographers need to continuously practice their art, but it’s easy to get in a rut. Challenges like this help you to get out of your rut and stay in photographic shape, even if none of your images from this challenge are particularly compelling.

How do you think that I did? Am I a better photographer than a middle schooler? Or do I need to say that I’m not? Let me know in the comments who did better with each Element of Art! I think Jon beat me in at least a few of them.

This challenge is for you, too! Below is a Word document that you can download—print it and take it with you! I had the 10 elements of art typed out on a note on my phone, and that worked well enough. Whatever helps you to remember the elements and keep track of what you’ve captured is what you should do. The Word document may or may not be helpful, but it is available to you if you want it, and I’m hoping that at least a few of you find it useful.

I hope that you try this challenge. If you do, let me know! Even better, try it with a friend. If you post the pictures somewhere on the web, leave a link to it in the comments, because I’d love to see them.

Are You A Better Photographer Than A Middle Schooler? .doc Download

Introducing The Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective!

Posted on November 11, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

The Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective is a new aspect of this website that begun just a couple days ago, and it’s something that you might have noticed but don’t know what it is. I’ve been asked several times now, “What exactly is the Creative Collective?” Here’s my explanation of it…

The Creative Collective is a bonus-content subscription, where you get access to extra articles. What kind of content is a part of the Creative Collective? These articles are largely exercises in creativity. They’re experiments, focused on trying new things, and they’re invitations for you to do it, too. We dive deeper into settings and techniques. We go down some rabbit holes just to see where they go. This is a journey, and it will be interesting to see what we discover together. Whether you are an experienced Fujifilm shooter or brand-new to photography, there is something for everyone. If you want to adventure with me on this, the Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective is only $2 (USD) per month.

I usually post between 15 and 25 articles each month that are free to everyone—this includes film simulation recipes. I’m not sponsored by anyone. Fujifilm doesn’t sponsor this website, nor does B&H, KEH, or anybody else. I don’t get paid for the content that I publish, other than a little ad revenue, which isn’t much and barely covers the expenses of web hosting and such. These additional articles are bonus content for Creative Collective subscribers, and are in addition to the regular 15 to 25 articles that I will continue to publish each month. If you subscribe, there’s even more Fuji X Weekly articles for you to enjoy!

The main hub of the Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective is the Creative Collective Corner. That’s where you’ll find all of the Creative Collective articles. So far, because I just launched this, there are three articles: Stacking Diffusion Filters, When Film Simulation Bracket is Actually Useful, and Double Exposure Art — A Simple Method. Obviously there will be more and more added as time goes on.

To join the Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective, simply click on any of the Creative Collective articles and select Subscribe. If this sounds interesting to you, I hope that you’ll join me on this journey!

Double Exposure Art — A Simple Method

Posted on November 11, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

*In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400* *recipe*.

I love double exposure photography! If done right, you can cleverly create exceptionally artful pictures. But how do you do it on your Fujifilm camera? What are some easy techniques that give good results? In this article I’ll discuss this topic in detail and provide some useful tips to help you make your own artistic double-exposure photographs.

Note: this was a Creative Collective article that required a subscription, but it is now available to everyone!

Many Fujifilm X cameras have the option to shoot “Multiple Exposure” photography (an old camera trick where two or more exposures are combined into one frame for artistic effect), although on most Fujifilm cameras it is actually “double exposure” photography, as you can only combine two exposures; however, some newer models are capable of combining up to nine exposures. For this, we’ll be doing double exposures, and not more.

You access (depending on the model) Multiple Exposure through a knob on the top plate or through the Drive button on the back. If you are not sure, check your user manual. For the X-Pro3 and newer models, you’ll also have to go into the Shooting Setting Menu, select Multiple Exposure CTRL, and choose one of four options: Additive, Average, Bright, or Dark. Additive or Average are the two options you’ll want to consider for this project. Bright and Dark work well for making color images from toned black-and-white, but otherwise are tricky, and I don’t recommend them for this.

How are Additive and Average different? Additive is literally adding one exposure onto the next, so you have to significantly underexpose both frames or else get an overexposed image. Average mixes both frames together by averaging the difference. Additive tends to produce brighter pictures (although it depends on the two exposures), while Average tends to produce flatter images. I find that Additive often delivers results that I prefer, but Average is easier to use. There’s no right or wrong choice, but the way that you use each is different. For cameras older than the X-Pro3 that don’t have these options, what you get is the same thing as Average.

No matter your camera, with Multiple Exposure activated (through the top plate or Drive button on back, depending on your model), you capture the first exposure. The camera will ask if you want to keep it and move on or reshoot—if you didn’t get it quite right, you have this chance to try again. Once you are happy with your first exposure, you’ll hit “OK” and move onto the second exposure. The camera will show you the two exposures, which is a great benefit of doing this on a digital mirrorless camera. Line up the frame as you’d like it, adjust the exposure as you wish, and capture the second image. The camera will show you the double exposure, and it will ask you if you want to keep it or reshoot the second exposure—if you didn’t get it quite right, you have a chance to try again. If you are satisfied, select “Back” and you’re done!

You can use any film simulation recipe that you’d like. For these pictures, I used Ferrania Solaris FG 400. Recipes that have more contrast often work better than ones with less contrast. If you want to get really creative, you can even change recipes in-between exposures, and have two different recipes in one image—I didn’t do that here. Clarity is disabled for cameras with the Clarity feature. If you shoot RAW+JPEG, I’m not certain if older cameras will keep a RAW file for each exposure, but newer cameras will; however, the double exposure itself will not have a RAW file, you only get a JPEG.

Once your camera is all set up, and you’re ready to go capture some pictures, you’ll have to find some interesting subjects to photograph. The easy way to get artful double exposure images is to photograph two opposing things. For example, the picture at the very top of this article combines leaves and metal. You can look for smooth and rough. Manmade and natural. Cool and warm. Soft and hard. Bright and dark. Find two things that don’t seem like they should belong together, and use those for your double exposure image. You certainly don’t have to limit yourself to that—it’s simply a starting point. Not all of your ideas will work well, but some will—keep experimenting, and you’ll get some good pictures. I like to think of one exposure as being the main image, and the other as texture.

Average

Let’s look closer at some techniques if you are using an X-Pro3 or newer camera and select Average, or a camera that’s older than the X-Pro3 (which uses Average). What I like about Average is that you can achieve a more painterly effect with it—almost impressionist.

In my experience, the main image of the two exposures needs to be exposed brighter than the secondary exposure. For example, in the picture above, the leaves (first exposure) were exposed more than the road (second exposure). The camera will produce a fairly flat photograph, so to make the main subject stand out more you will want to consider making it a little brighter than the background, adjusting exposure compensation between shots. Thankfully, the camera will show you exactly what you’ll get, and you can adjust the exposure compensation to be exactly as you want before you even capture the second exposure. The Ferrania Solaris FG 400 film simulation recipe that I used for these pictures has only moderate contrast, and using a more contrasty recipe will produce a less flat photo. Best case scenario is a contrasty scene captured with a contrasty recipe.

Using Average is the easiest way to get good double exposure results. It still can be tricky, but it is more obvious what you need to do with each of the two exposures to get what you want. Let’s look at some examples:

The top image is a combination of a wild plant of some sort and a large stone (which filled the entire frame). The middle image is a combination of a stump with autumn leaves on it and a flowing creek (looking down from a bridge). The elements in the last image are a little more obvious, and is more of an example of mediocre results. In my experience, it’s more common to get mediocre results than great pictures, but if you keep trying and keep creating, you’ll definitely get some double exposure photographs that you’ll love.

Below is an example of two exposures that made a final double exposure image using Average. You can see that the leaves are brighter in the first exposure (not overexposed, though), and the rusted metal is darker in the second exposure (slightly underexposed). In the double exposure picture, the two images are combined into a lower contrast photograph that’s almost painterly. If the first picture had been exposed 1/3 stop brighter, the leaves would have been slightly brighter in the double exposure image (but not by a 1/3 stop). When you carefully select the subjects to combine, you can make them more compelling together than they are as separate images.

Additive

Additive is an option only found on X-Pro3 and newer cameras. I like Additive because you can get brighter, slightly less flat images than using Average, yet the results are fairly similar. I find it to be less painterly, and more like double exposure images on film.

Additive is trickier to use. Since each exposure is added onto the previous ones, two correctly exposed images will make one very overexposed double exposure picture, which means that both exposures need to be underexposed significantly—one to two stops, sometimes more. The camera will not show you exactly how bright the double exposure image will be until after both images are captured, so you’ll have a lot more failures with Additive than Average. Like Average, you’ll likely want the main exposure to be a little brighter than the secondary exposure. There’s certainly a lot of potential for creative concepts with Additive, but be sure to give yourself more grace. I guess you could say that Additive has more potential for greatness and failure simultaneously. Let’s look at some examples:

The top picture in this group was an early attempt. Maybe I’d title it The Nature of Music but I don’t think it’s anything profound. What I like about the second picture is that it is fairly dark, yet the flowers really stand out. The third photo is a simple cinderblock wall and a tree stump, which could have some metaphoric meaning.

Below is an example of two exposures that made a final double exposure image using Additive. You’ll notice that both exposures are pretty dark, especially the second one, yet the double exposure image is fairly bright, bordering overexposure. I probably should have reduced the exposure of one or maybe both images by 1/3 stop. The method to achieve good results is definitely different and more difficult with Additive, and the trick is to underexpose.

Conclusion

The quick and easy way to get artful double exposure photographs from your Fujifilm camera:
– Use a film simulation recipe. Often higher-contrast recipes do better than lower-contrast ones.
– If your camera is newer—no older than the X-Pro3—choose either Average or Additive. Average is easier. For Additive, be sure to underexpose.
– Set the camera to Multiple Exposure, which you access via the top plate or Drive button, depending on your model.
– Choose two subjects that are opposing in some way.
– Expose the “main” image more (brighter) than the “secondary” image.
– Don’t be afraid to retry if the results aren’t as good as you’d like them to be.
– Don’t be afraid to really experiment and try things just to see what happens.

Double exposure photography can be a fun and rewarding experience. It doesn’t have to be difficult to achieve good results—in fact, Fujifilm cameras make it pretty easy, no matter your model. I believe that anyone can do it, and whether you are experienced or a beginner, it’s worth trying. If you’ve never done it before, try double exposure photography the next time you are out with your camera.

When is Film Simulation Bracket Actually Useful?

Posted on November 9, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

All Fujifilm X cameras have a feature called Film Simulation Bracket. Select three different film simulations, and the camera will process each exposure as three different images using whichever film simulations you selected. Unfortunately, with Film Simulation Bracket, you cannot change any other parameter, only the film simulation. This means that the camera will not apply three different Film Simulation Recipes. When Fujifilm designed this feature, I’m sure that they were unaware of how people would be using their cameras, and Film Simulation Bracket definitely demonstrates that. Instead of what it is, it should be Custom Preset Bracket—you pick three different C1-C7 presets, and the camera will generate an image using each with every exposure. That would be amazing! But, sadly, that’s not an option. I’ve never really liked or used Film Simulation Bracket until recently, and I discovered that it can sometimes be a useful tool.

In this article we will look at what Film Simulation Bracket is, how to use it, and when it is a useful feature.

Note: this was a Creative Collective article that required a subscription, but it is now available to everyone!

Every Fujifilm X-series camera has Film Simulation Bracket built-in, but how to access it and set it up is different depending on your model. If your camera has a Drive button, push it, then scroll down to Film Simulation BKT. Next, push the Menu button, go to the Shooting Menu, and find Film Simulation BKT, then select the three film simulations you want to use. If your camera has a Drive Mode Dial on the top plate, select BKT on the dial. Next, push the Menu button, go to the Shooting Menu, choose Drive Setting, then BKT Setting, then BKT Select, then Film Simulation BKT, and then select the three film simulations that you want to use. If you are having trouble, I recommend Googling your camera’s users manual. Fujifilm has made it pretty easy to navigate their digital manuals, and you shouldn’t have much trouble finding it. For example, if you search for the Fujifilm X100V user manual, you’ll quickly locate it. Under The Shooting Menus, you’ll see Shooting Setting, and when you click that you’ll find Film Simulation BKT.

Once your camera is in the Film Simulation Bracket Drive Mode, and you have your three film simulations selected, you’re good to go shoot. Well, sort of. What about all of the other settings? We’ll talk a little more about this in a bit, but I wanted to touch on a few things first.

RAW is only available when using Film Simulation Bracket on X-Trans III and newer. So some cameras, like the X-Pro1 and X-T1, can only record JPEGs when using this function. On newer cameras, you’ll not only get one RAW file, but you’ll get three! That means for every exposure, you’ll have six images recorded to the memory card: three RAW files plus three JPEGs. This is an odd quirk of Film Simulation Bracket.

Another thing to note is that Clarity (for those cameras that have Clarity) is disabled when using Film Simulation Bracket. If you shoot RAW+JPEG, you can reprocess the RAW files in-camera (or using X RAW Studio) to apply Clarity after-the-fact if you’d like.

You can program one film simulation recipe into your camera when you use Film Simulation Bracket, and one image captured will be of that recipe, and the other two images will also be that recipe, but with a different film simulation applied. Sometimes this can produce good results. For example, Kodachrome II and Ektachrome 100SW are essentially the same recipes, just with different film simulations (Classic Chrome and Velvia respectively). Sometimes this can produce not-so-good results, like when Omar Gonzalez accidentally used Classic Chrome instead of Classic Negative on the Agfa Vista recipe. Let’s look at a couple of examples of this:

*Fujifilm X-Pro1 – Vivid Color recipe – Velvia*

*Fujifilm X-Pro1 – Vivid Color recipe –* Provia

*Fujifilm X-Pro1 – Vivid Color recipe –* PRO Neg. Hi

*Fujifilm X-T1 – Kodacolor 200 recipe – Classic Chrome*

*Fujifilm X-T1 – Kodacolor 200 recipe – PRO Neg. Std*

*Fujifilm X-T1 – Kodacolor 200 recipe – Monochrome*

In the first set, I used the Vivid Color recipe as the base, setting the three film simulations to bracket as Velvia (which is what the recipe calls for), Provia, and PRO Neg. Hi. In my opinion, Provia and PRO Neg. Hi produced so-so results—not terrible, but not great, either. In the second set, I used the Kodacolor 200 recipe as the base, setting the three film simulations to bracket as Classic Chrome (which is what the recipe calls for), PRO Neg. Std, and Monochrome. I thought that Monochrome looked pretty good, and that is certainly a good companion to the Kodacolor 200 recipe. PRO Neg. Std was alright, and I can see some people liking it. With this experiment, the second set was more of a success than the first.

What’s great about this experiment is that you can accidentally stumble into great looks by simply applying a different film simulation to an already existing recipe. For example, this is how I discovered the Elite Chrome 200 recipe. Using Film Simulation Bracket, I programmed the base with my Fujicolor Superia 800 recipe, which uses Classic Negative, and I set Classic Chrome and Astia as the other two options. I didn’t care for the Astia version, but I really liked the Classic Chrome images, and it quickly became an official recipe. It’s really fun when you get an unexpectedly good result while experimenting with this feature.

*Master Master* – Clearfield, UT – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Elite Chrome 200”

I really wanted to have three good pictures produced from using Film Simulation Bracket. I wanted each of them to have a unique look. The film simulations aren’t always that much different from each other, and the subtle differences aren’t always immediately obvious. What’s the point in producing three only slightly different images? Since all of the settings (aside from film simulation) were going to be identical, I needed to carefully choose three film simulations that were obviously different. But each also had to look good with those otherwise identical settings.

I knew exactly where to start: Kodak Portra 400 v2. Why? Not only because it is one of my favorite recipes, but because another favorite recipe of mine is identical to it except for the film simulation: Vintage Vibes. Kodak Portra 400 v2 uses Classic Chrome while Vintage Vibes uses Classic Negative, and aside from that they are identical. I just needed to figure out which film simulation would look good with these same settings. I tried a couple, but didn’t care for the results. Then I programmed Eterna Bleach Bypass into my Fujifilm X-E4 as the third film simulation. Bingo! That’s the winner! I call this new recipe Ferrania Solaris FG 400.

The three photos at the very top of this article are examples of using these three recipes with Film Simulation Bracket. The first is Kodak Portra 400 v2, the second is Vintage Vibes, and the third is Ferrania Solaris FG 400. Let’s look at a couple more examples:

Of course, there’s still the issue of Clarity. I have to reprocess the RAW files in-camera to apply Clarity. If I didn’t use Film Simulation Bracket, and simply captured one image using the Kodak Portra 400 v2 recipe, I could just as easily reprocess the RAW in-camera to create a Vintage Vibes and Ferrania Solaris FG 400 version. So what’s the point?

There are two circumstances where I feel that Film Simulation Bracket is actually useful. First, if you have an X-Trans III, X-T3 or X-T30 camera, and if there were three recipes that used different film simulations but were otherwise identical (there’s not currently), this would be a good way to get three different looks from the same exposure—creating these recipes is something that I’ll challenge myself to do. This is also possible with older sensors or Bayer, but it’s maybe just a little less practical. For newer X-Trans IV cameras, ignoring Clarity (or, in the case of the three recipes mentioned above, maybe using a diffusion filter in lieu of Clarity) might be a good strategy. Second, Film Simulation Bracket is great for discovery. The Elite Chrome 200 and Ferrania Solaris FG 400 recipes are direct results from experimenting with this tool. It’s something I’ll definitely do more of in the coming days, weeks, and months, just for the fun of it.

I enjoyed trying Film Simulation Bracket for the serendipity of it. You don’t know what you’ll get when you use a different film simulation with a recipe until you try. A lot of times the results are mediocre. Sometimes the results are terrible. Occasionally the results are great, which makes experimenting with Film Simulation Bracket worth it. I invite you to try it yourself, just to see what you get.

Stacking Diffusion Filters for a Dreamy Effect

Posted on November 9, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

In my article No Edit Photography: 7 Tips To Get The Film Look From Your Digital Photos, I suggested that you should sometimes use diffusion filters (Tip 3) in order to better achieve an analog aesthetic. In that article I stated, “You want the effect to be subtle.” I think that’s generally good advice, as in most circumstances subtleness will get you the best results. But what happens when you ignore the “rules” and get crazy? What happens when you use multiple diffusion filters together in order to get a bold effect? This article will explore those questions, and hopefully it will inspire you to do your own experiments with diffusion filters.

Ready to get crazy?

Note: this was a Creative Collective article that required a subscription, but it is now available to everyone!

I don’t think diffusion filter designers deliberately intended for their filters to be stacked together, but of course creative people will experiment with something just to see what happens. Maybe it will be terrible, but maybe it will be great, so it is worth the time and effort to try. The idea to do this wasn’t actually mine—a Fuji X Weekly reader shared with me his pictures where he stacked diffusion filters—and I knew that it was something that I needed to try.

I currently own five diffusion filters: Tiffen 1/4 Black Pro Mist, Tiffen 1/2 Black Pro Mist, Moment 5% CineBloom, Moment 10% CineBloom, and Moment 20% CineBloom. The 1/2 Black Pro Mist is a different thread size than the others, so I didn’t use it for these experiments. Because the other four are the same 49mm thread, I was able to use them together on my Fujifilm X100V. My very first image using stacked diffusion filters was the picture below:

*Fujifilm X100V using both 10% & 20% CineBloom filters plus Kodak Tri-X 400 recipe.*

A bright lamp is just off frame in the upper-right corner of the picture. Combining the 10% & 20% CineBloom filters dispersed the highlights, softening the transition from bright white to shades of grey. There’s also a softening effect on the transition to black. It’s a greater effect than using the 1/4 Black Pro Mist on its own, and closer to the 1/2 Black Pro Mist (although I didn’t directly compare it to the 1/2 Tiffen filter).

Let me make a quick note of my impressions of Black Pro Mist vs CineBloom. Black Pro Mist seems to effect overall contrast slightly less than CineBloom while delivering similar halation (or highlight bloom); however, it also produces a barely visible warm/red color cast. CineBloom reduces contrast slightly more overall than Black Pro Mist, but doesn’t have the color cast. So they’re quite similar, yet produce a noticeably different look. For example, the 10% CineBloom is more similar to the 1/2 Black Pro Mist when it comes to overall contrast, but closer to the 1/4 Black Pro Mist when it comes to halation. Which is better? I can’t answer that for you. They both have strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I lean a little more towards liking CineBloom just a bit better, just because it doesn’t have the color cast.

Unsurprisingly, using the 10% and 20% CineBloom filters together produces a stronger effect compared to using the 20% alone. It is definitely stronger than using the 1/4 Black Pro Mist, and it seems to be as strong of halation as the 1/2 Black Pro Mist (although, again, I didn’t directly compare it to that filter). This combination noticeably reduces contrast, producing slightly “faded” (but still dark) shadows. Let’s look at a few.

*Fujifilm X100V using both 10% & 20% CineBloom filters plus Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe.*

The reduction in overall contrast is noticeable in the above pictures, which isn’t necessarily good or bad—it’s a matter of if you like it or don’t like it. When there’s a light source (like the image immediate above this) you get a misty effect (while it was partly-cloudy, it wasn’t misty). When the sun was near the frame, the halation was much too strong, and I didn’t like those pictures; however, when the light wasn’t too strong, the effect seems quite nice. I think the 20% filter or (especially) the 10% filter used alone (not used together) would have done better for the pictures with a bright light. The softer look created with stacked diffusion filters when there isn’t a bright light is actually rather lovely.

None of that, of course, is crazy. I said at the beginning of this article that we were going to get rather wild, so let’s get crazy! What happens when you stack a 1/4 Black Pro Mist, 20% CineBloom, and 10% CineBloom together? Let’s find out!

*Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plus* *Velvia v2 recipe.*

*Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plus* *Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe.*

*Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plus* Pushed CineStill 800T recipe.

*Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plus* *Kodak Tri-X 400 recipe.*

When there’s not a light source in or near the frame, the results of stacking three diffusion filters can be wonderful, with an elegant softness that you might really appreciate. I think the two pumpkin pictures at the top of this set show this effect especially well. Look at those beautiful tones! When there is a light in or near the frame, stacking filters can definitely produce a pronounced Orton effect—in some pictures it can be alright, and others not so much.

I have four different diffusion filters, but I’ve only showed you two combinations. I tried the 5% CineBloom, but it’s such a subtle effect that it didn’t make much sense to use it for these experiments (which are supposed to be crazy). I also tried the 1/4 Black Pro Mist with the 10% CineBloom and 20% CineBloom separately. Using the 1/4 Black Pro Mist with the 10% CineBloom is similar to using the two CineBlooms stacked together (not 100% the same, but similar enough). Combining the 1/4 Black Pro Mist and 20% CineBloom (without the 10%) is in-between using the two CineBlooms and using all three diffusion filters. In your own experiments, feel free to try any combination and see if you like the results.

Diffusion filters are great for taking the “digital edge” off of digital pictures to subtly give them a more analog aesthetic. My recommendation, if you like the effect, is to use a 5% CineBloom, 10% CineBloom, 1/8 Black Pro Mist, or 1/4 Black Pro Mist. Some people will find the 5% CineBloom and 1/8 Black Pro Mist to be too weak, and some people will find the 10% CineBloom and 1/4 Black Pro Mist to be too strong. You’ll have to decide what works best for you, and it might even be situationally dependent.

While not likely for everyday photography, stacking diffusion filters can give you a faded, misty, or Orton effect (depending on the light). You can sometimes get results that are especially nice. If you have more than one diffusion filter with the same thread size, I invite you to use them at the same time. The results can be serendipitous, producing pictures that you might dislike or that you absolutely love. I definitely captured a few that I love.