Opinion | FUJI X WEEKLY

The most stolen from photographer in history?

I might be the most stolen from photographer in the history of the world. This might seem like a strange claim, but it’s potentially true. It might not be true, but it certainly could be, so let’s dig into it. To clarify, I’m not claiming to be the victim of the most egregious thefts. I’m not claiming that the monetary value is anywhere near the most. Specifically, what I’m wondering is if I’ve had more photographs stolen than anyone else. In other words, am I the most stolen from photographer by total number of photographs stolen? I think it’s also important to clarify what “stolen” means: unauthorized use or reproduction of my pictures that violate my copyright. As the photographer, I own the rights to my pictures, and if someone uses them without permission outside of “fair use” circumstances, that’s theft. Maybe they’re attempting to earn money, or maybe they’re attempting to gain notoriety, but they’re doing it with my photos and not their own.

I think there are a couple of unique circumstances that make this claim possibly plausible. First, I publish more pictures than most photographers. Because I make hundreds of Film Simulation Recipes, and those Recipes require a lot of sample images (at least 15, and up to 50, per Recipe), I share far more than most. That might be to my disadvantage, because, while the majority of photographers only post their best work, I show you a lot of mediocre pictures along with the good ones; if I only showed my portfolio-quality images, you might think that I’m more talented than my so-so pictures seem to indicate. Second, one theft can be many photos—not just tens of photos, not just hundreds of photos, but thousands of them.

The most egregious example is when someone hacked the Fuji X Weekly App and made a clone of it, which they uploaded to the app store, and made money on until it was (thankfully) removed for copyright violations. I sure hope none of you fell victim to that, and I’m really sorry if you did. The Fuji X Weekly App had about 350 Recipes on it at that time (now there are over 400), and with five pictures per Recipe, that’s about 1,750 copyright violations just in that one circumstance alone. But that’s not the only circumstance, not even close.

Above left: My photo, entitled Morning Mist, captured using my Fujicolor 100 Gold Recipe; Above right: that same photo and Recipe in an app that isn’t mine used without permission.

Aside from some other apps that have my photos in them without permission, there are tons and tons of websites. Today, I did a reverse Google search on 30 of my photos, and 16 of them had at least one circumstance of theft. I don’t know how many pictures are on fujixweekly.com—I estimate that it’s over 10,000—if half of those have been stolen somewhere and are being used illegally across the internet, that’s a massive amount. Some photos have multiple examples of theft just from one image (I counted eight on one of those 16 pictures).

This isn’t anything new. I remember about 12 years ago reading my small town local newspaper, and being shocked to find one of my pictures being used in an advertisement. Over the years I’ve seen several of my photos on the front banner of corporate websites. I’ve tracked down hundreds of thefts and requested they take down my photos, but it’s only a tiny dent in the overall problem. This could be a full-time job, except that it doesn’t earn any money—in fact, it can be quite expensive, especially if attorneys have to get involved. I would quickly go broke if I pursued all the theft.

I think some of it is innocent enough. For example, someone is excited to share their favorite Film Simulation Recipe, so they do—only, instead of using their own photos captured with the Recipe, they use mine, and perhaps “forget” to even give me credit (which wouldn’t make it any less illegal, but perhaps more understandable). Some circumstances are fair use, especially if it’s only one or two picture and I’m given credit and linked back to. There’s definitely instances where the unauthorized use of my picture isn’t theft, and there are examples of it being grey areas, where it could be argued either way. But I’m not talking about that, I’m specifically talking about indisputable examples of blatant theft. Like right now, a large number of my pictures can be printed on t-shirts; I didn’t give permission for that, and I won’t receive a penny of profit should someone order one of those shirts.

Above left: My photo captured about 25 years ago on Kodachrome 64 film; Above right: that same photo can be printed on a t-shirt, without permission or compensation.

Unfortunately, some people think that if they can download a picture from the internet, it’s theirs to freely use. If it’s on the internet, it’s finder’s keeper. Legally that’s not true, but it is true in a practical sense. Who’s going to stop them? I would like to, but that’s a really tough hill to climb. It’s rare that they’re caught, and even if they are, it can very difficult to do anything about it, especially depending on the country where the theft happens in. It’s very easy for them to get away with it.

I posted a video to YouTube once, and it recognized a song in the background that was playing on the radio. I was flagged with a copyright violation, and I had to either silence that section of the video, or else I couldn’t monetize it (this is back when I was monetized on YouTube). Why can’t something like that exist for other art mediums? The technology obviously exists… I was able to reverse-search my photos, but that’s a slow and tedious manual process. Why can’t it be continuously running in the background, with copyright violation notices sent to the offending website owners automatically? I understand that such a service does exist for a fee, but it requires you to manually identify which photos are yours so that it can search for them, and it isn’t always accurate. It would take a long time for me show them all of my pictures, because there are so many. Again, this would be a full time job that doesn’t pay anything.

So far we’re just talking about my pictures. I’ve had entire articles ripped off many times. I’ve seen people post a Recipe that they “created” (sometimes claiming to have spent hours making it), and gladly accepting the praise for how good it is, except that all they did was copy-and-paste it from my website. The argument will be: “Well, sometimes great minds think alike, and it’s only by happenstance that they’re identical.” This ignores that there are 1,418,895,421,643,700 possible JPEG setting combinations (Recipes) on the latest Fujifilm models. That means every person in the world who owns a Fujifilm camera can have their own unique Recipes in each of their C1-C7 Custom Settings presets, and it would still not come anywhere close to exhausting all of the potential Recipes for Fujifilm cameras. ChatGPT says that the odds of two people independently creating the same exact Recipe are about 1-in-4-billion (that’s accounting for how common and uncommon certain settings are). If I were to make four billion Recipes and someone else were to make four billion, one would likely be identical (I’ve only made a little more than 400, not 4 billion). That’s not to say it’s impossible; however, it is extraordinarily unlikely (to put it mildly)—yet I’ve seen it probably close to a hundred times now, which is mathematically impossible. This is plagiarism, which is a type of theft: intellectual theft. We can go back to the guy who hacked my app and created a clone app with over 300 of my Recipes. Or we can look at other apps that use my Recipes without permission or even give credit. That’s a lot of theft, although plagiarism and not pictures.

Above left: My photo, entitled Evening at a Pond, captured using my Kodachrome 64 Recipe; Above right: that same photo and many more of my pictures posted by someone without permission or credit.

For this article, though, I mostly want to focus on the theft of my photos. If only 2,000 of my pictures have ever been stolen (which is the base minimum, it’s probably a lot more), AI says, “That is a huge number, far beyond what most photographers ever experience. For most photographers, the number of confirmed stolen photos is usually single digits to low dozens over a career. Photographers with big online presences sometimes report dozens, maybe a few hundred images, being misused. But that’s typically the ceiling—and even those numbers are considered very high. From a copyright-lawyer perspective, for 2,000+ confirmed infringements, that volume of theft would be considered: ‘Severe, widespread infringement.’ Most photographers will go their entire lives without reaching even 20 verified infringements, let alone 200… let alone 2,000.”

It could certainly be a lot more than 2,000—it could be as high as 10,000! I would have to dig deeply and spend probably months and months tracking it all down, while ignoring everything else in life. When I asked ChatGPT about that amount of image theft, it replied, “It’s extreme, near-unprecedented, and would put that photographer in the top fraction of a fraction of a percent of most-stolen photographers on Earth. Most photographers with decades of work will never have 10,000 confirmed distinct images stolen—even if they are famous.” I don’t know if it has reached that “extreme, near-unprecedented” level yet, but it’s got to be somewhat close, especially if the “grey area” instances are included, where it may or may not be a copyright infringement, just depending on who you ask.

Potentially being the most stolen from photographer in the world means something. If my photos weren’t worth stealing, they wouldn’t be stolen. Same for the Recipes. I never expected this website to grow as large as it has. I never thought I’d be asked to lead photowalks across the country, or give presentations on photography, or be a speaker at camera events. Just recently a Japanese camera company (who wishes to remain anonymous) asked what my most ideal compact camera would be like, and even paid me for my opinions. If having the “most stolen from” trophy is the price to pay for that, it was worth that price. Obviously, most ideally, I would like the thefts to stop. It does real harm. Some people are making money off of my photos right now, which I’ll never see. We are all people, and we need to act kindly to each other. The “golden rule” that I tell my children constantly is to treat others as you want to be treated. If you don’t want people to steal your work, don’t steal theirs. The truth is that most of the theft happens because some people can’t or won’t create their own stuff, so instead they take it from those who can and do. Sadly, this is just a reality of our current world, and there’s not much anyone can do about it.

Has Fujifilm Regained its Soul?

Posted on October 30 by Ritchie Roesch

*Fujifilm Photowalk* – Ann Arbor, MI – Fujifilm X-T50 – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm – by Dave Geffin

A little over three years ago, I published Is Fujifilm Losing Its Soul?, which was my personal criticism of the direction the brand seemed to be heading at that time. “Fujifilm has already lost its soul,” I wrote. “It’s done gone. Elvis left the building awhile ago.”

In that article, I argued, “Fujifilm’s philosophy for their X-series cameras was analog-inspired innovations with a focus on the photographer’s experience (both while using the camera for photography, and as customers of the brand). This was their soul. That philosophy, which seemed to be clearly understood, is what drove the camera department of the company. From the design decisions to the Kaizen firmware updates and everything in-between, this philosophy oozed out—it was both obvious and attractive, and is why Fujifilm was suddenly successful….”

*Photowalk in Infrared* – Ann Arbor, MI – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2

My two main arguments were that Fujifilm had abandoned Kaizen (which, for a time, they had… hello, X-T3, and even X100V and X-Pro3), and they were more focused on attracting new customers from Canikony brands than they were on making their long-time loyal customer base happy. There was a time when that seemed to be very true. But we’re more than three years since now, is it still true today? Or has Fujifilm regained its soul?

While I’d love to see even more Kaizen (such as giving the X-T50 and X-M5 the ability to save Recipes in FS1/FS2/FS3), Fujifilm did show some love when they gave the X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, and X-S20 the Reala Ace Film Simulation. After a pause, Fujifilm did bring back Kaizen, but it’s time for a little more of it. I understand that the firmware department is probably swamped, and providing updates for older models probably isn’t as large of a priority as making firmware for upcoming cameras, but this should still be an important aspect of the brand, and not neglected. So I would say that progress has been made on this front, but there’s room for improvement.

*Camera Conversations* – Ann Arbor, MI – Fujifilm X-T50 – Superia Negative

As for the types of cameras that Fujifilm makes and what the intended customer base is for those models, I think Fujifilm has done a great job over the last couple of years with this. They listened to their customers, and took some risks. I think they have begun to realize what their actual advantage is over the other brands, and have done a much better job communicating why that might be preferable. Again, there’s definitely room for improvement, but they seem to have pivoted slightly, and they’re on a better course now, in my opinion.

Fujifilm’s largest asset is not a product—it’s the community that has sprung up around straight-out-of-camera photography from their cameras (think Film Simulations and/or Film Simulation Recipes). This community is passionate, helpful, and kind—generally, just good people. And this community, which has grown and grown and grown, has done far more to sell Fujifilm cameras than any marketing campaign could ever dare to achieve. Fujifilm could do more to support and facilitate the growth of this community, but 1) they recognized the existence and importance of this large group and 2) they’re doing a heck-of-a-lot more now than three years ago. Fujifilm has made large strides, and are even making products and design choices with these people in mind. This community is an important part of the brand, and Fujifilm finally figured that out. Much of the success that Fujifilm has experienced over the last few years has been because of these people.

*Photowalk Discussion* – Ann Arbor, MI – Fujifilm X-T5 – Fujicolor Negative – by Amanda Roesch

The question is: what should Fujifilm do moving forward? I already mentioned more Kaizen. An X-Pro3 successor is already in the works, so I’ll skip past that. I think a flagship model with retro styling and traditional tactile controls should be high on Fujifilm’s to-do list… that could be the upcoming X-Pro, an upgraded X-T6, or a brand-new line—the long-time loyal base shouldn’t have to settle for PASM (I know that some people prefer PASM) in order to have the best-of-the-best X-series camera. The GFX100RF shouldn’t be the only retro-styled GFX offering, either. Fujifilm should make programming Recipes into their cameras easier (I’m happy to help with that, btw, if Fujifilm is interested). There are probably a thousand ideas that I could propose, these are just scratching the surface—hopefully someday I’ll have the opportunity to share them with the company.

To answer the question asked in this article’s title, Fujifilm has taken many steps towards regaining its soul in the three years since I wrote that article. Elvis has returned for an encore, and what an encore it has been! But there’s certainly more that they could and should do. It’s not all rainbows and lollipops, but I’m quite happy with the path that Fujifilm currently seems to be heading down. In my opinion, I think they briefly lost their way, but they’re back on track, and have been for a couple of years now.

Let’s talk about the Fujifilm X-E5

Posted on August 25 by Ritchie Roesch

I love the Fujifilm X-E5. In my opinion, it’s the greatest iteration of the X-E series—probably objectively so, and not just subjectively. This line is one of my favorites, and I have a special place in my heart for it—an X-E1 was my gateway into the X-Series. But there’s something a bit unusual going on within the Fujifilm community regarding this new camera—I noticed it, so I thought I should comment on it.

By “Fujifilm community” I mean online. Something that I realized over the last year, after meeting thousands of you, is that the in-person Fujifilm community is much different than the online community. Yes, some are in both worlds, but there are many trolls, haters, and constant complainers on the internet that simply don’t exist in real life. Maybe they’re hiding, but they don’t show up to photowalks, classes, and events. Thankfully, most of those people avoid this website, probably because I don’t put up with it (I would encourage other websites to crack down on the toxic behaviors found throughout the comments sections). You see them elsewhere in droves (although trolls can have multiple pseudonyms, appearing to be many people, when it’s actually only one). In real life, the Fujifilm community is kind, friendly, and respectful—basically, just normal people.

Ann Arbor Photowalk — Fujifilm X-T50 — Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm — by Dave Geffin

Prior to its announcement, the view I held of the Fujifilm X-E5 (and I wrote about it several times) is that the camera should be basically the same as the X-E4, with only small changes. Prioritize size, weight, and affordability. Add an M/C/S switch, a rear command dial, and the X Processor 5, and call it good. However, the feedback I got from the community is that most disagreed. My opinion was clearly a minority opinion. Folks wanted the next X-E camera to be an interchangeable-lens X100VI, are as close to that as practical. I was not surprised that Fujifilm listened to the community, and made that camera. With the X-E5, Fujifilm delivered on what most had asked for.

It’s not what I asked for, but that’s ok. I’m just one person. Besides, I’m not always right. The camera that Fujifilm made instead is quite excellent. It has the 40mp X-Trans V sensor, IBIS, very nice build quality, and a newly designed Film Dial. You can program up to 11 Film Simulation Recipes into it, more than any other Fujifilm camera. There’s a heck-of-a-lot to like. All of those upgrades add up. That, plus accounting for inflation and tariffs (in America), the X-E5 is the most expensive X-E iteration. It’s no longer an entry-level model, but clearly mid-tier.

For those who had requested the camera to be an interchangeable-lens X100VI, they should put their money where their mouth is. Years ago, there was a push within the community for a longer telephoto prime lens—at the time, the Fujinon 90mm f/2 was the longest. Fujifilm listened to the input from the community, who said the lens needed to be long and sharp and fast. “If it ain’t f/2,” some publicly stated, “I ain’t buying.” Well, Fujifilm made the lens that many had asked for—an extremely excellent lens, too. But few purchased it. Why? Because it was large, heavy, and really expensive ($6,000!). Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.

Once bitten, twice shy. If the community asks for something and Fujifilm delivers, but then not many buy, do you think that they’ll continue to listen? If you asked for something and it came to pass, I feel you are obligated to put some skin in the game. What I see online, though, is the opposite. “Nobody asked for this,” is a statement that I’ve read a number of times now in comments on articles and videos about the X-E5. People are pretending that this isn’t the camera they requested.

*Buckeye Motor Hotel* – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5 – Summer Sun

I’ve had a front row seat to all those who asked for it, and it was a lot of people. Not a few; it was a ton. I cannot tell you how many times I read, “No IBIS, no buy.” And, “It better have the 40mp sensor!” I cannot count the number of times someone said, “I just want an interchangeable-lens X100VI.” You probably read those same statements, too. Like the Fujinon 200mm f/2 lens, some of those who asked for it are now pretending they didn’t.

The X-E5 will prove to be a popular model, and likely will be the all-time best-selling X-E camera. Those folks who had asked for it but are now pretending that they didn’t because it costs more money than they expected, their purchase is unnecessary for the success of this camera. Still, I find it frustrating when people say one thing, but, when push comes to shove, they do the opposite. If you advocated for this camera, don’t complain that they made it; instead, appreciate that they listened to you—otherwise, you risk ruining that Fujifilm actually listens to the community.

*Mission* – Tucson, AZ – Fujifilm X-E5 – Kodak Vericolor VPS

I’m reminded of the Fujifilm GFX100RF. There were people, mostly trolls, haters, and constant complainers, who were never going to be happy. They created a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation for Fujifilm. If the camera didn’t have this or that, it was garbage for not having it; however, if it did have this and that, it was too big, heavy, and expensive. In the case of the GFX100RF, it didn’t have IBIS or an f/2 lens, so it was garbage. In the case of the X-E5, it does have IBIS and 40mp, but it costs significantly more money, so Fujifilm has lost the plot. Fujifilm can’t win; only the trolls win.

Of course, the real winners are those who grab their cameras—whatever those cameras are—and head out to photograph. Whatever people say on the internet doesn’t actually matter; what does matter is what you do in real life—the people you meet, and the pictures you create. You don’t need the latest gear to do that, you don’t need the Fujifilm X-E5. Most likely, whatever you already have is sufficient. Sometimes you do need new gear, should something break or maybe what you have isn’t ideal for your needs. Sometimes new gear can inspire you to pick up your camera instead of letting it collect dust. But, for the most part, you already have what you need. The excessive negativity on the internet is just nonsense, and is safe to ignore. And those trying to create a revisionist history of the X-E5 are being dishonest—I was there, and I remember what was said.

Autofocus and an Upside-Down U

Posted on July 26 by Ritchie Roesch

*Captured with a Fujifilm X-M1 camera & Fujinon 90mm f/2 lens*

Fujifilm’s autofocus will never be as good as Canon, Sony, or Nikon’s, and that’s ok. I’ve explained this before a couple of times, so forgive me for repeating myself. There are some highly unrealistic expectations that need to be put to rest, which I hope this article accomplishes.

There are a lot of comments floating around the internet along the lines of, “Fujifilm’s autofocus sucks.” And, “Fujifilm needs class leading autofocus like Sony and Canon.” And, “If Fujifilm doesn’t address AF on the next generation, I’m leaving.” And many other similar sentiments. But these comments are out of touch with reality. Let me explain why Fujifilm’s autofocus will never be as good as the Canikony brands, and why it doesn’t matter.

There are three reasons why Fujifilm’s AF isn’t as good as the three big brands. First, those companies have been making autofocus systems for much longer. Sony (through Konica and Minolta) have been making AF since the 1970’s—they were the first (via Konica), and the first to have what was considered a “good” AF system (via Minolta). Canon and Nikon have been developing AF since the 1980’s. Since they had such a big head start, it is only logical that they’re further along. Second, the Canikony brands have more R&D funds to commit to autofocus development and improvements. They have larger teams with larger budgets, and it’s probably easier for them to attract the most experienced talent. Last but not least—and this was pointed out by PetaPixel—the big three have put most of their effort over the last handful of years into AF, and have largely ignored image quality improvements; in some cases, autofocus was prioritized to the detriment of image quality. That is a path I would highly discourage Fujifilm from pursuing, personally.

*Fujifilm X-T30 & Fujinon 90mm f/2* *— Fujichrome Sensia 100*

While Canon, Sony, and Nikon have put a lot of their eggs in the AF basket, we’ve long surpassed the point of diminishing returns—the Inverted U Curve, for those who have read Malcolm Gladwell’s David & Goliath (a book I definitely recommend). How good does AF really need to be? At what point is it good enough for almost everyone? I think we passed that point years ago. For almost the entire history of photography and videography, there was no autofocus. It was manual focus only. Yet today’s photos and videos aren’t necessarily better than they were then (in some ways, they might be subjectively worse). If we compare Minolta’s first “good” AF to the AF of any camera made in the last 25 years, it’s clearly not as good as even the worst examples you could find. In other words, we’re really spoiled today with incredible gear. Fujifilm’s so-called “sucky” AF is better than the best AF from 15 years ago, maybe even 10. Were we incapable of creating good photos and videos then? Are photos and videos captured today using the latest Canikony cameras better than anything previously? Of course not! Some people seem to think that photography has only been around for a few years.

It was never about the gear, it has always been about the one using the gear. Yes, some tools make it a bit easier to achieve your desired results, but if you really want a certain result, you can do it no matter your camera. You might have to try a little harder, you might have to learn a new skill, or you might have to practice a skill you’ve gotten rusty at, but you can still do it. My guess, though, is that for 98% of people, Fujifilm’s AF is more than good enough just as it is, as was Canikony’s five or ten or even 15 years ago. So does it actually matter that Fujifilm’s autofocus isn’t as good as the three big brands? It might matter to some, but it shouldn’t matter to the vast majority. If you can’t get the job done with the gear you have, the problem isn’t the gear; however, that’s a bitter pill that people don’t want to swallow. Nobody wants to hear that they’re the problem, but without introspection there’s no opportunity for growth.

With all of that said, Fujifilm has done an amazing job creating and improving the autofocus on their cameras, all things considered (aside from that infamous firmware bug last year). With a smaller budget and smaller team (and with a lot less time), they’re not terribly far behind Nikon. I’m sure they will continue to make strides, and—who knows—with AI they might have some breakthroughs that would be difficult otherwise, and which might level the playing field a bit. For most people, these improvements will have little-to-no practical benefit because the AF is already more than sufficient—we’re near the top of the upside-down U. Seriously, how good does it need to be? It’s been more than good enough for me since X-Trans III, and even the older models are decent in daylight situations. Only in extreme cases do the Canikony brands have a clear advantage, yet even those situations aren’t insurmountable if the one behind the camera doesn’t allow them to be. While I’m sure Fujifilm’s autofocus will continue to improve, the difference it will make for most people is very small. Yes, we’re rooting for Fujifilm to be at the head-of-the-pack in every aspect of camera-making, but it’s important to keep expectations realistic, or else we’ll inevitable be disappointed, which will lead to unnecessary resentment—something that’s easy to spot all over the internet.

Fujifilm’s 7 Best Cameras

Posted on September 12, 2024 by Ritchie Roesch

I get asked occasionally which Fujifilm cameras are the very best. Sometimes people want to jump into the Fujifilm system, but are unaware of which camera to buy; however, they know that they want the “best” model, whichever one that is. Of course, best is highly subjective—what is “best” for one person may not be for another. My list might look a lot different from another’s. This is simply my opinion as a long-time experienced Fujifilm photographer, so take it for what it’s worth, which might only be two pennies.

My list of Fujifilm’s seven best cameras is limited to X-series models. I’m not including GFX, Instax, Fujica, or anything else. I’m only discussing the APS-C line that Fujifilm introduced with the fixed-lens X100 in 2011, and the interchangeable-lens X-Pro1 in 2012. Those cameras and the ones introduced afterwards are the models being considered for this list.

Without any further delay, let’s get started!

#7: Fujifilm X70

The Fujifilm X70 is a fixed-lens X-Trans II camera that was released in 2016. It had a short sales-life because Sony suddenly discontinued production of the 16mp APS-C sensor that the camera used, and by the end of that year the X70 was discontinued, and out-of-stock shortly thereafter. As a compact camera with an 18.5mm (28mm full-frame-equivalent) lens, it competed directly with the Ricoh GR II. I like the X70 better than the GR II because it has the traditional tactile controls that Fujifilm is known for, while the GR cameras utilize PASM.

Today, at eight-years-old, the camera often sells for more than when it was brand-new. It’s much beloved by many who own one. Some proclaim it to be their favorite Fujifilm camera of all time. Compared to the latest models, the X70 is less advanced and with fewer options, but it does what few Fujifilm cameras can: fit into your pocket. In my opinion, it’s the best carry-everywhere camera ever made by Fujifilm. A successor—an X80—should be a high priority for Fuji.

#6: Fujifilm X-Pro2

While all three of the X-Pro cameras are great, there’s something especially special about the Fujifilm X-Pro2. It’s the seemingly perfect balance of form and function. It’s one of those cameras that will be desired and used for many years to come. While other digital cameras of its era will be long forgotten, I’m convinced that the X-Pro2 will still be sought out even when it’s 20 years old or older.

Introduced at the same time as the X70, the Fujifilm X-Pro2 is an X-Trans III model, and as such it doesn’t seem quite as dated as the X70. It still holds up fairly well in ability and features compared to the latest models. I would be perfectly happy if it were my only camera; unfortunately, I let it get away from me twice.

#5: Fujifilm X-E4

The X-E4 is the smallest and most minimalistic of Fujifilm’s modern offerings. While it is not perfect (no camera is), it does offer a slightly unique experience for Fujifilm that some like and some don’t. Personally, I appreciate the camera—it is one of my favorite Fujifilm models—and I find it especially great for travel or just everyday walk-around photography, thanks to its compactness. I have more expensive cameras, but often choose the X-E4 instead.

While the Fujifilm X-E4 doesn’t have IBIS or 40mp or the newest couple of film simulations, it is one of the last X-Trans IV models, and as such is quite advanced and capable. Unfortunately, Fujifilm greatly underestimated the demand for the X-E4, and failed to secure enough parts to manufacture as many copies as they should have, inexplicably discontinuing it when there were lengthy backorder lists. Because of that, right now the X-E4 sells for several hundred dollars more used than when it was brand-new.

#4: Fujifilm X100V

The X100 is where the X-series began; the X100V is the model that unexpectedly wen’t viral when it was over two years old. This list could be filled with X100 cameras—in fact, I debated if the X100F should have been placed in the #6 or #7 positions (it was a tough cut). The X100V is the fifth iteration—the X-Trans IV version—and served as my “desert island” camera until the introduction of the X100VI earlier this year.

I love the X100V because it is small and lightweight, and has great features like a built-in ND filter and leaf shutter plus a fill-flash that just seems to work perfect. For a fixed-lens camera, it is surprisingly versatile. I don’t travel without an X100 model. It’s no wonder why the X100V was the camera to have in 2023 (although few could get it); in 2024, it’s still an excellent choice. And it might be easier to find than an X100VI.

#3: Fujifilm X-T5

The X-T5 is Fujifilm’s flagship SLR-styled traditional tactile control model. If you want the best, look no further—it’s the cream of the crop: IBIS, 40mp, weather-sealing, dual SD-card slots, etc., etc.. The X-T5 is notably smaller and lighter than the X-T4. It’s such a great camera, there’s not much negative that can be said about it. This camera could very easily be #1 on this list, and on paper it should be.

While the Fujifilm X-T5 is technically a great camera, and it did slim down compared to its predecessor, it’s more camera than I need much of the time. Because of this, I will often choose a different model, including technically inferior options like the X-E4. Sometimes data sheets and spec charts don’t tell the full story. You don’t always need a fully loaded Land Cruiser, sometimes a Camry will get you there more efficiently; still, sometimes you need the Land Cruiser.

#2: Fujifilm X-T50

The X-T50 is an X-T5, but without weather-sealing, with only one SD-card slot, with a Film Dial instead of an ISO Dial, a lower resolution-EVF, the old battery, in a smaller and lighter body, and a little cheaper. Technically speaking, the X-T5 is superior, but, over the summer, I used an X-T50 far more than an X-T5. Between the two, most of the time I chose the X-T50.

The X-T30 II is in the same series as the X-T50; however, Fujifilm says that the X-T50 is not the X-T30 II’s successor. The X-T50 is closely related and similar, but is not the X-T30 II’s replacement, as they are currently manufacturing both models. The X-T30 II is a better value (and I almost placed it at #7); overall, the X-T50 is the better camera of the two. For those wanting to get into the Fujifilm system, the X-T50 is my top recommendation, but the X-T30 II isn’t far behind.

#1: Fujifilm X100VI

I love the Fujifilm X100V, and the X100VI is even better! It is my “desert island” camera, which is to say that if I could choose only one model to use for the rest of my life, it would be this one. It is my absolute favorite photography tool, and it gets a lot of use. In my opinion, this is Fujifilm’s best camera.

The Fujifilm X100VI is by far the most preordered camera by any brand in history. We’re over six months since it was announced, and some people who preordered on Day 1 are still waiting for their camera to arrive, and some have been told that it might be closer to Christmas. There were more preorders for the X100VI than there were X100V’s manufactured over its four-year production life. Fujifilm is assembling far more X100VI’s each month than they did the X100V, yet they still can’t even make enough to fulfill the orders that were placed back in February. This is the most viral camera ever, and if the hype continues (and it might), the X100VI could potentially end up as the most-sold model of all time by any brand. If you didn’t order one right away when it was announced, you may have to wait a long time to get one.

Some of you may have noticed that both the X-H2 and X-H2s, which are Fujifilm’s top-tier flagship models, did not make this list. Nor did the very capable X-S20. The reason is very simple: those are PASM models, and I don’t care much for PASM, personally. Those cameras are intended to give the most Canikony-like experience of any Fujifilm models; if you are coming from a Canikony brand, those models are going to feel more familiar to you. I never appreciated the (modern) Canikony approach, so I’m very much drawn to the traditional tactile controls that Fujifilm is known for. Fujifilm offers a unique experience in the camera world, which is one of the big reasons why I love Fujifilm, and that unique experience is found on each of the seven models in my list. While some might see it as merely “retro” (which it is), to me its preferable. It’s better—much better, in fact. You may or may not agree with that, and that’s fine—different strokes for different folks—I’m just explaining why those particular models didn’t crack my list.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm X-T50 in black:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex, Nuzira
Fujifilm X-T50 in silver:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex, Nuzira
Fujifilm X-T50 in charcoal:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex
Fujifilm X-T5 in black:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex, Nuzira
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex, Nuzira
Fujifilm X100VI in black:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex, Nuzira
Fujifilm X100VI in silver:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex, Nuzira

Camera Makers are Trading Image Quality for Speed — Should Fujifilm join them?

Posted on August 7, 2024 by Ritchie Roesch

*Skates & Hoop* – Tempe, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 – Astia Azure Recipe

PetaPixel published an interesting article today entitled Camera Makers Are Increasingly Happy to Trade Image Quality for Other Benefits by Jaron Schneider. I found it fascinating, particularly in light of my Let’s talk Fujifilm AF article that I published a little over a week ago. When I typed that post, I hadn’t considered that there might be an actual cost to image quality in order to produce blazing fast cameras with extraordinarily exceptional autofocus.

In my article, I said, “Fujifilm’s autofocus is very good—fantastic, actually. However, Sony and Canon (and arguably Nikon) have a bit more fantastic autofocus system than Fujifilm (as you’d expect). I really don’t understand the complaints about Fujifilm’s autofocus. It is like complaining that a Corvette isn’t a Maserati, and calling the Corvette garbage because it isn’t more like a Maserati. If you want a Maserati, buy a Maserati! Otherwise, appreciate that you have a Corvette.”

*Corvette Abstract* – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-H1 – Mystery Chrome Recipe

PetaPixel’s article essential states that the big three camera makers—Canon, Nikon, and Sony (a.k.a. Canikony)—are chasing faster camera processing, improved autofocus, and increased video specs at the expense of pure image quality. It might be that they’re so focused (pun intended) on those things that improving image quality for still photographs just isn’t a priority, so it remains stagnate from one model to the next. Perhaps they simply feel that image quality has neared the ceiling for the current tech, so there’s no need to push things further. On the other hand, the tech they’re using in some cameras to achieve speed plus autofocus and video specs is actually detrimental to image quality, particularly for dynamic range and high-ISO noise.

I’ve never even been inside of a Maserati or Corvette, but perhaps the Corvette, while not as fast or agile as the Maserati, offers a more comfortable ride for significantly less money, while still delivering a thrill. No camera is perfect, and each has advantages and disadvantages—what I can say for certain is that I’d choose a “Corvette” camera over a “Maserati” any day of the week. And I’m glad that Fujifilm is not compromising still image quality in pursuit of speed and specs. Jaron wrote, “One company that is finding its products suddenly becoming more compelling because of this: Fujifilm.”

*Hit* – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X-T30 – Fujichrome Sensia 100 Recipe

I hope that Fujifilm doesn’t cave in to the negativity by some who would prefer that they simply become a part of the Canikony brands (Canikonyfilm?). In my opinion, Fujifilm should continue to blaze their own trail, and not concern themselves too much with what the other brands are doing. They need to continue to produce compelling cameras—trendworthy and timeless products—and do more to communicate with potential customers why their unique approach is desirable and maybe even preferable.

I really don’t want Fujifilm to pursue a path that leads to reduced image quality. Those who appreciate image quality above technical specs and extreme performance will turn to—and have already been turning to—Fujifilm as the Canikony brands ignore them. Those who prefer speed and specs above all else have three brands to choose from—for certain those things sell cameras (or else they wouldn’t be doing it), but those who actually need it are a very small percentage of the total customers. Most of those who buy those cameras do so because of marketing or hype or FOMO; however, they don’t need a “Maserati” by any stretch, and would be quite happy with a “Corvette” instead.

What is your opinion? Should Fujifilm give up some image quality in order to make faster cameras like Canon, Nikon, and Sony have been doing? Or should Fujifilm work more towards improvements in image quality instead? Comment below with your opinions!

Do You Care that Adobe is Spying on Your Pictures?

Posted on June 11, 2024 by Ritchie Roesch

*I Spy with my Little Eye* – Laguna Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-T5 – Fujicolor Reala 100

There’s an Adobe controversy that seemingly everyone’s talking about. I have probably a unique take on it, and I want to share that with you in this article. If you’re interested, read on; otherwise, this is probably a post that’s ok to skip.

I don’t want to spend too much time rehashing what has already been said about it, but for those who don’t know… Adobe—the makers of Photoshop, Lightroom, and a number of other software programs—has been ticking off their customers for some time now. They’re constantly doing something that makes their customers unhappy—but, apparently, not unhappy enough to actually matter. Adobe is the long-time reigning king of photo and video editing software (at least by subscription sales…), and their closest competitors are pretty far in the distance. Adobe is not worried in the slightest about any controversy they’ve stepped into. They can be brazen in their controversies and it doesn’t bother them even a little. They have a lot to gain and very little to lose (or so they think). They can even spy on your pictures, and you’re not going to do a darn thing about it.

That’s the current controversy. Adobe has updated their terms of service, which allows them to potentially look at your pictures—presumably only if you are utilizing their cloud service and/or AI technologies; however, they haven’t fully clarified that, which certainly casts some doubt to a limited use scenario. If you’re not being forthcoming, people are going to assume all sorts of things, especially if you have a history of deception. For example, nobody had a clue that Adobe was using their pictures (via Adobe Stock) to train their AI; when it came out, Adobe pointed out it was in the terms of service, and everyone was like, “I don’t remember agreeing to that, and I wouldn’t have if I had known.” But how can you argue? You agreed. Is it Adobe’s fault that you didn’t read the lengthy terms of service written in a legal language that only an attorney could fully understand? No, it’s your fault, because you agreed, even though you had no idea what you were agreeing to. It was buried in there somewhere, apparently, that Adobe could legally use your pictures to eventually put you out of business.

*A photo from 2015, back when I still post-processed RAW files. A little over-edited; nevertheless, this picture hangs on a wall in my house.*

If you want to learn more about the controversy, PetaPixel has a few articles (here, here, and here). Tony Northrup has a video. Even Fujirumors has a post. There are a thousand more, I’m sure, that you can find and read. It’s a big story, but it won’t make any difference, unless this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Unless their customers have finally had enough and have a mass exodus. Otherwise, we’ll all forget about this rather quickly, and (as usual) it will be a complete nonissue.

The fact is that most apps are spying on you. Data is money right now. Big money. It’s a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. The more that is known about you, the easier it is to control how you think and behave and (most important to companies) to sell you crap that you probably don’t need and otherwise wouldn’t have purchased. Adobe is spying on you for the same reasons why Google, Apple, Meta, Yahoo, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., are spying on you. There’s a lot of money to be made from knowing more about you, and there’s a lot of money for that data. They will tell you that it’s innocent: to improve customer service or improve their products or for legal or training purposes— something like that—but in reality it’s about the money that they can make from doing it. Your money, btw—it’s about how they can get their hands on your money more easily. And it’s not just your money; they don’t actually care where the cash comes from—for example, Adobe’s AI ultimately isn’t about getting more money from photographers, but eventually the money that might otherwise go to photographers; they’re going to cut out the middleman (that’s you).

I know all of this because, technically speaking, I’m an app developer, and I’ve learned this stuff while developing apps and researching topics related to it. My apps don’t spy on anyone for any reason. I collect zero data with my apps, not even user names or email addresses. There are plenty of people who would say it’s not smart to do that—everyone else is doing it, and making a lot of money in the process. Why shouldn’t I? But I value your privacy, because I value my own privacy. Treat others how you wish to be treated, right? That’s the Golden Rule, which used to mean something. Maybe I’m naive, but I think the world would be better if more people followed that principal. Unfortunately, most apps don’t follow that rule, and you’re being spied on a lot more than you likely realize.

*Smile! You’re on Camera* – Vulture City, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Fujicolor Natura 1600

Going back to Adobe, I haven’t used their products for a long time now. A lot of Fujifilm photographers use Capture One instead of Lightroom because of how it handles X-Trans files. Nowadays—and for a handful of years now—I shoot JPEGs, and don’t edit, other than cropping/straightening and maybe a minor adjustment occasionally. I use Film Simulation Recipes, and get the look I want straight-out-of-camera, unedited. I have no need for Photoshop or Lightroom or even a competitor’s version of those programs. Personally, I don’t really care what Adobe does or doesn’t do, because I have no skin in the game, so to speak. Every person’s needs are different, but I bet that a lot of you reading this probably don’t need Adobe’s software, either, and could cancel your subscription (if you have one) without any negative impact whatsoever on your photography. If you’ve been on the fence about cancelling your Adobe subscription, perhaps now is a good time.

Even though Adobe owns the primary programs that many photographers use, if you are not happy with them, why continually give them your money? There are alternative software options, and alternative approaches, that make Adobe unnecessary for almost everyone. For me, it’s Film Simulation Recipes and JPEGs. For you, maybe it’s Capture One or some other program. I don’t want to suggest what might be the best choice for you, as we’re all different. Maybe you actually really do need Adobe; if that’s you, I hope you don’t mind being spied on by them, because they might just be doing that.

Anyway, this will all blow over really quickly, and two weeks from now probably no one will even be talking about it or concerned in the least about Adobe possibly spying on their pictures. So none of this actually matters. But if it does matter to you, just know there are indeed other options, and some might even be closer to you and easier for you than you realize.

Is Boosting a Post on Instagram Worth It?

Posted on August 16, 2022 by Ritchie Roesch

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.

By the way, be sure to follow me on Instagram if you don’t already.

Is Fujifilm Losing Its Soul?

Posted on June 20, 2022 by Ritchie Roesch

After the announcement of the Fujifilm X-H2S, which has a PASM dial instead of the traditional dials of the X-H1, many people asked, “Is Fujifilm losing its soul?” I’ve had a number of Fujifilm photographers tell me that they believe so, and some have inquired if I believe so, too. What’s my opinion? Is Fujifilm indeed losing its soul?

Fujifilm has already lost its soul. It’s done gone. Elvis left the building awhile ago. The design decisions during development of the X-H2S are simply the manifestation of that lost soul.

What was this “soul” that Fujifilm lost? How can a company even have a soul?

A whole book could be written on this topic, but to summarize in a short sentence, Fujifilm’s philosophy for their X-series cameras was analog-inspired innovations with a focus on the photographer’s experience (both while using the camera for photography, and as customers of the brand). This was their soul. That philosophy, which seemed to be clearly understood, is what drove the camera department of the company (remember, Fujifilm’s main business is not photography nowadays). From the design decisions to the Kaizen firmware updates and everything in-between, this philosophy oozed out—it was both obvious and attractive, and is why Fujifilm was suddenly successful, quickly overtaking other brands, including iconic Nikon.

Fujifilm didn’t need to have a photography department at all, but they decided that, even if it was a bust, they’d still fund it and keep it going, because photography had been such an important part of their company’s heritage, and had been an important aspect of Japanese culture. They were merely the caretakers of this thing that was bigger than themselves. That’s how they looked at it, anyway, and it was noticeable and refreshing.

Somewhere along the line, however, Fujifilm began to view this differently. The photography division needed to be built bigger. It must grow. It must become more profitable. It must gain more marketshare. It must become as big as—or bigger than—Canon and Sony. I think there are actually two competing sides within Fujifilm (and maybe this battle has been taking place for awhile now): one is profit-first driven, and the other is nurture-first driven. The side I would like to see win is the latter, but the side that seems to be winning is the former.

Where this lost-soul has most obviously manifested itself is Kaizen, or the lack of it. This is a word that I hadn’t heard of until I owned a Fujifilm camera. It’s something that attracted a lot of people to the brand. It means continuous improvement—making something better over time, even though it was already purchased. Why? Part of it is duty (what you are supposed to do), and another part of it is that it creates loyalty, because it shows the customer that you care about them, and not just their money. That care will cause the customer to overlook shortcomings, because the caring is more important to them in the whole scheme of things. And long-term loyalty is more valuable to the company than short-term gains. I don’t know the exact timeline of when Fujifilm stopped caring (or, more accurately, began caring less about their customers in favor of caring more about profits), but it seems to be during the development of X-Trans IV. That’s when the profit-first people seemed to first get an upper hand on the nurture-first people. I don’t know for sure, though. What I am confident in is that, as X-Trans V rolls out, the profit-first philosophy is the current mantra of Fujifilm’s photography division—it’s Fujifilm’s current soul, unfortunately.

Am I overreacting? After all, the X-H2S is just one camera, right? There are two points that I’d like to make. First, Fujifilm removed the traditional dials on the X-H line in favor of PASM. For Fujifilm, PASM cameras are intended to attract new customers who are not interested in or are otherwise intimated by the traditional controls of their other X models. They don’t put PASM on cameras that they intend to market to their current customer base. The X-H2S is their top-of-the-line “flagship” model, the first X-Trans V… and it’s not for you. It was never intended for you. Screw you! It’s for them. Those guys with their Sonys and Canons, that’s who it’s for. We give our best to them. Our current customers who have been so loyal over the years will have to be happy with the crumbs that fall from the table. Second, X-Trans V is rolling out, while the X-T3 (their all-time top-selling model) and X-T30 are still on an island, and the X-Pro3 and X100V (premium models) don’t have as good of JPEG features as the X-S10, X-E4, and X-T30 II (mid or lower tier models). That’s shameful, in my opinion. Take care of your current customers first before working so hard to bring in new customers. Fujifilm is making their customer base less loyal, which will only hurt them in the long run. Nurture first.

If you build it, they will come. Fujifilm built it and they came; however, not enough for the profit-first people. They want more, but they’re barking up the wrong tree. Instead of becoming Sony in order to attract current Sony users who are unhappy with their gear (how does this makes sense to anyone?), Fujifilm should double-down on what makes them unique. What’s special about Fujifilm? Analog-inspired innovation and the photographer’s experience—that’s what’s special, or at least it used to be. There’s one other thing that’s unique, and that’s community. Fujifilm didn’t build it—instead it was built around them; however, they have not done nearly enough to embrace it and engage it. In fact, at times they’ve been standoffish to it. That needs to end, because community is Fujifilm’s greatest asset, yet they seem unsure of how to engage it, so they do so halfheartedly and from a “safe” distance.

I didn’t mean to write a negative article. When I sat down at the computer, I had no intention of typing out this post; however, it’s something that has been circling inside my mind for a few weeks now, so I suppose that it was inevitable. I really hope that it doesn’t make you feel angry towards Fujifilm. This article’s aim is to, on the off chance that this is actually read by Fujifilm, inspire reflection and perhaps even change, and secondarily put into words something that maybe you have felt but weren’t sure how to express. Perhaps this is somehow therapeutic. For me it feels good to say, even though it is negative, and I hope that getting it out in the open will somehow produce something positive.

What Future Camera Technology Might Be Like

Posted on October 7, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

*Barn by the Tetons* – Grand Teton NP, WY – Fujifilm X-E1 – Nik Silver Efex edit

What will future cameras be like? More specifically, what do I think they’ll be like? This is an odd topic that has come up a few times recently in various places. I don’t have any inside information. I’ve never laid eyes on any top-secret still-in-development cameras. I only have my own ideas and opinions, which are probably inaccurate. I’ve certainly been wrong before, and I’m probably wrong now. Still, it’s fun to speculate.

I think, in the not-too-distant future, perhaps beginning in roughly five years, we’ll see camera manufacturers team up with software companies to offer more (and better) in-camera filters. We’re going to see more software built into cameras, and with that, I think we’ll start to see VSCO, RNI, Alien Skin, Nik Collection, and others, partner with camera manufacturers to include their popular presets integrated into gear. This will also allow RAW files to match straight-out-of-camera JPEGs (and TIFFs) simply by applying the same preset in-software as in-camera.

*Mirrored Mountain* – Mirror Lake, UT – Fujifilm X-E1 – Alien Skin Exposure edit

The Zeiss ZX1 camera has Lightroom Mobile built-in. The Pixii camera can be programmed with LUT profiles. It’s not even close to mainstream yet, but you can see the very beginning of this shift start to build. I think it is only a matter of time before you will be able to capture in-camera with (for example) the RNI Kodak Gold v.3 preset. I don’t think Canon, Sony, Nikon, or Fujifilm will be the first company to do this. Maybe Leica. Perhaps a future Panasonic S-series model. I’m not exactly sure, but it will definitely be a marketing strategy for whoever does it first.

I believe that in the beginning it will be collaborations between specific manufactures and software companies. For example, Sony might partner with VSCO, and perhaps Nikon partners with RNI. I personally hope Fujifilm partners with RNI or Alien Skin, but my guess is that Fujifilm will hold onto their film simulations, which, let’s be honest, is a similar concept. Film simulations are kind of like presets, especially since they can be customized with film simulation recipes; however, in its current state film simulations don’t go as far as what I believe is coming. I do think Fujifilm can accomplish in-house their own presets, since they do seem to have a nice head start, but I don’t know if they have the foresight to take it far enough or the R&D resources to keep up once it takes off. We’ll have to wait and see how it all plays out. Currently, Fujifilm’s Film Simulations, with the help of custom JPEG recipes, are the closest thing right now to what I believe is coming.

Eventually I see it morphing into more of an app model, where you can buy any company’s presets and use them on your camera, no matter the brand. Buy a Canon and download the RNI app if you want their presets, or VSCO if you want theirs. If you have a Fujifilm camera, you can use the exact same presets on that camera as you can on your Sony. This might be 10 or more years down the road, but it seems like it is inevitable that it will happen someday.

*Whitefish Lake Infrared* – Whitefish, MT – Fujifilm X100V – RNI Aero edit

Why do I think all this is the future of photography technology? What I believe is going to happen is a stronger movement towards straight-out-of-camera. Not for bragging rights, but for three reasons: 1) it saves so much time, 2) it can be more fun, and 3) it opens up photography more to those who don’t have the desire, skills, or time to post-process their pictures. Technology will make getting post-processed-like-looks more accessible without the need to actually do it. It’s going to be easier and more automatic. You, the photographer, will have to select which look you want, and the camera will do the work for you and will deliver to you out-of-camera that look without any need for Lightroom, etc., to achieve it. Upload the picture to whatever social media or cloud storage you want right from the camera. No need for a computer, as it’s all handled by the camera. You won’t even need your phone, unless camera companies figure out that they can harness the phone’s computing power to do the work for them, and the phone becomes (wirelessly) integrated into the camera.

I could be completely wrong about all of this. I’ve certainly been wrong many times before. Nobody knows the future. I do see things moving in this direction, and in a very small way, because of my film simulation recipes, I’ve had a hand in moving it.

*Sentinel & Merced* – Yosemite NP, CA – Fujifilm X100V – SOOC “Vintage Color” unedited

5 Tips To Become A Better Photographer in 2020

Posted on December 27, 2019 by Ritchie Roesch

Fujifilm X-E1

It’s almost the new year! 2020 is at the doorstep. This year is nearly over. You might be wondering how to improve your photography in 2020. Perhaps you feel that your pictures aren’t “good enough” and you wish you could make pictures like what you see others creating. Maybe you are in a rut and don’t know how to move forward. Or it could be that you always keep your camera in auto because you are intimidated by all of the different settings and you don’t really understand all of the technical stuff. Perhaps you just received your first “real” camera for Christmas and don’t know where to start. Whatever the reason, you want to become a better photographer in 2020. Well, this article is for you!

If you are not moving forward, you are moving backwards. No matter what your skill level is, you should always be striving to improve. You should be pushing yourself to be more technically proficient or to learn a new technique or to be more creative or to have a stronger vision. Throughout your life, and not just in 2020, you should be trying to become a better photographer. Keep working towards improvement. Don’t stand still, because you can’t.

Really, I’m in the same boat as you. I’m trying to become a better photographer in 2020. I’m pushing myself to improve my camera skills. My advice is aimed at myself just as much as you. We’re all in this together. I hope that you find the five tips below helpful in your quest to become a better photographer in 2020!

UP 4014 & UP 844 Racing West – Richardson Draw, WY – Fujifilm X-T20

Tip #1 – Know Your Gear, Part 1: Read The Manual

This might sound silly and obvious, but it’s important to know your camera and other photography gear inside and out. You need to know what all of the different settings do. You need to know how to make adjustments. You need to know how it all works. Most people thumb through the manual when they first get a new camera or other gear, and never look at it again. It’s a very good idea to take a careful look at it during unboxing, but it’s also a good idea to revisit the manual every so often. Pull the booklet back out after owning the camera for three months, and again at the one-year mark. You’ll be surprised at what you’ll find! If you are like me, you’ll learn new things each time that you do this. Knowing your gear is the necessary foundation for improving your photography.

Tip #2 – Know Your Gear, Part 2: Understand How It Works

Knowing how to change the aperture is one thing, but knowing how it will affect the picture is another. Those who have been doing photography for awhile likely have a good grasp on what all of the different settings do to a picture, but those who are inexperienced might have no idea. Even if you have a good grasp, it’s always beneficial to investigate more deeply, understand more precisely, and try new techniques. There are tons of people who don’t understand even the basics, and things like the exposure triangle are completely foreign to them. If you rely on the camera to guess what the right settings should be, you are basically crossing your fingers and wishing on a star that your picture will turn out well. If you intimately understand how your camera works and how different settings affect the image, you can ensure that your pictures turn out just as you want them to.

There are tons of great resources for learning different aspects of camera settings. Nowadays, with the internet, everything is right at your fingertips. Oftentimes the best way to learn is by doing, which means that you take your camera out of auto and play around with it. Spend some time experimenting with different apertures, different shutter speeds, different ISOs, etc.,etc., and compare the results. This is a learning process, so don’t worry that your pictures aren’t good yet. It takes a lot of time, but the time investment is well worth it. Whatever you are trying to learn, read up on it, then go out and do it, not being afraid to fail, but trying again and again until it’s second nature.

Onaqui Wild Horses – Dugway, UT – Fujifilm X-T30

Tip #3 – Invest In Experiences

Camera companies want you to think that you need the latest and greatest gear to become a better photographer. If only you had more resolution, better auto-focus, a larger sensor, a faster lens, etc., your pictures would look amazing, and they don’t because you didn’t buy it. My advice is to use what you already have to the best of your ability, and spend the money on experiences instead of new gear. Travel! Go someplace amazing. It doesn’t have to be far. Even if you were only going to spend $500, that money could get you somewhere. Take your camera with you and use it. Take lots of pictures! It’s better to keep the gear that you own and really use it, than to buy new gear and not use it as much. Eventually it will make sense to “upgrade” to something new, and you’ll know when that time is, but for now spend your money on experiences and not gear.

Tip #4 – Find The Light

Photography requires light, so it should come as no surprise that great photography requires great light. “Great light” is a little difficult to define, and it varies greatly depending on the subject, but oftentimes you know it when you see it. You can find great light anytime of the day or night if you look hard enough, and most of the time you have to seek it to find it. You can sometimes even create your own great light if it does not naturally exist. The most obvious great light is found near sunrise and sunset, and that’s a great starting point for those searching for it. With practice and experience, you’ll more easily spot great light, recognizing how to best utilize it for stronger pictures. The key is to always actively look for great light, but it takes a lot of clicks of the shutter to be proficient at finding it.

Tip #5 – Be The Man Who Came Back

There was an article in the September 1955 issue of Arizona Highways magazine by photographer Chuck Abbott entitled You Have To Go Back To Get The Good Ones. In the article he addresses the very question of this blog post: how does one become a better photographer? His answer: be the man who came back. Return again and again to the same subject. Try the picture at a different time of day, in a different season, under different light, from a different angle, etc. Keep coming back to it over and over, and don’t stop, even if you are satisfied with the results. Press yourself to make a more interesting picture of something that you’ve photographed before. Be a better storyteller than the last time. Make a stronger composition than your previous attempts. This is the best piece of advice that I can give you: if you want to become a better photographer in 2020, be the person who came back.

New: Fuji X Weekly Development Page

Posted on October 17, 2019 by Ritchie Roesch

I created a new Fuji X Weekly page called Development. You can find it by clicking on the top-left “hamburger” menu and then selecting Development. This new page has absolutely nothing to do with developing pictures, but instead has posts relating to personal development as a photographer. This is where you’ll find things like how-to articles and photography advice. So far it’s not a huge list of articles, but I hope to expand it greatly in the coming months. It’s small now, but it will be much larger soon enough. I’m hoping that it will be a wonderful resource for some of you. I encourage you to check it out, and to revisit it regularly to see what’s new.

Times Have Changed

Posted on May 2, 2019 by Ritchie Roesch

Airport Lobby – McKinney, TX – I captured this picture about 20 years ago.

I was thinking about how things have changed significantly in photography over the last 20 years. I have been doing this picture-taking thing for 20 years, beginning when I enrolled in Photography 101 in college. I remember that it started because, in the summer of 1998, I took a trip to New England, and brought along my dad’s Sears 35mm SLR and a bunch of film. I didn’t really know how to use the camera, but how hard could it be? When I returned and had the film developed, the pictures were extraordinarily awful! There were only a few frames that were correctly exposed, and the ones that were exposed alright had other issues, such as improper focus or were poorly composed. My desire to learn photography came out of the frustration of not understanding how to capture a descent picture. That fall I enrolled in college and signed up for a photography class, and soon fell in love with the art of creating pictures.

While it’s easy to say that the biggest change in photography over the last 20 years is technology, I don’t know if that’s completely true. Gear has changed a whole lot. When I started, it was all about film and darkrooms. Now it’s about sensors and software. However, there’s some carryover between the two methods. Technology has made things easier for the most part. I think it’s possible nowadays to throw a camera into auto and get good results, and one-click software has made editing much simpler. The prerequisite knowledge of how stuff works and why is no longer required, although it can still be very useful. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the learning curve for digital isn’t necessarily less–it’s definitely different–but there are technologies that will allow you to appear to know what you’re doing even when you don’t. Because the camera and software will take care of many things for you, you don’t have to know what you’re doing to capture a decent picture. Today’s cellphone cameras are more capable than many DSLRs were 15 years ago, and are one-click wonders. Advancements in photography technology has opened up photographic possibilities that weren’t conceivable before. It’s incredible what the modern camera can do! Another aspect of all this gear change is that cameras have become throw-away. People often “upgrade” their gear every year or two, and many don’t keep a camera more than five years. A ten year old camera is ancient. It used to be, in the old film days, that people kept their gear much, much longer, and typically only replaced their camera if it broke.

Another big change is the number of photos being created. Over a trillion pictures are captured worldwide each year now. When I started out the number was around 85 billion, so that’s a pretty big increase–about 12 times, in fact! Not only are there a ton more pictures being captured, but the ability to share those pictures with an audience worldwide is much, much easier (that’s a gross understatement). Everyday, each of us are bombarded with pictures. It’s become overwhelming! It’s to the point that it is difficult to get noticed among all the noise. You have to be extraordinarily great, do something especially unusual, have great marketing skills, or have amazingly good luck to get noticed. Or cheat. A lot of people buy their way to success nowadays, using questionable or downright unethical methods. Despite the fact that it’s more difficult to get noticed or create an iconic image, the number of great pictures being captured now is significantly higher than it used to be. Since there’s a heck-of-a-lot of quality pictures available, it’s a great time to be a photography consumer.

Clearing Rainstorm – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X-T30 – I captured this yesterday.

While way more photographs are being captured now than ever before, the number of pictures being printed is way down. Most photographs are only seen digitally via a computer monitor or cellphone or tablet. The physical print is significantly less common than 20 years ago. While the number of digital pictures is high, the number of physical pictures is low. However, with print-on-demand services, it’s very easy to obtain a print of almost any subject, if you should ever need a photographic print of something.

I bring this up because, in my opinion, the biggest change in photography over the last twenty years is the photographic market. It’s much harder to make good money as a photographer now than it used to be. Everybody with a camera–and everyone has a camera–is a photographer. It’s incredibly easy to start a photography business nowadays. Buy a camera, which will take decent pictures in full-auto mode, take a few snaps of family and friends, create a (free) website to look professional, then post a portrait or wedding photography business ad on Facebook Marketplace. I have seen a lot of people do this. And they make money, but not a lot. The photographers who are actually talented, which is a minority group, can do well for themselves, but many earn much less than they should for their efforts. The stock photo business is pretty much dead, replaced by micro-stock, which sells images for cheap and gives photographers peanuts at best for their work. They get away with this because a huge number of “photographers” willingly participate, trying to earn something from their pictures. The photojournalist has been replaced by onlookers with cellphones. The travel photographer has been replaced by the “influencer” who probably cheated his or her way to success. A lot of photography jobs that were good jobs have been replaced by things that don’t pay much, if anything at all.

I’m not saying this because I’m bitter. I’m just pointing out how the photographic industry in many genres has changed a whole bunch, which has made it more difficult for the photographer to make a decent living. There are still plenty of people who are making good money at photography. There are new opportunities that didn’t exist before. If you really want to become a successful photographer, I believe that if you keep trying really hard and are determined to do so, you’ll likely see your dream fulfilled. It won’t be easy and won’t likely happen overnight, but it can certainly happen. If you are doing photography for the love of the art and have no interest in the financial side of picture making, you’re doing it at an extraordinarily great time.

It’s an interesting era in photography. Gear has changed, becoming more impressive with each year. People across the globe are capturing pictures at an unprecedented rate. If you like viewing photographs or creating photographs, there’s never been a better time. If you want to earn money from making pictures, competition is extremely fierce, and you might find it as tough as it’s ever been to be successful. There are opportunities, so it’s far from impossible, but making good money from photography is not an easy task. It never was easy, but it’s more true today. You have to discover your niche and market the heck out of it. Those who don’t need to earn money from photography, but can create simply because they love to, are the lucky ones. They have it good. In fact, they’ve never had it better.

Stealing Inspiration

Posted on January 18, 2019 by Ritchie Roesch

Preserved Steam Wheel – Ogden, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

A little over two years ago I saw some interesting photographs by Christoffer Relander where he used double-exposure photography to capture rural landscapes inside of glass jars. I thought it was a neat concept, and I wanted to try my hand at something similar. I didn’t desire to do the exact same thing, so I decided that instead of rural landscapes I would put urban, architectural and industrial scenes inside the jars. I used a similar (but slightly different) technique than him, and I chose a different subject with a different intended meaning to differentiate my work from his.

It wasn’t long before Christoffer discovered my jar photographs, but the reaction that I received was not what I expected, and it wasn’t positive. He sent me a note to inform me that my photographs were too similar to his, and he asked me to stop making these types of pictures. He told me that my images went beyond inspiration and were, in fact, copycats. He didn’t appreciate that I was trying to steal his idea and ripoff his project, in his opinion.

I want to make it clear that I’m not writing this to bash Christoffer. I respect his amazing artistry. He does great work! He has a lot of talent and I wish him tons of success. I encourage you to check out his pictures. I wholeheartedly disagree with his sentiments and accusations, but that was two years ago and I’m no longer hurt by them. However, this is an important story for this discussion, and that’s why I’m bringing it up.

Preserving The Library Stairs – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

After receiving the note from Christoffer, one of the first things that I did was research photographers who have captured images of jars, paying special attention to those who did multiple-exposure pictures. As it turns out, his project is not completely unique, and I’m not surprised by this because there is very, very little art that’s truly original. Almost all art has taken inspiration from something else. There are a ton of examples of jar photographs, even more examples of rural landscape photographs, and many examples of multiple-exposure photography involving jars or rural landscapes. What Christoffer did that was for the most part unique was combine those elements together in one image. Almost nobody had done that before him. And almost nobody had combined multiple-exposure jar and urban/architectural/industrial pictures together when I did it.

Two years have passed since then, and I lost interest in the project awhile back because I let my feelings get in the way of creating art. In the meantime many other people have come along and done scene-in-a-jar double-exposure pictures. It’s much less unique now because once some technique or idea gets attention, others want to do it, too. That’s perfectly alright, since nothing is truly original. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

“Start copying what you love,” wrote Austin Kleon in his book Steal like an Artist. “Copy, copy, copy, copy. At the end of the copy you will find yourself.” He also articulated, “Every new idea is just a mashup or a remix of one or more previous ideas.” I could quote Austin all day, but it all boils down to this: there are very few if any truly new or unique ideas, and almost everything that you think is new or unique is not, so what you have to do is take a little from this person and a little from someone else and mix it with yourself to form something that seems original.

Preserving an Afternoon Downtown – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

“Nothing is original,” explained actor and director Jim Jarmusch. “Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadow. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable, originality is nonexistent.”

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Albert Einstein put it simply.

Creativity, which is a critical element for the artist photographer, is about stealing inspiration from whoever and wherever you can, mixing it all up and adding a little of your own unique perspective. Take a little from here. Take a little from over there. That’s what all creative people do. The secret is hiding your sources–not by lying, but by simply making it not so obvious who or what those sources are. My mistake was that I did not hide my sources very well, but Christoffer did a great job at hiding his sources, so I’m a copycat and he’s a genius.

There are two takeaways from this article that I hope you’ve discovered. The first is that it’s not only alright to copy others, it’s what you’re supposed to do, but with the caveat that you should mix in other influences and include a piece of yourself, as well. It’s not straight-up copying that you want to do, but stealing ideas and techniques and making them your own by including your unique perspectives. The second is that if you catch someone copying what you’re doing, don’t be offended! Take it as flattery. It’s a compliment. Besides, you stole it from someone else in the first place, so it’s not just you that’s being copied, it’s everyone who has influenced you and everyone who has influenced those who have influenced you. It’s all one big continuum, where everyone is copying everyone, and making beautiful photographs in the process. Go ahead and copy, and don’t feel bad about it for one moment, because without exception everyone steals inspiration from someone.

Why Bokeh Is Overrated

Posted on December 16, 2018 by Ritchie Roesch

Kitchen Flowers – Pawhuska, OK – Fujifilm X-Pro2 & 60mm

Within photography circles, bokeh is an often discussed aspect of an image, and this is especially true over the last ten or fifteen years. If you aren’t sure exactly what bokeh is, don’t worry, you are not alone, as a lot of people misunderstand it. I will do my best to explain it to you and also explain why it’s not as important as many people think.

Bokeh is defined as the quality of the out-of-focus area of an image. It’s how well a lens renders blur, the aesthetics of it. It’s often described in terms like good, creamy, smooth, bad, harsh, distracting, swirly, soap bubble, and so forth. It’s very subjective, and you can use any adjective you want to help describe it. What might be characterized as good bokeh by you might be described differently by another person.

I don’t remember hearing the word bokeh spoken even once when I studied photography in college 20 years ago. It’s not that it didn’t exist, because obviously bokeh did exist, but it didn’t really matter. You either liked how a certain lens rendered blur or you didn’t, and few were trying to quantify it or rate it. Nowadays people spend a lot of time and energy searching for lenses that produce the best bokeh, analyzing reviews and charts that attempt to rate it.

You will hear terms like “bokeh monster” when describing a lens and “bokeh master” when describing a person. People will say that a certain lens produces a lot of bokeh, which doesn’t make any sense, because bokeh is defined by character and is not a measurement. It’s a misunderstanding of what bokeh is. You can’t have more bokeh or less. You can only have nice or ugly bokeh, or some other description of the quality of the aesthetics.

Holiday Decor – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X-T20 & 90mm

People confuse bokeh with depth-of-field, but they are two entirely different things. Depth-of-field is the amount of an image that is in focus, determined by the aperture, subject distance and non-subject distance, focal length of the lens, as well as the physical size of the sensor or film. A lot of people mean depth-of-field when they say bokeh. It’s a misunderstanding of terms! Depth-of-field is a mathematical calculation, while bokeh is subjective. Depth-of-field is objective and can only be described by measurement terms. A shallow depth-of-field creates a blur in a photograph, while bokeh is the description of the quality of that blur.

To achieve an out-of-focus area within an image, one needs to use a large aperture or focus really close to the end of the lens or both, which will create a shallow depth-of-field. A lot of people think that you need a large aperture, such as f/2, to achieve blur, but it depends on how close the subject is to the end of the lens. For example, in macro photography, you might have a shallow depth-of-field with an aperture of f/16 because the subject is so close to the lens. It is a math equation, and people have created calculators to help more easily understand what settings are needed to attain certain results. Generally speaking, you will have a smaller depth-of-field, which will render more blur, when using a larger aperture.

Rating bokeh is overrated. It’s something photographers on message boards talk about much too much. It doesn’t matter anywhere close to what some people would have you believe. The vast majority of people who view your pictures have no opinion whatsoever on the quality of the blur that they’re looking at. For anyone to even notice, there has to be something about it that stands out, such as swirly bokeh or really bad bokeh. Most modern lenses are precision engineered, so the flaws that make bokeh stand out don’t exist. Almost all newer lenses produce bokeh that’s at least mediocre, and most people, particularly non-photographers, cannot distinguish mediocre bokeh from great bokeh.

Tricycle In The Woods – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X-E1 & Helios 44-2

Bokeh doesn’t matter because it’s subjective. What looks mediocre to you might look fantastic to someone else. People have different opinions. As long as it’s not bad bokeh, which I would define as being distracting to the image, then I’m perfectly fine with the quality of the blur, however the lens renders it. It’s actually difficult to find a lens that produces bad bokeh. Perhaps some cheap zoom lenses are prone to it. Most lenses render blur decently enough that viewers don’t notice the quality of it and, perhaps more importantly, they don’t care.

Ansel Adams said, “There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” A fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept might be worse. Either way, the point is that the concept is what’s most important, and the other aspects, such as sharpness and bokeh, are not particularly critical. You can have a great image with poor bokeh and a poor image with great bokeh. The quality of the bokeh has little to do with the outcome of a photograph. It’s better to spend time and energy on image concepts than technical qualities.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur in an image. I’ve already said that, but it’s a good reminder of just how insignificant it really is. Think about it, we’re talking about the background blur. There are so many other more important things that we could be discussing! Bokeh is a popular topic, and a lot of people want to know more about it and are searching the internet for opinions. It’s good to know what it is, but it’s not something to get wrapped up in. You either like how a lens renders blur or you don’t, and either way it’s not a big deal.

The Certainty of Change

Posted on August 31, 2018 by Ritchie Roesch

Gate To Indifference – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

If there is one thing that is certain it’s that things change. Nothing stays the same forever. Changes can be big, and they sometimes happen overnight. Sometimes they’re quite small and are hardly noticeable, occurring over years and years. But you can rest assured that change will happen, whether big or small or fast or slow.

The photographs you see in this article of the abandoned homes are an example of slow change. It took years for these structures to transform from nice living spaces to derelict dumps. After a place is no longer maintained, the change seems to accelerate as vandals and nature take over. For these abandoned buildings that’s not where the change ends. There would soon be rapid developments that made the property essentually unrecognizable.

I captured these photographs in April of last year. I’d pass by the buildings often and wanted to stop and make some exposures. I used to do a lot of urban exploration type photography. I don’t venture into that genre much anymore, but I still get excited when I see an abandoned place, and I still have the desire to capture it. After a year of seeing these abandoned houses on a large property in Salt Lake City, Utah, I decided to stop and photograph them.

Losing History – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

Little House In The Valley – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

Abandoned House – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

Still, I Love You – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

The Place Had An Air of Neglect – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

Tree of Broken Glass – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

It wasn’t but two weeks after I captured the photographs above that the buildings were demolished. Big machines came in and knocked them down. The rubble was removed. Then more big machines came in and removed the trees and leveled the ground. Soon enough there was nothing left but a huge patch of flat dirt.

I watched as things changed rapidly. In a matter of weeks the property was unrecognizable. It looked absolutely nothing like it had before. As time passed concrete began to pour and after that walls went up. Something big was being constructed on the site where the abandoned homes once stood.

Sitting Large – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X100F

Diversity – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X100F

Caterpillar – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X100F

From start to finish, the project took about 16 months to go from a neglected property with derelict buildings to a finished distribution center. Now huge structures sit on the land, complete with sidewalks and nice landscaping and such. The transformation is almost unbelievable!

The moral of this story is that you should get out and capture the things that interest you, because things will change, and your opportunity might disappear. Don’t wait. Don’t procrastinate. The time is now! Grab your camera and capture that thing you’ve been eyeing before it’s too late, because eventually it will be too late.

Distribution – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X100F

Industrial Mirror – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X100F

Distributing Abstract – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X100F

Less Angry & More Caring

Posted on July 8, 2018 by Ritchie Roesch

Ain’t No Love On The Streets – SLC, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

I’m going to get on my soapbox for a minute, I hope that you don’t mind. There’s something that’s been bothered me for the last few days and I feel the need to say something about it.

Last week I published an article about distressing a Fujifilm X-E1 to make it look old and worn. I knew that there would be strong mixed reactions to it. I was actually surprised that, of all the comments and emails I received, about 60% were positive and 40% were negative. I thought the reaction would be more negative than positive, but it turned out to be the other way around. More people seem to like it than not.

What bothers me, though, is that every single negative reaction that I received, either as a comment or email, had a personal insult attached to it. Each and every time, the person who had something negative to say also said something mean, intentionally being hurtful. In one case, the person was clearly bigoted, and their words were laced with intolerance.

I was expecting negative words. I don’t have a problem receiving constructive criticism. In fact, in photography, constructive criticism is essential for improvement. I learned this decades ago in Photography 101, when we would have “peer review” in class. I’m very open to criticism, as long as the person means well and has the experience to back up what he or she is saying.

Broken Souls – Newberry Springs, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill

What I received was not constructive criticism, but destructive criticism. The words written to me were deliberately intended to tear me down. These people didn’t like what I did, so they decided to verbally destroy me. It wasn’t enough to simply say, “I don’t like it.” Or, “It’s ugly.” Or, “I find it to be dishonest.” No, what was said was more akin to, “I don’t like it, and you’re a pathetic excuse for a cotton headed ninny muggins and your breath stinks.” Or something along those lines, but with stronger words.

It seems like more and more that it’s not enough to simply disagree with someone. If you don’t like or understand what someone did or said, the first response seems to be to discredit the person by verbally thrashing them. It seems that, instead of trying to see things from that person’s perspective to understand it, what happens instead is people tend to become abusive with their words. It’s like they cannot handle an opinion or thought or action that is different than their own.

If you gave 10 photographers the same subject to capture, they’d each come up with a different picture. Each one has different ideas and experiences that effect the outcome of the image. Each person is unique, so their process is going to be unique. Their perspective on the subject is going to be different. Each person sees the world through their own lens.

Can you imagine if each person verbally assaulted the others for having a perspective that’s different? Can you imagine if they were calling each other nasty names for not capturing the image in the same way? It’s absurd, but that’s essentially what’s going on. Everyone has a different perspective on things based on their own experiences. It would be better, instead of shutting down someone for having a different perspective, to attempt to see things through the other person’s lens, to try to understand that person’s opinion, thought or action. Walk a mile in their shoes first before coming down all judgmental-like.

Because Everyone Is Unique – Ogden, UT – Fujifilm X-E1

I’m having a difficult time understanding why someone’s first reaction to something that they don’t like or understand would be anger and wrath. This isn’t anything new, though. When I had my old photography blog, I wrote a camera review and someone didn’t like what I said, and they wrote, “If I see you on the street I’ll punch you in the face!” Now I don’t think the person was entirely serious, but what would make someone have that kind of reaction to something that, in the big scheme of things, doesn’t matter whatsoever? Why so quick to anger?

What I do with my camera is my prerogative, just as what you do with yours is your prerogative. And what I do with Fuji X Weekly is my prerogative, because it’s my blog. That’s why you don’t see those negative, hurtful comments. I deleted them, because I can. Don’t like it? Go make your own blog, and handle those kind of things in the manner that you wish. If you have some constructive criticism, by all means offer it. If you have destructive criticism, you are wasting your time, because I will not put up with it. Take your anger and mean spirit elsewhere.

We should all be more kind to each other. We are all humans. Nobody is perfect. We’re all broken and awkward in some way. We’re all on this road of life together. Let’s be kind. Let’s be helpful. Let’s build each other up instead of tearing down. There’s no need to be mean. There’s no need to be bigoted. Nobody is better than the next guy. Everybody makes mistakes. Everyone has their own reasons for things. This world needs more love and less hate. More understanding and less prejudice. More civility and less rudeness. More forgiveness and less resentment. More helping hands and fewer middle fingers. We can accomplish this together, if each one does his or her part.

Okay, I’m off the soapbox. Now back to your regularly scheduled program….

Digital Is Disposable

Posted on June 24, 2018 by Ritchie Roesch

Fujifilm X-E1 & Meike 35mm

Digital cameras are disposable.

Camera manufacturers introduce the replacement models, the next generation, about every two years on average. This isn’t always true–the X100T came out just one year after the X100S while the X-Pro2 came out four years after the X-Pro1–but, generally speaking, it’s true. Your new camera will be “last year’s model” soon enough.

It’s no surprise that photographers, on average, upgrade roughly every two years, as well. When that new model comes out, it’s very tempting to buy it. The new model is better in this way and that way–faster, more resolution, etc.–you know the song and dance. You might still keep your current camera as a “backup body” once the new one arrives in the mail, and it will mostly collect dust.

There are plenty of photographers who don’t buy new. They’ll wait awhile until they can get a good deal on a gently used camera. But it’s still the same story of “upgrading” every other year or so. They’re just a model behind what’s current.

There are some who keep their cameras for many years. There are plenty of photographers who happily use their five-year-old camera. A much smaller number happily use their ten-year-old camera. Almost nobody happily uses their fifteen-year-old camera, because the cheapest interchangeable-lens cameras today are more advanced and capable of better image quality than the best “pro” cameras of 2003. Digital technology changes quickly, and advancements have come at breakneck speed.

We’ve reached a point of diminishing returns. Digital technology is still advancing quickly and the cameras released in 2017 are better in every way to their counterparts released in 2012. But how much better do they need to be? If a camera already has more resolution than what most need, what does even more resolution do? If a camera is already quick enough for most photographers, how does a faster camera help? If a camera already has amazing high-ISO performance, do you really need a stop more? Yes, there are people who need more, but that’s a small percentage. Most photographers already had everything that they needed in cameras from years past, and all the advancements since then have just been overkill. Cameras are becoming better all the time, but they were already more than good enough before.

Barn By The Tetons – Grand Teton NP, WY – Fujifilm X-E1

I’m not suggesting that camera manufacturers should stop pushing forward. What I am suggesting is that this habit of upgrading to the latest camera model every couple of years is unnecessary. If you want to buy a new camera, go ahead and do it, I’m not trying to stop you. But I do want to make aware to the photographic community that many very good and highly capable cameras are being disposed simply because they’re several years old. I’m telling myself this just as much as I’m telling others, because I’ve been caught up in this routine just as much as the next guy.

My first “real” camera, a Canon AE-1, was over 20-years-old when I bought it. I used it for several years, and even at 25 it was still going strong. I sold it, and that’s one of my photographic regrets, because, even though it is around 40-years-old now, I’m sure someone out there is still capturing wonderful pictures with it. I have several film cameras on my shelf that I occasionally dust off, a couple of which are over 50-years-old, that still function properly and are still capable of capturing excellent pictures.

The idea of someone using a 50-year-old digital camera for anything remotely serious is laughable, and not just because a 50-year-old digital camera doesn’t exist, but because of the poor image quality and usability of the early models. Someday, though, the cameras manufactured today will be 50-years-old, and I can see some of them, if they’re still working, being used by photographers who want that “retro digital” feel. I don’t think too many cameras made before 2010 will ever be used at age 50 or even when they’re 20-year-old. A few of the higher-end models, perhaps, but by-and-large the technology just wasn’t there yet. However, the ones being made today, and even five to eight years ago, have advanced enough that they could still be used to capture quality photographs well into the future.

The Fujifilm X-E1 is not as good as the X-E3, but it is more than good enough for creating wonderful photographs. It is five-years-old, almost six, but it is still an excellent camera. You can find them for under $300 pretty easily because people have moved on. The X-E2 replaced it, and then the X-E2S came out a couple years later, and now the X-E3 is approaching the one year mark and there’s already talk about an X-E4. In the realm of digital cameras it might as well be 50-years-old because it is three and soon-to-be four models old. It’s archaic. It’s a has-been. It’s disposable.

I recently picked up an old X-E1 because they’re so cheap. I liked the one that I used to own, and I wish that I had kept it. I sold it to help fund the purchase of my X100F, which is another camera that I love. The X-E1, or “Sexy One” as it was nicknamed back in 2012, is still an excellent little camera, and for the price that it currently goes for, why wouldn’t you want one? It’s great for travel because of its size and weight, and if it gets stolen or damaged it’s not a huge deal because it didn’t cost much. It’s not as good as the cameras made in 2018, but it’s more than good enough to capture great pictures for years to come.

Digital cameras are disposable, or, perhaps they used to be. We’re at the point now, and have been for several years, where we can hold onto our cameras longer because they’re more than capable photographic tools. The latest and greatest cameras are wonderful, but, really, the advancements are mostly overkill stacked on top of overkill. Maybe it’s time to be content with what we have, myself included. Maybe it’s time to rediscover these wonderful “vintage” digital cameras, such as the original X100, the X-Pro1 and the X-E1. There was a time not very long ago when people raved over these models and stores had a hard time keeping them in stock. Now they go for a few hundred bucks on eBay.