This is a one-year photo-a-day project called 52 Weeks of Photography. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m taking it one week at a time, because it’s a little easier to manage many small blocks than one large chunk. This is the 10th week, so the 10th set of seven images. I can’t believe that I’m nearly 1/5th finished!
The reason why I’m doing this 365 Day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images last year. I didn’t pick up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping that this will help.
Ford Falcon – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment. And maybe when the whole project is complete, there will be 12 significant pictures (out of the 365) that I’m particularly proud of.
A lot of personal things came up this week. There were a couple of time that I thought I was going to fail. Somehow I managed to photograph each day, and I think it is because of the habits formed during the first nine weeks—if the same obstacles had presented themselves earlier in the project, I’m confident that I wouldn’t have completed it. Because those habits had cemented themselves already, it helped tremendously. Life happens, so I built into this project two days that can be missed. At some point I know that I’ll need to use those, but I’d rather save them for later if possible, and thankfully it was possible.
Below are the 10th set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
This is a one-year photo-a-day project called 52 Weeks of Photography. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m taking it one week at a time, because it’s a little easier to manage many small blocks than one large chunk. This is the ninth week, so the ninth set of seven images.
The reason why I’m doing this 365 Day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images last year. I didn’t pick up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping that this will help.
Mill – Queen Creek, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
I have some big projects in the works, and made good progress on them during this week. I can’t wait to share them with you! In the meantime, there are a lot of “Upcoming Recipe” placeholders. I hope you don’t mind.
Below are the ninth set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
Tuesday, February 18th, 2025
Curved – Goodyear, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
Purportedly, Fujifilm is about to shake up the medium-format world with their upcoming 100mp fixed-lens GFX camera: GFX100RF. This upcoming model, rumored to be priced around $5,000, will feature a high resolution 100mp sensor paired with a fixed 35mm f/4 lens (28mm full-frame-equivalent, or 18.5mm APS-C-equivalent). Apparently, it will be about the same size as an X-Pro model. While this might sound like a dream camera for some, others may wonder whether it’s actually a good value—will it even be worthwhile at that price point. Let’s talk about this.
I want to start with this disclaimer: I don’t have any inside information on the upcoming camera. Fujifilm hasn’t shared anything about it with me, not even if there is a camera forthcoming, or if any camera is forthcoming. I only know as much as the next person, and what I do know I read on Fujirumors. Patrick has a pretty solid track record, so there’s a good chance that everything he has shared about the camera is correct, but until it is announced by Fujifilm, nothing can be known with 100% certainty. In other words, anytime that we’re discussing rumors, it should be taken with a grain of salt. We will all know everything when it is announced in March, and, until then, it’s only speculation.
Some might see the upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF camera as a fantastic value. Not all that long ago, a digital medium-format camera would set you back at least $10,000, if not $30,000 or even $60,000. When Pentax released the 50mp 645Z in 2014 at “only” $8,500, it shocked the camera world because it seemed to be impossibly inexpensive for what it was. Beginning in 2017, Fujifilm basically took things a step further, and in the process became the leader in medium-format, by offering the GFX50S and GFX50R for $6,500 and $4,500 respectively. Since then, prices have continued to come down while the capabilities of these cameras have increased.
The Fujifilm GFX100S II has an MSRP of $5,000. It has the same sensor and processor as the upcoming GFX100RF. A couple advantages of the GFX100S II are that it is an interchangeable-lens model, and it has IBIS; some disadvantages are that it is much bigger/heavier, it requires the purchase of a lens, and it is PASM (not the traditional Fujifilm tactile controls). Essentially, you exchange IBIS for a lens, and get a retro-styled body about the size of an X-Pro3. The most similar lenses in the GF lineup are the 30mm f/3.5 (closest focal-length) and 50mm f/3.5 (closest size), which cost $1,700 and $1,000 respectively. An argument can be made that the GFX100RF is an excellent value at “only” $5,000, considering that the lens is included.
The big advantage of the upcoming camera is, of course, size and weight, and the retro design. My speculation is that it will be the thinest ever digital medium-format body/lens combination, and maybe even the “smallest” (depending on exactly how one defines that). Comparisons will be made to the Hasselblad 907X (plus CFV 100C back) with the 45mm f/4 or 28mm f/4 lens, which is much more expensive at over $9,000 (interestingly, the Hasselblad does not have IBIS, and we’re talking about f/4 lenses…).
I think a lot of the complaints circling the internet about the upcoming GFX100RF are from those who were unlikely to buy the camera in the first place. There was always going to be an excuse. It doesn’t have IBIS. The maximum aperture is too small. It has a fixed lens. The cost is too much. If only the engineers had pulled off miracle after miracle after miracle, then they would purchase. But since the designers were limited to things like reality, what a stupid camera that nobody will buy! Of course, I disagree with that completely.
Oak Creek – Sedona, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Nostalgia Negative
The lack of IBIS will deter some, no doubt. There’s a myth that more megapixels make camera shake more noticeable, but that’s simply not true. A blurry picture is blurry no matter the resolution, and a sharp picture is sharp no matter the resolution. The same rules for achieving sharp photos apply exactly the same to 10mp as 100mp. But that doesn’t mean IBIS isn’t a useful feature that’s worthwhile to have. Some see it as essential, and the lack of it on the GFX100RF will prevent them from purchasing; however, I don’t see this as a big issue for most potential buyers.
Also, the f/4 lens is not especially exciting. This maximum aperture is not uncommon on GFX lenses, and produces a depth-of-field similar to f/2 on APS-C. People looking at it from an APS-C or full-frame perspective might find it shocking, but those in the medium-format world will see it as pretty normal, similar to how f/2 is common for the X-series.
The proper take, in my opinion, is that this camera isn’t for everyone, or even for most. The GFX system as a whole is not for everyone, or even for most. The vast majority of photographers don’t need a GFX camera. Some do, and it is available for them. Some don’t, yet enjoy the system anyway. For the majority, the X-system is a better option, in terms of value, enjoyment, size, and even capabilities. It’s not “trash” or “dumb” just because you personally don’t need it, or because it doesn’t have all of the specs that you wished it would, or because it is priced above what you can reasonably pay for a new camera. I think it’s ok to say, “That camera will be nice, but it’s not for me.”
So, then, who will the GFX100RF be for? First, it will be compelling for those who want a compact and lightweight medium-format camera. The size/weight aspect alone will make it desirable. This camera will be great for roadtrips and exploring, something that the other GFX models are not especially ideal for. I suspect that a significant group of GFX owners will buy it as a second camera for this purpose. Second, it will be for those who prefer retro styling and traditional tactile controls. The only other retro GFX camera is the 50R, which is long-discontinued and approaching seven-years-old. While that camera was considered a bit of a sales flop, it has since gained a cult-like following. Retro for Fujifilm isn’t just about trendy styling, it’s about functionality and fun. Third, it will be seen by some as the long-overdue and long-hoped-for successor to the Fujifilm X70, which has grown in popularity over the last several years. The upcoming camera is certainly not a direct followup to the X70, but I think there are enough similarities that some will see it as a spiritual successor nonetheless. Fourth, it will be seen as a larger-sensor X100-like camera, so some of the hype of the X100VI will carry over to the GFX100RF. Fifth, it will serve as a gateway into GFX. The X100-series has been a lot of people’s introduction to Fujifilm; likewise, the GFX100RF will be some people’s first GFX camera. This is because it’s an all-in-one model, and no further investment is needed to get started. It’s a way to dip your toes into the pool before deciding if you want to jump all the way in. Between those five groups, I suspect that sales will be strong, but only time will tell just how well it does.
I really hope for conversion lenses—both wide and telephoto—like the X100-series has. I highly doubt that the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 will work on it (although it would blow my mind if they somehow did), but something similar should be made for the GFX100RF. A 0.9x wide-converter (25mm full-frame-equivalent, or 16.5mm APS-C-equivalent) or 0.8x wide-converter (22mm full-frame-equivalent, or 14.5mm APS-C-equivalent), and a 1.4x teleconverter (39mm full-frame-equivalent, 26mm APS-C-equivalent), would make the camera much more compelling. If these two conversion lenses were $500 or less each, and a compact three-lens “system” was possible for only $6,000, that would make it seem like a better bargain.
While some are suggesting that the price will cause the upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF to be a bust, I really don’t think that will be the case; however, GFX is a niche line, and sales figures will never approach that of the X-series. It won’t sell nearly as many copies as the X100VI, or X-M5, or X-T5, etc.. But will it prove to be profitable? I’m pretty confident that it will. And if it is, I’m hopeful that it will convince Fujifilm to begin work on the GFX100R, a long-overdue successor to the GFX50R. If this camera does well, it might bring with it a whole new era of retro-style medium-format cameras.
Yellow Brush, Pink Sand – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II + 80mm f1.7 – Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired
This is a one-year photo-a-day project called 52 Weeks of Photography. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m taking it one week at a time, because it’s a little easier to manage many small blocks than one large chunk. This is the eighth week, so the eighth set of seven images.
The reason why I’m doing this 365 Day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images last year. I didn’t pick up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping that this will help.
GFX100S II & 30mm – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T4 & 90mm f/2 – Reggie’s Portra
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
I wasn’t especially productive or unproductive this week. There are a handful of photographs that I really like, and a fair number of mediocre ones. I do feel that grabbing a camera and making pictures daily is becoming more natural—I believe the habit is setting in; however, I do need to press myself to be more creative on some days.
Below are the eighth set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
Tuesday, February 11th, 2025
Cat Under Arch – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
Wednesday, February 12th, 2025
Night Owl – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 30mm f/3.5 – Kodak Tri-X 400
Thursday, February 13th, 2025
Leaf on a Wet Windshield – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
Friday, February 14th, 2025
Seat Stripes– Surprise, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
Saturday, February 15th, 2025
Light on a Dark Wall – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 & 27mm f/2.8 – RedScale
There’s been a lot of discussions about the rumored upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF, which might get announced next month. Supposedly, it will be a compact 100mp medium-format fixed-lens camera similar to the X100-series and about the size of an X-Pro3. It won’t have IBIS, and the lens will be 35mm f/4, which are major points of contention for some. I figured that this might be a good opportunity to explore if those two design choices will be crippling for the camera, or if it is much ado about nothing.
I don’t have any inside information on the upcoming camera. Fujifilm hasn’t shared anything about it with me, not even if there is a camera forthcoming. I only know as much as the next person, and what I do know I read on Fujirumors. Patrick has a pretty solid track record, so there’s a good chance that everything he has shared about the camera is correct, but until it is announced by Fujifilm, nothing can be known with 100% certainty. In other words, anytime that we’re discussing rumors, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Personally, I’m really excited for the GFX100RF. I believe that an X100-like GFX camera is going to be a major success for Fujifilm. While I don’t anticipate it being as viral as the X100VI, I do think it will have strong demand. It’s also about time that Fujifilm offers a GFX camera with manual tactile controls (is not PASM). The only other one is the long-discontinued GFX50R. If the GFX100RF is a big success, I bet that Fujifilm will begin work on a long-hoped-for GFX50R successor. If sales of the GFX100RF turn out to be disappointing, I don’t anticipate a retro-styled GFX camera for a long time, if ever. In my opinion, this is a crucial release, a lot hinges on it.
Fujifilm GFX100S II & Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5 at f/4 – PRO Negative 160C
The upcoming GFX100RF will essentially be the digital version of the Fujifilm GA645W, a fixed-lens 120 film camera from the 1990’s. The GA645W has a 45mm f/5.6 lens, which is 25mm full-frame-equivalent, and with a depth-of-field similar to f/3.2. The GFX100RF will have a 35mm f/4 lens, which is 28mm full-frame-equivalent, and with a depth-of-field similar to f/3.2. It’s not quite as wide as the GA645W, but pretty close. The Fujifilm X70, with its 18.5mm (28mm full-frame-equivalent) lens, might also be considered comparable.
Some people have said that f/4 is much too small for a maximum aperture on the upcoming GFX camera, since f/4 is not especially impressive. Unfortunately, a larger maximum aperture lens would require the camera to be bigger and heavier. Would an f/2.8 lens be nice? For sure, yes. But, at what cost? I’m sure Fujifilm was faced with a lot of difficult choices as they developed the prototype, and as they weighed the pros and cons, they made what they felt were the best decisions. So we have f/4, which is not uncommon for GFX. I count six GF lenses in the current lineup with a maximum aperture of f/4, plus two at f/3.5, and four with a maximum aperture smaller than f/4. Only five GF lenses have a maximum aperture larger than f/3.5. The decision to go with f/4 should not be all that surprising, and I doubt many—if any—in the GFX world were shocked by it.
Fujifilm GFX100S II at ISO 6400 & Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5 at f/4 – Kodak Tri-X 400
GFX cameras are good for high-ISO photography. It’s kind of a paradox of digital medium-format: it’s good that it’s better at high-ISOs, because you’re going to need it, since the maximum apertures are typically not as large as smaller sensor formats. There are pros and cons to everything. Unsurprisingly, you’re going to find tradeoffs. It is what it is.
Not all Fujifilm cameras have in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS), but most of the GFX models do (only the original two don’t). There are a couple of situations where IBIS is especially helpful, plus a few where it can be nice to have. One is video. IBIS is not a requirement for video, but it is particularly convenient when handholding without a gimbal. Another is telephoto lenses. The longer the lens, the more useful IBIS is. Low-light situations without a tripod is an example of when it can be nice to have. For many circumstances, IBIS is not particularly necessary, especially for wide-angle lenses. Some who say that they need IBIS might discover that their photography wouldn’t suffer if it was turned off—they’re not giving themselves enough credit for how well they can hold still.
Fujifilm GFX100S II at 1/20 & Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5 at f/16 – Kodak Tri-X 400
The rule of thumb is that, without IBIS, whatever the focal length of the lens is (or in the case of Fujifilm cameras, the full-frame-equivalent focal length), the minimum shutter speed should be a similar number. For example, if the X-series lens is 16mm, which is 24mm full-frame-equivalent, the slowest hand-held shutter speed is around 1/25. If the lens is 90mm, which has a full-frame-equivalent focal length of 135mm, the slowest hand-held shutter speed is around 1/125. With good techniques, you can often get a sharp picture with even slower shutter speeds. For the GFX100RF, with its 35mm lens (28mm full-frame-equivalent), the slowest hand-held shutter speed will be about 1/30.
There’s a myth floating around that IBIS is more necessary with 100mp sensors than with lower-resolution sensors. That’s simply not true. More resolution does not equal a bigger need for IBIS in order to get sharp photographs. A 100mp sensor has no more or less of a need for IBIS than a 12mp sensor. A sharp photo is a sharp photo no matter the resolution, and a blurry image is blurry no matter the resolution. The myth is false, and not based on reality.
Fujifilm GFX100S II at 1/25 & Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5 at f/9 – Superia Negative
Massive crop from the above photo
I put all of this to the test yesterday. Obviously, I don’t have access to a GFX100RF. I’m sure some people have it in their hands right now, but I don’t. I do own a GFX100S II and a Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5 lens (which doesn’t have OIS). So I turned IBIS off. I kept the aperture at f/4 or smaller. I did my best to simulate the upcoming camera, although the GFX100S II is much larger and heavier, and with PASM. The 30mm lens is 24mm full-frame-equivalent (16mm on X-series), so a little wider than what the GFX100RF will have.
The f/4 maximum aperture wasn’t a major issue. Wide-angle photography is not known for shallow depths-of-field. While it is possible to achieve a shallow depth-of-field, I don’t anticipate this being a major selling point of the camera. I imagine that “f/8 and be there” will be a much more typical shooting philosophy. In low-light situations, I did have to increase the ISO higher than I would have had to if I had used my X-series gear, but thankfully the camera does well with high-ISO.
I tested handholding the camera at slow shutter speeds. Unsurprisingly, I consistently achieved sharp photographs at 1/25, with probably a 90% success rate. At 1/20, the success rate was closer to 60%. At 1/15, the success rate was probably 30%. I was able to get one sharp photo at 1/13. Because the lens on the GFX100RF will be a little less wide-angle, the shutter speed should be increased slightly. I suspect that it will be roughly a 90% rate at 1/30, 60% at 1/25, 30% at 1/20, and maybe 10% at 1/15. Obviously, results will vary from person-to-person, depending on your technique and ability to hold still.
Fujifilm GFX100S II at 1/13 & Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5 at f/4 – Superia Negative
Massive crop from the above photo
While IBIS would have been a nice feature, I don’t think its exclusion is a major issue. I’m sure it was a compromise in order to keep the size, weight, and price down. This camera—like every other camera that’s ever been made—is not for everyone. It has advantages and disadvantages. It will be especially great for some situations and use-cases, and not so much for others. Personally, I plan to buy it; however, probably not on the announcement day. Like the GFX100S II, I’ll have to save up and probably sell some gear in order to afford it. I think it’s going to be a lot of fun, so I’m excited to try it someday when the opportunity comes.
This is a one-year photo-a-day project called 52 Weeks of Photography. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m taking it one week at a time, because it’s a little easier to manage many small blocks than one large chunk. This is the seventh week, so the seventh set of seven images.
The reason why I’m doing this 365 Day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images last year. I didn’t pick up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping that this will help.
Oak Creek – Sedona, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Nostalgia Negative
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
I had one especially productive day, and six that were much less so; however, overall I felt better about Week 7 than I did about Week 6. On the days with fewer photographs, I tried to push myself to be a bit more creative and intentional. Still, I know that I could have done better, so I need to keep at it, keep pressing forward.
Below are the seventh set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
Shutter speed simply controls the amount of time that light is exposed to the camera’s sensor. How motion is rendered—either frozen still or as a blur—will depend on the shutter speed. There are a few key things to know, but overall this is all fairly easy to understand.
Before we dive in, I want to quickly revisit aperture, because there’s something I forgot to mention in Part 1. How sunstars and lens flare will appear depends on a number of factors, including (among other things) the aperture you’ve selected. For more pronounced sunstars, use a small aperture, such as f/16. If you want to minimize sunstars and lens flare, use a large aperture, such as f/2. This is just one more factor to consider when choosing the most appropriate aperture for the scene in front of you.
Forest Sunstar – Sedona, AZ – Fujifilm X-T50 & Fujinon 23mm f/2 lens at f/14 – California Summer
Now, with that out of the way, let’s talk about shutter speeds. What is it? What does it do to your pictures? How do you control it to get the images that you want?
The quick and simple definition of shutter speed is that it is the amount of time the camera’s shutter curtain is open, allowing light to reach the sensor or film. A fast shutter speed allows very little light to expose the sensor, while a slow shutter speed allows a lot of light in. Shutter speed is one of three elements of the exposure triangle, along with aperture and ISO, and must be used in balance with the other two elements. On many Fujifilm cameras, the shutter speed is controlled by a knob on the top of the camera, marked with numbers like 125, 250, 500, etc., etc..
Some common shutter speeds are 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250 and 1/500. There are, of course, many other shutter speeds, this is far from a comprehensive list. 1/15 is an example of a slow shutter speed, and 1/500 is an example of a quick shutter speed. You’ll note that these are fractions, as in fractions of a second. You’ll also note that they’re half or twice as long as the shutter speed on either side, which means that 1/60 lets in half as much light as 1/30, and 1/15 lets in twice as much light as as 1/30. Like aperture, there are intermediate stops in-between the full stops—most commonly one-third stops, but sometimes half-stops.
Shutter speed is about motion, either freezing or showing it. A slow shutter speed will show motion as a blur, while a fast shutter speed will freeze it. In the first picture below, which was captured with a 1/450 shutter speed, you’d never know that the car was zooming by, because the motion was frozen. The second picture below, which was captured with a 1/80 shutter speed, shows the motion through the car’s blur. The third picture below, which was captured with a 1/60 shutter speed, shows the motion through panning, where the car is sharp but the background blurred from the sweeping lens.
In order to freeze motion, there are a few considerations: the focal length of the lens, the distance of the moving object, and it’s speed. The longer the focal length of the lens, the faster the minimum shutter speed needs to be; the shorter the focal length, the slower the minimum shutter speed needs to be. The closer and faster the moving object is, the faster the shutter speed needs to be; the further and slower the moving object is, the slower the shutter needs to be in order to freeze it.
If nothing is moving in the frame, the only motion is the photographer. A tripod will eliminate camera shake; if you don’t have a tripod, in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS) or optical-image-stabilization (OIS) can help to a degree. If your gear doesn’t have stabilization, you’ll want to use this rule of thumb: whatever the focal length of the lens is (or in the case of Fujifilm cameras, the full-frame-equivalent focal length), the minimum shutter speed should be a similar number. For example, if the lens is 18mm, which has a full-frame-equivalent focal length of 27mm, the slowest hand-held shutter speed is around 1/30. If the lens is 90mm, which has a full-frame-equivalent focal length of 135mm, the slowest hand-held shutter speed is around 1/125. With good techniques, you can often get a sharp picture with even slower shutter speeds, but that takes practice.
Fujifilm GFX100S II & Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 – f/9, ISO 320, 1/680 shutter – 1970’s Summer
In order to freeze motion, for portraits, events, kids, and pets, I recommend a minimum shutter speed of 1/125, but faster is better, such as 1/250. For sports and moving wildlife, the minimum shutter speed should be 1/250, but faster is better, such as 1/500. If the motion is blurry, increase the shutter speed. In order to show motion as a blur, the maximum shutter speed will likely need to be under 1/125, and probably under 1/30, just depending on the situation. If the blur is insufficient, decrease the shutter speed.
Another shutter speed consideration is in regards to flash photography. Some cameras, such as the X100-series, have a leaf shutter, which allows for high-speed flash sync; however, most cameras don’t have a leaf shutter, and have a maximum shutter speed for flash. On Fujifilm models, this is marked by an “X” next to the shutter speed—for example, on the X-T5, the maximum shutter speed for flash photography is 1/250, which is marked as 250X on the shutter knob. The fastest shutter speed you should use with flash photography is the one with the X next to it.
The two main things to remember about shutter speed are 1) that it is used to show motion, either frozen still or as a blur, and 2) it is one aspect of the exposure triangle, and must be balanced with both aperture and ISO. Increasing the shutter speed reduces the light, so you may need to use a larger aperture and/or a higher ISO to compensate; reducing the shutter speed increases the light, so you may need to use a smaller aperture and/or lower ISO. It’s a balancing act. Used thoughtfully, shutter speed can express movement in creative ways, so take a moment to consider how to best use it for the scene in front of you.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
This is a one-year photo-a-day project called 52 Weeks of Photography. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m taking it one week at a time, because it’s a little easier to manage many small blocks than one large chunk. This is the sixth week, so the sixth set of seven images.
The reason why I’m doing this 365 Day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images last year. I didn’t pick up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping this will help with that.
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
Looking back on this week’s photographs, I was surprised that the vast majority were fairly pedestrian. I thought I had had a productive week—in fact, I did have a productive week; however, just not artistically. If I’m going to accomplish my goal of improving my craft in 2025, quantity isn’t going to be sufficient. I need to think more about quality whenever I have a camera in my hands.
Below are the sixth set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
Tuesday, January 28th, 2025
Fork in the Trunk – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Nostalgic Film
Wednesday, January 29th, 2025
Bunches of Blossoms – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm
Thursday, January 30th, 2025
Green Snakes– Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
Friday, January 31st, 2025
Fish Fan– Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X100VI – Upcoming Recipe
Aperture is a fundamental aspect of photography. The exposure (brightness) of an image is determined by the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO (referred to collectively as the “exposure triangle”). Yet many photographers don’t fully understand aperture, and when to choose which f-stop. It’s more than just a setting—it’s a creative tool that can dramatically impact the look and feel of your images. Understanding how aperture affects depth-of-field, exposure, and sharpness will help you take control of your photography and achieve your artistic vision.
With Fujifilm cameras, you’ll typically control the aperture via a ring on the lens, which are marked in f-stops. A large aperture has a low f-stop number, such as f/2, while a small aperture has a high f-stop number, like f/16. There are full-stops (e.g. f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22); in-between the full stops are intermediate stops, which are most commonly third-stops (e.g. (f/1.8, f/2.2, f/2.5, f/3.2, f/3.5, f/4.5, f/5, etc., etc.) and less commonly half-stops (e.g. f/1.7, f/2.4, f/3.3, f/4.8, etc.). A large aperture (low f-stop number, such as f/1.4 or f/2.8) allows more light into the camera and also creates a shallow depth-of-field (only a narrow slice in focus), making the subject stand out against a blurred background and/or foreground—common for portraits, where you want to separate the subject from distractions. A small aperture (high f-stop number, such as f/11 or f/16) allows less light into the camera and also creates a large depth-of-field (lots in focus), which is common for landscapes where you have several compositional elements at various distances from the camera.
Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 lens at f/1.7 + Reggie’s Portra
The closer the subject is to the end of the lens, the more shallow the depth-of-field will be, and the further the subject is, the larger the depth-of-field will be, regardless of the aperture. In other words, the focus distance and aperture work together to create the depth-of-field, whether narrow or expansive. To achieve a narrow slice that is in focus (a small depth-of-field), one should position the subject close to the camera and use a large aperture (for example, f/2); to achieve a broad slice that is in focus (a large depth-of-field), one should position the subject further from the camera and use a small aperture (for example, f/11).
The aperture you choose determines how much light enters the camera (shutter speed determines for how long the sensor will be exposed to that light). A large aperture (such as f/1.7 or f/2) allows more light to enter, which is useful in low-light conditions, such as indoors or at night. A small aperture (such as f/13 or f/16) reduces the amount of light, which is useful in bright daylight situations. Even though you might wish for a shallow or large depth-of-field, the conditions might prevent you from using the most ideal aperture for what you want to achieve.
Adjusting the aperture affects other exposure settings. If you open up the aperture for more light, you may need a faster shutter speed and/or a lower ISO to compensate. Conversely, if you stop down the aperture, which allows less light, you might need to increase the ISO or use a slower shutter speed. This is a balancing act that should be thoughtfully considered—compromises are often necessary.
Aperture also influences sharpness. While stopping down (using a smaller aperture) generally increases the area of sharpness (depth-of-field), it might actually decrease sharpness. Every lens has a “sweet spot”—an aperture range where it delivers the best overall sharpness. For many lenses, this is between f/4 and f/8 (this is generally speaking, and varies from lens-to-lens, and even sensor-to-sensor). At large apertures (such as f/1.4), lenses can exhibit softness around the edges due to optical imperfections, and also decreased overall sharpness. At small apertures (such as f/16), diffraction can reduce overall image sharpness. Selecting the optimal aperture range for your lens will ensure the sharpest photographs.
F-stop is more than just a technical setting, it’s an artistic choice. Large apertures can create dreamy backgrounds and subject isolation, small apertures ensure everything is in focus, while the middle apertures produce sharply detailed pictures. Whether you’re shooting portraits, landscapes, street photography, still-life, macro, or any other genre, the aperture choice will significantly effect the outcome, giving you creative control over your photography. Experimenting with different apertures will deepen your understanding of how they impact your pictures—the more you practice, the more intuitive it will become. The next time that you’re out with your camera, take a moment to consider the f-stop, because it’s one of the most powerful tools at your disposal.
Someone pointed out to me that ChatGPT can create a Film Simulation Recipe that replicates the look of any photo that you upload. Just share a picture with AI, and it will analyze the look and produce a Recipe that matches. But can it really do that? And, if so, is it accurate?
So I gave it a try. I uploaded a picture and asked AI to replicate the aesthetic of it with a Fujifilm Recipe. Sure enough, it produced one. I also asked ChatGPT to tell me which Fuji X Weekly Recipes are the closest. Let’s examine the results.
Test 1
The top picture is the camera-made JPEG captured on my Fujifilm GFX100S II using the Nostalgic Film Recipe (a Film Dial Recipe). I uploaded it to ChatGPT and asked it to make a Recipe based on that image. The second picture was reprocessed in-camera using the settings that AI provided. Quite obviously, they are pretty far apart and are not a good match.
Some of the settings are the same. Both pictures use DR400. Both are Grain Weak (although ChatGPT chose Grain size Large). Both have Color Chrome Effect Strong and Color Chrome FX Blue Weak. Noise Reduction is -4 on both. The White Balance Shift is +2 Red & -4 Blue. All of the other settings were different—for example, the Nostalgic Film Recipe calls for the Nostalgic Neg. film simulation, while AI chose Classic Chrome. The Recipe made by AI isn’t too dissimilar to Kodachrome II, although not an exact match. I asked ChatGPT to tell me which Fuji X Weekly Recipes were the closest, and it suggested Kodak Ektar 100 and Kodak Gold 200.
Test 2
The top picture is the camera-made JPEG captured on my Fujifilm GFX100S II using the Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm Recipe (which is also a Film Dial Recipe). The bottom picture was reprocessed in-camera using the settings that ChatGPT provided. They are far apart, and are not an especially good match, although it is slightly better than the first test.
The Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm Recipe uses the Reala Ace film simulation, while ChatGPT chose Eterna. Most of the settings are divergent. I don’t have a Recipe that’s especially close to the one made by ChatGPT, but Timeless Negative is probably the most similar. The Fuji X Weekly Recipes that AI suggested are the closest are CineStill 800T, Kodak Ektachrome 100SW, and Kodak Vision3 250D.
Test 3
The top picture is the bottom image from Test 1. I asked ChatGPT to make a Recipe that matches it, to see if it would suggest the same settings that I used to make it (which is the Recipe AI had made just a few minutes earlier). The Recipe that it came up with was not the same, and also not a great match. Instead of Classic Chrome, it wen’t with Classic Negative. While only somewhat similar, Fujicolor Blue is probably my closest Recipe. The Fuji X Weekly Recipes that AI thought were the closest are Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Portra 160.
Test 4
I re-uploaded the first photo from Test 1, and asked the same question to see if it would suggest the same settings, or if it would change them. Unsurprisingly, it was completely different, this time choosing Astia for the film simulation (I didn’t bother to reprocess). It suggested that my Kodak Portra 400 Recipe would be the closest match.
Conclusion
I’ve said before that ChatGPT is a neat little card trick, but once you know how it works, it isn’t nearly as impressive. I’ve also said that it will only get better with time. Both of those statements still seem to be true. While AI can analyze a picture and produce some Fujifilm settings to try—which is amazing—it isn’t very accurate. It can also suggest Fuji X Weekly Recipes that might be similar, and it is a little better at that, but still not especially good.
I have zero doubts that with enough time—and it may only be a couple of years—ChatGPT will be able to analyze a photo and produce a Fujifilm Recipe that is pretty similar. It might be even closer to suggesting an existing Recipe that isn’t far off. It’s not there yet, though.
I’m certain that ChatGPT was trained on my website. When asked directly, it says that it wasn’t, but states that it was trained on various photography blogs and forums. When I asked it to name some specific ones, the very first it listed was Fuji X Weekly. So, yeah, AI did some of its learning from my website, which of course I did not consent to nor was I compensated for. I believe that this training is ongoing, and it probably will even learn from this article that you are reading right now. This is wrong, and eventually the courts will likely determine that it is completely illegal; however, by then, the damage is done, and there’s nothing that can be done.
With all of that said, I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is super intelligent (he’s a scientist) about AI and ChatGPT. He said that he is not concerned about being replaced by AI, but he is concerned about being replaced by someone who knows how to use it better than he does. I don’t think it is prudent to ignore ChatGPT completely. While undoubtably ethically sketchy, it is a tool that can sometimes be used effectively, if you understand its strengths and weaknesses. I’m not sure what that means for me specifically, other than it is good to test it now and again to see how far it has or hasn’t come. It definitely has made some progress since the last time I tested, but not a lot.
This is a one-year photo-a-day project called 52 Weeks of Photography. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m taking it one week at a time, because it’s a little easier to manage many small blocks than one large chunk. This is the fifth week, so the fifth set of seven images.
The reason why I’m doing this 365 Day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images last year. I didn’t pick up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping this will help with that.
Toilet Trash – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T4 ES & 35mm f/2 – Upcoming Recipe
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
I had three especially productive days this week, and four not-so-productive ones. On two of the days, I barely met the minimum obligation, and nearly chalked them up as losses; however, I decided that there was one photo on each day that was just good enough to share, so by the skin-of-my-teeth I made it. I have built into this project two days that I can miss, just knowing that life happens, and it would have been a shame to have used both of them on week five, especially since I didn’t have a good excuse. Thankfully, I didn’t have to, but I do need to be a bit more careful and purposeful moving forward.
Below are the fifth set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
Tuesday, January 21st, 2025
Red Tree Trunk – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 & 90mm f/2 – Provia Summer
Wednesday, January 22nd, 2025
Bougainvillea Blossom Bunches – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm
Thursday, January 23rd, 2025
Light, Color, Texture– Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T4 ES & 35mm f/2 – Upcoming Recipe
Friday, January 24th, 2025
Orange Desert– Phoenix, AZ – Fujifilm X-T4 ES & 35mm f/2 – Upcoming Recipe
One of the first things that I hoped to accomplish after buying a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera last month is to understand how compatible X-series Film Simulation Recipes are with GFX, and what adjustments should be made, if any. I had anticipated this being a fairly easy task, and in a sense it was, but I really struggled with this project.
Fujifilm has made a number of GFX models since February of 2017: GFX50S, GFX50R, GFX100, GFX100S, GFX50S II, GFX100 II, and GFX100S II. There are a few different sensors and processors, and the cameras can be separated into different generations. The GFX50S, GFX50R and GFX50S II share the same sensor, but the GFX50S II falls into a different generation than the original two. The GFX100 and GFX100S share the same sensor, but are different generations. The GFX100 II and GFX100S II share the same sensor, but not the same sensor as the first two 100mp GFX models. It’s a bit of a puzzle. The only GFX camera that I own is the GFX100S II, and I briefly had the opportunity to borrow a GFX50S four years ago. My GFX experience is very limited at this point.
One issue that I found when comparing Recipes captured on X-Trans vs GFX is that the lenses are not the same. Different lenses can produce slightly different results depending on the micro-contrast and coatings. While not a big deal, it would have been preferable to have used the same lens across all the tests; however, even if I could, the focal length wouldn’t be the same. For example, when I adapt my vintage Helios 44-2 lens, the focal length on X-Trans is 87mm while it is 46mm on GFX; aside from that, the Helios is noticeably softer on the GFX. So the comparisons I made were never fully 1:1, unfortunately.
I did make a number of comparisons between the photos captured with the GFX100S II and those made on an X-T5 and X-E4, utilizing the same Recipes. The main difference between X-Trans IV and X-Trans V rendering is that blue is a little deeper on X-Trans V with the Classic Chrome, Classic Negative, Eterna, and Eterna Bleach Bypass film simulations—there are some other minor differences, but the blue rendering is the main one. On the GFX100S II, blue behaves more like X-Trans V. The overall rendering is very similar to X-Trans V, but not 100% identical. For example, Grain is scaled differently on GFX. There are several insignificant differences that I noticed upon close side-by-side comparisons, but without carefully studying deep crops, the GFX images look pretty identical to the X-Trans V photos. Except they also don’t.
This is the paradox I discovered: the pictures look so similar when comparing colors, tints, shadows, etc., etc., but there is something that’s clearly different. But what? I couldn’t put my finger on it.
I asked a few people I know who have a GFX camera, and one suggested color fidelity, that the same exact colors just seem more alive (or maybe more lifelike) on GFX. My wife, Amanda, suggested that it’s depth, that it feels like you can step into the GFX photos, while the X-series photos seem a little flat in comparison. This could simply be the depth-of-field or the micro-contrast of the GFX lenses (or both). As I thought about it, I was reminded of the Sigma DP2 Merrill camera I used to own that similarly had a (so-called) “3D pop” to the pictures. High-ISO digital noise looks different on GFX, with splotchy colors that are typical from a Bayer sensor (and not the more film-grain-like noise from X-Trans); however, it’s not particularly obvious, buried in all that resolution. It’s probably a combination of all of those things and more that make the nearly identical colors and contrast appear different in a way that is difficult to describe, but it’s all so subtle that it’s easy to miss and dismiss, so perhaps it doesn’t matter.
With that information, I made a decision regarding Film Simulation Recipes in the Fuji X Weekly App. I added the GFX100 II and GFX100S II as compatible cameras to all X-Trans V Recipes, as well as X-Trans IV Recipes (excluding those for the X-T3/X-T30) that don’t use Classic Chrome, Classic Negative, Eterna or Eterna Bleach Bypass (the same Recipes as the X-T5, for example). Use those Recipes on the GFX100 II and GFX100S II, as they look great. I updated the App yesterday to show those Recipes as compatible with those two cameras. For the other (non-X-T3/X-T30) X-Trans IV Recipes, dropping Color Chrome FX Blue down one spot (Weak instead of Strong, Off instead of Weak) also makes them compatible.
After that, I thought about the other GFX models. Shouldn’t they be in the App, too? Why should they be left out? I don’t own any of those other GFX models, so I dug through the manuals—plus did several Google searches—to try to piece together how they should be categorized in the Fuji X Weekly App. That took a few verified and unverified assumptions. Also, I realized an assumption I made several years back was incorrect.
I categorized GFX100S the same as the newer X-Trans IV cameras; Recipes that are compatible with (for example) the X-T4 are also compatible with the GFX100S. I categorized the GFX100 the same as the X-T3 and X-T30.
The 50mp GFX cameras are a bit of a problem because shadows are rendered slightly lighter, and a .5 Shadow increase is necessary for those models (the GFX50S and GFX50R don’t have .5 Highlight and Shadow adjustments). A few years ago when I had the GFX50S for a few weeks, I created three Recipes for 50mp GFX. I made an assumption that those Recipes would also be compatible with the GFX100, but I believe that camera has deeper shadow rendering like the other 100mp cameras, so that assumption was incorrect; however, I left it alone in the App. If not for the shadow rendering, X-T3/X-T30 Recipes would be compatible with the GFX50S and GFX50R—you can still use those Recipes, just know that it will look slightly different (try them anyway, you might like the results). The one camera that was left out of the App is the GFX50S II. You can use X-Trans IV Recipes the same as the GFX100S; however, a .5 Shadow adjustment should be made. If a Recipe calls for -1 Shadow, use -0.5 instead, and if a Recipe calls for +2 Shadow, use +2.5 instead.
This isn’t a perfect categorization of the GFX models, but I think it’s good. If I made a mistake in this, please let me know—like I said, my GFX experience is quite limited. For those with GFX cameras, I hope this provides a little clarity as to which Recipes to use. I’m sure that having these cameras in the App will be helpful to some photographers with GFX models, so if you have a GFX camera, open up the Fuji X Weekly App and take a look.
Find Film Simulation Recipes for your Fujifilm cameras in the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
I started a new 365 Day photo project, which I’m calling 52 Weeks of Photography, back on Christmas Eve. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m taking it one week at a time. This is the fourth week, the fourth set of seven images, which means that I’m 1/13th finished. While there’s a long ways to go, it’s crazy that 28 days are already in the books.
The reason why I’m doing this photo-a-day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images last year. I didn’t pick up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping this will help with that.
Shadow & Light – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – PRO Negative 160C
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
This week was a bit up and down. Some days were far more productive than others. With that said, I find myself getting back into the habit of always having a camera on me, making sure to grab one before leaving the house. I used to do that, but kind of fell away from it in 2024.
Below are the fourth set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
Tuesday, January 14th, 2025
Air Dancer – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T4 ES & 35mm f/2 – Aerochrome v3
Fujifilm GFX100S II – PRO Negative 160C except with D-Range Priority Auto
Someone pointed out to me that D-Range Priority Auto behaves differently on his Fujifilm X-T5 than he thought it would. I don’t use D-Range Priority Auto all that often, and it’s been awhile since I’ve done any sort of serious testing with it, so I took the opportunity to see what’s going on. I was quite surprised by what I found.
D-Range Priority (abbreviated DR-P) was a feature first found on old Fujifilm EXR models (this was before X-Trans) that utilized pixel-binning, and it worked much different than the current iteration of it. The modern version of DR-P was introduced in 2018 with the X-H1 and X-T3, and is modeled after a feature called Hypertone found on Fujifilm’s Frontier scanners. DR-P is used in lieu of the Dynamic Range (DR) settings and the Tone Curve (Highlight and Shadow).
Like the DR settings, DR-P is ISO dependent. DR-P Weak requires the same minimum ISO as DR200, and DR-P Strong requires the same minimum ISO as DR400. DR-P Auto should work the same as DR-Auto, and seemingly it does, but upon closer review it is significantly divergent. At least it is now. The way it works has evolved over time, largely unnoticed.
Fujifilm GFX100S II – PRO Negative 160C except with D-Range Priority Auto
Someone reported to me awhile back that they couldn’t get their X-T5 to choose DR-P Strong with DR-P Auto selected. With my X-Trans IV models, in DR-P Auto, the camera will almost always choose DR-P Weak, and only DR-P Strong in extreme high-contrast situations, with both bright highlights and deep shadows. The camera will do it, but not very often. I assumed that this person probably just hadn’t encountered the right situation where the camera would choose DR-P Strong. I can see now that my assumption was wrong.
Let’s backtrack a bit. D-Range Priority works a certain way on the X-H1 and X-T3/X-T30 (at least when the X-T30 was released and I tested DR-P on it back then …it might work differently today after firmware updates, I’m not certain). On those cameras, DR-P Auto will choose DR-P Weak most of the time, and DR-P Strong only in extreme situations. DR-P Weak is the same as DR200 with both Highlight and Shadow set to -1. In the set of three very identical images below, captured with a Fujifilm X-H1 this morning, one is DR-P Auto (which chose DR-P Weak), one is in-camera reprocessed as DR-P Weak, and one is in-camera reprocessed as DR200 with Highlight and Shadow both set to -1. They look exactly alike.
Now let’s fast forward a little. DR-P Auto works a little different on my Fujifilm X100V and X-E4, but not exactly as I remember it working, or as I expected it to. I’m not certain if the way it works changed after some firmware update, or if my memory of it is incorrect (it could go either way). Let’s take a look at a photograph that I captured today on my X-E4 using DR-P Auto, which chose DR-P Strong. I then reprocessed the image in-camera.
Fujifilm X-E4 as shot in DR-P Auto, which selected DR-P Strong
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR-P Strong—surprisingly, it’s not the same.
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR-P Weak; it’s getting closer, but not identical.
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR200 + Highlight & Shadow set to -1; it’s divergent from all of the above images.
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR400 + Highlight & Shadow set to -2. This is identical to the as-shot photograph.
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR200 + Highlight & Shadow set to -2. This is identical to the reprocessed DR-P Weak image.
On the X-H1, DR-P Auto is more straightforward than on the X-E4; on the X-E4, it did not behave as I expected it to. While I could get it to choose DR-P Strong, it didn’t actually create a DR-P Strong image, or even a DR-P Weak image; instead, it created an image identical to DR400 with Highlight and Shadow set to -2 (“DR-P Medium”?). DR-P Weak is the same as DR200 with Highlight and Shadow set to -2; however, on the X-H1, DR-P Weak is identical to DR200 with Highlight and Shadow set to -1. Clear as mud?
Now let’s look at the newer cameras. On X-Trans V, as well as the latest GFX, it works even differently. Check out this set of photographs:
Fujifilm GFX100S II as shot in DR-P Auto, which selected DR-P Weak
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR200 + Highlight & Shadow set to -1. It’s identical to the above photograph.
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR-P Weak.
As you can see, the camera is not using DR-P Weak when in DR-P Auto. Like the X-H1, it is using DR200 with Highlight and Shadow set to -1; however, unlike the X-H1, DR-P Weak is not the same as DR200 with Highlight and Shadow set to -1. On the newer models, DR-P Auto is actually “DR-P Extra Weak” (if such a setting existed, which incidentally is the same as DR-P Weak on the X-H1). DR-P Weak is actually more like DR200 with Highlight set to -2 and Shadow set to -3 (if such a setting existed—in other words, it can’t really be replicated). Also, no matter how hard I tried, I could not get my X-T5 or GFX100S II cameras to choose DR-P Strong when in DR-P Auto; only DR-P Weak (except that the picture is “DR-P Extra Weak” instead of DR-P Weak).
Fujifilm GFX100S II shot with DR-P Strong and in-camera reprocessed to DR-P Weak
Same image, except reprocessed in-camera using DR400 + Highlight & Shadow set to -2. This is the closest I could get the shadows, but the highlights are divergent.
So what is the practical application of this? Since we know on the newer models—X-Trans V and the latest GFX—that the picture you get using DR-P Auto is the same as DR200 with Highlight and Shadow set to -1, you can replace any Film Simulation Recipe that calls for those settings (such as PRO Negative 160C) with DR-P Auto. There isn’t necessarily a practical advantage to doing that, except if you accidentally overexpose the frame, you can recover it by reprocessing the file in-camera with DR-P Weak. Below is an example of that:
Fujifilm GFX100S II as shot in DR-P Auto, overexposed
Same image, simply reprocessed in-camera with DR-P Weak with no other adjustments
I’m not really sure how to conclude this other than to say that D-Range Priority Auto works differently depending on what generation of camera you have. DR-P Weak and DR-P Strong are also a little divergent. I reached out to Anders Lindborg to ask his opinion and see if he had any insights on DR-P Auto, since he’s researched this topic pretty extensively. “The answer is actually in the manual,” he told me. “It says, ‘When an option other than Off is selected, Highlight Tone, Shadow Tone, and Dynamic Range will be adjusted automatically.'” On the newest models, that means Highlight and Shadow both set to -1 and Dynamic Range set to DR200 …and nothing else, unless you reprocess as DR-P Weak. Unfortunately, if you want to shoot with DR-P Weak or DR-P Strong straight-out-of-camera, then don’t use DR-P Auto. I suppose you could look at this way: DR-P Auto is actually DR-P Weak, DR-P Weak is actually DR-P Medium, and DR-P Strong is still DR-P Strong. I hope this somehow clears things up for those confused by it.
Below are a few pictures I created in preparation for this article, using my Fujifilm GFX100S II with the PRO Negative 160C Recipe (except for DR-P Auto in lieu of the DR and Tone Curve settings).
I started a new 365 Day photo project, which I’m calling 52 Weeks of Photography, back on Christmas Eve. Even though it is a year-long undertaking, I’m doing it one week at a time. This is the third week, the third set of seven images. I’m pretty excited to do this, and hope you appreciate following along on this journey.
The reason why I’m doing this photo-a-day project is because I noticed some gaps in-between my images over the last year. I haven’t been picking up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days passed by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, I skipped a whole week. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping this will help with that.
Dry Leaves in the Green Grass – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Reala Ace
The plan is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
I used my Fujifilm X-T4 ES full spectrum infrared camera a lot during this seven day period. IR photography is a ton of fun, so I grab the X-T4 ES frequently. Unfortunately, that only delays other projects that I’m working on, so I need to be a little more deliberate about the gear I’m choosing, and do a better job at spreading the love between my various cameras.
Below are the second set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
Tuesday, January 7th, 2025
Dogs out a Truck Window – Laveen, AZ- Fujifilm X-T4 ES & 35mm f/2 – Agfa 400S
Wednesday, January 8th, 2025
Bicycles on a Dirt Road – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Velvia Film
Thursday, January 9th, 2025
Golden Hills – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Velvia Film
Bicycles on a Dirt Road – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film
My 15-year-old son, Jonathan, has shown a strong interest in photography for a few years now, so for Christmas my wife and I got him a camera. He just began a high school photography class this semester. Jon told me that one of the first lessons was on composition, including leading lines.
A couple days ago, Jon and I were walking down a dirt road out in the desert with our cameras, so I took the opportunity to talk with him about leading lines. I told him that lines are great for taking the viewer on a journey through the picture. Lines that come from the corners (or near the corners) tend to lead into the frame, while lines that are from the edges (top-middle, bottom-middle, left-middle or right-middle) tend to lead the viewer’s eyes out of the frame. Leading lines are great, but they must lead to something to be effective; leading lines that lead to nothing are disappointing and boring.
Desert Road – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Agfa 400S
I pointed out the road that we were walking on, showing that the sides of the road, or even the tire tracks in the dirt, are lines. They can be used to take the viewer from the bottom corners into the middle of the frame somewhere. But you have to think about what the viewers are going to find when they get to the end, as there should be something for them to discover.
In the Desert Road image above, the lines take the viewer from the bottom of the frame to the base of the darker mountain in the middle-left of the picture, then up the ridge of the closer hill towards the top-right; your eyes might follow the ridge of the distant hill to the left, or they might leave the frame altogether. It would have been more interesting if a hiker, bicyclist, car, coyote, etc., were at the end of the road just before it disappears around the corner. Or a brightly lit saguaro partway up the closer ridge contrasted with the shadow behind. The image itself is ok, but if the viewer had found a surprise element on their journey through the picture, it would have been much more compelling.
Sunset Bicyclists – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-S20 – Kodak Negative – Photo by Jonathan Roesch
As we were heading back to the car to go home because the sun had dipped below the ridge, we came across a row of drainage pipes that I suppose will someday serve a purpose. I told him that those could be used as leading lines, too. I noted that there was a dark spot in the road at the end of the pipes, and told him that if only there was something there in that spot, it could make for an interesting picture.
We hadn’t seen another person the entire time, so I didn’t expect anything interesting to happen, but then two bicyclists showed up. I told Jon to wait, that this was a fortuitous opportunity, and be ready to compose his picture. We waved to the two men as they pedaled by, then we set up our shots.
Jon Composing His Shot – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Film
My picture is Bicycles on a Dirt Road at the very top, and Jon’s is Sunset Bicyclists two images above. I used the pipes to take the viewer from the bottom-right to the bicyclists at the middle-left. Jon used the lines in the dirt road to lead to the bicyclists, and the pipes served as a secondary element. Even though we photographed the same thing at the same time while standing next to each other, our pictures are much different. Two photographers will rarely see the same scene exactly the same way, because each person has different experiences, emotions, perspectives, etc., to form and execute their visions.
There are a several quick takeaways from this article. First, look for and use lines to thoughtfully direct viewers through your photographs, and try to give them a little surprise if you can. Second, your photographs are your unique voice, and as such are meaningful and important; however, you want to communicate your voice as strongly as possible with each shutter click—it takes much practice to develop strong photographic communication. Next, good pictures often involve some level of luck, but you can greatly increase your chances by being out with your camera—luck has a way of finding you if you give it the opportunity. Finally, if you are a straight-out-of-camera photographer, choose the most appropriate Film Simulation Recipe for how you want the scene to look. It takes some level of experience (oftentimes, trial-and-error) to figure that out, and each person has their own tastes and styles, so what works for one might not for another. I chose Velvia Film (one of the Film Dial Recipes… I use this approach even without the dial) because I wanted a bright and vibrant picture; Jon chose Kodak Negative because he wanted a warm retro aesthetic.
Unfair Comparisons – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Astia Summer
I’m planning to do a number of comparison tests between the JPEGs from the Fujifilm GFX100S II and my X-series models, like the Fujifilm X-T5. What’s different? What’s the same? I haven’t come to very many conclusions yet. There’s clearly a difference, but it seems so subtle it is tough to put a finger on what exactly is divergent.
For this article, I’m comparing the faux Grain between the GFX100S II and the X-T5. This isn’t a carefully controlled scientific test. When my wife (on the X-T5) and I (on the GFX100S II) captured these images, we did not intend for them to be used in any sort of comparison test. I chose these because they were made in the same location (White Sands National Park in New Mexico). They were captured with the new Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired Recipe, and reprocessed in-camera with the Astia Summer Recipe. I chose those two Recipes because of their Grain: Weak/Small and Strong/Large.
Fujifilm X-T5 – Astia Summer – Grain Weak/Small
Fujifilm GFX100S II – Astia Summer – Grain Weak/Small
Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired – Grain Strong/Large
You cannot tell much at all from the above photos. From examining the pictures more closely, I can state that the size of the faux grain is a little larger in the X-T5 JPEGs than the GFX100S II, but you can’t really tell without cropping in. So let’s crop in!
In the first set (identified simply by “Crop”), I’ve made the pictures roughly the same size. If you look carefully, the Weak/Small Grain is slightly more visible in the X-T5 pictures, but it’s not overtly obvious. In the second set (identified by “Bigger Crop”), I’ve tried to match the Grain, and I had to crop much more deeply on the GFX100S II pictures to do so. These are significant crops, and you’d have to print large to view them this big. I think if a Grain size Medium existed on GFX, that would more closely match Grain size Small on the X-series.
Below is a repeat, except for with Strong/Large Grain. I think if a Grain size Medium existed on the X-T5, it would more closely match Grain size Large on the GFX100S II.
Bigger Crop – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired – Grain Strong/Large
I don’t know that it makes any practical real-world difference, but the size of the Grain—whether Small or Large—is not identical on GFX as it is on X-series cameras. It’s not scaled the same. It’s smaller on GFX and larger on X-series, specifically when comparing the 100mp images from the GFX100S II to the 40mp images from the X-T5. There are also likely variances between the 26mp APS-C sensor and the 50mp GFX sensor.
The way to look at this, I suppose, is that film grain appears more fine on medium-format film than 35mm. The difference in silver grain between—say—120 film and Advanced Photo System Type-C film is much, much more significant than the difference in Grain between GFX and X. I think you’d expect the Grain to be more “fine” on GFX—and that’s what you find—but it isn’t nearly as much of a difference as with actual film.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Young Yucca – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II + 80mm f/1.7 – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm
It’s officially 2025! Happy New Year’s Day, everyone!
I started a new 365 Day photo project, which I’m calling 52 Weeks of Photography, back on Christmas Eve. This article is simply the introduction of the project, and the first set of seven images. I’m pretty excited to do this, and hope you appreciate following along on this journey.
This isn’t the first time that I’ve done a 365 Day photo project—I did one from August 2018 through August 2019. I developed the habit of picking up a camera daily, and my photography improved from start to finish. Also, I captured some photographs that I wouldn’t have otherwise, a few of which I was quite happy with. There is definitely a benefit to doing this type of thing. Professional athletes and musicians practice daily, so why shouldn’t photographers?
The reason why I’m doing this now is because I noticed gaps in-between my images. I haven’t been picking up my cameras daily. On several occasions, four or five days have gone by without a single picture created. Twice in 2024, a whole week passed. I want to rectify this, and get back into the habit of daily photography. I also want to elevate the quality of my craft in 2025, and am hoping this will help with that.
Full Service – Idalou, TX – Fujifilm X-T5 + 56mm f/1.2 – Superia Negative
I’ve set some ground rules for myself. I’m taking things one week at a time. That’s a little easier mentally than looking at it as one whole year chunk. If I mess up on a week, I’ll simply extend the project by a week; however, I’m also giving myself two grace days. I’d actually like to finish this on Christmas Day, which is 367 days from the start. If I miss two days, that’s perfectly ok. If I miss three to seven days, this project will be extended by one week. I think it’s good to build-in some breathing room, because life happens.
My hope is to capture a year’s worth of notable images, either personally or artistically. Ansel Adams famously stated, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” It’s important to keep expectations realistic, but I’m also trying to avoid thoughtless snapshots just to fulfill the day’s requirement. I want to push myself to be better, and hopefully that will happen. Not every photo will be great—in fact, most won’t—but I hope they are all at least decent enough to be shared without embarrassment.
Below are the first set of seven pictures from this 52 Weeks of Photography project.
The main reason why I purchased a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera a couple of weeks ago was for XPan photography. For those who don’t know, XPan cameras were a joint venture between Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the late-1990’s through the mid-2000’s, right at the pinnacle of film. XPan models were interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras that used approximately two frames of 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in a 65:24 aspect ratio.
You can crop images from any model to the XPan ratio without much trouble, but composing it in-camera is different than doing it after-the-fact because you can better visualize the outcome. Also, I prefer straight-out-of-camera photography over sitting at a computer editing, but that’s just me. All GFX models, including the GFX100S II, have the 65:24 aspect ratio built-in; however, X-series cameras do not (in my opinion, Fujifilm should add the XPan ratio to all of their 40mp cameras via a firmware update). If you are serious about XPan photography and you use Fujifilm cameras, GFX is the preferable route.
Sand Wall – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film
Since the 65:24 aspect ratio cuts out about half of the resolution, having a high-megapixel sensor is important. With that said, you can’t truly appreciate XPan when viewing on a computer or your phone. XPan from a GFX100S II isn’t going to look any more impressive than (for example) an XPan crop from a Fujifilm X-T10. These pictures need to be printed to be appreciated, and that’s my goal. I plan to print a couple of these to see what they look like, and if I create any in the future that are worthy, I hope to make some really large prints that are two-feet tall by five-feet-five-inches wide. For that, the 100mp sensor of the GFX100S II is essential.
All of these photographs, which were captured yesterday and the day before in New Mexico, were made using a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera with a Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 lens. These pictures are camera-made JPEGs using a few different Film Simulation Recipes. Over the coming days and weeks I’ll be testing various Recipes to see what works best on GFX, and I’ll be sure to share the results with you, so stay tuned! In the meantime, I hope that you enjoy these 10 XPan images.
My latest camera purchased arrived in the mail a few days ago: a Fujifilm GFX100S II. Along with the camera I also got a couple of lenses to go with it: Fujinon GF 80mm f/1.7 and GF 30mm f/3.5. This was, by far, the most money that I’ve ever spent on gear, and it was with some apprehensiveness that I clicked the Proceed with Purchase button. Let me explain why I bought it.
My first GFX experience was with the GFX 50S, which I was able to borrow for a couple of weeks in early 2021. It was a dream-come-true to try, but I was not convinced that it was something I wanted to own. Not only was it pretty far outside of my budget, but it was big, heavy, and slow, and didn’t provide any major advantages to my photography over the X-series. If I was given one I wouldn’t say no, but I wasn’t about to shell out many thousands of dollars for it.
The next GFX experience came earlier this year when Fujifilm invited me to a retreat in the Catskill Mountains of New York. Some photographers, including myself, were loaned preproduction Fujifilm X-T50‘s to try out, and some were loaned preproduction GFX100S II’s. While I didn’t get a chance to use one myself, I did get to see the amazing images that other photographers created with it, including Bryan Minear. I’ll never forget when Bryan and I got completely drenched on an early-morning photo outing in the rain.
A few days later Fujifilm had a rooftop launch party for the GFX100S II and X-T50 in New York City (above Foto Care), and myself and Bryan were enlisted to help. We were placed together at a touch-and-try station for the GF 500mm f/5.6 lens. I didn’t know much about the gear, so I wasn’t particularly helpful. I did get to touch-and-try very briefly, though, but not enough to form any sort of opinions of the gear. I met a number of interesting and talented people, and had an amazing time, so I’m extremely grateful and honored for the opportunity.
Most recently, when Bryan and I cohosted a photowalk in Ann Arbor last month, he let me try out his GFX100S II camera with the Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 lens attached. It was a beast, but also produced amazing images. It was that experience that pushed me over the edge to want one. Prior to this, I would have said that there’s no way I’m buying one, I can’t afford it. Instead, I began looking at what it would take to buy one. I had already began saving for the next camera purchase, so I was already partway along the path, but, you know, GFX is quite expensive.
It might seem like I just suddenly wanted one, like I was smitten with G.A.S., which is partially true. Actually, I’ve been thinking about it for some time now. Specifically, I have had an interest in creating 65:24 XPan panoramas, and the GFX cameras are especially excellent for that. I also want to explore square photographs, and GFX is quite good for that, too. My hope is to make large prints of these images, if I should capture any worthy of being printed.
Above: Me, as photographed by Bryan Minear using a Fujifilm GFX100S II & Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 with the XPan aspect ratio, in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
There’s also the benefit of figuring out which Film Simulation Recipes work best with the camera, and what modifications, if any, need to be considered. I haven’t made much headway with that just yet, but hopefully over the coming weeks I can publish some findings. I’ve had a number of requests for GFX Recipes, but, without any GFX gear, that’s tough to do. I should be able to make some big strides regarding this now that I have a GFX100S II in my hands.
I’m not a big fan of the heft, or the non-tactile controls, but the images are incredible! However, for everyday use, there’s no way that you can tell it’s GFX, and not X-series. In fact, I published a few pictures on Fuji X Weekly that were captured with the GFX100S II, and nobody noticed. You have to crop deeply and/or print very large to really appreciate it, I think. Those who truly “need” GFX are a small group, and I’m not one of them …yet, anyway. I’m making plans where I hope the GFX100S II proves to be a necessity for what I’m creating, so we’ll see if it does.
Above: Vultures circling a desert ridge; photo by Ritchie Roesch with a Fujifilm GFX100S II & Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 with the XPan aspect ratio and Kodachrome 64 Film Simulation Recipe.
I had to sell a couple of items to afford the camera (and to make room on the shelf for it). Even then, it was a stretch to pay for it. I had some trepidation when I ordered it, but I think it might eventually be worthwhile. Now I’ve just got to get it to the places I want to take it to—mostly, National Parks—in order to create the images that I imagine capturing with it.
I’ll try not to bombard you with GFX articles. I plan to keep this website primarily focused on X-series gear, and only sprinkled with with GFX content. But I can’t guarantee that. I might end up absolutely loving the camera, and speaking more about it than I initially intend. Or maybe it will mostly collect dust, as I choose smaller, lighter, more fun gear. Time will tell. But, for this first post, I will share with you some of my first pictures captured with the new camera.
