PetaPixel | FUJI X WEEKLY

Why New Cameras Might Seem Boring

PetaPixel published an article entitled If You Think ‘Cameras Have Gotten Boring’ You’re Looking at Photography All Wrong, and I’m not so much interested in talking about that article in particular as I am of the idea of why new cameras might seem boring. There are probably a thousand different ways to look at it, and they’re likely all legitimate—I’m not suggesting that my explanation is better, it’s simply my thoughts and opinions. You might agree or disagree, and that’s perfectly ok. So, why do new cameras seem boring to some people?

I read a book last year, entitled David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants by Malcolm Gladwell, that was quite fascinating. I’m not a mathematician by any stretch, and I’m certainly not a statistician. For those who haven’t read the book, Malcolm talks a lot about the inverted-U curve (that is to say, an upside-down U). There’s a common pattern found everywhere (that’s often ignored) where something goes up a little, then up steeply before it begins to flattens out as it nears the peak, followed by a slow decline, then a steep decline. Can you picture the upside-down U?

Above: A short excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath from Amazon’s website. Seriously, read the book if you haven’t yet done so.

Let’s take a topic like autofocus, which a lot of people talk about in the Fujifilm world, but much less so outside of that. Photographers who use Sony cameras, for example, don’t discuss AF, except to occasionally remind everyone else just how good it is. In the PetaPixel article, the author states, “Sony managed to… improve processing for better autofocus….” Do Sony photographers care? If their AF is already super-duper awesome amazing, does it matter that it just got a hair better? I’m sure that 99%+ of Sony users wouldn’t be able to distinguish a difference, and only a tiny fraction of a percent of users would note that it makes a real, practical difference to their photography. While the improved processing for better autofocus may have been a substantial technical feat, for most people who use the gear, it’s inclusion or exclusion doesn’t matter in the least.

The reason why it doesn’t matter is that autofocus on Sony cameras (and some other brands) is near the peak of the inverted-U curve. Each improvement has less-and-less-and-less of a practical benefit to the users, who already find it more than good enough for each and every situation. In some circumstances, AF was prioritized to the detriment of image quality. If autofocus is already amazingly incredible beyond what you even need, any improvements will seem boring. They’re more gee-whiz than anything else. It’s like the famous line from The Incredibles, spoken by the villain: “And when everyone’s super, no one will be.”

With Fujifilm, there is some room for improvement. Fujifilm’s AF isn’t trash like some have hyperbolically said, but it isn’t peak like Sony’s. Fujifilm’s AF is more than good enough for most photographers; however, it is occasionally less than ideal for some situations. If Fujifilm “managed to improve processing for better autofocus” just like Sony did, it would not be perceived as boring because Fujifilm is not at the peak of the inverted-U. The improvements would make a real, practical difference to a larger percentage of the users. But, with each improvement, they inch closer to the peak, and eventually they’ll reach it (a bet some will still complain, though).

I think digital photography technology is near the peak of inverted-U curves in most categories. This means it’s an amazing time to be a photographer. We should have a deep appreciation for just how fortunate we are to have access to the gear we have. At the same time, camera advancements are easy to take for granted. An improvement that a team of experts worked tirelessly on for years might seem ho-hum, because the usefulness of it is minor for a small percentage of people, and is otherwise unnoticeable. That’s just the way it is at the peak.

New cameras aren’t boring because they’re boring; they’re boring because they’re so good they do everything we need them to and more. They’re so good that our expectations have become incredibly high, making it more difficult to wow us. And, when you’re at the peak of an inverted-U, it’s easy to step a little beyond it. Take a step forward, and you take a step down. For instance, Sony’s new Dual Gain Output technology increases the dynamic range at low ISO when using the mechanical shutter, but can give a lower dynamic range when using the electronic shutter than cameras without this technology—a step forward, but also a small step down.

I’m not picking on Sony, they were just the primary subject of the PetaPixel article. Actually, I’m pointing out that they’ve managed to get to the peak of inverted-U curves almost across the board, which is an amazing feat. It puts them in a tough position where advancements seem boring to their customers. Some areas where they’re not at or near the peak of the curve are JPEG output, color science, and stylish camera body design. If they make improvements in those areas, they’re less likely to be perceived as boring. For Fujifilm, they’re near the peak in those areas, but not in some others. In my opinion, camera manufacturers should self-identify where they are on various inverted-U curves, and put more efforts where they’re not at or near the peak, and less effort where they’ve already achieved greatness.

Cinematic, Atmospheric Photographs — Why Fujifilm is so popular right now

Posted on November 12 by Ritchie Roesch

*White Bridge across Pond* – Charleston, SC – Fujifilm X-E4 & Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 – Pacific Blues Recipe

PetaPixel published an interesting article today entitled The Enduring Desirability of the Fujifilm X-Pro by Jaron Schneider. In the post, Jaron shares that Vogue France published a snippet of an interview with Jisoo from the very popular K-Pop group Blackpink, who discusses the Fujifilm X-Pro3.

Jisoo states, “I bought this camera about three years ago. And the photos came out with a really cinematic, atmospheric look. And the day right after I bought this, the members and I had a magazine photo shoot. So I took photos of all the members that day. Rosé also liked this camera so much that she said, ‘oh, Unni, can I buy this, too?’ Of course! So we have this as our couple camera.”

*Rock ‘n’ Roll Guitar* – White House, TN – Fujifilm X-T5 & Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 – Classic Amber Recipe

Jaron goes on to discuss the X-Pro3 and the importance and influence of the X-Pro line. I want to go a completely different direction. What Jisoo, Rosé, and the rest of Blackpink liked about the camera was (very specifically) the cinematic, atmospheric look of the photographs. Presumably, she’s talking about camera-made JPEGs—probably unedited (or lightly edited) straight-out-of-camera images. I have no idea if the pictures in question were captured with factory-default settings, or if Jisoo and Rosé are using Film Simulation Recipes. It would be such an honor to find out that they are using some of my Recipes!

The “enduring desirability” of the X-Pro3 and all other Fujifilm cameras is partially the classic body design, which is oftentimes unique among all current camera brands; it’s also partially—and just as importantly—the aesthetic quality of the pictures that these cameras produce. There’s something special about the camera-made JPEGs that’s highly desirable—the color and tonal nuance of Fujifilm’s Film Simulations give the images a finished, film-like quality without post-processing. That’s a big reason why Fujifilm cameras are so popular right now.

*Corndog* – San Francisco, CA – Fujifilm X100VI – 1970’s Summer Recipe

You might say, “So what? Just because some K-Pop singer likes a discontinued camera, that doesn’t mean anything.” I disagree. The influence will be noticeable. I suspect that this will cause not only a spike in sales of used X-Pro3 bodies, but also Fujifilm products in-general, including Fujinon pancake lenses, since the 27mm f/2.8 is seen on the camera in the interview. Vogue France has nearly 11 million followers on Instagram. Blackpink has nearly 60 million. Jisoo and Rosé have over 80 million each. If even just a tiny fraction of their following is influenced to buy a Fujifilm camera, it will be a lot of cameras. Don’t forget, it was two South Korean television shows that helped make Instax popular.

Fujifilm could help themselves capitalize on this. They should share the interview as much as possible on their channels. In the past they have used Mr. Bean in their advertising, so why not Blackpink? Most obviously, they should fast track the next X-Pro model. It’s really too bad there are not brand-new X-Pro units to buy right now. The timing of all this could have been much better if Fujifilm had something for Jisoo fans to buy. Still, I think there will be a notable increase in interest in Fujifilm cameras because of this interview. Fans of the group will want to achieve that same cinematic, atmospheric picture quality in their own photos. And, of course, with Film Simulations and especially Film Simulation Recipes, it’s very easy to do—not just with the X-Pro3, but with any Fujifilm model.

Fujifilm should have Newtro Apparel

Posted on October 3 by Ritchie Roesch

*A Kodak Moment* – Antelope Island SP, UT – Fujifilm X-T20

Three months ago, the New York Times published a story entitled The Kodak Brand Gets a Second Life. In South Korea, there are over 120 Kodak Apparel stores that sell shirts, hats, sunglasses, handbags, luggage, and more with the Kodak logo on them. Kodak Apparel isn’t a part of Eastman Kodak, but a different company called Highlight Brands that simply licenses the name from Kodak. While Kodak Apparel is currently huge in South Korea, it hasn’t quite caught on worldwide… yet. But that’s about to change.

Just today I saw that Reebok collaborated with Kodak, and has released some cool shoes and clothes with vintage Kodak branding. “The resurgence of film is here as Gen Z continues to lean into the ’90s for inspiration and trends,” Carmen Hardaway, director of Reebok Classics and Energy collaborations, told PetaPixel. “Kodak is being rediscovered by a whole new generation inspired by the endless possibilities of film and print colliding with today’s technologies.”

The New York Times suggests that this is a part of an international trend being dubbed newtro, a combination of new and retro. Newtro describes something that is brand-new but seems to be or nods to something that’s vintage. Many Fujifilm cameras, like the X-E5, X100VI, X-T5, X-T50, X-M5, and X half, fall into this category. The X-Pro would, too, if they were currently making one.

What’s old is cool again. While antiques and vintage things are “in” right now, so are things that just seem to be retro or pay homage to that. It shouldn’t be surprising that Kodak clothes are extremely trendy in South Korea. What is surprising is that companies like Kodak and especially Fujifilm aren’t doing more to capitalize on the newtro movement. Yes, Fujifilm is certainly benefiting from it when it comes to camera sales, but they could be doing so much more.

*Fujifilm Drip* – NYC, NY – Fujifilm X-T50 – Pacific Blues

People want to sport their favorite brands. As my kids would say, they want their fit to be fire. I would wear a Kodak Film shirt, and carry Kodachrome duffle bag. These things need to become available everywhere, and not just in South Korea. The Reebok collaboration is a significant step in that direction. While Fujifilm does have a merch store, it’s pretty small with only a handful of options, and most if it isn’t newtro. Even if they have no interest in becoming an apparel brand, Fujifilm should license out their logo—especially their old emblems and trademarks—for other companies to use. I don’t know if they realize just how big this could be. It’s not just about getting a little extra revenue from apparel, but more about increasing brand recognition and affinity.

Shirts, sweaters, jackets, and things like that are obvious options that both Kodak and Fujifilm should sell (or license to a third-party). Camera accessories—straps, bags, etc.—should not be overlooked. For Kodak, why not license to a camera brand? There could be a Leica M11 Kodak collectors edition, with some red and yellow trim, for example. Or—shockingly—a Kodak edition of a Fujifilm camera, something like my faux Kodak Retina.

The benefit of Fujifilm putting their name and logos on clothes, hats, bags, etc., (which would likely be licensed products sold via a third party, like Kodak is doing with Highlight Brands and Reebok) is that the brand is carried into everyday life. Fujifilm has already cultivated a lifestyle around creativity, nostalgia, and artistry, and apparel makes that identity wearable. Every hoodie, hat, or jacket becomes a walking billboard. It can spark conversations like, “Oh, you shoot Fujifilm too?” That organic visibility extends recognition far beyond traditional advertising. And it can serve as an entry point into the brand, reaching people who may later buy a Fujifilm camera and not just a shirt.

Fujifilm’s recommitment to retro-styled bodies comes at an opportune time. With the historic demand of the X100VI, which has already outsold any previous X100-series camera, Fujifilm is working overtime on production—this camera has been a massive hit. Just this year Fujifilm released the GFX100RF, X half, and X-E5. Newtro doesn’t just apply to physical products, though. Fujifilm’s Film Simulations (and, of course, Film Simulation Recipes) are a big part of the appeal. Think of them as newtro aesthetics. They’re not quite film but a big nod to the retro look that film has produced for a very long time. Fujifilm has a massive leg-up on this compared to their competition, and it is an under appreciated aspect of their success. I think, though, that we’re seeing just the tip of the iceberg, and there’s a huge untapped potential. Kodak and Fujifilm both have big opportunities, and they could learn from each other how to fully capitalize on it.

Continue Making Digital Look Like Film (but only if you want to)

Posted on September 9 by Ritchie Roesch

*Fire, Truck* – Lordburg, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – 1970’s Summer Recipe

There’s a strange article up on PetaPixel entitled Stop Making Digital Look Like Film by Bimal Nepal, that I want to offer a rebuttal to. I understand that there’s only so much that happens within the photo world on any given day, and on the slow days you might put out a controversial piece (a.k.a. click bait) to get views and such, especially when ad revenue is a major part of the business strategy. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that—after all, I have written some controversial articles, and I also have advertisements on my website—but I do think PetaPixel should be careful not to overplay it, or they risk losing credibility. I can’t imagine that the editors actually agree with this piece (I hope not), but they’re certainly promoting it. An article that explores why people like the film look when using digital cameras would have been significantly more interesting. Published just one day later, Film Photography in 2025 Is Bluer and Less Saturated is actually quite fascinating, and (ironically and surprisingly) somewhat related to the article in question. My guess—based only on the number of comments—is that the click bait article got a lot more attention, and I suspect that will encourage more similar content in the future, unfortunately.

The main problem with Bimal’s piece is that it demands you change your photography. You aren’t doing it right. The title is second-person declarative: “(You) stop making digital look like film.” It’s a command, and you are being told what to do. The body of the post continues the sentiment. It would not be controversial had the author simply stated, “This is why I don’t make my digital pictures look like film.” That’s great. We all have our reasons for doing what we do, and maybe we can even learn from each other. But the article is more like: my way is right, your way is wrong. It’s just like the whole “You must shoot RAW” thing, which is tired, outdated, inaccurate, and needs to stop. It would have been equally as wrong if the author had demanded that everyone apply (say) VCSO filters to their pictures.

*Pool Remnant* – Rodanthe, NC – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Tri-X 400 Recipe

There’s no right or wrong way to do photography. There are thousands of paths, and you might take multiple trails at various times. If something works for you, that’s awesome! That’s what matters—finding what works for you personally. If someone tells you that you are doing photography wrong, and especially if they tell you that you must do it their way, I strongly advise you to take that advice for what it’s worth, which is not much of anything, certainly not two pennies (or a click to PetaPixel). You do photography however you want to do photography, whatever that looks like.

I might be reading too much into this, but the author seems to dislike Fujifilm, and especially the Fujifilm Recipe community (that’s you and I), which is known for analog aesthetics on digital images. He never states Fujifilm specifically, but what caught my attention was the mention of Film Simulations. In another PetaPixel article, he seems to dislike mirrorless cameras, or—perhaps more accurately—prefers DSLRs to mirrorless. Fujifilm, of course, does not make DSLRs (at least not since the S5 Pro, which was built on a Nikon D200, and is long discontinued), and all of their cameras for the last 20 years feature Film Simulations. Like I said, I could be connecting dots that were never meant to connect, and making much more of this than the author intended, but it seems like Fujifilm photographers in particular are doing digital photography all wrong, if you were to ask Bimal.

So let me get to the rebuttal. Below are five reasons why a photographer might prefer to make their digital photographs look like film—five reasons why you may want to continue making your pictures appear analog.

Digital is Clinical

*Misty Saguaro* – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Pacific Blues Recipe

Modern digital cameras are really good. They produce images that are especially clean and clear, free from defects and artifacts, which was nearly impossible in the film era. It’s great but also sterile, like a hospital room prepped for surgery. This might be preferable, but I find it boring, lacking character. Adding an analog aesthetic to digital pictures can make them less perfect, which can more easily convey certain feelings or moods. This is just my opinion, and it’s perfectly ok to disagree with it. There’s no right or wrong answer here, just personal preferences. Personally, I don’t like my pictures to appear so perfect, so clinical, so digital.

Film is Appealing

The reason why I like the aesthetic of film is because it has character. It has texture. Each emulsion has unique qualities. There are emotions that each look conveys to the viewer. It can be serendipitous, with wonderful surprises. Film photography requires much patience and thoughtfulness. One must have a willingness to fail and an acceptance for when that inevitably happens. Those are good qualities, but they’re born out of frustrating circumstances. I love the look of film, but not always the process of analog photography.

Digital is Convenient

*Two Caballeros* – Culleoka, TX – Fujifilm X-E4 – Kodachrome 64 Recipe

A common response to this article is going to be, “If you like the look of film, just shoot film.” Yeah, that’s great and all, and certainly something I have done for many years, but digital is much faster, more reliable, more flexible, and probably less expensive (depending on how many rolls of film you shoot). Digital cameras are so much more convenient than film, and that’s why I like digital photography. If there’s a way to get the best of both worlds—the convenience of digital with the look of film—that’s a major win-win. And, thankfully, you can get the best of both worlds. There’s nothing wrong with digital photography, there’s nothing wrong with film photography, and there’s nothing wrong with mimicking film-like looks with digital cameras.

Authenticity is King

*Cold Rim, Warm Light* – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Kodak Vision3 250D v2 Recipe

The pictures produced by Fujifilm cameras feel authentic and film-like because they reflect in-camera processing designed by Fujifilm utilizing their renown film heritage. When you use Film Simulation Recipes, what you see is what you get, and the pictures don’t require manipulation—they’re not “photoshopped” (which, right or wrong, has become a bad word in recent times). Like using a particular film across a series of photos, choosing one Recipe can give your images a cohesive, intentional, and stylized aesthetic. Not having to edit allows for a simple and efficient workflow, which can save you a lot of time while increasing your productivity.

Using Recipes is Fun

*Happy* – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm Recipe

Last but far from least, shooting straight-out-of-camera JPEGs using Film Simulation Recipes is fun. A lot of people do it because they enjoy it. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me that using Recipes has made photography fun for them again. You should be enjoying the process of making pictures, and if you’re not, it might be time to ask yourself why, and consider if you should make any changes to your process. Maybe you don’t find Recipes and camera-made JPEGs enjoyable, and that’s ok. Different strokes for different folks. But a lot of people do find it fun, and it’s become a big part of the Fujifilm appeal. The Fujifilm Recipe community continues to grow and grow, and for good reason.

These five points highlight why a Fujifilm photographer using Film Simulation Recipes might love making their digital images look like film. Recipes combine some of film’s iconic character with digital’s convenience, consistency, and immediacy. There’s a very large community who appreciates the aesthetics of film and use it to purposefully convey certain feelings and moods through their pictures, but they also appreciate the ease of digital. The ability to combine both into a simplified workflow is quite attractive, which is why so many people are making their digital pictures look like film—and, no, unless they want to, they should not stop.

Why Fujifilm made the GFX100RF so small and lightweight

Posted on April 2 by Ritchie Roesch

PetaPixel posted a couple of articles relating—directly and indirectly—to the Fujifilm GFX100RF, which I found quite interesting. In the first, Every Design Decision on the Fujifilm GFX100RF Was Made to Keep It Compact, they interviewed Makoto Oishi, a Product Planning Manager at Fujifilm, to discuss the ethos of the new camera’s design. In the second article, Compact and Interchangeable Lens Camera Demand Is Diverging, PetaPixel looks at a BCN+R report about market trends between fixed-lens and interchangeable-lens models.

Makoto told PetaPixel, “[O]ur first priority was how to make it smaller and lighter weight.” That’s pretty much the entirety of the article, as the rest is simply explaining why the camera does not have IBIS or a larger maximum aperture than f/4 and other design choices. It’s worth reading, if you are curious about those things. The main point: Fujifilm set out to make it as small and lightweight as possible. Interestingly, they did create mockups of versions with IBIS and larger apertures, but it required the camera to be significantly larger and heavier, which went against their “first priority” of small size and less weight. IBIS alone, according to this interview, would have doubled the camera’s size, because the lens would have to project to a much larger area.

The lens is pretty remarkable in that it is extremely compact for medium-format, and it barely covers the sensor. That’s why IBIS wasn’t practical, as it would have required a different and much larger lens. That’s why the maximum aperture is “only” f/4, as a larger aperture would not only have required a larger lens, but it would likely begin to show vignetting and corner softness when wide open. All of the design choices make sense when viewed through the prism of Fujifilm’s top priority: size and weight. The engineers succeeded, and did so quite fantastically.

*Driveway* – Charleston, SC – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 30mm f/3.5 – Superia Negative Recipe

Now you might disagree with the “first priority” that Fujifilm gave the GFX100RF team. You might not appreciate that the GFX100RF is the smallest, lightest, and cheapest digital medium-format camera-lens combo that has ever been made. You might have wished that Fujifilm’s top goal was to make this as premium of a camera as possible, or balanced somewhere in-between premium and size/weight/cost. I think that’s where a lot of the criticisms are found. There are some (quite) vocal critics who disagree with the design ethos, and wished that this camera was different.

This is where the second PetaPixel article comes in. Interestingly, interchangeable-lens camera sales are declining year-over-year, while fixed-lens camera sales are increasing because of a renewed interest in compact cameras. Who is leading the fixed-lens camera market? Kodak. Surprised? It’s JK Imaging selling cheap point-and-shoots on Amazon under the Kodak PixPro name—cameras that are basically 15-year-old tech digicams. Second is Fujifilm, thanks to the massive success of the X100VI, which has already outsold all of the previous X100-series models, and also the Instax Evo line. Canon is third—largely because of their nine-year-old (but still in production) ELPH 360 digicam—but declining (the PowerShot V1 will certainly change that trajectory to some degree). Kenko Tokina is fourth with their tiny toy cameras and digicams. Panasonic is fifth and on the rise, due to the sales success of the DC-ZS99. Ricoh is sixth, thanks to the GR III and GR IIIx, and would probably rank higher if they manufactured those cameras at a higher rate to meet the current demand. Most of the fixed-lens cameras that are selling like hotcakes right now are cheap point-and-shoots; the exceptions are the Fujifilm X100VI and Ricoh GR III/GR IIIx.

If you are trying to understand why Fujifilm chose to make size, weight, and cost the priority for the GFX100RF, that’s why. Simply, it’s market trends. By making the camera as small, lightweight, and affordable as possible, Fujifilm gave it the best chance for market success. The early indicators seem to show that it was the best choice, but only time will tell. That’s not going to make those who wish that Fujifilm had made other aspects—like stabilization and maximum aperture—more important feel any better, but I hope it sheds some light on the why, even if you disagree.

With the massive success of the X100VI, if sales figures for the GFX100RF are good, and if Fujifilm were to release some other fixed-lens option (say, the half-frame camera that’s been rumored), it’s quite possible that Fujifilm will find itself at the very top of the fixed-lens market, which is a growing segment. But, I think it’s also quite possible that, as the months pass by, more and more fixed-lens cameras will be released by other manufacturers, heating up the competition, and making it more difficult to stay on top. Getting quality (and exciting) products out ahead of competitors is going to be a big long-term win for Fujifilm in my opinion; however, predicting the future is impossible, and I’ve certainly been wrong plenty of times before, so who knows? It does seem like smart moves to me, though. Overall, the GFX100RF is likely only going to be a small contributor to Fujifilm’s fixed-lens sales numbers (it’s a $4,900 camera, after all, and GFX models don’t move nearly as quickly as X-series), but it will probably do well for the company’s bottom line, which is good if you’d like to see them continue to make interesting cameras well into the future.

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

Fujifilm GFX100RF in black:
Amazon, B&H, Nuzira, WEX
Fujifilm GFX100RF in silver:
Amazon, B&H, Nuzira, WEX

Fujifilm X100VI Already Surpassing the Lifetime Production of the X100V

Posted on March 13 by Ritchie Roesch

While at the CP+ Show in Japan, PetaPixel interviewed Yuji Igarashi, who is the General Manager of the Professional Imaging Group, Imaging Solutions Division, of the Fujifilm Corporation. He said some interesting things regarding the Fujifilm X100VI production situation. Now, it’s important to take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes people will harshly judge an interpretation of what someone said in a different language, lacking grace for interpretation errors and dialect and cultural differences. Keeping that in mind, let’s get into it.

“We’ve more than doubled our production compared to the previous model,” Yuji Igarashi stated. “But on top of that, we are also still increasing production. Now we can produce higher than [15,000 units per month] and we have been, but it’s not like we can produce double that [amount again].”

Not much new there. Fujifilm told us from the outset that they had doubled production from the previous model, from 7,500 units per month to 15,000. We also already knew that for a year now they have been trying to increase production further. Fujifilm told PetaPixel that they have been unable to accomplish 30,000 units per month, but they are definitely beyond 15,000.

“We’ve been doing what we can to increase our production for the X100VI,” Yuji explained, “but the processes are quite complicated—especially for pieces like the top plate. To make these sharp edges, it goes through many processes. So, this type of camera is not so suited for ramping up production.” In other words, they’re doing all that they can, but there are significant challenges that prevent them from churning out even more cameras.

“In one year since we launched this product,” Yuji continued, “compared to the previous models which took us to sell three or four years, we’ve already shipped an equivalent amount.” This was shocking to me. Fujifilm is stating that—even with the manufacturing limitations—they have already built and delivered as many X100VI’s, which was released just one year ago, as the previous iteration over nearly a four year period. Just as many people have an X100VI in their hands as have an X100V, yet it only took Fujifilm one year to do that for the new camera vs four years for the X100V. And it’s a similar situation for the X100F and the previous versions.

This completely shreds the (quite stupid) theory that Fujifilm is purposefully creating shortages in order to manipulate the market. The unprecedented demand of the X100VI was and is real. No camera has been as in-demand as the X100VI ever. In all of history, no model from any brand received more preorders than the X100VI, it’s not even close. Despite building a ton of copies, Fujifilm has not yet met the initial demand, but they’re getting close. “So I know people are quite frustrated when they say it’s still not available,” Yuji said. “I think one issue is that the first-day orders were so big when it was announced, that’s why people say they’ve been waiting for eight, or 10 months, which we totally understand is so frustrating. So until we clear that, some people will still continue to say, ‘We’ve been waiting for 10 months.'”

Now you might say that the math isn’t mathing. If Fujifilm hasn’t been able to quadruple production, how could they possibly build as many units in one year as they did over nearly four? First, Fujifilm produced a bunch of copies in the months prior to the camera’s announcement, in anticipation of strong initial demand. Also, the X100V was effected by the pandemic parts shortage, which for a time limited the number of copies they could manufacture. If Fujifilm managed to make (say) 300,000 units, that would likely be close to the total number of X100V’s manufactured in total. And that 300K guesstimate might be in the ballpark. We know that 180,000 were manufactured at a minimum post launch, and 60,000 might have been manufactured prior to launch. If Fujifilm has been able to increase production by 6,000 units on average over the last 10 months, then you’d have 300K. While that’s a lot of cameras, apparently there were around 500,000 day-one preorders in China alone, so the initial demand has still not been met a whole year later.

Thankfully, slowly but surely Fujifilm is catching up. Here and there the X100VI has been seen in-stock at camera stores, particularly the black version. If you want to buy one, the wait isn’t nearly as long now. You might still have to be patient for a month or maybe a few, but the 10-month-long waits are in the past. It’s a good time to get your order in if you’ve been waiting. Or, if you’ve been hoping to find it at a local camera store, they might just have one right now—maybe.

The challenge for Fujifilm is to tread carefully on production numbers. If they suddenly find that the demand has been met, and they’re building over 20,000 units per month, they could end up overproducing a lot of copies. Since it takes months from the time parts are ordered until finished cameras are delivered, if the market suddenly shifts, it’s possible that Fujifilm could manufacture a hundred thousand copies more than are needed and can be sold. That amount of overproduction would be a tough blow to the bottom line, and possible could cripple the camera division. As wait times dwindle, Fujifilm should strongly considered reducing the number of units that they manufacture monthly. At some point, 15,000 copies each month will be much too much. Hopefully that is a long ways off, but it will arrive eventually, and it will need to be handled quite carefully when it approaches.

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

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!

Answer to the Question: Why Do My Photos of Famous Places Look Bad?

Posted on December 20, 2023 by Ritchie Roesch

*Sentinel & Merced* – Yosemite NP, CA – Fujifilm X100V – Vintage Color

PetaPixel recently published an article entitled Why Do My Photos of Famous Places Look Bad? by Jeremy Gray. It’s basically a rehashing of an article by The Guardian entitled Why do photographs of beautiful scenery never do it justice? I don’t want to go into the details of those articles; instead, I’m going to simply answer the question.

Interestingly, photographer Chuck Abbott addressed this very question in the September 1955 issue of Arizona Highways magazine, in an article called You’ve Got to Go Back to Get the Good Ones. For those unaware, Arizona Highways has a long history of great photography. It was the first nationally circulated magazine to have an all-color issue (way back in December of 1946). Ansel Adams was a regular contributor, as was Barry Goldwater. Chuck Abbott and his wife Esther Henderson were both long-time contributors. To this day, Arizona Highways is a great place to discover excellent photography, and I often find inspiration within its pages.

*Low Sun over Tetons* – Grand Teton NP, WY – Fujifilm X-E4 – Ferrania Solaris FG 400

“‘Oh, Mr. Abbott,'” Chuck wrote in 1955, explaining a question that he had been asked often, “‘how do you get such good pictures? I was there and mine didn’t turn out at all well.'” He was asked the same question that The Guardian and PetaPixel put forward; however, Chuck’s answer was different than theirs. While there are a thousand ways that the question could be answered, I believe that the most profound was stated back in 1955 by Chuck Abbott.

“My answer is invariably the same,” Chuck said. “You’ll have to go back and try another day, another light, another season.” He continued, “Meanwhile, I am mentally recalling that ‘good’ picture; was it really good, couldn’t it have been better, and shouldn’t I go back again and do it over?”

*Autumn in a Mountain Meadow* – Flagstaff, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Fujicolor Superia 100

“For that’s the trouble with this picture business,” Chuck added, “there is so little satisfaction in it! You are always beset with the haunting thought that every picture could be improved, if not by you, then by someone, sometime; so you end up traveling in a circle, periodically returning to do a better, or at least a different, interpretation of the subject. Perfection, of course, is the goal.”

He goes on in the article to provide some practical advice, which applies much more to photographers of a bygone era than today. For example, there’s no need to rely on friends in a certain region to obtain a weather report. You also don’t need to worry about burning through film, unless, of course, you’re shooting with film instead of digital. But a little while later Chuck states, “Providence, equipment, legwork and viewpoint; to me these are the four indispensables in picture-making. You may get fair results with lesser combinations but you can’t click completely without all four.”

*Pacific Poppies* – Montaña de Oro SP, CA – Fujifilm X-E4 – Pacific Blues

And that’s the answer: you need a bit of luck, quality camera gear (which most equipment nowadays is), do some research before heading out, and find good compositions; when that fails or even when it succeeds, do it again another day, in a different light, during a different season. Then your photos of famous places will look good. That’s the advice Chuck Abbott gave, and I think it is just as true today as the day it was published in Arizona Highways.

In the comments section of the PetaPixel article, someone stated, “Those fantastic examples didn’t come straight out of camera looking like that. It takes work and skill to coax what our eyes see at a scenic place from what the camera saw at the same place.” While the sample pictures in the article were indeed most likely edited, I disagree that RAW editing is any sort of prerequisite to great photographs. In fact, all of my pictures in this article are unedited camera-made JPEGs using my Film Simulation Recipes. So it is, in fact, completely possible to have pictures “come straight out of camera looking like that.” You can make the camera “see” what our eyes (or our mind’s eyes) see at a scenic place (or any place) if you want to, and Fujifilm cameras plus my Recipes make it easy. The hard part is up to you: returning to places you’ve already been to capture a better, or at least different, interpretation of the subject.

Wedding Photographers Adapt to Couples who want Instant Images — An Opportunity for You!

Posted on July 25, 2023 by Ritchie Roesch

I saw an article on PetaPixel today about a particular wedding photography trend. Entitled The Demand for Instant Images is Upending Wedding Photography, the post is based off of a lengthier Associated Press piece called Wedding photographers adapt to couples who want instant images and less tradition. I don’t want to get into the details of either, but the summary is this: customers want a quicker turnaround so they can share pictures and videos of their big event more timely.

I’m not a wedding photographer. I’ve photographed a couple of weddings in the past—many years ago—and I have no desire to jump into that genre. Good wedding photographers are sometimes the first there and last to leave. It’s not uncommon to work 12, 14, or even 16 hours on the big day. Then there are thousands of exposures to cull through, and then edit. That might be an additional 24, 28, or even 32 hours of work! That’s not my cup of tea. For others, though, this is their thing, and they love what they do. Their passion is capturing incredible memories of other people’s weddings.

The shift to a faster turnaround must be frustrating for many in the industry, but it’s actually an opportunity. The article states that some wedding photographers are trying to get some social media type content into the hands of their customers within 48 hours. But why that long? Why not much quicker? Why not as the wedding is happening? If you can do that, you have a huge leg-up on your competition.

*Captured with a Fujifilm X100V using the Kodak Tri-X 400 Film Simulation Recipe.*

I cohost a live YouTube series with official Fujifilm X-Photographer Nathalie Boucry. She does a lot of business photography. Recently she was hired to photograph a corporate event, but they wanted to have the pictures available to share on their social media platforms immediately, in real-time as the event was happening. How did she do this? First, she used Fujifilm gear combined with my Film Simulation Recipes, and shot JPEGs. The pictures looked good straight-out-of-camera, and no editing was needed. Every so many minutes she downloaded the pictures off the camera and uploaded them onto a cloud drive that the customer had access to. Within 10 or 15 minutes of the pictures being captured, the customer was able to share them across the world. This went so well that a week later she was hired to do it again for a different corporate event. I do believe this is the future of event photography, including wedding photography.

Maybe real-time photo sharing isn’t something you’re ready to offer, but if your pictures look great straight-out-of-camera, and further manipulation isn’t needed (or only lightly needed), you can speed up your turnaround significantly. Instead of providing the client with a small batch of photos within 48 hours for social media sharing while they wait up to six weeks for the rest, you can deliver the whole wedding the next day or maybe two. This is, of course, in theory. I’m not aware of anyone who is actually doing this right now. A few different wedding photographers have told me that they are using my Film Simulation Recipes on their Fujifilm cameras, and delivering some of the pictures either same-day or next-day to the client, while providing the rest of photographs at some point later on. I do think, if you’ve got good settings dialed into your camera, and you’re especially careful to get everything right at the time the pictures are captured, that delivering unedited JPEGs of the wedding to the couple is possible, and nobody will be the wiser that you didn’t actually spend hours post-processing RAW files.

This is something I’ve talked about before. Back in December I published Want to be a Wedding Photographer? Your Opportunity Awaits! and earlier this month I posted The Future of Photography is Unedited, where I touched on this topic. I keep bringing it up because I see this shift happening, and those who already have a simplified workflow using Film Simulation Recipes are ahead of the curve, and are primed for success in this changing environment. I want to make sure that you are aware of it, in case you want to take advantage of the opportunity.

I don’t do wedding or event photography, but there are still plenty of advantages to shooting JPEGs. Despite having way more photographs to cull through and share, I was able to publish my pictures of the Central Coast of California tour much quicker than Ken Rockwell did, because my workflow is much quicker than his. That’s a pretty meaningless example; I don’t have a lot of strict photographic deadlines. Perhaps a better case is this: on December 8th of last year, Nathalie, myself, a group of guests, and those who tuned-in, created a Film Simulation Recipe during the Let’s Get Festive holiday-special SOOC Live broadcast—this is the first and (as far as I’m aware) only time a Fujifilm Recipe has been made live on YouTube. Within minutes of its creation, I (and others) had captured a picture using the new Film Simulation Recipe and shared it with all those watching. The very next day I published the Recipe, which the live audience named Mystery Chrome, on this website (and the Fuji X Weekly App), complete with 24 example pictures. That’s my best quick-turnaround example.

Even though I don’t have the need to publish pictures immediately after they’ve been captured, I do sometimes share a photo quickly through text or social media, which is never a problem because I don’t post-process my images. What’s more meaningful to me is that I don’t spend hours and hours sitting at a computing fiddling with files, which saves me a ton of time, making me more productive, while also freeing up time for other things (such as writing blog posts and spending time with my family). It’s changed my life, no hyperbole. I think it can and will change event photography and even wedding photography. It will just take some pioneer photographers to give it a try, which could be you.

Not post-processing your pictures is called one-step photography, a term coined by Edwin Land and perpetuated by Ansel Adams in his book Polaroid Land Photography. “The effect of one-step processing on both amateur and professional creative photography,” Adams stated, “has been revolutionary.” With film, step-one is capturing the picture in-camera and step-two is developing and printing it in a darkroom; however, Polaroid cameras removed the second step, creating a one-step process, which greatly simplified the photographic workflow. With digital, step-one is capturing the picture in-camera and step-two is post-processing in software like Lightroom; however, Film Simulation Recipes remove the second step, creating a one-step process, which greatly simplifies the photographic workflow. “The process has revolutionized the art and craft of photography,” Adams concluded. It still is, for those who embrace the one-step approach.

DPReview is Back from the Dead

Posted on June 22, 2023 by Ritchie Roesch

Digital Photography Review’s demise was short lived. Amazon was going to close it down, but now they’re selling it to Gear Patrol.

I had never heard of Gear Patrol before, so I had to look them up. Even though DPReview’s traffic has been shrinking (well before the announcement from Amazon, but especially after), they still have more visitors—and those visitors view more pages and stay longer—than Gear Patrol. Obviously they hope that this acquisition expands both audiences with crossover between the two websites.

When I was on the Central Coast of California tour two weeks ago, DPReview was brought up several times. There were a few interesting points made and insights that were discussed. I don’t have any inside information into the business dealings of any of these companies, but I do know a little about the industry in general, so I thought it would be worthwhile to talk about it here on Fuji X Weekly. It’s a hot topic, so perhaps you’re interested in my opinions—if not, that’s ok, just ignore this article.

*Pacific Poppies* – Montaña de Oro SP, CA – Fujifilm X-E4 & Fujinon 90mm – Pacific Blues

Amazon conducted a financial audit of their company, as they routinely do, and some alarming statistics were discovered. In response, Amazon looked closely at their divisions that were not profitable (or were perhaps trending towards and forecasted to be not profitable), and made determinations on layoffs, selling “assets” that were no longer so, and shuttering departments. DPReview, which was owned by Amazon, was chosen to close.

Two points that I believe are important, but I think were overlooked in the emotion of the closing news, are: 1) DPReview was either not profitable or was trending in that direction and forecasted to be that soon, and 2) Amazon did make some effort to sell it before deciding to close it. I don’t have any personal information on either of those two points, but it only makes sense, and thinking otherwise doesn’t make any sense. No matter how “evil” or “heartless” you think Amazon is, they wouldn’t close a profitable division—they are much more business savvy than you or I, and profits are profits, and an “asset” that’s losing money isn’t one. I doubt Amazon put much effort into selling DPReview, but they probably sent out a handful of inquiries to some companies within their circle to see if any would take the bait, and apparently none bit, so they decided instead to turn out the lights. They must have thought that there wouldn’t be much interest in it.

But then there was a huge outcry from the photo community. I believe that some offers to buy DPReview began to come in, including from Gear Patrol, so Amazon decided to keep it running for a couple months longer as they worked out the details. For Amazon, it makes a lot more sense to sell than to close, so they were quite happy to have a buyer, and probably sold DPReview at a discount.

So why would DPReview, which has a very large and devoted audience, have trouble turning a profit? The answer is simple: cost. The biggest expense for every company is almost always employees. I don’t know how many work for DPReview, but Google says that it’s at least 11 (I have no idea if that’s accurate). Ken Rockwell, for example, only employs himself, so even though he has a significantly smaller audience than DPReview, he’s able to turn a profit. Another big expense for DPReview is data storage and hosting. Now obviously they use Amazon Web Services (AWS) for this, which means they’ve either received this service for free or at a significant discount as a perk of being owned by Amazon. I use AWS for a couple of really small things, and I pay monthly for it. I can only imagine how expensive it would be for something as huge as DPReview! Not to mention that it’s constantly expanding daily (particularly thanks to the forums). Finally, DPReview is headquartered in an high-cost city, which in prosperous times is no big deal, but in lean times might make a significant difference.

*Exchanging Money* – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X-T30 & Asahi Pentax 55mm f/2.2 – Ilford HP5 Plus 400 Push-Process

I imagine that Gear Patrol negotiated (as a part of the sale) the inclusion of AWS for DPReview, and probably for a specific time. It could be three months, it could be six, but more likely it’s at least 12, if not up to 36. That gives Gear Patrol time to figure out how to run DPReview leaner before having to absorb that big expense.

What’s in it for Amazon? Well, first, there’s however much money Gear Patrol is paying them to buy DPReview. All of those affiliate links are still there, too, bringing customers to Amazon. And if DPReview can stay afloat, there will be the AWS money, too. Even if Amazon practically gave away DPReview (which they might have), it’s still better for them than to just close it down.

What’s in it for Gear Patrol? Suddenly their audience has more than doubled. If they can incorporate some crossover, there’s a real opportunity. However, they have to be careful, and it’s possible they’ve bit off more than they can chew. The challenge will be running DPReview leaner while not degrading the experience, and not making the crossover off-putting to visitors.

What’s in it for DPReview? The people who work there don’t get a pink slip—at least not everyone, and not right away. People who have worked hard for years to build the website and brand will be able to keep doing so. For those at DPReview (and their families), this must feel like a huge relief, although I’m sure there will still be a lot of stress with the transition.

*Open Window Reflection* – Pawhuska, OK – Fujifilm X-Pro2 & Fujinon 60mm – Kodachrome II

What’s in it for the photography community? DPReview has been around for a really long time, and there are so many resources on their website, which almost completely disappeared. Now—and at least for now—those resources will still be available to the photography community for some time to come.

Unfortunately for DPReview and Gear Patrol, the very best part of DPReview is now at PetaPixel: Chris and Jordan. That’s a huge win for PetaPixel!

So it seems like a win-win-win-win-win situation. Amazon won. Gear Patrol won. DPReview won. PetaPixel won. The photography community won. Amazing!

I doubt that Gear Patrol reads this website, but just in case, the advice that I’d offer them is this: in 2023, people are a little less interested in the fine details of the specs of camera gear than they used to be, and are more interested in how to use their gear to achieve what they want to achieve. We’ve reached a point (really, surpassed it) of diminishing returns, and the small differences between makes and models matter much less than they used to. Nowadays, anyone can achieve what they want to achieve with whatever gear they have, if only they knew how. There are people who either don’t know this, or who ignore it because it’s easier and more convenient to blame their gear than themselves, so they still get worked up over the insignificant differences, but most people are beginning to realize that the gear they own (or are about to own) is actually much more capable than they are. What they want to know is how to use their gear. They want to know how to achieve what they desire either the simplest way or the best way. If you focus more on that, you’ll find tons of success moving forward in this changing environment.

Fuji X Weekly App featured on FujiRumors & PetaPixel!

Posted on December 28, 2020 by Ritchie Roesch

The Fuji X Weekly App for iOS has been making the rounds on the web! FujiRumors shared it on December 24th, a Christmas Eve surprise! Today, PetaPixel published an article about it! These were both completely unexpected! Being featured on these websites is a big deal, and this is a first appearance for me on Petapixel. I’m really honored.

Here’s a quick update:
The Android version of the app is being worked on and progress is so far going quite well. I’m hoping that it will be available before March, but there’s still a long ways to go before it’s done, so it’s hard to say for sure when it will be released. The Fuji X Weekly Patrons are the ones who are making this happen, and the Android app would be nowhere close to where it is now without the Patrons. Your support is going to produce some amazing things that would not be possible without you. Thank you, Patrons!

Once the Android version is out, the next big thing is an update that will bring new features and functionality to the app. Some things will be made available to everyone, and some things will be made available only to Patrons, and some current Patron-only features will be unlocked for everyone. I don’t know how long it will take to get the update up and running, but I’m really hoping it can be done before the summer.

The Fuji X Weekly app has been downloaded 20,000 times! That’s incredible! I’m happy to provide this free resource to you, and it will only get better and better! I’m extremely appreciative of all the Patrons, because without your support none of this would be possible. We all owe you a debt of gratitude! I want to give a big “thank you” to those who have downloaded the app, to those who have shared the app on their websites and social media, and especially to all the Patrons!