Fujifilm needs to drop whatever they’re currently doing, and make an X80. This should be priority number one!
Not that I think they’re going to do this—I really don’t think they will—but they absolutely should. They should do it right, and they should do it right now.
Fujifilm introduced the X70 in January 2016 and discontinued it in December of that same year. You might think that the camera was a flop, but it wasn’t. Unfortunately, to Fujifilm’s surprise, shortly after the camera launched, Sony suddenly discontinued the 16-megapixel APS-C sensor that the X70 used, and Fujifilm had no choice but to fully move on to X-Trans III as quickly as possible. The X70 was a casualty of that situation. No successor was ever made, supposedly because heat dispersion was an issue with the X-Trans III sensors. Even though the camera is six years old now, people love their X70 camera—you don’t see very many for sale, and when you do it’s usually for a similar price to, or even higher than, the original MSRP.
Even though the camera is an old model, photographers are still enjoying their X70. Omar Gonzalez said that he loves the X70, and it’s his favorite fun pocketable camera. Reggie Ballesteros called it his favorite pocket cam. Samuel Streetlife called it an amazing camera for street photography and it’s sad that Fuji didn’t continue this line. People love the X70 because it is basically a smaller and more wide-angle X100T, but without a viewfinder; the viewfinder is a make-or-break for some, but other people don’t mind its absence at all.
So what would an X80 look like? What features should it have?
Fujifilm should try, as best as practical, to keep it the same size and shape as the X70. It should have the same 18.5mm (28mm full-frame-equivalent) lens. The rear screen can stay the same. I’m sure that Fujifilm would replace the d-pad with a joystick… I’d like to see both, but it will be a joystick and not a d-pad (and not both). Fujifilm should include the shutter/ISO knob of the X100V. Swap the command switch thing for a command wheel. Otherwise, don’t change a thing. The X70 is a cult classic because Fujifilm did so much “right” with it. Don’t overcomplicate it; don’t “fix” what’s already good.
The electronic viewfinder will be the controversy. The X70 doesn’t have one, and I personally don’t think it’s a requirement for the X80, but some people will have a strong opinion that, in 2022 (or 2023), it is a requirement. Perhaps Fujifilm should consider a pop-up viewfinder (right underneath where the X70 says “X70”) similar to the Sony RX100 III, or (my preferred option) a shoe-mount viewfinder that’s an optional accessory.
Obviously on the inside it needs to have a new sensor and processor. X-Trans IV? X-Trans V? Something else? Heat dispersion is obviously the biggest obstacle. The Fujifilm X100V can run hot, and it has a larger body, so it’s possible that the X-Trans IV sensor, despite being “cooler” than X-Trans III, is still too hot. Is the 26mp stacked X-Trans V sensor cooler? I know it’s quicker, but instead of quickness, can it be utilized for its coolness? How about the 40mp non-stacked? I personally would prefer it to not have a Bayer sensor, but if it did, it needs to have Acros and Classic Negative and Clarity and all that, which hasn’t been included on any Bayer model. I don’t know what sensor it would need to be or what Fujifilm needs to do to make it work, but I’m sure it’s possible, and they should do what it takes to figure it out.
How much would an X80 cost? The X70 had an MSRP of only $700, which seems like a steal of a deal! I think the X80 could have an MSRP of around $1,000 and people would buy it. Go much higher than that and people will start expecting more premium features (like weather sealing), but even at $1,200 I’d preorder it. Look, a Fujifilm X-E4 with the 18mm pancake, which is still noticeably larger than the X70 yet the closest you can get to it with Fujifilm’s current lineup, will run you $1,450, so it shouldn’t seem unreasonable to pay significantly more for the X80 than the X70. Heck, some people will pay a grand for a used X70!
If Fujifilm made an X80, that would be epic. It’s my number two “wow” camera that Fujifilm should make. However, I believe that Fujifilm believes that the market for such a camera came-and-went, and current camera buyers aren’t as interested in such a model; however, the feedback that I have received suggests that there would be a heck-of-a-lot of excitement for an X80 if Fujifilm ever did make one. I hope they do.
It’s your turn! What features should a Fujifilm X80 have? Which sensor? Would you buy one if they made one? Let me know your thoughts in the comments! While I think most likely Fujifilm will never read this, there is a chance that they might—if they do, make sure your voice has been heard.
Waterfront Homes – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Vintage Analog”
This Film Simulation Recipe was suggested to me by someone… and I’m sorry to say that I don’t remember who (if it was you, let me know in the comments!). This recipe is basically my Vintage Kodacolor recipe, but with a couple modifications: Classic Negative instead of Classic Chrome, plus Color Chrome FX Blue and Clarity. Sometimes when you use a different film simulation than what a recipe calls for, the results can be interesting. I programmed this recipe into my Fujifilm X-E4, noticed that it produced good results, and then I kind of forgot about it for awhile. I recently “rediscovered” it in my C1-C7, and used it for several days, enjoying the warm vintage-like images that this recipe produces.
Most of these pictures were captured through vintage glass, as I adapted some old lenses to my X-E4. The main one was a Helios 44-2, but a couple Asahi Takumars were used, too. Using old manual lenses is something that I enjoy doing, and this recipe pairs really well with them. I also used a 10% CineBloom filter on some of the pictures; diffusion filters help to take the “digital edge” off of images, and produce a more analog-esque aesthetic—I don’t use them all of the time, and I think subtlety is key.
Arch Over Bell Tower – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Vintage Analog”
Because this “Vintage Analog” Film Simulation Recipe use Classic Negative, Color Chrome FX Blue, and Clarity, it is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras, but not the X-T3 or X-T30. Those with the X-H2s (and soon-to-be X-H2) can likely use it, too, but I haven’t tested it myself to know for sure. Why does this recipe use Color Chrome FX Blue and Clarity when the Vintage Kodacolor recipe that it is derived from doesn’t? I don’t know (and if I was told I don’t remember). But it looks good, so what can I say? I hope you enjoy it!
Classic Negative Dynamic Range: DR200 Highlight: +2 Shadow: 0 Color: -4 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -1 Clarity: -2 Grain Effect: Strong, Small Color Chrome Effect: Off Color Chrome Effect Blue: Weak White Balance: 9100K, -4 Red & +4 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: -1/3 to +1/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this “Vintage Analog” Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-E4:
Red Rose of Summer – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Dock Post – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Duck Conversation – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Two Palm Sky – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Roof & Tiles – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Garden Bulb – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Summer Trumpets – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Approaching Storm Clouds – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Hoping to Catch – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Houses, Reflected – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70 – “Monochrome Red”
Back when I shot black-and-white film, I usually used a color filter to manipulate the shades of grey, and for landscape photography the Red filter was my most-used option. You cannot use these filters on your Fujifilm camera, but Fujifilm does provide you with three faux filters: +Y, +R, & +G. These mimic the aesthetic of using a Yellow, Red, or Green filter (sort of). In my opinion, +R doesn’t actually replicate the use of a Red filter very well; it’s more like an Orange filter. This recipe is intended to produce a look more similar to a Red filter on black-and-white film, which means that it will darken blues and lighten reds.
I actually created this “Monochrome Red” Film Simulation Recipe several months back on my Fujifilm X-T1, but that camera has a dirty sensor in need of a cleaning, so I never shared the results. Then I moved, and the X-T1 got packed away for awhile. Just recently I purchased a different X-Trans II camera—an X70—so I plugged this recipe into it and began shooting. This is an excellent option if you are looking for a black-and-white recipe, and is especially good for landscape photography.
Sunlit Flowers – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70 – “Monochrome Red”
The “Monochrome Red” recipe is compatible with all X-Trans II cameras. If you have an X-Trans I or Bayer model, the results will be ever slightly different, but very similar, and you can definitely use it—if you have an X-Pro1 or X-T200 or anything like that, feel free to give this recipe a try.
Monochrome+R Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: -1 (Medium-Soft) Shadow: +2 (Hard) Sharpness: +1 (Medium-Hard) Noise Reduction: -2 (Low) White Balance: Fluorescent 1, -4 Red & +7 Blue ISO: Auto up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +1 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured on my Fujifilm X70 using this “Monochrome Red” Film Simulation Recipe:
Josh Intently Gaming – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Jonathan with a Smile – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Backlit Jo – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Boy Fishing – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Dock Abstract – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Lock & Chain – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Pole & Chain – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Fishing Pole on Dock – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Young Boy Fishing – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Lakeside Tree – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
The next SOOCepisode will be live on Thursday, September 9th! Join Fujifilm X-Photographer Nathalie Boucry and myself as we finish our discussion of the Vintage Agfacolor Film Simulation Recipe and introduce the next recipe-of-the-month: Kodak Portra 400. Which Kodak Portra 400 recipe? These three: Here, Here, & Here. Yes, all three! The PreShow starts at 9:30 AM Pacific, 12:30 PM Eastern Time; if you can’t make the PreShow, be sure to tune in by 10:00 AM Pacific, 1:00 PM Eastern to catch the broadcast.
For those who don’t know, SOOC is a monthly live video series, with each episode focused on a different Film Simulation Recipe. It is a collaboration between Tame Your Fujifilm (Fujifilm X-Photographer Nathalie Boucry) and Fuji X Weekly (Ritchie Roesch). SOOC is a fun and educational experience where we not only talk about Fujifilm camera settings, but also answer your questions and give tips and tricks. Basically, we’re trying to help you master your Fujifilm camera, with a focus on simplifying your photographic workflow.
Nathalie has an excellent write-up for the Vintage Agfacolor recipe on her website, so be sure to check that out!
As you might recall, I wrote a piece back in June entitled Is Fujifilm Losing Its Soul?, and I opened the second paragraph with my answer: Fujifilm has already lost its soul. Some of you disagreed, but the vast majority agreed with my sentiments—it seemed to resonate with a lot of you.
I came across an article (via Fujirumors) published two days ago in which Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource interviewed five Fujifilm managers. You can read the whole thing if you’d like. Some parts of it stood out to me, and so I thought I’d highlight those. I’m going to get a little cynical, so be sure to hold onto your hats. I promise to wrap it up on a positive note.
“Seeing a PASM dial on the X-H2S,” Dave states, “some people have been saying, ‘Oh no, Fuji’s abandoning us! Where are the individual exposure controls?’ <laughter around the table>….”
I guess that’s funny? I mean, seriously, when a large group of your most loyal customers state a concern, your response is to laugh at and mock them? Not cool, not one bit. And this is the problem. Want proof that Fujifilm has already lost its soul? Here it is, right in that laughter.
Captured with a Fujifilm X-E1
“Yeah, that’s kind of interesting,” answered Fujifilm Divisional Manger Yuji Igarishi, “because we did not hear that when we introduced it for the GFX.”
“Huh, that is interesting,” answered Dave, “that the issue never came up with the GFX.”
That is interesting, because I heard it. I said it myself. Not sure why Fujifilm didn’t get the memo, other than GFX is financially out of reach for many X shooters, so they’re not as passionate about what Fujifilm does with GFX as they are with X. Trust me, Fujifilm: some people noticed and cared that the latest GFX cameras are PASM, and there are people who won’t buy them for that reason. Maybe it’s not enough photographers for the company to concern themselves with, I don’t know, but people did vocalize the concern. If you don’t care, then you don’t care; if you do care, perhaps broaden where you’re finding feedback (for example, nobody asked me, despite having such a large and passionate Fujifilm audience…). Maybe it wasn’t stated loudly, but the issue certainly did come up.
“…I tend to think of PASM as being more for amateurs,” Dave continued, “but actually it’s the professionals who need it, to be able to change modes quickly.”
Ah, I get it now: PASM is for pros, and the traditional tactile controls of Fujifilm’s other products are for amateurs, and if you prefer them, you’re an amateur. Only the lowly amateur peasants don’t want PASM. If you’re a pro, surely you prefer PASM. Apparently Fujifilm prefers to focus on potential “pro” customers and not their current “amateur” customers. Yes, I’m taking the quote noticeably out of context, but, reading the interview, that’s the sentiment I got, whether or not it was flatly stated.
Captured with a Fujifilm X-Pro1
Look, PASM isn’t any more or less for pros than the traditional controls; it’s simply a preference, largely based on how one learned photography—if you learned on PASM you tend to prefer PASM, and if you learned on traditional controls you tend to prefer traditional controls. Fujifilm was one of the very few camera makers who made products for those who don’t prefer PASM, and that’s a big reason why the majority of their users purchased their first Fujifilm camera, and an important reason why they continue to do so. Everyone makes PASM cameras, but, aside from Fujifilm, who makes non-PASM models? It’s a pretty short (and largely expensive) list. It’s fine that Fujifilm wants to expand their customer base and offer a diversity of products to meet the needs of various customers. Awesome. But don’t do it at the expense of (and while mocking and belittling) those who have purchased your products for years. That’s a good way to make your loyal customers a lot less loyal, which will only bite you in the butt.
“…We’re not moving everything away from the dials,” Yuji reassures, “no need to worry about that.”
Not everything. Some things—yes. But don’t you worry ’bout a thing. Yeah, I mean, a couple models had their traditional controls replaced with PASM (X-H and GFX-50S lines), but it’s not going to happen to the other camera series, you can trust that. Never mind that (once the X-H2 is official announced in a few days) five of the last seven X + GFX cameras have been PASM. And one of those two non-PASM models was basically just a firmware update. To me, it seems like a commitment to “moving… away from the dials” and not the other way around. Actions speak louder than words.
Speaking of GFX…
“I think when we introduced the 50R,” stated Yuji, “that was kind of the first small medium-format camera, so I think there was a value there. Now that we have a smaller body with the GFX100S, I think there’s maybe less need for something even more compact. Of course, we always look at the market to see if there’s a need to introduce something, but I think at the moment, probably because of the GFX100S body size, there’s not as much demand for a smaller model as before.”
Captured with a Fujifilm X-T1
In other words, rangefinder styling and traditional controls—forget about it. If that’s what you want, GFX isn’t for you. I guess there’s very little hope of “wow” product #7….
“Fujifilm has a very broad range of APS-C bodies these days,” Dave mentioned, “with no fewer than 6 different product lines. Will all of these lines continue into the future, or do you see some of them going away or merging with each other?”
“Currently,” Yuji answered, “we believe that each product line has its own unique characteristics, so as long as that makes sense for us, we’ll continue with that line. For us, it’s whether we can provide value for the customers. Some of the products take longer to update, because it doesn’t make sense to update them every year. For example with the X-H, it took four years to come up with the next version. You know, we always think about whether a new model makes sense. If we have the technology, when we feel ready, then we’ll introduce a successor.”
I actually strongly agree that “it doesn’t make sense to update [camera models] every year.” Or even every two years. I think three to five years is a sufficient amount of time to update a line. Camera makers often too quickly update their models, in hopes of maximizing sales by always having a “new” version with the “latest” this or that. Yes, people aren’t generally eager to spend a grand or more on five-year-old digital camera technology, but if that technology is good, then it’s still good for years to come, not just for a year or two. By constantly updating models, camera makers are basically admitting that their gear is obsolete quickly, and not something that’s relevant for a significant period of time. Fujifilm is celebrating 10 years of X-mount, and the X-Pro1 is certainly still a capable camera—a testament that their cameras are relevant for many years, not just a couple.
Captured with a Fujifilm X-E1
I do think there’s hope in Yuji’s statement for an eventual X80 (the perhaps someday successor to the X70). With any luck, Fujifilm will “feel ready” soon. Probably not, but one can wish. On the flip side, Fujifilm basically stated the fine print: if it doesn’t make sense to them, they’ll change or discontinue something without batting an eye. Will the X-T5 have PASM? Not likely—I’d be pretty shocked—but perhaps the X-T6 will, especially if Fujifilm determines that more “pros” are using that line than “amateur” photographers… or, really, if Fujifilm thinks by doing so it will attract more people from other brands. Will the X-T00 line be discontinued in favor of the X-S00 line? It could happen—I’d be surprised if it did—but as long as Fujifilm believes it makes sense in order to sell more models to the customers that they hope to attract, they’ll do it. Yuji’s statement could essentially be summarized: we don’t have any specific plans that we’re ready to publicly discuss, but nothing is off the table. That could be good or that could be bad, I guess depending on your perspective.
A lot is said in that interview, but I’ll end with one of Yuji’s conclusions: “In general, we’re very appreciative of people’s interest in our products.”
People are very interested in Fujifilm’s products. I think a lot of the long-time customers are a little concerned about the choices Fujfilm has been making, and what those choices mean for the long haul. I think many loyal customers are unsure of the direction that Fujifilm is heading. The Fujifilm at 20 years of X-mount might not much resemble the one at 10 years—something you might celebrate or mourn, probably largely depending on how long you’ve been a customer.
Here’s the silver lining that I promised: the cameras Fujifilm has made over the last number of years are really good—and should last a long time, too—so it doesn’t matter what Fujifilm does, because what they did do was very good. If the X-T5, X-Pro4, or X100VI (or whatever it will be called) isn’t what you hoped it would be, you still have the X-T4, X-Pro3, and X100V—heck, you still have the X-T1, X-Pro1, and X100, and all the models in-between! You might notice that I captured all of the pictures in this article with older models. A good camera is a good camera, and as long as it serves you well, you don’t need to “upgrade” to the latest and greatest just because the reviewers and YouTubers (most of which were given or loaned their gear for free) say that you should. Is that old camera still relevant to you and your photography? If so, then you’re already set, and none of this other stuff even matters.
Bee on a Blossom – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X70 – “Kodak Color Negative”
I’ve wanted a Fujifilm X70 ever since I learned of its existence. For those who don’t know, the X70 was essentially a smaller, more wide-angle, and less expensive X100T. Introduced in January 2016 and discontinued in December of that same year, you might think that the camera was a flop, but it wasn’t. Unfortunately, to Fujifilm’s surprise, shortly after the camera launched, Sony suddenly discontinued the 16-megapixel APS-C sensor that the X70 used, and Fujifilm had no choice but to fully move on to X-Trans III as quickly as possible. The X70 was a casualty of that situation. No successor was ever made, supposedly because heat dispersion was an issue with higher resolution sensors that couldn’t be remedied. Even though the camera is six years old now, people love their X70’s—you don’t see very many for sale, and when you do it’s usually for a similar price to, or even higher than, the original MSRP. I was fortunate to find one in excellent condition for “only” $600.
I’ve had this camera for just a few days. After unboxing the X70, I quickly programmed into it the latest recipe that I had been working on with my X-T1 (which is in need of a sensor cleaning), and busily shot with it. Already I love this little camera—not only is it very practical to carry around everywhere, it is so much fun to use! Fujifilm really needs to work hard an its successor, the X80—this should be a top priority, in my opinion.
For this “Kodak Color Negative” Film Simulation Recipe, I wanted to use the Incandescent White Balance. Why? Because you cannot program a White Balance Shift into the C1-C7 Custom Presets (only on X-Pro3 and newer models); however, the camera will remember one shift per white balance type. If each of your presets uses a different white balance type, then you don’t have to remember to adjust the shift when switching presets. Incandescent is a white balance option that I’d not yet used on X-Trans II, so it seemed like a logical place to start.
The aesthetic that I was hoping to achieve with this recipe was Kodak Portra 400. I don’t believe that I succeeded in faithfully mimicking that (sometimes there’s a similarity); however, it does seem to produce a Kodak-like color negative film look, perhaps more like Ultramax, but not exactly that, either. Whatever it does or doesn’t resemble, I personally really like the aesthetic produced by this recipe, and I hope that you do, too.
Johanna in Evening Light – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X70 – “Kodak Color Negative”
This “Kodak Color Negative” recipe is compatible with all X-Trans II cameras that have Classic Chrome, including the X100T, X-E2, X-E2S, X-T10, X-T1, X30, X70, and XQ2. Unfortunately, the X100S, X20, and XQ1 don’t have Classic Chrome, despite being X-Trans II. Those with Bayer models that have Classic Chrome can also use this recipe, although it will render a little different on your camera.
Classic Chrome Dynamic Range: DR200 Highlight: -2 (Soft) Shadow: -1 (Medium-Soft) Color: +2 (High) Sharpness: -1 (Medium-Soft) Noise Reduction: -2 (Low) White Balance: Incandescent, +6 Red & -7 Blue ISO: Auto up to ISO 3200 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured on my Fujifilm X70 using this “Kodak Color Negative” Film Simulation Recipe:
Sunlight Through The Grapevine – Surprise, AZ – Fujifilm X70
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
What’s in the September issue? It’s actually a very special edition, celebrating my first six years shooting Fujifilm cameras. There are 74 pictures, including the cover, across 48 pages—this is by far the biggest issue of FXW Zine yet!
If you haven’t joined the Creative Collective, consider subscribing today to get access to bonus articles and the FXW Zine—not just this issue, but the first nine issues, too!
Hold onto your hats, because, for this Film Simulation Recipe, we’re going to dive deep into the obscure and practically forgotten history of a unique film called GAF 500. We’re going to explore the intriguing history of GAF, discover what made this film unique, and discuss how this new GAF 500 Film Simulation Recipe came to be. You are in for a treat today!
GAF actually began in 1886 as the Standard Paint Company of New Jersey. After acquiring a holding company in 1928 that had (among other things) majority ownership of AGFA, the company changed its name to General Aniline & Film—GAF for short. Also in 1928, AGFA merged with Ansco, so in addition to acquiring AGFA, GAF also got ownership of Ansco, which was founded in 1842. Originally named E. Anthony & Co., after merging with Scovill Manufacturing in 1901 it was renamed Ansco (“An” from Anthony and “sco” from Scovill). Ansco was headquartered in New York, and was Kodak’s biggest competitor for many decades. The merger with AGFA was intended to bring Ansco’s photography products to a global market, which would allow them to better compete against Kodak.
Then World War II happened, and in 1941 the U.S. government seized and took ownership of GAF and Ansco (separating it from AGFA, which was a German-owned business), and officially merged Ansco into GAF. The U.S. government retained ownership of GAF until 1965, when it sold all of its shares.
Morning Sunlight on a Curtain – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “GAF 500”
In 1967 GAF introduced a revolutionary new film: GAF 500. It was a high-ISO 35mm color transparency (slide) film—the highest ISO color film during its time; the second-highest color ISO film (another GAF emulsion) was rated at ISO 200, so it was more than twice as “fast” (as they called it back then) as the second fastest. 30 years prior to the introduction of GAF 500, the highest ISO color film was rated at ISO 8, so having an ISO 500 option was unthinkable back then, and a lot of people wondered why anyone would need such a high-ISO film. While it was mostly sold under the brand name GAF, it was sometimes sold as Anscochrome 500. Was GAF/Anscochrome 500 any good?
From all accounts, you either loved GAF 500 or hated it. The grain was extremely pronounced. Colors were “good” yet muted (a.k.a. “neutral” or “natural”) and generally considered to be not as “nice” as Kodak’s. It didn’t push-process nearly as well as, it wasn’t quite as sharp as, and it didn’t pair with color correction filters as well as Kodachrome or Ektachrome. It was inferior to all other color emulsions except for one fact: it was fast! You could use it when other films wouldn’t work due to low light. If it was dark and you wanted to shoot color, GAF 500 was your best bet.
GAF 500 had a warm color cast—some described it as orange, some said red-orange, and others stated that it was red—not as warm as some Kodak emulsions, but warm nonetheless. The shadows tended to lean blue. If you pushed the film, it had a purple cast across the frame. Some people liked how it looked when shooting under fluorescent lights or stage lights, and was a popular choice for concert photography.
What people seemed to like most about GAF 500 is that it was gritty yet soft. It was grainy, like a high-ISO black-and-white film, and it was contrasty with a very narrow exposure latitude—it was easy to blow out the whites or block up the blacks; however, it also had low color saturation (or was “more neutral” as some put it) , and the gradations were gentle. It was like a biker ballerina, if you will. Some people loved the aesthetic of GAF 500, and would use it even in bright-light situations just for the look that it produced. Many photographers steered clear of it just because there were “better” options, such as push-processing lower ISO films.
There was a time in the 1970’s that GAF was everywhere. It was the official film of Disneyland, and, for a time, was the only brand of film that you could purchase inside the park. Sears sold GAF cameras and film. Henry Fonda was the spokesman. Despite that, GAF struggled to be profitable competing against Kodak, Fujifilm, and other brands.
GAF made a few minor “improvements” to their ISO 500 film over the years, and (from what I read) it seemed to get “better” towards the mid-1970’s. In 1977, due to sluggish sales, GAF decided to get out of the photography business altogether. GAF/Anscochrome 500 was discontinued, along with all of the other GAF films. The Ansco brand name was licensed out to other companies for years to come, although it was largely used for rebranded films and not original emulsions. GAF 500 was gone forever.
Perhaps thanks to Alien Skin Exposure software, there’s been a renewed interest in GAF 500. Alien Skin has a GAF 500 preset that is supposed to allow you to mimic the aesthetic of the film with your digital images. I’ve used it before, and that’s the closest I’ve come to shooting GAF 500. It’s been awhile since I’ve used Exposure software, so I don’t recall too much about the preset (other than it was grainy). So, for this Film Simulation Recipe, I spent significant time studying whatever I could find on the film. There’s a lot of written information out there, but photographs were hard to come by. Still, I found some, and did my best to emulate the look with my Fujifilm X-E4.
Recreating GAF 500 on my Fujifilm camera was tricky for several reasons. First, I wouldn’t have considered Eterna as the best base (just because it lacks the necessary contrast to emulate a contrasty slide film), but after trying Classic Chrome, PRO Neg. Low, and Eterna Bleach Bypass, I decided to give Eterna a go. Bingo! This one had the right tonality (those “gentle gradations”); however, I do wish that Shadow could be set to +5 to get deeper blacks, but that’s not an option. Another tricky aspect was achieving the warm, reddish/orangish color cast that could still produce a hint of blue in the shadows. Fujifilm cameras aren’t capable of split-toning, so I did my best to approximate this with the white balance; I do wish the shadows were just a little more blue, but it’s not possible without sacrificing the overall warmth. Another challenge was replicating the grain. Fujifilm’s option of Grain Strong Large wasn’t nearly as pronounced as it needed to be, so I set out to supplement it with digital noise using high-ISO. But how high? ISO 1600 wasn’t nearly enough. ISO 3200 wasn’t enough, either. ISO 6400… much closer, but not quite there, either. Should I dare try ISO 12800? Yes, that’s it! More importantly, it looks good, which I had my doubts about.
With slide film, depending on the emulsion, you had to nail the exposure exactly, as the dynamic range was extraordinarily narrow. You didn’t know what you had until you got the film back from the lab (or developed it yourself at home); some frames would be underexposed, some frames would be overexposed, and some frames (hopefully) would be correctly exposed—I found examples of all three when searching for GAF 500 photographs. You can achieve similar aesthetics with this recipe if you want, by either dropping the exposure a little or increasing it a little—the exact look of this recipe will vary some depending on the exposure. While I couldn’t replicate every potential GAF 500 aesthetic with this one recipe, and no recipe will ever be 100% spot-on accurate (because of the limited tools available on the camera, and because the results of one film can vary significantly depending an a whole host of factors), I do believe that this recipe is pretty close to replicating the look and feel of GAF 500 film—at least from the perspective of someone who was born after the film was discontinued, so I never had a chance to use it myself.
Because this “GAF 500” recipe uses Clarity and Color Chrome FX Blue, it is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras, and is not compatible with the X-T3 or X-T30. Those with X-Trans V cameras can also use it, and it should render identically, although I have no first-hand experience to verify that. Those with newer GFX cameras can use it, too, although it will render differently. Because of the ultra high-ISO that’s required, I recommend using your electronic shutter and a small aperture (like f/8, f/11, or even f/16) when shooting in bright light outdoors.
Eterna Dynamic Range: DR100 Highlight: +2 Shadow: +4 Color: 0 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -3 Clarity: -2 Grain Effect: Strong, Large Color Chrome Effect: Off Color Chrome Effect Blue: Strong White Balance: 2900K, +9 Red & -9 Blue ISO: 12800 Exposure Compensation: -2/3 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “GAF 500” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Eat – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Bird Scooters – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Orange Lighter & Abandoned Home – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
FAO JUG – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Why Love? – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Twin Dumpsters – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Garfield – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Overhead Crane – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Oversized Load – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
And So It Begins – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Air Garage & Graffiti – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Can in the Sage – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Suburban Barrel Cacti – Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Double Peace – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Table Roses – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Sunlit Curtain – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Yellow Trumpets & Sunstar – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Bougainvillea Branch in the Blue – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Orange Trumpet Flower Blossoms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
I read a couple of articles over the last several days that bothered me, both of which stated that you must shoot RAW. These articles come up often—it’s nothing new. I’ve written about it before, and even before that. The sentiment of “only amateurs shoot JPEG” and “you really should shoot RAW” get old. Those are tired, worn out statements that are largely based on “truths” that are no longer true. My hope with this article is to simply provide a counter-point. This blog and all of you who use Film Simulation Recipes are a strong testament that speaks louder than this article ever could, so I’ll try to keep it brief.
First, I want to make this very clear: do what works for you. If RAW works for you, do that. If JPEGs work for you, do that. If editing JPEGs works for you, do that. If film works for you, do that. Or any combination of those things or anything else, do that. Whatever you have found that works for you, that’s what you should be doing. If what you are doing isn’t really working for you, try something else. There’s no right or wrong way to do things, just different ways, some of which work for some and some of which work for others. Different strokes for different folks, right?
One reason why I think the “RAW vs JPEG” debate keeps coming up is because more-and-more photography consumers (not photographers, but those who view photographs) detest photo manipulation. Photoshop has become a bad word. Whether it’s a photo contest where the winner exceeded the editing allowed by the rules (and so has their title stripped), or the magazine cover where the girl no longer looks like how they really look, or the picture in the news where things were added or subtracted to change the meaning of the image, or the image that’s just been edited so much that it’s no longer believable—whatever the story, sometimes photography consumers feel that photography is dishonest, and the manipulation of an image equals a manipulation of the one viewing it. There appears to be a lack of honesty by photographers, particularly when they edit so much. You might agree or disagree with this sentiment, but the sentiment is real. I know this because I once defended Steve McCurry’s use of Photoshop, and because of this someone accused me in a college paper of wanting little girls to have low self-esteem.
I think a lot of these “RAW is better” articles and videos stem from a response to this sentiment, which is fine. I don’t blame anyone for trying to defend what they do when someone criticizes it. Trust me, I get it. Where I do have a problem is that many times in the defense of RAW the JPEG photographer is insulted. The argument is, “I have to shoot RAW because JPEGs suck.” Or, “Only amateurs use JPEG.” It’s as if the JPEG shooter must be put down in order to make the RAW shooter feel superior. That’s just lame. Yes, there was a time early in the development of digital camera technology where the straight-out-of-camera JPEG was no good and so RAW really was the only viable option for quality images, but that day has long passed, especially for (but certainly not limited to) those who use Fujifilm cameras. That argument is old and tired and no longer based in truth. It once was true, but now is a myth. Perpetuating that myth helps no one. Insulting people definitely doesn’t help.
Of course, Ansel Adams is always brought into this. Well, he was the darkroom master, so obviously he manipulated his photos to a significant degree. Usually an Ansel Adams quote is included, which proves the point that you should never rely on straight-out-of-camera pictures. Adams never would have. Except this ignores his work with Polaroids—he loved Polaroids, something a lot of people are unaware of. There’s a whole chapter (entitled One-Step Photography) in one of his books where he discusses the benefits of not having to use a darkroom. Ansel Adams is hugely inspirational, and his words are highly motivating, but I don’t think he would be strictly a RAW shooter and staunchly against straight-out-of-camera JPEGs—it is a disservice to the legendary master to just assume he would be against JPEGs.
The real arguments that should be made to defend the use of RAW are these: – It’s my art, and as the artist I get to decide how it’s created. I understand that not everyone will like it, but a lot of people seem to, so I’m going to keep doing it my way. – I capture undeveloped digital images that, like film, must be developed through a process, and I have a specific process for it that works well for me. – Images have been manipulated to create the final picture since the beginning of photography—over 150 years!—so what I’m doing is nothing new and well within the traditions of the art. – I enjoy using photo editing software, and adjusting the pictures is half the fun for me.
Straight-out-of-camera JPEG from my Fujifilm X-E4 using the Positive Film recipe.
Notice how all of those arguments are strong, and none of them insults anyone. Unfortunately, there will always be those who disagree, and you’ll never change their minds. Perhaps just being as honest and straightforward as practical will help. If you swapped the sky with another sky, just say so. If you removed people from the frame, don’t hide that fact. Don’t make the manipulations that you did a big secret, which makes people believe that you’re hiding something from them. Or do keep it a secret—it’s not really any of my business what you do or don’t do, and I don’t really care. It’s your art, after all, so you get to decide what you do and what parts of your process you want to keep a mystery.
My process is straightforward. I program Film Simulation Recipes into my cameras, and I use camera-made JPEGs that are unedited (aside from minor cropping and straightening). While I basically don’t edit anymore, I certainly used to. I used to be a RAW photographer. I used to spend up to 30 minutes on each picture in software. That process worked alright for a time, but my current process works for me now. It saves me so much time, it makes creating photographs more enjoyable, it allows me to be more in-tune with my camera and the scene (because I have to get it right in-the-field or else), and I still get the look I want—the aesthetic I would have made if I had edited a RAW image in software. I love it! But I fully understand that it’s not for everyone. If it works for you, great! If it doesn’t work for you, great! If it works for you sometimes but doesn’t other times, great! You’ve got to do what works for you, and ignore those who say that there’s only one “right” way to do things.
The “RAW vs JPEG” debate needs to end. Photography consumers don’t care how you achieved your picture, except in those cases where people feel that they were duped by a heavily manipulated image. I suggest being upfront about how much editing you did, if you did a lot—but that’s up to you, and is between you and your audience. Otherwise, nobody cares if you shot RAW and edited in-software or if it’s a straight-out-of-camera JPEG, or anything else in-between. One process isn’t better or worse than another—they each have advantages and disadvantages, so it is simply a matter of if what you are doing works for you or not. If it works, that’s awesome! If it doesn’t, then try something else. Mic dropped, debate over.
The Fuji X Weekly App is free, yet becoming a Fuji X Weekly Patron unlocks the best App experience! One benefit of being a Patron is that you get early access to some new Film Simulation Recipes. These Early-Access Recipes will eventually become available free to everyone in time, including this new one. In fact, many Early-Access Recipes have already been publicly published on this blog and the App, so now everyone can use them. Patrons help support Fuji X Weekly and, really, without them there would be no App. So I want to give a special “thank you” to all of the Patrons!
This new “Vintage Eterna” Early-Access Recipe is a bit unusual in that there are actually two recipes: one for the X-H1, X-T3, and X-T30, and another for newer models (X-Pro3 and newer). The premise was simple: what would the Vintage Kodachrome recipe look like if I used Eterna instead of Classic Chrome? As it turns out, it looks alright; however, after I made more modifications, it looks much better! I initially created this on my Fujifilm X-E4, but then I wanted a version for my X-H1, so I made a recipe compatible with that camera, and even used it on my X-T30. If you have an X-H1 or any X-Trans IV camera, you can use the “Vintage Eterna” recipe—just find the one that’s compatible with your model. For those with the X-H2s (or soon-to-be X-H2), you can use the version of this recipe that’s for the newer X-Trans IV cameras, and it should render pretty much identically on X-Trans V, but I haven’t tried it myself to know for certain. If you have a GFX camera, one of these two recipes will work on the model you have, but it will render slightly differently (try it anyway, though).
If you are a Fuji X Weekly Patron, it’s available to you right now on the App!
Fujifilm X-H1, X-T3, & X-T30 — “Vintage Eterna”
Cloud Above Roof – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Summer Blossoms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Sky Vines – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Backlit Leaves of Summer – Fujifilm X-H1
Hummingbird Feeder – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Golden Trumpets – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Yellow Trumpet Flower – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1
Large Stone & Tall Grass – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1 – “Vintage Kodacolor”
This Film Simulation Recipe is called “Vintage Kodacolor” because I was inspired by some old Kodak Kodacolor puzzles that I stumbled across (did you know that Kodak made jigsaw puzzles?). I’m not completely certain which Kodacolor film was used for these puzzles—possibly Kodacolor II—or how much the printing process affected the aesthetic, or even how much the colors have faded and shifted over time. Whatever the case, this recipe does a pretty good job emulating it, and produces a warm vintage-like aesthetic that’s easy to appreciate. There’s some similarities between this and my Kodacolor II 126 recipe.
This recipe has been available on the Fuji X Weekly App as a Patron Early-Access Recipe since December; however, a different Early-Access Recipe has replaced it, so now this one is available to everyone! This isn’t a Film Simulation Recipe that is for every person or every situation, but some of you in the right situations will absolutely love it. I think it is especially good for achieving a vintage look on sunny days and during golden hour.
This “Vintage Kodacolor” recipe is fully compatible with all X-Trans III cameras, plus the Fujifilm X-T3 and X-T30. Those with newer X-Trans IV (and X-Trans V) cameras can use it, too, but you’ll have to decide on Clarity (I suggest 0, or maybe -2), Color Chrome FX Blue (I suggest Off), and Grain size (I would try Large).
Classic Chrome Dynamic Range: DR200 Highlight: +2 Shadow: 0 Color: -4 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -1 Grain Effect: Strong Color Chrome Effect: Off/NA White Balance: 9100K, -4 Red & +4 Blue ISO: Auto up to ISO 12800 Exposure Compensation: -1/3 to +1/3
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Vintage Kodacolor” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-H1 & X-T30:
Tree Behind – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Vintage Phragmites – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Evening Reeds and Sky – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Three Brown Leaves – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Don’t Approach the Great Blue Heron – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Safe Zone – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Sunset Through The Grass – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Evening Light on the Wood – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Flowers No More – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Metal Door – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Cool Dog – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T30
Cardboard Architect – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Holiday Horse Rider – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-H1
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
It’s my pleasure to introduce you to the wonderful photography of Gerardo Celasco! Although you might not have seen his pictures before, there’s a decent chance that you’ve seen Gerardo. He’s a model-turned-actor (among other things, including internationally competing show jumping horse rider, accomplished volleyball player, and financial expert) who does photography as a hobby. He has a lot of talent, and whatever he does he does very well—photography included.
Although he was born in Miami, Gerardo grew up in El Salvador. He later moved to Texas and studied at Southern Methodist University. His home base is now in California, but he frequently travels internationally, and of course brings a camera along—a Fujifilm camera—to capture the moments.
Gerardo is perhaps best known for playing Miguel Lopez-Fitzgerald on the NBC drama Passions from 2006-2007. He also played Carlos Peña in Moneyball, Mark Kovac in two episodes of Bones, Xavier Castillo during Season 5 and 6 of How To Get Away With Murder, Ty Salazar in Next, and Dr. Nick Vega in a recent episode of Good Sam, among other things.
In the coming-soon-to-Netflix series Devil in Ohio Gerardo plays Detective Lopez. We’ll get more into this in a moment, but below you’ll find the trailer, which you should definitely take a moment to watch right now.
Fuji X Weekly: Hey, Gerardo! I’m truly honored for this opportunity to interview you! Let’s begin at the very beginning: where did your early interests in photography come from? Were cameras and pictures a big part of your childhood?
Gerardo Celasco: We didn’t grow up taking a lot of photos in my family and we didn’t have lots of cameras around when my siblings and I were growing up. My dad was an engineer and my mom worked in sales and retail for a shoe company in El Salvador. To this day, we still don’t take many photos when we’re together. When we’re on a trip we always say, “We have to take more group photos!” And since I always have a camera on me, I’m always the one taking the photos so I’m rarely in the pictures.
Fuji X Weekly: How did you get started in photography?
Gerardo Celasco: I got started in photography pretty early on, but not necessarily behind the camera. When I was in high school I was asked to be the model for a campaign in El Salvador. Roberto Aguilar was the most sought out photographer in El Salvador. No one was doing what he was doing, and I got to be in front of his camera several times—it was my first time being in front of the camera. We became really close friends, and I learned so much from watching him work. He moved to Europe and became a professor in France for a few years, and is now living in London. Roberto was my first influence in photography, but I can also say he was my first influence in “performing” as well. I never went to drama school. I have a degree in Finance from Southern Methodist University—a life in entertainment wasn’t really in the cards for me growing up in El Salvador and the son of entrepreneurs.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What made you pursue photography further, take it more seriously?
Gerardo Celasco: This image [above] is my first one that shocked me when I saw it imported into my computer. I believe I shot it with a Leica D-Lux 4. There was no plan—it was on auto—and I got that “bokeh” everyone talks about. I didn’t know how that happened or how to recreate it, so that inspired me to really learn about the art form. I decided to enroll into a UCLA extension course for Photography, and did that for a few months. That’s where I learned about aperture and depth of field and things like that.
Fuji X Weekly: What was your most memorable photography experience?
Gerardo Celasco: I think that first image I shot that shocked me is the most memorable. It’s what inspired all of my other images. I still love the photo so much. It’s very raw, very real. I can feel so much when I see it. It was shot in El Salvador in La Libertad near the beach. It was sticky and damp. The two women were working and cooking on open fire in that heat. Maybe it’s because I was there, but I feel all of that every time I see the image.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What was your first camera?
Gerardo Celasco: My first camera was one of the really small Canon PowerShots. It was a matte silver. I carried that thing everywhere—way before we had cameras in our cellular phones. The list goes on from there: Canon 20D, Leica D-Lux 4, Canon 5D Mark II, Fujifilm X100T, Sony a7, Fuji X-T2, Fuji X-Pro3—that is the trajectory into mirrorless, but more importantly how I found Fuji. I also shoot film with a Canon AE-1 Program, and my everyday—always with me—Olympus Mju II, which always sparks a conversation or a laugh when I pull it out.
Fuji X Weekly: What made you buy your first Fujifilm camera? What do you shoot with now?
Gerardo Celasco: A trip to Morocco with my 5D led me to give up on my entire Canon photography gear. It was so heavy, and was very distracting. You couldn’t really get away with shooting discretely with a camera that size. At the time my good friend, cinematographer and camera/steadicam operator Eduardo Fierro, was a Fuji shooter. His exact words when I complained about my Canon were “Vendé esa mierda y compráte la Fuji” (which means: sell that shit and buy a Fuji!). So that’s what I did, and the X100T was my first Fuji. I now shoot with the X-Pro3, paired with a Fuji 27mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, or 16-55 f/2.8.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What is your favorite aspect of Fujifilm cameras?
Gerardo Celasco: What I love most about the Fuji lineup—other than the obvious size and price—is the menu and the film simulations. The user interface is great and easy to get around. But for me, the film simulations are what really sets it apart from anything else. I don’t do any post editing on my images (because I haven’t learned Capture One or Photoshop), and I shoot everything JPEG (mainly because I don’t know what to do with a RAW file, and have never felt the need for it). Fuji X Weekly is my go to App for Film Simulation Recipes. Funnily enough, I believe that is how we met: I sent you a DM on Instagram, praising all of your Film Simulation Recipes and the RitchieCam App on the iPhone.
Fuji X Weekly: That’s right! I definitely remember that day—it was a nice surprise, and a bit of a shock. By the way, which Film Simulation Recipes do you like best?
Gerardo Celasco: My favorite film simulations are Portra 400, Portra 800, and the Ilford black-and-white ones. I honestly like the output of the Fuji Portra recipes more than the images I get with my film camera using real Portra 400 film—and it’s also cheaper.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: What do you photograph most now?
Gerardo Celasco: I like shooting life, but I don’t like calling it “street photography.” I don’t have a style, and I honestly don’t know what I’m doing most of the time. I just shoot when I’m inspired. And I shoot what seems interesting to me at that moment. But I never have a plan. I just simply shoot, and share my images. I don’t like the pressure of someone asking me to photograph something or an event—I get so much satisfaction in just showing up with a camera and capturing beautiful moments when I haven’t been asked to, and then sharing those moments.
Fuji X Weekly: Who are your photographic influences?
Gerardo Celasco: I don’t have a list of photographers that have influenced me—I can probably only name a handful of them—but it’s not like I’m trying to do what they did. Vivian Maier, Ansel Adams, Garry Winograd, Henri Cartier-Bresson—those names comes to mind without me cheating and looking at my bookshelf.
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: How has your acting career influenced your photography?
Gerardo Celasco: Most people think that being an actor influenced my photography, but what it did was enhance it. Photography (in front or behind the camera), was my first step to becoming an actor—I’ve always felt that photography led me to my acting career. Being on set has made me more comfortable in front of the camera but at the same time it inspires me to want to shoot more. I’m always chatting up the cinematographer or the camera operators when I am on a set—mostly I’m just asking lots of questions about composition and lighting. Those men and women know so much, and I just try to learn and soak up as much as they are willing to share. Their work is what inspires me today.
Fuji X Weekly: Tell me about your upcoming Netflix series, Devil in Ohio.
Gerardo Celasco: Ah. Devil in Ohio! I feel like you and your wife have been patiently waiting for that. I think I was shooting that when I found RitchieCam and we started talking, only to find out you were the same person behind Fuji X Weekly! We’re only a couple weeks away from the premiere day. It will air on Netflix on September 2, and all 8 episodes will be available.
The show is based on a book by the same name written by Daria Polatin. Daria is also the showrunner for the show. The story was inspired by true events, which always makes it more interesting. I would describe it as a family drama meets a suspense/thriller. It has elements of both. Emily Deschanel (who I worked with many years ago on the final episodes of Bones), plays Suzanne Mathis, a Psychiatrist who is caring for an underage girl who has turned up at hospital clearly in distress. No one comes looking for the girl, so Suzanne decides to take her into her home until they can find a family for her. Doesn’t take long to realize that the girl has escaped from a cult, putting the family and their relationships in danger. I play Detective Alex Lopez, who is a transplant from big city Chicago. He’s a fish out of water, and by-the-book, but also has no idea what he’s dealing with by taking on this case. We had a great group of actors, great directors, and an incredible crew. I hope people find it and enjoy it!
Photo by Gerardo Celasco
Fuji X Weekly: Gerardo, thank you so much for taking time out of your day to allow me to interview you—it’s been such a pleasure!
Gerardo Celasco: I’d just like to say thank you for including me in this. I’m a big fan of Fuji X Weekly, and for you to ask me to be a part of it is really cool.
Check out Gerardo Celasco on Instagram (Here and Here)—give him a follow plus “heart” some of his pictures. Mark your calendars now, and be sure to binge-watch Devil in Ohio on September 2nd!
Ice Cold Pepsi – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Kodak Max 800”
This Film Simulation Recipe is modeled after some prints I found in a box that I thought looked interesting. I didn’t initially know what film had been used, but after locating the negatives I discovered it was something called Kodak GT 800-3, and I had no idea what that was. After much sleuthing, I found out it was Kodak Max Zoom 800, also known as Max 800. The film was shot in 2006 (I believe by my wife), and it was the third and final iteration of the emulsion (this version was introduced in 2000). Max Zoom 800 was replaced in 2006 by the similar Max Versatility Plus 800 (which was around for five or six years before its discontinuation).
Kodak made Max 800 film for point-and-shoot and disposable cameras—specifically, they marketed it for point-and-shot cameras with a zoom lens, which exaggerated camera shake. It was a cheap high-ISO consumer color negative film intended for the novice. It had a large latitude for underexposure and (especially) overexposure, but color reproduction was a little different (some have said “bland” or “weird”) when compared to other Kodak films. Kodak intended the film to be printed on Ektacolor Edge paper, but my samples were printed on Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper (which certainly affects the aesthetic)—this recipe is modeled after my samples.
Winter Greenhouse – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Kodak Max 800”
This Kodak Max 800 recipe is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras. Because it uses the Classic Negative film simulation and Clarity, it is not compatible with the X-T3 and X-T30, unfortunately. For those with the X-H2s, it’s my understanding that this recipe is completely compatible and renders near identically, but I have not tested it to know for certain. Those with newer GFX cameras can use it, too, although it will render a little differently.
Classic Negative Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: -2 Shadow: +1 Color: -1 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: -2 Clarity: -4 Grain Effect: Strong, Small Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome Effect Blue: Off White Balance: 7300K, -5 Red & -2 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Kodak Max 800” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Frozen Ponds at a Bird Refuge – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Winter Gate – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Open Gate – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Icy Marshland – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
What Remains of Summer – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Winter Water – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Frozen Marsh Pond – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Nature Trail – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Green Truck – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Santa’s Sled – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Neighborhood Path in Winter – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Trail Closed – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
No Shooting Past the Fence – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Pallets – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Inside Abandoned Shed – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Walking Tunnel – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Farm in the City – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Barnes & Noble Window – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Building Top in Last Light – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Buildings & Palms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Backyard Garden Trumpets – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Illuminated Desert Shrub – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Bell Tower – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Vintage Print”
The Fuji X Weekly App is free, yet becoming a Fuji X Weekly Patron unlocks the best App experience! One benefit of being a Patron is that you get early access to some new Film Simulation Recipes. These Early-Access Recipes will eventually become available free to everyone in time, including this new one. In fact, many Early-Access Recipes have been publicly published on this blog and the App, so now everyone can use them! Patrons help support Fuji X Weekly and, really, without them there would be no App. So I want to give a special “thank you” to all of the Patrons!
This recipe began when my wife suggested that I should try to emulate a certain look that she found. I wasn’t successful, but in my efforts I discovered these settings, which I thought looked interesting nonetheless. They remind me of vintage color prints—not from any specific film or process, but just my “memory color” (as Fujifilm puts it) of some old prints that I’ve seen in the past. It has almost a classic magazine quality to it, or even a bit of a post-card resemblance. Whatever it may or may not look like, it definitely has a vintage-like look that some of you might really appreciate.
All of these pictures were captured using manual vintage lenses, including—actually, mostly—a Helios 44-2. I also used a 5% CineBloom or 10% CineBloom filter with around half of them. I did this to help achieve an analog aesthetic. The use of vintage glass and diffusion filters aren’t required for this recipe, but you are certainly welcome to do so if you want—I think they help a little to take the digital edge off of the pictures.
This “Vintage Print” Early-Access Recipe is compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras. Those with the X-H2s and newer GFX cameras can use it, too (results may vary, though). If you are a Fuji X Weekly App Patron, it’s available to you right now on the Fuji X Weekly App! If you don’t have the App, download it for free today.
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Vintage Print” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Big Storm Looming in the Background – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Lake, House – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Jon Is Happy – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Labyrinth Church – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Saguaro & Dust – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Twin Saguaros – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Saguaro as Seen Through a Saguaro – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Teddy Bear Cholla – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Desert Spikes – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Desert Barrel – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Trumpets Down – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Bright Bougainvillea – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
“We are working on WOW product development.” —Jun Watanabe, Product Planning Group Manager, Imaging Solutions Division, Fujifilm
Fujirumors reported on an article by Digital Camera Life that translated and summarized a video by Map Camera, which featured an interview with Fujifilm Product Planning Manager Jun Watanabe. In addition to the quote above, Jun also said, “I would like to continue working to create ‘WOW’ products with the development team, including me, so that we can meet everyone’s expectations and say, ‘I definitely want to buy this.'”
Before we go any further, I must point out that this seems a little like the “Telephone Game” where one person whispers something into someone’s ear, and that person whispers what they heard into the next person’s ear, and so on, until the last person speaks what they heard, which doesn’t much resemble what the first person whispered. Now add to that a translation of a translation, and we get these quotes by Jun Watanabe, which may or may not be what he actually said. However, for the purpose of this article, we’ll assume that Fujifilm is indeed currently working on products that will make people say “wow”—or at least products that the Product Planning Group thinks will make people say that—and they want to “meet everyone’s expectations” somehow.
There’s a lot to digest, of course. Sometime in the 1400’s, monk and poet John Lydgate stated, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” No one product will “meet everyone’s expectations” but perhaps he simply means that between all of the projects that they’re working on, once they all come out, that there will be a “wow product” for everyone.
Coastal Blooms – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Pacific Blues” recipe
I’m in a unique position here at Fuji X Weekly, because I hear from a lot of Fujifilm photographers—granted, mostly those who shoot with Film Simulation Recipes, which is certainly not everyone with a Fujifilm camera, but a large number nonetheless. I have a pretty good pulse on a large segment of Fujifilm’s customers. I know what would make a lot of their customers say, “I definitely want to buy this!” But Fujifilm has never asked me. I have a lot of valuable feedback that I would be more than happy to give to them, if they’re ever interested.
I think the top two things that would make the Fujifilm photographers in this audience say “wow” are 1) a recommitment to Kaizen updates, and 2) more JPEG options (film simulations and such). For example, the Classic Negative film simulation has more of a wow factor for many of the tens of thousands of people shooting with recipes than the autofocus speed of the X-H2s, and giving that film simulation to the X-T3—the all-time top selling model—via a firmware update is a no-brainer for making your customers happy. I assume, however, that the Product Planning Group is not involved with those things—it’s different departments altogether—so Jun and his gang might completely agree, but it wouldn’t make any difference.
What I thought I’d do with this article, on the off-chance that someone from Fujifilm reads it (maybe even Mr. Watanabe himself), is provide some ideas for “wow” products that Fujifilm photographers would want to buy. These are things that would make people take notice. I don’t think becoming more like another brand is a good way to make people say “wow” (except, perhaps, sarcastically). These are ideas for products that would set Fujifilm apart from the crowd, and not blend in. Ordered from least exciting to most (in my opinion anyway), here’s my list of the 10 “WOW” products that Fujifilm should be making right now!
10. Minimalist Model
Maybe just have this little screen and remove the big one.
The Fujifilm X-E4 is already a “minimalist” camera that people either love or hate, and in some ways Fujifilm wen’t too far, removing too many dials and switches and such. But, what if Fujifilm went even further?
Here’s my idea: no rear screen—just a hybrid viewfinder (maybe like the one in the X-Pro2?). Maybe include the little “box tab” screen of the X-Pro3? No video mode. Incorporate the dual shutter/ISO knob of the X100V. Add back the M/C/S switch. Maybe include a C1-C7 knob (or switch of some kind)? Otherwise, clean and simple. Small and lightweight. This wouldn’t be the X-E5, but a new model altogether, made for the experience of shooting with it.
I’m sure this would not sell like hotcakes, and a lot of people wouldn’t like it, but it would certainly grab headlines. Every camera reviewer would want to get their hands on one, just to try it. A lot of people would want to try it. I would want to try it, and most likely own it. Crazy? Yes. Great? Probably, depending on the design choices—it will be a tough balancing act, though, and making it “just right” won’t be easy.
9. 135mm Lens
135mm focal-length.
Fujifilm has a 90mm prime and a (really large and expensive) 200mm prime, but nothing in-between. I found a vintage Vivitar 135mm lens that I just love using, and it made me wonder why doesn’t Fujifilm have a 135mm prime? They should.
This isn’t something to get carried away with. Should it have OIS (stabilization)? It could, but it definitely doesn’t have to. Should it have a wide maximum aperture? F/2.8 is plenty wide enough. Should it be weather-sealed? Probably, I think that’s more-or-less expected nowadays. This shouldn’t be a $6,000 lens or even a $1,200 lens, but sub-$1,000—maybe around $800-$900.
8. Another Pancake Lens
The 27mm pancake helps make this setup super small and lightweight.
One obvious advantage of APS-C over full-frame is size and weight. A big draw to Fujifilm cameras, from those who in the past shot Canon or Sony or Nikon, is the smaller package. It can be such a pain to lug around big and heavy gear, and after doing that for awhile it’s refreshing to have something less intrusive around your neck. Not only are the cameras smaller and lighter, but the lenses can be, too.
Fujifilm has a number of small and lightweight primes, but only two pancakes: the 18mm f/2 and 27mm f/2.8. The 18mm is long overdue for an update (keep the optics, give it a faster and quieter motor). The 27mm, which was recently updated (but is hard to find because it sells out even before hitting the store shelves), is my personal favorite lens. Why not add another pancake option?
I think there are three potential focal-lengths for the new pancake, but I’m not certain which would be best. My personal top-choice is something longer than the 27mm, perhaps a 40mm f/2.8. This short-telephoto would be good for portraits and walk-around photography. Another option would be something wider than the 18mm, perhaps 14mm (or 15mm) f/3.5. The third option would be something in-between 18mm and 27mm, like maybe 23mm f/2.8. I don’t know which one should be made, but I know that one of them should, because size and weight are a big draw to the system, and having a serious series of pancake lenses would do a lot to emphasis that advantage.
7. GFX100R
This is shape that the GFX100R should have.
I don’t own a GFX camera, but if I did, it would definitely be a rangefinder-styled model. So far, the GFX 50R is the only rangefinder-styled camera in the GFX lineup, and it’s old—almost four years old now. It’s the cheapest GFX model—you can pick one up for $2,850 right now—but maybe it hasn’t sold well, I don’t know (perhaps that’s why it’s the only one). If it has sold at least somewhat well, I think it makes a lot of sense to offer a 100-megapixel updated model with the same sensor as the GFX100S. That for sure would make people say wow!
6. ISOCELL
I captured this picture in 2012 using a Samsung NX200.
This isn’t so much a product as it is a technology. Samsung partnered with Fujifilm to develop the ISOCELL technology that is used in a number of cellphone cameras now. If Fujifilm used a Samsung-made ISOCELL sensor with “Tetra” pixel-binning for X-Trans, that would grab headlines. Imagine a 112-megapixel X-Trans VI sensor that produced 28-megapixel images for high-ISO or extended dynamic range, and otherwise delivered medium-format-like high-resolution pictures. People would take notice!
5. Infrared Camera
Straight-out-of-camera infrared picture on non-converted Fujifilm X-E4.
A number of people want to do IR photography, but the conversion process is invasive and expensive. The only camera-line that makes infrared photography easy is the Sigma SD models, which include a removable IR filter—take the filter off and shoot IR photography, put it back on and shoot normal. I don’t know if that’s particularly practical for Fujifilm, but they could make an already-IR camera model. In fact, Fujifilm did this with the X-T1; however, it was only available for medical purposes, and not sold to the general public.
I don’t think an IR model would need to be the X-T4 (or future X-T5), but something more affordable, like the X-T30 II or future X-T40. Obviously not everyone would go out and buy one, but I think there’d be enough interest to make it worthwhile for Fujifilm to produce. It would certainly be a wow-camera for some photographers.
4. Digital XPan
XPan aspect ratio captured with the RitchieCam App on my iPhone.
The XPan cameras were a joint venture between Fujifilm and Hasselblad, beginning in 1998, that used 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in the 65×24 aspect ratio. While XPan cameras weren’t huge commercial successes, they gained a cult-following—so much so that Fujifilm has included the XPan aspect ratio as an option on the latest GFX models.
My idea is not for a 65×24 crop, but for a camera with a 65×24-shaped sensor. This would require a special-built sensor, which might be both difficult and expensive to procure. I think it would need to be in an X-Pro-like body, and probably should have a fixed-lens… maybe 30mm f/2.8? If it were interchangeable-lens, perhaps it would require two or three special lenses to use the full sensor (for the XPan ratio), or use any other X-mount lens and the camera automatically produces a 3:2 aspect ratio image. To me, the fixed-lens option makes the most sense.
I don’t think a digital XPan camera is especially practical, but it would be a huge headliner. Without a doubt it would make people’s jaws drop, and maybe even their wallets open.
3. X200 (Full-Frame X100)
Imagine this bigger….
I do not see Fujifilm jumping into the full-frame market. It’s crowded, and between X and GFX, Fujifilm can already basically indirectly compete well against it. Still, a lot of people have asked Fujifilm to produce a full-frame line; however, that’s like starting over from scratch, since most of their current X lenses won’t cover the sensor, and the GFX lenses are large and expensive compared to many full-frame options. It would be a huge financial risk that probably wouldn’t pay off. With that said, I do think there’s one full-frame camera that Fujifilm could produce that would be much less risky: the X200, a full-frame version of the X100-series.
It would obviously be bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the X100V. I think the focal-length of the lens should be different, too, so that it is not just the sensor size that separates the X100 line from the X200. Perhaps 50mm? Maybe 30mm? 35mm could be perfect, so it might not be a good idea to mess with it. There should be something more to differentiate the APS-C version from the full-frame, and Fujifilm would have to figure that out.
If Fujifilm did produce this camera, it would for certain have a big wow-factor, and I have zero doubts that people would line up to buy it.
2. X80
Imagine this smaller….
The Fujifilm X70 was doomed from the start. It was announced just three months before the first X-Trans III camera, right when Sony announced that they were not going to produce anymore 16-megapixel APS-C sensors. Fujifilm used their last X-Trans II sensors in this camera (plus the X-E2S), and when supplies ran out, so did this camera. When people asked when they were going to release a successor, Fujifilm stated that the X-Trans III sensor was “too hot” to place inside the tiny X70 body. The closest thing to a successor was the XF10, an inexpensive Bayer model with a PASM dial. But the X70 is much beloved by those who own them—to this day they can be tough to find, and they’re not cheap (don’t expect to find a bargain just because it’s old).
If Fujifilm were to release a real successor to the X70 (which would likely be called X80), it would no doubt be a hit. Smaller, lighter, and more-wide-angle than the X100 series, with the latest technology and JPEG options, would make people look. And buy! I’m confident that this would be a top-seller.
My top recommendation to Fujifilm for a “WOW” product is a monochrome-only camera based on either the X100 or X-Pro line, and called “Acros Edition.” It would basically be Fujifilm’s version of the Leica’s black-and-white-only cameras, like the M Monochrom, M10 Monochrome, and Q2 Monochrom.
What advantages do monochrome-only cameras have over color sensors? For one, all of the pixels are used for luminosity information (not just half, or in the case of X-Trans, 55%), which means more apparent resolution (more detailed image), less digital noise, improved high-ISO performance, and increased dynamic range. You can use color filters with it just like with black-and-white film. And it’s fun and cool. I’d be first in line to buy one, and I’m sure many reading this would be right beside me, as this would be the wow camera of all wow cameras.
I don’t know if any of these 10 product ideas are currently being considered by Fujifilm or not. Their idea of what would make people say “wow” and mine might be two completely different things. Fujifilm’s idea of what might make people say, “I definitely want to buy this,” could be 180º from mine. If Fujifilm should happen to read this, I want to make sure that my ideas were stated, because maybe—just maybe—this could impact future designs in some way. Probably not; however, it’s still fun to dream.
Now it’s your turn! Which of these 10 ideas would you be most excited for? What products would make you go “wow” that I didn’t include in this list? Let me know in the comments!
Back in May, while on a lengthy roadtrip, I stopped in Santa Rosa, New Mexico, for the night. A small town along historic Route 66, Santa Rosa pretty much exists to provide food, fuel, and beds for travelers passing east-and-west through The Land of Enchantment. Like a lot of old Route 66 towns, Santa Rosa has seen better days—there are many abandoned buildings along the highway, and some others that appear to not be far from their inevitable fate of abandonment.
Santa Rosa might be best known for a scene in The Grapes of Wrath, where Tom Joad watches a freight train cross a bridge over the Pecos River. Scars from The Great Depression are still visible if you look hard enough. The biggest tourist attraction is the Blue Hole, a natural swimming pond fed by a vast underground water system. While visiting Santa Rosa, I was asked by locals a couple of times, “Are you here for the Blue Hole?” I guess it’s a big deal, but I didn’t make time to see it.
I did make time to photograph a few of the abandoned buildings. One was an old Exxon gas station. This particular service station offered two grades of gas, two stalls for vehicle maintenance, and two restrooms. You could buy maps or a soda from a vending machine. Inside was an old Dairy Queen sign that I do not believe originated from this particular gas station, but probably another building elsewhere in town, perhaps owned by the same person.
In an empty grass-filled lot next to the gas station I found some old playground equipment. There may have been a campground or RV park there at one time, but the playground is the only thing left. I suppose on hot summer nights, the ghosts who still use the teeter-totter can get a coke from the abandoned Exxon next door.
Exploring and photographing places like this is both fascinating and frightening. It’s like a large time capsule that broke open years before being discovered, now filled with retro nostalgia and haunting decay. You don’t know what you’ll find—what’s hiding behind a corner—and even if there isn’t any danger, it’s still not safe. Going into abandoned buildings is never safe. I do believe that it’s important to photograph these places for several reasons: they’re always changing (due to nature and vandals) and will eventually be completely gone, they offer a glimpse into a previous time that’s long gone and fading from our memories, and to document the way societies deals with unwanted junk from broken lives and broken dreams. As Troy Paiva put it, these places are “steeped in Wabi-Sabi feelings of accepting loss and finding beauty and nobility in decay.”
The sun was low while I was there, preparing to set behind the western horizon—I had about 30 minutes of wonderful “golden hour” light to work with. I used my Fujifilm X-E4 with a Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 lens attached to it to capture these images. The Film Simulation Recipe that I used for these photographs was Kodak Portra 400 v2, which is one of my favorites—the Kodak-like colors and tones are just so lovely—an excellent option for this particular scene and light.
Ring – Santa Rosa, NM – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Kodak Portra 400 v2”
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!
Cotton On – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100V – “Fujicolor Analog”
I was asked to recreate the look of a certain photographer, and I noticed that a lot of their photographs had a Classic Negative aesthetic, so I thought it would be easy to mimic. It turns out that this person shoots a lot of film, including (but not limited to) Fujicolor C200 and various Superia emulsions, as well as digital (but not Fujifilm, as far as I can tell), using RNI and perhaps some other filters or presets. Nothing said what each picture had been captured with, so it became difficult to recreate. After a little frustration, I decided to select only pictures with a certain aesthetic to attempt to emulate—I believe they might have been captured on a Superia emulsion, but they might not have been—they might not even be film! I think I was able to create a pretty close facsimile to this person’s aesthetic… at least one of the many various (but still somewhat similar) looks that this photographer has.
One film can have many different looks, depending on how it was shot, developed, and printed or scanned. I do believe this “Fujicolor Analog” recipe mimics the aesthetic of a Fujifilm color negative film, but which exact film, and how handled, is uncertain. What is certain is that this is a very nice recipe that some of you will love! This Film Simulation Recipe was a Fuji X Weekly App Patron Early-Access Recipe; however, a different recipe has replaced it, and so now it’s available to everyone!
Noble Fir – Kaysville, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Because this recipe uses Classic Negative, Color Chrome FX Blue, and Clarity, it is only compatible with the Fujifilm X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II cameras (and likely the X-H2s, too, although I have not tested it). I believe those with newer GFX cameras can also use it, although it will likely render slightly different. Unfortunately, it is not compatible with the X-T3 and X-T30 or older cameras.
Classic Negative Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: -1 Shadow: 0 Color: -3 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpness: 0 Clarity: -3 Grain Effect: Weak, Small Color Chrome Effect: Strong Color Chrome Effect Blue: Strong White Balance: 6900K, -5 Red & +5 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: 0 to +1 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Fujicolor Analog” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X100V & Fujifilm X-E4 cameras:
Main St Market – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Backlit Bougainvillea Flower – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Cloud Behind Trees – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Pine Trunk – Kaysville, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Burly Ladder – Kaysville, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Red Lights – Kaysville, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Utah Reeds – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Pine in the Sky – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Withering Blooms – Orem, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Peaks Above The Gap – Orem, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Arts – Draper, UT – Fujifilm X100V
Stop Spreading Germs – Draper, UT – Fujifilm X100V
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!
Evening on Main – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – “Eterna Bleach Bypass”
The Fuji X Weekly App is free, yet becoming a Fuji X Weekly Patron unlocks the best App experience! One benefit of being a Patron is you get early access to some new Film Simulation Recipes. These early-access recipes will eventually become available free to everyone in time, including this new one. In fact, many early-access recipes have already been publicly published on this blog and the App, so now everyone can use them. Patrons help support Fuji X Weekly and, really, without them there would be no App. So I want to give a special “thank you” to all of the Patrons!
I was challenged by Thomas Schwab to create a Film Simulation Recipe that mimics the aesthetic of the picture in the background of Dan Bailey’s YouTube video discussing the Eterna Bleach Bypass film simulation. There were some challenges, including limited samples (which were viewed on a YouTube video), and the fact that I now live in Arizona and not Utah (no access to majestic snow-capped mountain scenes), but I do believe that I got in the ballpark. This is essentially a “black-and-white” recipe for color photography—capable of producing dramatic near-monochrome images.
Pacific Photographer – Pismo Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Because this “Eterna Bleach Bypass” recipe uses the Eterna Bleach Bypass film simulation, it is only compatible with those cameras that have it, which are the Fujifilm X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II. I do believe that this recipe is fully compatible with X-Trans V (currently the X-H2s), but I have not tested it yet to know for certain. Those with newer GFX cameras can also use it, although it will likely render slightly different.
If you are a Fuji X Weekly Patron, this recipe is available to you right now on the App!
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this “Eterna Bleach Bypass” on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Suburban Roof Abstract – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
CVS – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Climbing a Wall – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Wall Details – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Bougainvillea & Building Storm – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
Clouds Above Mesa – St. George, UT – Fujifilm X-E4
Crashing Wave Along Coast – San Simeon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4
Backyard Garden Sunbeams – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4
This article is a follow-up to my Instagram is Dying — For Photographers article that I published last month. It won’t apply to everyone reading this. If you have an Instagram “professional account” or have considered changing to one, this post is for you. Specifically, I wanted to look at what happens when you tap “Boost post”—an option only available for pro accounts—and find out if it’s worthwhile to do. What’s the process? How much does it cost? What do you get in return? Is it worth it?
To start with, I don’t recommend switching to a professional account on Instagram unless you really “need” to. The moment I switched to a pro account, my engagement dropped in half. You do get tools, such as analytics, and various other features in the “Professional Dashboard” to help you build your brand, but, unless you feel those things are necessary, I’d steer clear of switching. Meta basically says that the pro account will help you, but then they handicap you and want you to pay them money to solve it. I have had no interest in giving them my money—I simply want Instagram to show my posts to my followers, but that’s obviously not happening. After publishing that other article and reading all the feedback, I thought it would be worth exploring “Boost post” because there are probably many others who feel similarly, and are wondering if it’s worthwhile to try or just another scammy thing that Meta is doing.
Before I get into this, I think it’s worth going over some of the statistics. I’ve discovered that over the last year my Instagram posts tend to fall into one of four categories. About 50% of my posts get minimal engagement (likes, comments, etc.) and are seen by 15%-25% of my followers. About 30% of of my posts get moderate engagement and are seen by 40%-50% of my followers. About 15% of my posts get strong engagement and are seen by 60%-75% of my followers. About 5% of my posts get exceptional engagement and are seen by 85%-100% of my audience. If Instagram simply showed my posts to more of my followers, they’d get more engagement. Some of you might only see 5% of my posts. Half of you might only see one-in-three posts. I think only about 15% of my followers see all of my posts, which is crazy. You might notice similar statistics with your posts and your followers.
Under each of my posts, Instagram has a “Boost post” icon that taunts me. It’s intended to do that. “If you just press me, all your followers will see this post,” it says. But is that true? I didn’t know. I assumed, but I was ignorant, and I didn’t want to be ignorant. So I tapped it.
When you tap “Boost post” you are presented with three options: more profile visits, more website visits, and more messages. Under your boosted post, which is actually a sponsored ad, is a call-to-action button that will do one of three things, depending on the “goal” you select. I get about 50 messages a day on Instagram already, so I took that option off the table immediately. I ended up running two sponsored ads, and selected “more profile visits” for one and “more website visits” for the other. More profile visits is a call-to-action to visit your Instagram profile. Once there, I have no idea what people do, but they’re apparently taking a look at you. More website visits is a call-to-action to click a link to whatever website you want people to go to (I chose RitchieCam.com). More messages is a call-to-action to get direct messages on Instagram, I assume.
After that, you’ll be asked to “define your audience” so that Instagram knows who to show your ad to. You can select Automatic (“people like your followers”), or Create your own. I chose the latter for both posts. With that, you have to select the interest of those you want to target. Fujifilm is an option and photography is an option, but straight-out-of-camera, JPEG, and film simulation recipes are not—in other words, it’s more broad, and popular brands and common interests are what you have to choose from. Then, you have to select where those people live. I tried United States, but that was too large of a group apparently, so I had to narrow it down by state—you can select about 10-15, depending on the populations of those states. I’m sure smaller countries could have been chosen. You could select specific cities, too. I don’t like how Instagram set this up, but maybe it would work well for you, I guess depending on your situation. For most people, I imagine that Automatic is likely the best option.
Lastly, you have to select your budget ($5, $7, $20, and custom) and duration (1 to 30 days, or indefinitely until paused). For the first post I chose $5 each day for 5 days ($25 total), with an estimated reach of 4,000 to 10,000. The second post I selected $7 each day for 6 days ($42 total), with an estimated reach of 6,300 to 16,000. Tap “Next” to review, and your ad goes live. You can pay with a credit card or PayPal, which you setup the first time through.
So, how did my boosted posts (a.k.a. sponsored ads) go?
The first one, which had the goal of profile visits, was one of those 5% posts with tons of engagement. Unfortunately, when you boost a post, Instagram doesn’t tell you if the accounts reached were followers or non-followers (like they do otherwise), which was disappointing to learn. My suspicion is that they showed it to more followers plus more non-followers—a combination. This post reached over 37,000 people (I have 26K+ followers), so my assumption is that Instagram showed pretty close to 100% of my followers this post, plus 11K non-followers. That’s excellent! I wish all of my posts got this attention. However, Instagram claims that only 5% (less than 2K) saw this post as a result of the ad (less than half the reach that Instagram estimated). And, only 64 people viewed my profile as a result of the call-to-action, which is a small number (I think) for $25. I have no idea if any of those 64 learned of Film Simulation Recipes or followed me or anything else. Was this a rare “exceptional engagement” post because of the ad or in spite of it? I have no idea—I really didn’t get any answers.
The second one, which had a goal of website visits, was one of those 30% posts with moderate engagement. This post reached 15,000 people, and (just guessing) 10K-11K might have been followers. Instagram claims that 26% (less than 4K) saw this post as a result of the ad (significantly less than Instagram estimated). There were (supposedly) 52 people who visited my website as a result of the call-to-action, which isn’t a lot for the $42 spent. I have no way to know if that led to anything further.
I would have to boost a lot more posts to gain any real data to draw any conclusions. The odds are that one of these two posts “should have been” in the common 50% category that receive minimal engagement and views, but neither were. There were three other posts—one before the first ad, one in-between, and one after the second ad—two of which had minimal engagement (seen by less than 25% of my followers), and one had moderate engagement (seen by about 50% of my followers). It makes me think that Instagram does show your boosted posts to more of your followers, but I cannot say that with certainty, or give any kind of guess on how many it might be. It would be great if Instagram had that as an option: show post to all followers. Maybe charge $5 for that. But, that’s not an option. I do find it interesting that one ad was a top-30% post and the other was a top-5% post, so I do believe that boosting a post does just that—boosts a post. Imagine that. But I really don’t feel that the $67 I paid did much of anything other than that.
I think it was good to try, but I don’t think I’ll do it again. I paid about 40¢ per profile visit for the fist ad, and I paid about 80¢ per website visit for the second ad. That’s probably a decent price (cost-per-click) for digital advertisements, but definitely not something that I want to pay—maybe if I was selling something expensive it would be worthwhile. I just want Instagram to show my posts to my followers, and I do think boosting a post does that to a degree, but it’s an expensive way to do it, and not really “worth it” in my opinion.
This video is the viewer submitted photographs from SOOC Season 02 Episode 06. Yes, your wonderful pictures! The recipe-of-the-month was Fujicolor Pro 400H. I hope that you enjoyed shooting with it! Thank you to everyone who shared their images, to everyone who participated, and to everyone who tuned in!
For those who don’t know, SOOC is a monthly live video series, with each episode focused on a different Film Simulation Recipe. It is a collaboration between Tame Your Fujifilm (Fujifilm X-Photographer Nathalie Boucry) and Fuji X Weekly (Ritchie Roesch). SOOC is a fun and educational experience where we not only talk about Fujifilm camera settings, but also answer your questions and give tips and tricks. Basically, we’re trying to help you master your Fujifilm camera, with a focus on simplifying your photographic workflow.
If you missed Episode 06 when it was live, you can watch it now (below):
The current recipe-of-the-month is Vintage Agfacolor. My recommendation with this recipe is to go dark by decreasing the exposure a little. Embrace the deep shadows! Vintage Agfacolor is compatible with X-Trans III cameras. If you have an X-T3 or X-T30, simply set Color Chrome Effect to Off. If you are using an X-Pro3 or newer camera, you’ll have to additionally set Color Chrome FX Blue to Off, Clarity to 0, and choose either Grain size Small or Large (your choice). Remember to upload your images (click here) captured with the Vintage Agfacolor recipe by September 6th to be shown in the next broadcast, which will be on September 8th (mark your calendars now).
This is a complete aside, but my daughter, Joy, is really into animation. She’s still learning. She hopes to be an animator someday. She animated a little clip for Fuji X Weekly (below). She also made a short animation using the FlipaClip App as part of a remix challenge (FlipaRemix), which I’ve also included below. If you’re familiar with Studio Ghibli’s Howl’s Moving Castle, it should be instantly recognizable (yes, that’s Billy Crystal’s voice…).
