Red Yucca in the White Sand – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
A few weeks back, in-between Christmas and New Years, I briefly stopped in White Sands National Park in southern New Mexico for a couple of hours. Since it was the holiday season, the park was very crowded. There were so many cars, and people were everywhere! It was difficult to capture images without someone somewhere in the frame, and it was nearly impossible to find scenes without footprints.
The 10 frames in this article were made during about a two hour window in White Sands National Park using my Fujifilm X-T4 ES camera with a Fujinon 35mm f/2 lens and the Aerochrome v2 Recipe. It was partly overcast. Winter probably isn’t the best time to do infrared photography at this location, since much of the vegetation is dormant. Still, I came away with a couple good pictures, so I’m happy. But I know that I need to revisit the White Sands—hopefully next time I can dedicate a little more time to it. In the meantime, I hope that you enjoy these pictures.
Pink Brush – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Yucca on a Sand Hill – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Yucca & Brush – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Yucca at the Top of a Hill – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Yucca Hanging Over – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Bush in the Sand – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Desert Yucca – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Yucca & Brush – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
Infrared Yucca – White Sand NP, NM – Fujifilm X-T4 ES – Aerochrome v2
A year ago, I published an article entitled My Experience Obtaining a Permit to Film in a National Park (you probably need one, too), which detailed my ordeal getting a permit to film a YouTube video at the Grand Canyon National Park. It was my first time going through the process, and I found it to be unnecessarily arduous and frustrating. The article got some attention, and I was even interviewed by the press regarding this topic.
The good news is that you probably no longer need a permit to film in a National Park, unless you are an actual production crew or are doing something that requires special permission. Just this last weekend, the President signed into law the Explore Act, which allows most people to freely film within the National Park Service. Essentially, the Explore Act allows photography and filming without a permit for parties of five or fewer people as long as it involves allowed activity in a National Park, regardless of whether those documenting are receiving compensation for their work.
Because my small YouTube channel was monetized, a year ago I needed a permit, even if the video I made didn’t earn hardly anything (and cost way more to make than it earned). Even the potential of one penny of Adsense revenue meant I was a for-profit film production crew, and as a for-profit film production crew a permit was required to film, even if I were merely recording on my cellphone or a GoPro. Today, that’s not the case at all. As long as you have five or less people and you’re doing normal things that tourists are allowed to do, you can film, and can skip the permit process. This is definitely a win for small creators.
I understand why not everyone is celebrating. The National Park Service has two equal missions that oppose each other: conservation and access. They have to preserve the land, and they have to open the land to visitors. To best conserve requires closing the gate to visitors, and to best allow access greatly risks conservation. They have to walk a fine line, which is not easy to do, and not everyone will be happy. The law—as it was on Friday prior to the Explore Act—leaned more towards conservation (even if awkwardly and ineffectively), and now, as of Saturday, it leans more towards access. There are some who prefer preservation over people. I get it, and am sympathetic towards that; however, I believe that this was the right thing to do, and I’m quite happy to see this new law on the books.
Unfair Comparisons – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Astia Summer
I’m planning to do a number of comparison tests between the JPEGs from the Fujifilm GFX100S II and my X-series models, like the Fujifilm X-T5. What’s different? What’s the same? I haven’t come to very many conclusions yet. There’s clearly a difference, but it seems so subtle it is tough to put a finger on what exactly is divergent.
For this article, I’m comparing the faux Grain between the GFX100S II and the X-T5. This isn’t a carefully controlled scientific test. When my wife (on the X-T5) and I (on the GFX100S II) captured these images, we did not intend for them to be used in any sort of comparison test. I chose these because they were made in the same location (White Sands National Park in New Mexico). They were captured with the new Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired Recipe, and reprocessed in-camera with the Astia Summer Recipe. I chose those two Recipes because of their Grain: Weak/Small and Strong/Large.
Fujifilm X-T5 – Astia Summer – Grain Weak/Small
Fujifilm GFX100S II – Astia Summer – Grain Weak/Small
Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired – Grain Strong/Large
You cannot tell much at all from the above photos. From examining the pictures more closely, I can state that the size of the faux grain is a little larger in the X-T5 JPEGs than the GFX100S II, but you can’t really tell without cropping in. So let’s crop in!
In the first set (identified simply by “Crop”), I’ve made the pictures roughly the same size. If you look carefully, the Weak/Small Grain is slightly more visible in the X-T5 pictures, but it’s not overtly obvious. In the second set (identified by “Bigger Crop”), I’ve tried to match the Grain, and I had to crop much more deeply on the GFX100S II pictures to do so. These are significant crops, and you’d have to print large to view them this big. I think if a Grain size Medium existed on GFX, that would more closely match Grain size Small on the X-series.
Below is a repeat, except for with Strong/Large Grain. I think if a Grain size Medium existed on the X-T5, it would more closely match Grain size Large on the GFX100S II.
Bigger Crop – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired – Grain Strong/Large
I don’t know that it makes any practical real-world difference, but the size of the Grain—whether Small or Large—is not identical on GFX as it is on X-series cameras. It’s not scaled the same. It’s smaller on GFX and larger on X-series, specifically when comparing the 100mp images from the GFX100S II to the 40mp images from the X-T5. There are also likely variances between the 26mp APS-C sensor and the 50mp GFX sensor.
The way to look at this, I suppose, is that film grain appears more fine on medium-format film than 35mm. The difference in silver grain between—say—120 film and Advanced Photo System Type-C film is much, much more significant than the difference in Grain between GFX and X. I think you’d expect the Grain to be more “fine” on GFX—and that’s what you find—but it isn’t nearly as much of a difference as with actual film.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
The main reason why I purchased a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera a couple of weeks ago was for XPan photography. For those who don’t know, XPan cameras were a joint venture between Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the late-1990’s through the mid-2000’s, right at the pinnacle of film. XPan models were interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras that used approximately two frames of 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in a 65:24 aspect ratio.
You can crop images from any model to the XPan ratio without much trouble, but composing it in-camera is different than doing it after-the-fact because you can better visualize the outcome. Also, I prefer straight-out-of-camera photography over sitting at a computer editing, but that’s just me. All GFX models, including the GFX100S II, have the 65:24 aspect ratio built-in; however, X-series cameras do not (in my opinion, Fujifilm should add the XPan ratio to all of their 40mp cameras via a firmware update). If you are serious about XPan photography and you use Fujifilm cameras, GFX is the preferable route.
Sand Wall – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film
Since the 65:24 aspect ratio cuts out about half of the resolution, having a high-megapixel sensor is important. With that said, you can’t truly appreciate XPan when viewing on a computer or your phone. XPan from a GFX100S II isn’t going to look any more impressive than (for example) an XPan crop from a Fujifilm X-T10. These pictures need to be printed to be appreciated, and that’s my goal. I plan to print a couple of these to see what they look like, and if I create any in the future that are worthy, I hope to make some really large prints that are two-feet tall by five-feet-five-inches wide. For that, the 100mp sensor of the GFX100S II is essential.
All of these photographs, which were captured yesterday and the day before in New Mexico, were made using a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera with a Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 lens. These pictures are camera-made JPEGs using a few different Film Simulation Recipes. Over the coming days and weeks I’ll be testing various Recipes to see what works best on GFX, and I’ll be sure to share the results with you, so stay tuned! In the meantime, I hope that you enjoy these 10 XPan images.
