I’ve been asked a few times recently to demonstrate through video how to use the Fuji X Weekly App. How do you get the most out of it? Some people are visual learners, and seeing it done makes much more sense than reading about it. If that’s you, this post is intended to help you.
I don’t currently have any videos that demonstrates this, as my two (below) only give a brief glimpse. They’re promotional videos and not how-to, although you can likely glean the gist of how it all works from them. I’m not really a “video guy” (just lightly dabble, I guess), so it’s not easy for me to whip something up real quick. However, I hope this article is helpful to you, as I share what is on YouTube regarding this. There are several great resources out there.
The SOOC series is a good starting point. For those who may not know, SOOC is a monthly live video series, with each episode focused on a different film simulation recipe. It is a collaboration between Tame Your Fujifilm (Fujifilm X-Photographer Nathalie Boucry) and Fuji X Weekly (Ritchie Roesch). SOOC is a fun and educational experience where we not only talk about Fujifilm camera settings, but also answer your questions and give tips and tricks. Basically, we’re trying to help you master your Fujifilm camera, with a focus on simplifying your photographic workflow.
As a part of this, Nathalie and I discuss and even demonstrate aspects of the Fuji X Weekly App. So if you are trying to understand how to use the App and how to get the most out of it, you without a doubt want to watch these episodes! They’re quite long, so under each video I’ve put a time that you should skip ahead to if you don’t want to watch the whole thing.
Skip to 48:43 & 1:06:30
Skip to 32:32
Skip to 23:58
Skip to 42:46 & 49:43
Skip to 21:00 & 29:20
Those SOOC episodes are great resources, and if you have the time I recommend watching them in their entirety. But if not, just skip ahead to those times under each video. Be sure to tune in on December 9th to catch Episode 06, as we will certainly discuss the App even more!
While I don’t have videos that show how to use the Fuji X Weekly App, other people have made some great videos that demonstrate how to do it! Yea! You’ll find these below—I’m sure they’ll be helpful to you.
Hopefully those above videos are great resources to you and will help you understand how to use the App. For those who prefer written words, check out these articles:
There are a few new Fujifilm deals that were announced today. A couple are worth noting, namely $400 off of the X-T3 and $1,500 off the GFX50R! If you’ve been considering getting into the GFX system, this might be your best opportunity. For those looking out for a deal (perhaps for holiday shopping), those Fujifilm items that are currently on sale can be found below.
Cameras: Fujifilm X-T3 – Save $400 – B&HAmazon Fujifilm X-T4 – Save $200 – B&HAmazon Fujifilm X-T30 – Save $100 – B&HAmazon
Lenses: Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 – Save $200 – B&HAmazon Fujinon 50mm f/1 – Save $200 – B&HAmazon
Jonathan capturing pictures for his middle school art project.
Do you remember the television gameshow hosted by comedian Jeff Foxworthy called Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? If not, the premise was pretty simple: answer questions from elementary school textbooks, with the most difficult questions taken from the fifth grade. Actual fifth grade students were on hand to offer help if the contestants should need it (and they always did). It turns out that most adults don’t remember the things they learned in elementary school—only two people ever won the million dollar grand prize. Those who lost had to admit on camera that they were not smarter than a fifth grader.
My 12-year-old son, Jon, is taking an art class in school, and one unit of this class is on photography. A project that he had to complete for this was to capture 10 photographs, each using a different and specific element of art. I let Jon use my Fujifilm X-E4 with a Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 lens attached. I did this same project right along side him, and I used a Fujifilm X-T30 with a Fujinon 35mm f/2 lens attached. Were my pictures going to be better than a middle schooler’s? How about you—are your pictures better than a middle schooler’s?
Let’s do this challenge together! There’s no prize, but it will be fun.
Note: this was a Creative Collective article, but now it’s available to everyone.
The “Are You A Better Photographer Than A Middle Schooler?” photography challenge is this: – Capture 10 pictures – Each picture needs to incorporate a different element of art – The 10 “elements of art” for this project are: 1. Balance 2. Color 3. Contrast 4. Framing 5. Line 6. Movement 7. Pattern 8. Shape 9. Space 10. Texture
For this challenge, Jonathan and I went to a small downtown in Bountiful, Utah. The location for this project doesn’t matter, but I chose this spot for us because I thought we’d encounter a good variety of subjects that might make things a bit easier. We spent maybe an hour doing this, all during the “golden hour” because that’s when good light is most commonly plentiful, and good light is often a prerequisite to good photographs. If you are looking for advice to improve your photography, let me offer this: concentrate capturing pictures during the hour immediately following sunrise and the hour immediately before sunset. I programmed the Fujicolor Superia 1600 recipe into the X-E4 because that’s what Jon chose (via the Fuji X Weekly App). I used my Porto 200 and Cross Process recipes on my X-T30.
Now, to the pictures!
Element of Art: Balance
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
This was a more challenging “element of art” to capture photographically than I expected. Maybe my creative mind wasn’t running on all cylinders for this particular image, or perhaps there just wasn’t a lot of opportunities for a “balance” picture. For my image, I was trying to find where the bench balanced between the vertical, horizontal, and diagonal lines. I don’t think I was particularly successful. This image would have worked better in black-and-white, and definitely if there had been a person sitting on the bench. Jon said of his picture, “I was balancing the door with the trashcans.”
Element of Art: Color
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
Color was a much more obvious and easier element of art to incorporate. Jon found a vibrant jacket in a store to photograph, while I used the Cross Process recipe to make the colors in my image stand out.
Element of Art: Contrast
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
Contrast can be tackled a number of different ways—I took it more literally. The building (which was partly in the sun and partly not) was reflected in the car window, which made it appear more contrasty, and the Cross Process recipe helped accentuate that. Jon said of his picture, “I saw the white sign with black writing on a black pole.”
Element of Art: Framing
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
Jon framed his subject (the monument) with flowers. I framed my subject (the words “Studio 10” twice) with a window frame. Framing is easy, framing effectively isn’t always easy. My picture for Color was probably a better example of framing, but I was thinking of color and not framing when I captured it.
Element of Art: Line
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
I used the stair’s railing as leading lines to the door. Jon said of his picture, “I used the lines on the sidewalk to take you to the vertical lines of the poles.” Having lines run from the corners of the picture to the subject is an effective way to guide the viewer through an image.
Element of Art: Movement
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
Jon did some panning with a slow shutter speed to incorporate this element of art into his photograph. I used a slow shutter speed, too, but kept the camera still and let the moving objects blur as they passed through the frame.
Element of Art: Pattern
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
What drew my attention to this photo opportunity was the Albert Einstein quote in the window situated above the trashcans, and I thought of the potential commentary of it. How does the picture fulfill the Pattern element? Obviously the bricks are a repeated pattern, but what I saw was the trashcans and the electrical box with a similar shape. Perhaps this picture is a stretch for this element. The natural patterns in Jon’s picture are a little more obvious.
Element of Art: Shape
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
Jon and I both photographed circles, although much differently. I think there’s a lot of opportunity with this element for creativity, but we didn’t do much to explore it. Mine was captured near the very beginning of our outing (before the creative juices were flowing), and Jon’s at the very end (when he was looking for anything to fulfill the Shape element).
Element of Art: Space
Jon’s picture:
My pictures:
For this element of art, Jon photographed a large empty room that looked even bigger because of a mirror running across the back wall. The small streak of light leads to a barely visible stool, and perhaps a ballet shoe sits on the floor. I photographed a largely empty room for this element, too, although not nearly as spacious-looking. Jon makes an appearance in both pictures. I think this element would be easier in a rural environment.
Element of Art: Texture
Jon’s photo:
My photo:
Jon was really unsure of how to capture Texture, so I suggested to him that we do some double-exposure photography for this. It worked out pretty well, although this is certainly not the only way to tackle this element of the challenge.
Conclusion
This challenge was actually more difficult than I thought it was going to be. It’s not necessarily hard to photograph these 10 elements of art by happenstance throughout time, but to purposefully seek these things out and create an interesting photograph of them is a whole different story. It’s definitely something that I want to try again!
Doing challenges like this are good because they keep you in photographic shape. Musicians constantly practice. Athletes constantly train. Photographers need to continuously practice their art, but it’s easy to get in a rut. Challenges like this help you to get out of your rut and stay in photographic shape, even if none of your images from this challenge are particularly compelling.
How do you think that I did? Am I a better photographer than a middle schooler? Or do I need to say that I’m not? Let me know in the comments who did better with each Element of Art! I think Jon beat me in at least a few of them.
This challenge is for you, too! Below is a Word document that you can download—print it and take it with you! I had the 10 elements of art typed out on a note on my phone, and that worked well enough. Whatever helps you to remember the elements and keep track of what you’ve captured is what you should do. The Word document may or may not be helpful, but it is available to you if you want it, and I’m hoping that at least a few of you find it useful.
I hope that you try this challenge. If you do, let me know! Even better, try it with a friend. If you post the pictures somewhere on the web, leave a link to it in the comments, because I’d love to see them.
As I was getting ready to write this article, I was looking around my gear cabinet for this lens and I couldn’t locate it. When I did find it, the lens was attached to my wife’s X-T4! It turns out that the Fujinon XF 27mm f/2.8 R WR is her favorite lens. It seems that whenever I want to use it, the lens is attached to her camera. This is the only lens that we fight over.
That first paragraph could be the entirety of this article. It says everything that you need to know (although my full review of the 27mm f/2.8 lens can be read here). If there could only be one lens in our household, it would be this one! But why? What makes this lens special?
The technical specs for this lens don’t stand out. A maximum aperture of f/2.8 isn’t eye-popping. The stats seem kind of ho-hum—in fact, that is why I hesitated to buy this lens in the first place. But stats don’t tell the whole story. What’s most important are the pictures, and the Fujinon XF 27mm f/2.8 R WR captures wonderful photographs!
Why does this lens capture such good images? It’s the sharpness, the micro-contrast, and the bokeh, which are all excellent. Perhaps, above all that, it’s the very useful focal-length, as 27mm is full-frame-equivalent to 40.5mm, which is pretty close to “normal” and very similar to what the eyes see. You can use this focal-length for most genres of photography. Useful and excellent—that’s the best summery of why I (we, actually) love this lens so much.
This is speaking nothing of the compact-size and lightweightness (I don’t think that’s a word) of this pancake lens, which makes it a joy to carry. Your gear is better when it doesn’t get in the way of itself, and this one—the smallest lens in the Fujinon lineup—certainly stays out of the way.
Ask anyone who owns this lens (or even the original 27mm f/2.8, which is optically identical), and they’ll tell you that it’s one of their favorites. On paper it shouldn’t be, but it is, because “on paper” is much different than real world use. The Fujinon XF 27mm f/2.8 R WR is an easy lens to recommend to anyone. However, if there’s one issue, it’s that this lens is really difficult to find right now, so if you are shopping for it, I wish you the best of luck.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
One of my absolute favorite lenses is the Fujinon 90mm f/2! It’s super sharp, plenty bright, great bokeh, and just lovely image quality. Technically speaking, the lens is near perfection, and practically speaking, it does nothing but produce lovely pictures. You can read my full review of the Fujinon 90mm f/2 lens here. I don’t want to rehash what I’ve already said, but instead convey why this is one of my absolute favorite lenses.
I purchased my Fujinon 90mm f/2 about three years ago. I had read that it was one of Fujifilm’s best portrait lenses, and I was going to be doing some portrait photography, so I bought it for that purpose. I had intended to sell it afterwards, but after I used it there was no way that I was going to sell it—it was love at first click! All of the great things that I read about it turned out to be completely true.
90mm is full-frame-equivalent to 135mm, which once was a very common focal-length, but it’s not really in vogue anymore. It’s not quite long enough for sports and wildlife photographers, and it’s too long for a lot of other purposes. Even portrait photographers might prefer a shorter focal-length with a larger maximum aperture. 135mm can be a bit challenging to use, but also very rewarding.
Robert Capa coined the phrase, “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” Robert probably wasn’t advocating the use of longer lenses, but actually taking a few steps closer; however, the Fujinon 90mm lens allows you to get closer without actually getting closer. It forces you to remove unnecessary elements from the frame, because they simply won’t fit—you can’t get it all in, so you have to be more purposeful with what you do and don’t include. That’s the challenge, but better pictures are the reward.
When Fujifilm introduced the 90mm f/2 in 2015, they likely had in mind that it would be popular among portrait photographers, and for sure it is! But I’m not a portrait photographer—at least not usually. While the lens is optimized for portrait photography, it is great for still-life, nature, urban, and many other circumstances. I use it most frequently for landscape photography.
The only negative comment that I have to say against the Fujinon 90mm f/2 is that it is a little hefty. It balances better on a camera like the X-T4 than X-E4, but I still use it frequently on smaller bodies. It’s not comfortable to carry around all day long. Aside from that, the 90mm lens is the epitome of the Fujinon quality that Fujifilm is renown for. I cannot imagine anyone being disappointed with the images captured through this glass.
The Fujinon 90mm f/2 can be challenging to use because of its focal-length, but if you take on that challenge you will be rewarded with wonderful photographs. That’s why I love it! If you are not a portrait photographer, this lens might not be on your radar, but it is worth owning anyway, as it is useful in many circumstances, and not just portraits. If you are a portrait photographer, this should be one of your top considerations. It retails for $950.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
The GFX Challenge Grant Program, sponsored by FUJIFILM, is a grant program that awards 5 Global Grant Award and 10 Regional Grant Award to help aspiring creatives bring their imaging projects to life. It is designed to nurture and develop the skills of emerging/promising content creators, giving them the opportunity to create content on topics that have significant meaning to them, while gaining experience using FUJIFILM GFX System gear. Proposed projects may be submitted as still photography or in a movie format. At the conclusion of the production period in August 2022, the award recipients’ final content will be showcased on the fujifilm-x.com website.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
I love double exposure photography! If done right, you can cleverly create exceptionally artful pictures. But how do you do it on your Fujifilm camera? What are some easy techniques that give good results? In this article I’ll discuss this topic in detail and provide some useful tips to help you make your own artistic double-exposure photographs.
Note: this was a Creative Collective article that required a subscription, but it is now available to everyone!
Many Fujifilm X cameras have the option to shoot “Multiple Exposure” photography (an old camera trick where two or more exposures are combined into one frame for artistic effect), although on most Fujifilm cameras it is actually “double exposure” photography, as you can only combine two exposures; however, some newer models are capable of combining up to nine exposures. For this, we’ll be doing double exposures, and not more.
You access (depending on the model) Multiple Exposure through a knob on the top plate or through the Drive button on the back. If you are not sure, check your user manual. For the X-Pro3 and newer models, you’ll also have to go into the Shooting Setting Menu, select Multiple Exposure CTRL, and choose one of four options: Additive, Average, Bright, or Dark. Additive or Average are the two options you’ll want to consider for this project. Bright and Dark work well for making color images from toned black-and-white, but otherwise are tricky, and I don’t recommend them for this.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
How are Additive and Average different? Additive is literally adding one exposure onto the next, so you have to significantly underexpose both frames or else get an overexposed image. Average mixes both frames together by averaging the difference. Additive tends to produce brighter pictures (although it depends on the two exposures), while Average tends to produce flatter images. I find that Additive often delivers results that I prefer, but Average is easier to use. There’s no right or wrong choice, but the way that you use each is different. For cameras older than the X-Pro3 that don’t have these options, what you get is the same thing as Average.
No matter your camera, with Multiple Exposure activated (through the top plate or Drive button on back, depending on your model), you capture the first exposure. The camera will ask if you want to keep it and move on or reshoot—if you didn’t get it quite right, you have this chance to try again. Once you are happy with your first exposure, you’ll hit “OK” and move onto the second exposure. The camera will show you the two exposures, which is a great benefit of doing this on a digital mirrorless camera. Line up the frame as you’d like it, adjust the exposure as you wish, and capture the second image. The camera will show you the double exposure, and it will ask you if you want to keep it or reshoot the second exposure—if you didn’t get it quite right, you have a chance to try again. If you are satisfied, select “Back” and you’re done!
You can use any film simulation recipe that you’d like. For these pictures, I used Ferrania Solaris FG 400. Recipes that have more contrast often work better than ones with less contrast. If you want to get really creative, you can even change recipes in-between exposures, and have two different recipes in one image—I didn’t do that here. Clarity is disabled for cameras with the Clarity feature. If you shoot RAW+JPEG, I’m not certain if older cameras will keep a RAW file for each exposure, but newer cameras will; however, the double exposure itself will not have a RAW file, you only get a JPEG.
Once your camera is all set up, and you’re ready to go capture some pictures, you’ll have to find some interesting subjects to photograph. The easy way to get artful double exposure images is to photograph two opposing things. For example, the picture at the very top of this article combines leaves and metal. You can look for smooth and rough. Manmade and natural. Cool and warm. Soft and hard. Bright and dark. Find two things that don’t seem like they should belong together, and use those for your double exposure image. You certainly don’t have to limit yourself to that—it’s simply a starting point. Not all of your ideas will work well, but some will—keep experimenting, and you’ll get some good pictures. I like to think of one exposure as being the main image, and the other as texture.
Average
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
Let’s look closer at some techniques if you are using an X-Pro3 or newer camera and select Average, or a camera that’s older than the X-Pro3 (which uses Average). What I like about Average is that you can achieve a more painterly effect with it—almost impressionist.
In my experience, the main image of the two exposures needs to be exposed brighter than the secondary exposure. For example, in the picture above, the leaves (first exposure) were exposed more than the road (second exposure). The camera will produce a fairly flat photograph, so to make the main subject stand out more you will want to consider making it a little brighter than the background, adjusting exposure compensation between shots. Thankfully, the camera will show you exactly what you’ll get, and you can adjust the exposure compensation to be exactly as you want before you even capture the second exposure. The Ferrania Solaris FG 400 film simulation recipe that I used for these pictures has only moderate contrast, and using a more contrasty recipe will produce a less flat photo. Best case scenario is a contrasty scene captured with a contrasty recipe.
Using Average is the easiest way to get good double exposure results. It still can be tricky, but it is more obvious what you need to do with each of the two exposures to get what you want. Let’s look at some examples:
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
The top image is a combination of a wild plant of some sort and a large stone (which filled the entire frame). The middle image is a combination of a stump with autumn leaves on it and a flowing creek (looking down from a bridge). The elements in the last image are a little more obvious, and is more of an example of mediocre results. In my experience, it’s more common to get mediocre results than great pictures, but if you keep trying and keep creating, you’ll definitely get some double exposure photographs that you’ll love.
Below is an example of two exposures that made a final double exposure image using Average. You can see that the leaves are brighter in the first exposure (not overexposed, though), and the rusted metal is darker in the second exposure (slightly underexposed). In the double exposure picture, the two images are combined into a lower contrast photograph that’s almost painterly. If the first picture had been exposed 1/3 stop brighter, the leaves would have been slightly brighter in the double exposure image (but not by a 1/3 stop). When you carefully select the subjects to combine, you can make them more compelling together than they are as separate images.
First exposure.
Second exposure.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
Additive
In-Camera Double-Exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
Additive is an option only found on X-Pro3 and newer cameras. I like Additive because you can get brighter, slightly less flat images than using Average, yet the results are fairly similar. I find it to be less painterly, and more like double exposure images on film.
Additive is trickier to use. Since each exposure is added onto the previous ones, two correctly exposed images will make one very overexposed double exposure picture, which means that both exposures need to be underexposed significantly—one to two stops, sometimes more. The camera will not show you exactly how bright the double exposure image will be until after both images are captured, so you’ll have a lot more failures with Additive than Average. Like Average, you’ll likely want the main exposure to be a little brighter than the secondary exposure. There’s certainly a lot of potential for creative concepts with Additive, but be sure to give yourself more grace. I guess you could say that Additive has more potential for greatness and failure simultaneously. Let’s look at some examples:
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
The top picture in this group was an early attempt. Maybe I’d title it The Nature of Music but I don’t think it’s anything profound. What I like about the second picture is that it is fairly dark, yet the flowers really stand out. The third photo is a simple cinderblock wall and a tree stump, which could have some metaphoric meaning.
Below is an example of two exposures that made a final double exposure image using Additive. You’ll notice that both exposures are pretty dark, especially the second one, yet the double exposure image is fairly bright, bordering overexposure. I probably should have reduced the exposure of one or maybe both images by 1/3 stop. The method to achieve good results is definitely different and more difficult with Additive, and the trick is to underexpose.
In-camera double exposure using Fujifilm X-E4 & Ferrania Solaris FG 400recipe.
Conclusion
The quick and easy way to get artful double exposure photographs from your Fujifilm camera: – Use a film simulation recipe. Often higher-contrast recipes do better than lower-contrast ones. – If your camera is newer—no older than the X-Pro3—choose either Average or Additive. Average is easier. For Additive, be sure to underexpose. – Set the camera to Multiple Exposure, which you access via the top plate or Drive button, depending on your model. – Choose two subjects that are opposing in some way. – Expose the “main” image more (brighter) than the “secondary” image. – Don’t be afraid to retry if the results aren’t as good as you’d like them to be. – Don’t be afraid to really experiment and try things just to see what happens.
Double exposure photography can be a fun and rewarding experience. It doesn’t have to be difficult to achieve good results—in fact, Fujifilm cameras make it pretty easy, no matter your model. I believe that anyone can do it, and whether you are experienced or a beginner, it’s worth trying. If you’ve never done it before, try double exposure photography the next time you are out with your camera.
I am the special guest today on Fujifilm’s Live Weekly Tech Webinar! If you have some free time today at 5PM Eastern, 2PM Pacific, please join us as we “talk shop” about Fujifilm cameras and settings. They describe the program as informal yet informative nerdiness for your photographic soul. If you are interested, click here for more information. I hope to see you in a few hours!
If the terms “analog” or “SOOC” make your ears perk up, you’ve found the right edition of Tech Talk Weekly Webinar. This week the Fujifilm tech team is joined by Ritchie Roesch of Fuji X Weekly. If you aren’t familiar check out the website https://fujixweekly.com or find the app available on Android and IOS. Join us to hear about this awesome community based project, built around Fujifilm cameras and designed to allow for some amazing in camera creativity. Bring your camera, your questions, and join us for this informal yet informative photo nerd session.
If you are looking for your first Fujifilm camera, it can be difficult to know which one to buy. Perhaps this will be your first “serious” camera. Or maybe you’ve had a different brand of camera for awhile, but you don’t use it all of the time, and you’re not all that experienced with it. It could be that you’re interested in a Fujifilm camera because you want to try my film simulation recipes. This article is intended to help you with your buying decision.
I’m making a few assumptions with this post: you’re in the market for a new camera, you want a camera that’s easy-to-use yet you can grow with, and you’re on a limited budget. Maybe those assumptions are incorrect for you, but I bet they’re true for many of the people who this article was intended for. My hope is that this post will give you some clarity.
So let’s look at a few Fujifilm cameras!
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-S10
The X-S10 is a mid-range mirrorless offering from Fujifilm that’s great for both still photography and video. It doesn’t have all the typical retro stylings and controls that most Fujifilm cameras are known for, but if you have some experience (even if just a little) shooting DSLRs or mirrorless cameras from other brands, this camera will likely feel more natural to you, and the learning curve will be just a little easier. It’s an extraordinarily capable model, and will keep up with you as you become a better photographer. If you are looking for the best budget Fujifilm camera for video, look no further, as the video-centric X-S10 is well-regarded for it’s cinematic capabilities. The camera retails body-only for $1,000, or $1,500 bundled with the Fujinon 16-80mm lens.
I recommendation the Fujifilm X-S10 camera if: – You have some experience with a different brand and want the easiest transition to Fujifilm. – You will be doing a lot of videography.
I don’t recommend the Fujifilm X-S10 camera if: – You want the full Fujifilm retro experience. – You are on a tight budget.
The Fujifilm X-T30 is a great retro-styled mid-range mirrorless camera, but it is a couple years old now. Despite having the same X-Trans IV sensor and processor as all of the other models in this list, it is more like a previous generation camera. Don’t get me wrong: the X-T30 is an excellent option. I have this camera and use it frequently (you can read my review of the X-T30 here). Of all the cameras in this list, the X-T30 is the one I recommend the least, but I do still recommend it. It’s a solid option for both stills and video, but it is beginning to feel slightly dated. The camera retails body-only for $900, or $1,300 bundled with the Fujinon 35mm f/2 lens or Fujinon 18-55mm lens; however, it might be possible to find it discounted.
I recommendation the Fujifilm X-T30 camera if: – You like the retro-styling. – You can find it on sale.
I don’t recommend the Fujifilm X-T30 camera if: – Having the latest and greatest is important to you. – You’ll be primarily using it for video.
The Fujifilm X-T30 II is a minor update to the X-T30, but if you plan to use film simulation recipes and/or use the camera for video, the new model has some important features that make it worth choosing. The X-T30 and X-T30 II share the same sensor and processor, but are basically two different camera generations. Not surprising, the new version is better. The camera retails body-only for $900, or $1,000 bundled with the Fujinon 15-45mm lens, and $1,300 bundled with the Fujinon 18-55mm lens; however, the X-T30 II isn’t out just yet, but it is available for preorder.
I recommendation the Fujifilm X-T30 II camera if: – You want the best mid-range retro-styled Fujifilm model. – You will be doing both still photography and videography.
I don’t recommend the Fujifilm X-T30 II camera if: – You need a camera right away. – You can find the original X-T30 on sale for significantly cheaper.
Fujifilm doesn’t currently have any low-budget entry-level models—the Bayer-sensor cameras, which serve this purpose, have all been discontinued, at least for now—so the X-E4 currently sits at the bottom of the roster, but, make no mistake, this is a mid-tier camera, similar to the ones above, and not low-end. While the X-E4 sits at the bottom, it is actually my top recommendation, with one exceptions: If you will be doing a lot of video, the X-E4 has some limitations that the X-T30 II and (especially) the X-S10 do not. Otherwise, my best suggestion for those in the market for their first Fujifilm camera is the X-E4. The camera isn’t perfect (you can read my review of the X-E4 here), and perhaps Fujifilm went slightly too minimalistic with it, but it is a pretty darn good option, and an excellent choice for someone wanting an uncomplicated camera that will grow with them as they become better and more experienced. The X-E4 retails body-only for $850, or $1,050 when bundled with the Fujinon 27mm lens.
I recommendation the Fujifilm X-E4 camera if: – You want the cheapest mid-range retro-styled Fujifilm model. – You want an uncomplicated option.
I don’t recommend the Fujifilm X-E4 camera if: – You will be primarily using it for video. – You think you’ll want a lot of programable buttons and dials.
Obviously, if this will be your first Fujifilm camera and you are on a tight budget, you are going to need a lens—a body-only option won’t likely be your best bet, as you will want a lens bundle. Unfortunately, the X-T30 II bundled with the 15-45mm is the only option if you don’t want to spend more than $1,000. The 15-45mm lens is decent enough for a cheap zoom, but there’s a reason it only costs $100 (when bundled). Also, the X-T30 II isn’t out yet, although you can preorder it if you don’t mind waiting. Your next best bet is the X-E4 bundled with the (excellent) 27mm f/2.8, which is $1,050. The rest of the bundles are $1,300-$1,500, which very well might be above your budget.
If these prices are outside of what you can afford, you might consider a used camera, perhaps an X-Trans II or X-Trans III model. Something like the X-T1, X100F, X-E3, X-T20, or a number of other older cameras are good options. The used route is a good way to get into the system without breaking the bank.
If, by chance, you can afford a $1,400 camera, I have one more recommendation for you.
Fujifilm X100V
The Fujifilm X100V is my “desert island” model—if I could only have one camera, it would be this! I love mine (you can read my review of the X100V here), as it’s such an excellent camera. The X100V has a fixed lens, so you don’t need to go out and buy one, although the lack of interchangeable capability is a limitation you’ll have to consider carefully. Of all of the cameras in this list, the X100V would be considered the most “premium” of the group. The camera retails for $1,400.
I recommendation the Fujifilm X100V camera if: – You want the most enjoyable Fujifilm experience. – You want a compact option.
I don’t recommend the Fujifilm X100V camera if: – You have a limited budget. – You don’t think you’d like the limitation of a fixed lens.
All Fujifilm X cameras have a feature called Film Simulation Bracket. Select three different film simulations, and the camera will process each exposure as three different images using whichever film simulations you selected. Unfortunately, with Film Simulation Bracket, you cannot change any other parameter, only the film simulation. This means that the camera will not apply three different Film Simulation Recipes. When Fujifilm designed this feature, I’m sure that they were unaware of how people would be using their cameras, and Film Simulation Bracket definitely demonstrates that. Instead of what it is, it should be Custom Preset Bracket—you pick three different C1-C7 presets, and the camera will generate an image using each with every exposure. That would be amazing! But, sadly, that’s not an option. I’ve never really liked or used Film Simulation Bracket until recently, and I discovered that it can sometimes be a useful tool.
In this article we will look at what Film Simulation Bracket is, how to use it, and when it is a useful feature.
Note: this was a Creative Collective article that required a subscription, but it is now available to everyone!
Every Fujifilm X-series camera has Film Simulation Bracket built-in, but how to access it and set it up is different depending on your model. If your camera has a Drive button, push it, then scroll down to Film Simulation BKT. Next, push the Menu button, go to the Shooting Menu, and find Film Simulation BKT, then select the three film simulations you want to use. If your camera has a Drive Mode Dial on the top plate, select BKT on the dial. Next, push the Menu button, go to the Shooting Menu, choose Drive Setting, then BKT Setting, then BKT Select, then Film Simulation BKT, and then select the three film simulations that you want to use. If you are having trouble, I recommend Googling your camera’s users manual. Fujifilm has made it pretty easy to navigate their digital manuals, and you shouldn’t have much trouble finding it. For example, if you search for the Fujifilm X100V user manual, you’ll quickly locate it. Under The Shooting Menus, you’ll see Shooting Setting, and when you click that you’ll find Film Simulation BKT.
Once your camera is in the Film Simulation Bracket Drive Mode, and you have your three film simulations selected, you’re good to go shoot. Well, sort of. What about all of the other settings? We’ll talk a little more about this in a bit, but I wanted to touch on a few things first.
RAW is only available when using Film Simulation Bracket on X-Trans III and newer. So some cameras, like the X-Pro1 and X-T1, can only record JPEGs when using this function. On newer cameras, you’ll not only get one RAW file, but you’ll get three! That means for every exposure, you’ll have six images recorded to the memory card: three RAW files plus three JPEGs. This is an odd quirk of Film Simulation Bracket.
Another thing to note is that Clarity (for those cameras that have Clarity) is disabled when using Film Simulation Bracket. If you shoot RAW+JPEG, you can reprocess the RAW files in-camera (or using X RAW Studio) to apply Clarity after-the-fact if you’d like.
You can program one film simulation recipe into your camera when you use Film Simulation Bracket, and one image captured will be of that recipe, and the other two images will also be that recipe, but with a different film simulation applied. Sometimes this can produce good results. For example, Kodachrome II and Ektachrome 100SW are essentially the same recipes, just with different film simulations (Classic Chrome and Velvia respectively). Sometimes this can produce not-so-good results, like when Omar Gonzalez accidentally used Classic Chrome instead of Classic Negative on the Agfa Vista recipe. Let’s look at a couple of examples of this:
Fujifilm X-T1 – Kodacolor 200 recipe – PRO Neg. Std
Fujifilm X-T1 – Kodacolor 200 recipe – Monochrome
In the first set, I used the Vivid Color recipe as the base, setting the three film simulations to bracket as Velvia (which is what the recipe calls for), Provia, and PRO Neg. Hi. In my opinion, Provia and PRO Neg. Hi produced so-so results—not terrible, but not great, either. In the second set, I used the Kodacolor 200 recipe as the base, setting the three film simulations to bracket as Classic Chrome (which is what the recipe calls for), PRO Neg. Std, and Monochrome. I thought that Monochrome looked pretty good, and that is certainly a good companion to the Kodacolor 200 recipe. PRO Neg. Std was alright, and I can see some people liking it. With this experiment, the second set was more of a success than the first.
What’s great about this experiment is that you can accidentally stumble into great looks by simply applying a different film simulation to an already existing recipe. For example, this is how I discovered the Elite Chrome 200 recipe. Using Film Simulation Bracket, I programmed the base with my Fujicolor Superia 800 recipe, which uses Classic Negative, and I set Classic Chrome and Astia as the other two options. I didn’t care for the Astia version, but I really liked the Classic Chrome images, and it quickly became an official recipe. It’s really fun when you get an unexpectedly good result while experimenting with this feature.
I really wanted to have three good pictures produced from using Film Simulation Bracket. I wanted each of them to have a unique look. The film simulations aren’t always that much different from each other, and the subtle differences aren’t always immediately obvious. What’s the point in producing three only slightly different images? Since all of the settings (aside from film simulation) were going to be identical, I needed to carefully choose three film simulations that were obviously different. But each also had to look good with those otherwise identical settings.
I knew exactly where to start: Kodak Portra 400 v2. Why? Not only because it is one of my favorite recipes, but because another favorite recipe of mine is identical to it except for the film simulation: Vintage Vibes. Kodak Portra 400 v2 uses Classic Chrome while Vintage Vibes uses Classic Negative, and aside from that they are identical. I just needed to figure out which film simulation would look good with these same settings. I tried a couple, but didn’t care for the results. Then I programmed Eterna Bleach Bypass into my Fujifilm X-E4 as the third film simulation. Bingo! That’s the winner! I call this new recipe Ferrania Solaris FG 400.
The three photos at the very top of this article are examples of using these three recipes with Film Simulation Bracket. The first is Kodak Portra 400 v2, the second is Vintage Vibes, and the third is Ferrania Solaris FG 400. Let’s look at a couple more examples:
Kodak Portra 400 v2
Vintage Vibes
Ferrania Solaris FG 400
Kodak Portra 400 v2
Vintage Vibes
Ferrania Solaris FG 400
Of course, there’s still the issue of Clarity. I have to reprocess the RAW files in-camera to apply Clarity. If I didn’t use Film Simulation Bracket, and simply captured one image using the Kodak Portra 400 v2 recipe, I could just as easily reprocess the RAW in-camera to create a Vintage Vibes and Ferrania Solaris FG 400 version. So what’s the point?
There are two circumstances where I feel that Film Simulation Bracket is actually useful. First, if you have an X-Trans III, X-T3 or X-T30 camera, and if there were three recipes that used different film simulations but were otherwise identical (there’s not currently), this would be a good way to get three different looks from the same exposure—creating these recipes is something that I’ll challenge myself to do. This is also possible with older sensors or Bayer, but it’s maybe just a little less practical. For newer X-Trans IV cameras, ignoring Clarity (or, in the case of the three recipes mentioned above, maybe using a diffusion filter in lieu of Clarity) might be a good strategy. Second, Film Simulation Bracket is great for discovery. The Elite Chrome 200 and Ferrania Solaris FG 400 recipes are direct results from experimenting with this tool. It’s something I’ll definitely do more of in the coming days, weeks, and months, just for the fun of it.
I enjoyed trying Film Simulation Bracket for the serendipity of it. You don’t know what you’ll get when you use a different film simulation with a recipe until you try. A lot of times the results are mediocre. Sometimes the results are terrible. Occasionally the results are great, which makes experimenting with Film Simulation Bracket worth it. I invite you to try it yourself, just to see what you get.
In my article No Edit Photography: 7 Tips To Get The Film Look From Your Digital Photos, I suggested that you should sometimes use diffusion filters (Tip 3) in order to better achieve an analog aesthetic. In that article I stated, “You want the effect to be subtle.” I think that’s generally good advice, as in most circumstances subtleness will get you the best results. But what happens when you ignore the “rules” and get crazy? What happens when you use multiple diffusion filters together in order to get a bold effect? This article will explore those questions, and hopefully it will inspire you to do your own experiments with diffusion filters.
Ready to get crazy?
Note: this was a Creative Collective article that required a subscription, but it is now available to everyone!
I don’t think diffusion filter designers deliberately intended for their filters to be stacked together, but of course creative people will experiment with something just to see what happens. Maybe it will be terrible, but maybe it will be great, so it is worth the time and effort to try. The idea to do this wasn’t actually mine—a Fuji X Weekly reader shared with me his pictures where he stacked diffusion filters—and I knew that it was something that I needed to try.
I currently own five diffusion filters: Tiffen 1/4 Black Pro Mist, Tiffen 1/2 Black Pro Mist, Moment 5% CineBloom, Moment 10% CineBloom, and Moment 20% CineBloom. The 1/2 Black Pro Mist is a different thread size than the others, so I didn’t use it for these experiments. Because the other four are the same 49mm thread, I was able to use them together on my Fujifilm X100V. My very first image using stacked diffusion filters was the picture below:
A bright lamp is just off frame in the upper-right corner of the picture. Combining the 10% & 20% CineBloom filters dispersed the highlights, softening the transition from bright white to shades of grey. There’s also a softening effect on the transition to black. It’s a greater effect than using the 1/4 Black Pro Mist on its own, and closer to the 1/2 Black Pro Mist (although I didn’t directly compare it to the 1/2 Tiffen filter).
Let me make a quick note of my impressions of Black Pro Mist vs CineBloom. Black Pro Mist seems to effect overall contrast slightly less than CineBloom while delivering similar halation (or highlight bloom); however, it also produces a barely visible warm/red color cast. CineBloom reduces contrast slightly more overall than Black Pro Mist, but doesn’t have the color cast. So they’re quite similar, yet produce a noticeably different look. For example, the 10% CineBloom is more similar to the 1/2 Black Pro Mist when it comes to overall contrast, but closer to the 1/4 Black Pro Mist when it comes to halation. Which is better? I can’t answer that for you. They both have strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I lean a little more towards liking CineBloom just a bit better, just because it doesn’t have the color cast.
Unsurprisingly, using the 10% and 20% CineBloom filters together produces a stronger effect compared to using the 20% alone. It is definitely stronger than using the 1/4 Black Pro Mist, and it seems to be as strong of halation as the 1/2 Black Pro Mist (although, again, I didn’t directly compare it to that filter). This combination noticeably reduces contrast, producing slightly “faded” (but still dark) shadows. Let’s look at a few.
Fujifilm X100V using both 10% & 20% CineBloom filters plus Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using both 10% & 20% CineBloom filters plus Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using both 10% & 20% CineBloom filters plus Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using both 10% & 20% CineBloom filters plus Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using both 10% & 20% CineBloom filters plus Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
The reduction in overall contrast is noticeable in the above pictures, which isn’t necessarily good or bad—it’s a matter of if you like it or don’t like it. When there’s a light source (like the image immediate above this) you get a misty effect (while it was partly-cloudy, it wasn’t misty). When the sun was near the frame, the halation was much too strong, and I didn’t like those pictures; however, when the light wasn’t too strong, the effect seems quite nice. I think the 20% filter or (especially) the 10% filter used alone (not used together) would have done better for the pictures with a bright light. The softer look created with stacked diffusion filters when there isn’t a bright light is actually rather lovely.
None of that, of course, is crazy. I said at the beginning of this article that we were going to get rather wild, so let’s get crazy! What happens when you stack a 1/4 Black Pro Mist, 20% CineBloom, and 10% CineBloom together? Let’s find out!
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusVelvia v2 recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusFujicolor Pro 400H recipe.
Fujifilm X100V using three diffusion filters plusKodak Tri-X 400 recipe.
When there’s not a light source in or near the frame, the results of stacking three diffusion filters can be wonderful, with an elegant softness that you might really appreciate. I think the two pumpkin pictures at the top of this set show this effect especially well. Look at those beautiful tones! When there is a light in or near the frame, stacking filters can definitely produce a pronounced Orton effect—in some pictures it can be alright, and others not so much.
I have four different diffusion filters, but I’ve only showed you two combinations. I tried the 5% CineBloom, but it’s such a subtle effect that it didn’t make much sense to use it for these experiments (which are supposed to be crazy). I also tried the 1/4 Black Pro Mist with the 10% CineBloom and 20% CineBloom separately. Using the 1/4 Black Pro Mist with the 10% CineBloom is similar to using the two CineBlooms stacked together (not 100% the same, but similar enough). Combining the 1/4 Black Pro Mist and 20% CineBloom (without the 10%) is in-between using the two CineBlooms and using all three diffusion filters. In your own experiments, feel free to try any combination and see if you like the results.
Diffusion filters are great for taking the “digital edge” off of digital pictures to subtly give them a more analog aesthetic. My recommendation, if you like the effect, is to use a 5% CineBloom, 10% CineBloom, 1/8 Black Pro Mist, or 1/4 Black Pro Mist. Some people will find the 5% CineBloom and 1/8 Black Pro Mist to be too weak, and some people will find the 10% CineBloom and 1/4 Black Pro Mist to be too strong. You’ll have to decide what works best for you, and it might even be situationally dependent.
While not likely for everyday photography, stacking diffusion filters can give you a faded, misty, or Orton effect (depending on the light). You can sometimes get results that are especially nice. If you have more than one diffusion filter with the same thread size, I invite you to use them at the same time. The results can be serendipitous, producing pictures that you might dislike or that you absolutely love. I definitely captured a few that I love.
I love getting an analog aesthetic right out of camera! Fujifilm X cameras offer many great tools to get film-like results straight-out-of-camera without the need to edit. By adjusting the JPEG parameters, you can create various looks that I call film simulation recipes—I have published nearly 200 of them! These settings save you time, simplify the photographic process, and make capturing pictures even more enjoyable.
“By making it possible for the photographer to observe his work and his subject simultaneously,” wrote Edwin H. Land, co-founder of Polaroid, “and by removing most of the manipulative barriers between the photographer and the photograph, it is hoped that many of the satisfactions of working in the early arts can be brought to a new group of photographers.”
Ansel Adams called it One-Step Photography, and added, “The effect of one-step processing on both amateur and professional creative photography has been revolutionary. As with all art forms, we must accept the limitations of the medium as well as revel in the advantages.”
Land and Adams were specifically talking about Polaroid pictures, but I think it applies similarly to Fujifilm X cameras and film simulation recipes. The “manipulative barriers between the photographer and the photograph” have been removed! Now you just have to decide which recipe you want to use, like picking which film to load, and start creating, without worrying about how you’re going to later manipulate the pictures, because the straight-out-of-camera pictures are pretty darn good, and don’t require manipulation. Sure, edit if you want—there’s nothing wrong with that—but you don’t have to if you don’t want to, and there’s nothing wrong with that, either. Ansel Adams called it “revolutionary” and said to “revel in the advantages.” There’s freedom in this.
All of the pictures in this article are unedited (except for perhaps some minor cropping) straight-out-of-camera JPEGs that I recently captured using a Fujifilm X camera and a film simulation recipe.
Soon you’re going to see more content published on the Fuji X Weekly blog. I usually post between 15 and 25 articles each month, but soon there’ll be even more than that. Shortly I’ll be typing with increased fervor!
As you might know, I’m not sponsored by anyone. Fujifilm doesn’t sponsor this website, nor does B&H, KEH, or anybody else. I don’t get paid for the content that I publish, other than a little ad revenue, which isn’t much and barely covers the expenses of web hosting and such. Going forward I’m taking a different approach, which I hope makes sense to you.
Very soon I will be launching the Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective. The Creative Collective is a bonus-content subscription, where you’ll have access to extra articles. What kind of content will be a part of the Creative Collective? These articles will largely be exercises in creativity. They’ll be experiments, focused on trying new things, and they’ll be invitations for you to do it, too. We will dive deeper into settings and techniques. We’ll go down some rabbit holes just to see where they go. This will be a journey, and it will be interesting to see what we discover together. Whether you are an experienced Fujifilm shooter or brand-new to photography, there will be something for everyone. If you want to adventure with me on this, the Fuji X Weekly Creative Collective will be only $2 (USD) per month.
I’m going to continue to publish 15 to 25 posts each month, which will be available free to everyone—this includes film simulation recipes, and much of the other content that you expect to find here. The additional articles will be for Creative Collective subscribers only as bonus content. If you don’t subscribe, not much changes for you. If you do subscribe, there’s going to be even more Fuji X Weekly articles for you to enjoy. Additional details coming soon, so stay tuned!
It’s now November, and tricks or treats are officially over. I thought it would be fun to look back at October, and see what the most viewed articles were. I have two categories: most viewed in October and most viewed that were published in October. It’s a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. I’ll finish up with a third category: pointing out some posts that seem to have been overlooked—maybe you missed them.
Digital photography is convenient. You can review your pictures immediately after they’re captured—no waiting for rolls of film to come back from the lab. You can manipulate the images as much as you’d like in software to achieve any aesthetic that you can dream of. You can get extremely clean, sharp, bright, and vibrant pictures with extraordinary dynamic range that just wasn’t possible in the film era. Perfect pictures are prevalent today—a wonder of contemporary photography, no doubt.
Sometimes I think that digital photography is too good, too flawless, too sterile. Perfect pictures can be perfectly boring. Pulitzer-Prize winning author John Updike stated, “Perfectionism is the enemy of creation.” I think that statement is true in multiple aspects. For example, if you are working hard to create perfect pictures, you will not create very many images. I think, also, that creativity is rarely born out of perfectionism. Creativity is serendipitous. It’s not calculated. Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) wrote, “Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.”
With film photography, mistakes happen fairly frequently. You don’t know what you have until you have it sometime later. There are a lot of variables that can affect the outcome, which are sometimes out of your control. Occasionally you accidentally and unknowingly discovery something extraordinary. There’s a lot of uncertainty, and when you fortuitously stumble upon something interesting, there’s a lot of joy in that. Film photography is imperfect—it has flaws—and, because of that, it is rewarding. This is one reason why there’s a resurgence of interest in analog pictures.
Film photography is inconvenient. The serendipity of it is fascinating, but I prefer the instant reward of digital. I’m not patient enough anymore for analog. Don’t get me wrong, I shot film for many years. I prefer how film looks, but digital is more consistent, convenient, cheaper (after the initial investment is made), and quicker, so I choose digital. But what if it is possible to get the best of both worlds? What if you could get the “film look” from your digital camera? What if you could do it without editing. Straight-out-of-camera. No Lightroom or Photoshop needed. Would you try it?
What exactly is the so-called film look? That’s actually a difficult question to answer, because one film can have many different aesthetics, depending on how it was shot, developed, scanned and/or printed, and viewed. There have been hundreds of different films available over the years, each with unique characteristics. Film can have so many different looks that it could take a lifetime to try and describe them all.
Most simplistically, the film look can be defined as a picture that looks like it was shot on film, but really the answer is more elusive than that. The best way to understand it would be to look at pictures captured with film. Find prints from the 1990’s or 1980’s. Photographic paper (and film, too) fades over time, so the further back you go, the more likely it will appear degraded. Maybe that’s something you prefer? There are as many different film looks as there are tastes, and there’s certainly not a one-size-fits-all answer to what exactly film looks like.
Captured on Elite Chrome 200 color reversal film that has faded.
The biggest difference between film and digital is how highlights are handled. With film, there’s a gradation to white that’s often graceful, but with digital it is much more abrupt. Shadows can also sometimes be more gradual and graceful with film than digital, but definitely not to the same extent as highlights, and definitely not always. Another difference is that film grain is usually considered more beautiful and artful than digital noise. With film photography, there are sometimes surprises that stem from gear (or film) imperfections that don’t typically happen naturally with digital capture. Beyond that, digital images can be effectively manipulated in post-editing to resemble film photographs, especially in the era of Lightroom presets and software filters.
There are two responses that I expect to receive. First, someone will say, “Shoot film if you want the film look.” Nobody is going to argue against that, but this article is not about merely getting the film look—it’s about getting the film look from your digital camera, because digital is more convenient. Second, a person will argue, “I can easily get this look with software, so why bother doing it in-camera?” Getting the look straight-out-of-camera saves time, simplifies the photographic process, and makes capturing pictures even more enjoyable. There’s no right or wrong way to do things—I’m just discussing one method, which you may or may not appreciate. If you enjoy post-processing, that’s great! I personally don’t enjoy it, so I go about things differently, which works for me.
1. Shoot A Fujifilm Camera
Fujifilm X-E4.
Fujifilm X-T30.
Fujifilm X100V.
Step One to achieve the film look from your digital photos without the need to edit is to buy a Fujifilm camera. Which one? It doesn’t matter. If you already own one, you can skip ahead to Step Two.
Why do you need a Fujifilm camera? Why not a Canon, Sony, or Nikon? Because Fujifilm has, in my opinion, the best JPEG engine in the industry. They’ve used their vast experience with film to give their digital cameras an analog soul. In other words, Fujifilm has made it easier than any other brand to get a film look out-of-camera. Could you do it with another brand? Sure—I created JPEG settings for film looks on Ricoh GR cameras. You can do something similar with other brands, but, in my experience, Fujifilm gives you more and better tools to do this. The best brand for achieving a film look that doesn’t require post-processing is Fujifilm, so that is why you need a Fujifilm camera.
I’ll recommend the Fujifilm X100V or Fujifilm X-E4, both of which I own and use often. I also own a Fujifilm X-T30, Fujifilm X-T1, and Fujifilm X-Pro1, and those are very capable cameras, too. Additionally, I’ve shot with a Fujifilm X100F, Fujifilm X-Pro2, Fujifilm X-T20, Fujifilm XQ1, Fujifilm XF10, Fujifilm X-T200, Fujifim X-A3, Fujifilm X-E1, and Fujifilm X-M1. It doesn’t matter which model you buy, but, if you can afford it, I would go for one the newer models (X-Pro3, X100V, X-T4, X-S10, X-E4, or X-T30 II), because they have more JPEG options, and it’s possible to get more looks out of those cameras. Don’t worry if a new camera is out of your reach, as there are many quality used options that are affordable.
Film simulation recipes are JPEG camera settings that allow you to get a certain look straight-out-of-camera. They’re basically a customization of the stock film simulations that come with the camera, adjusted to achieve various aesthetics. I’ve published over 175 film simulation recipes for Fujifilm cameras, most based on (or inspired by) classic film stocks. They’re free and easy to use. I even created a film simulation recipe app for both Apple and Android! If you have a Fujifilm camera, you should have the app on your phone. Film simulation recipes go a very long ways towards achieving a film look in-camera. Programming a recipe into your camera is kind of like loading a roll of film, except that you can capture as many frames as you wish on each roll, and change the film anytime you want.
There are a lot of wonderful options to choose from, including Kodachrome 64, Kodak Portra 400, Kodak Tri-X 400, Fujicolor C200, Fujicolor Pro 400H, AgfaChrome RS 100, and so many more! There are nearly 200 of them on this website, plus some more on the Community Recipes page. No matter your Fujifilm X camera, there are some great film simulation recipe options for you to use. I even have a number of unusual recipes, like Cross Process, Expired Slide, and Faded Negative, intended to mimic some alternative analog aesthetics. The three example pictures above are unedited (aside from, perhaps, some minor cropping), just to give you a brief taste of what recipes look like.
3.Use Diffusion Filters
10% CineBloom.
5% CineBloom.
5% CineBloom.
As I already mentioned, the biggest difference between digital images and film photographs are how highlights are handled (and, to a lesser extent, shadows). Diffusion filters help with this. They take the “digital edge” off of your pictures by bending a small percentage of the light that passes through the filter, which causes it to be defocused. The images remain sharp, but a slight haziness is added, especially in the highlights, which produces a more graceful gradation to white.
There are various types of diffusion filters by a few different brands. I recommend Black Pro Mist filters by Tiffen or CineBloom filters by Moment. You want the effect to be subtle, so I suggest a 1/8 or 1/4 Black Pro Mist—I used a 1/4 in the picture at the very top of this article—or a 5% or 10% CineBloom, which I used in the three pictures above; however, I have seen some good results with the stronger options (1/2 Black Pro Mist and 20% CineBloom). A slight effect from a diffusion filter in the right situations can subtly improve a photograph’s analog appearance.
I love using vintage lenses on my Fujifilm cameras, because they often have flaws that give pictures character. Some of the charm of analog photography stems from imperfect gear—that serendipity I mentioned earlier is often from flawed glass. Modern lenses are precision engineered and meant to give you perfect pictures. But they can be too good and too sharp. They’re great if you photograph test charts, but vintage lenses often have seemingly magical qualities that make real-world pictures better, and definitely more film-like. A lot of time you can find these old lenses for pretty cheap, but you do need an adaptor to attach them to your Fujifilm camera.
If you don’t want to buy used gear and adaptors, a great alternative is to get yourself some inexpensive manual lenses, like the Pergear 50mm f/1.8, 7artisans 50mm f/1.8, and Meike 35mm f/1.7. There are, of course, lots more manual options like these, many of which have flaws and character similar to vintage lenses, except that they’re brand-new and don’t need adaptors. Manual lenses are trickier to use, especially if you don’t have much experience with them, but I find them to be a rewarding, delivering wonderfully imperfect photographs.
With digital photography, you have many tools to make sure your focus is spot-on; if you are unsure that you precisely nailed it, you can immediately review the image and zoom in to make sure, and retake if necessary. With film photography, not only are the focus tools much more limited, you don’t even know if you got it exactly right until the film comes back from the lab. If you study classic photography, you’ll notice that many iconic pictures didn’t spot-on nail the focus. You’ll even notice this in old movies and television shows, too. It was common, and nobody cared. It has become a small part of the film look.
Worry more about composition and storytelling, and less about getting perfect focus. In fact, my recommendation is to not review the LCD after each shot to check. Take the picture, and if you got focus perfect, great! And if you didn’t, don’t let the imperfection bother you, but celebrate that a little softness can be a part of the analog aesthetic. A little blur is not always bad, especially if the picture is otherwise interesting or compelling.
One of the big differences between digital and film is that film has lovely silver grain while digital has ugly noise. Grain can be ugly, too, but digital noise is generally regarded as undesirable, and usually it is, while grain is general regarded as artful. Fujifilm has programmed their cameras in such a way that the noise has a more film-grain-like appearance than other brands. It’s definitely not an exact match to any film grain, but it’s certainly better than typical ugly noise. So why not incorporate it into your pictures?
A lot of photographers are afraid to use high ISOs. Back in the film days, I remember that ISO 400 was considered to be a high-ISO film. Some people thought you were nuts if you used an ISO 800 or 1600 film. ISO 3200 film was only for the most daring, or for use under extreme circumstances. Early digital cameras were pretty bad at higher ISOs, too, but camera technology has made incredible progress, and now cameras are pretty darn good at high ISO photography. I routinely use up to ISO 6400 for color photography, and even higher for black-and-white. Those ultra-high ISOs just weren’t possible or practical 10 or so years ago. Now combine high-ISO photography with Fujifilm faux grain (found on X-Trans III & X-Trans IV cameras), and the pictures begin to appear a little less digital and a bit more film-like.
Transparency film often requires a very precise exposure because there’s very little latitude for overexposure or underexposure. Negative film often has a much greater latitude—generally speaking it can tolerate more overexposure than underexposure. Each film is different. But here’s the thing: you don’t know if you got it right until later when the film is developed. In the moment you don’t know for sure if the exposure is really correct. With experience you can get pretty good, and exposure bracketing can help (not something you want to do all of the time because you’ll go through your film too quickly), but it’s almost a guarantee that you’ll end up with a few overexposed or underexposed frames. Sometimes this can affect the aesthetic or mood of the image, and by chance your picture is actually more interesting because of your mistake—that analog serendipity again. If you discover something you really like, you might even begin to do it on purpose (like overexposing Fujicolor Pro 400H by several stops).
Your digital camera has many great tools to help you get the exposure perfectly correct, which is great. And if you don’t get it right, you can know right away, and capture another exposure if need be, or fix it later by adjusting the RAW file. However, purposefully not getting the exposure just right, whether by overexposing or underexposing, is a good way to mimic the film experience, and sometimes you’ll get an unexpected result, which can be a very happy accident. I wouldn’t do this all of the time, but occasionally it is a fun and fruitful exercise.
Step One, which is using a Fujifilm camera, and Step Two, which is using film simulation recipes, are the most critical of these seven tips. You could use Ricoh GR cameras instead of Fujifilm, but I definitely recommend using Fujifilm. Step Three through Step Seven are optional, and they aren’t necessarily intended to be used all together or all of the time, although you certainly can if you want. Pick a couple of them—perhaps diffusion filter and vintage lens or high-ISO and underexposure—and see what results you get.
There are two things that I’d like for you to get out of this article. First, you don’t need software or editing apps to achieve an analog aesthetic. You can do it in-camera. All of the pictures in this article are unedited (except for some minor cropping). This saves you a whole bunch of time, and you might even find the process more fun. Second, I hope that this article inspires you to try something new. Don’t be afraid to experiment. Mistakes can be highly rewarding, and you might even discover something extraordinary.
A few more example photograph:
Vintage Color recipe & 1/4 Black Pro Mist filter.
Fujicolor Pro 400H recipe & 1/4 Black Pro Mist filter.
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
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.
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.
