p.1 #1 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
I am perplexed by what this actually means?
Are we talking about raw files? It must be as a start. Since jpg files are processed in camera ( according to selected picture simulations ).
If we are talking about raw files would it not depend on the raw editor? Since, and especially for x-trans files , it is my understanding that each raw processor has its own algorithms for x-trans.
In LR I set import for Adobe color. And Profile as neutral.
In any case colors are subjective, and there are numerous ways to tweak color. I never print unedited OOC raw files.
p.1 #2 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Fujifilm cameras always have a color profile applied by default, which Fuji call "Film Simulations".
Among all these film simulations, there's one called "Proovia," which Fuji claims is the most neutral—but it still introduces a noticeable color cast, so even this standard "Provia" profile will differ from standard color profiles from other cameras.
If you want to achieve a flat color profile (a neutral profile), you can only do so in programs like Lightroom, Capture One, PhotoLab, etc., by opening a RAW file from a Fuji camera and selecting the color curve as "standard" or "Adobe color" in LR, or "linear response" in "C1."
Film sims have a significant impact on the color of photos, and I personally consider them the best color profiles in the entire photography industry.
Every SOOC .jpg from Fuji cameras will have a selected by user film sim applied to final image
p.1 #3 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Fuji Colors refers to the OOC JPEG files and goes back to the early Fuji cameras, such as the X-E1 (which wasn't even X-Trans), the X-Pro1 and the X-T1. Many say that those early cameras returned the best colors.
The whole Film Simulation business is, to be honest, beyond me. Why would someone want to recreate the look of an old film? Anyhow, I am editing all files in LR with Adobe Color as a starting point. Which then gives me Adobe Colors, not Fuji colors - but that is fine.
p.1 #4 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
So, is Fuji color special and moreover, something real? The simple answer is yes. And I'm talking direct from the raw file using any decent raw converter and not Fuji's JPEG film sim options.
Why? Fuji's Bayer filter, or more accurately the "X-Trans" color filter. A typical Bayer filter is a 4x4 matrix of RGGB colors, for 50% green, 25% blue and 25% red weighting. Fuji's X-Trans filter is a 6x6 matrix of more random array of R, G and B, such that the array renders an average of 55% green, 22.5% blue and 22.5% red across the sensor; or stated more simply, Fuji is a bit more green heavy than typical Bayer used by other manufacturers.
So does this translate in the converted image? Yes, it's visible, at least to myself and many other color-conscious photographers; and yes, even in the jpegs, and especially in the quality of the greens and skin-tones.
A few additional aspects... This particular array also affects the noise pattern, making it more random and many say less noticeable; and it also mitigates moire better than Bayer, so there is technically a bit better overall resolution on a per pixel basis compared to standard Bayer.
p.1 #6 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Jack Flesher wrote:
So, is Fuji color special and moreover, something real? The simple answer is yes. And I'm talking direct from the raw file using any decent raw converter and not Fuji's JPEG film sim options.
Why? Fuji's Bayer filter, or more accurately the "X-Trans" color filter. A typical Bayer filter is a 4x4 matrix of RGGB colors, for 50% green, 25% blue and 25% red weighting. Fuji's X-Trans filter is a 6x6 matrix of more random array of R, G and B, such that the array renders an average of 55% green, 22.5% blue and 22.5% red across the sensor; or stated more simply, Fuji is a bit more green heavy than typical Bayer used by other manufacturers.
So does this translate in the converted image? Yes, it's visible, at least to myself and many other color-conscious photographers; and yes, even in the jpegs, and especially in the quality of the greens and skin-tones.
A few additional aspects... This particular array also affects the noise pattern, making it more random and many say less noticeable; and it also mitigates moire better than Bayer, so there is technically a bit better overall resolution on a per pixel basis compared to standard Bayer. ...Show more →
DxO, C1, LR - they all render Fuji files differently. Some with artifacts, some not, some not after Enhancing. So how can there be a "special" Fuji Color if all three return different colors?
p.1 #7 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Nielk Mike wrote:
DxO, C1, LR - they all render Fuji files differently. Some with artifacts, some not, some not after Enhancing. So how can there be a "special" Fuji Color if all three return different colors?
It depends on the user’s skill level and the settings in each raw processor used. If I pick Adobe color in an Adobe product, I get Adobe color and not Fuji color. If I pick “film standard” in C1, I get what C1 thinks is optimal color for that brand; and honestly, color accuracy is one arena where C1 shines. If by contrast I pick Fuji Std color in C1, I get what Fuji thinks is their best. Some people may prefer Adobe colors or Fuji colors, but that doesn’t mean they’re more accurate.
p.1 #8 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Jack Flesher wrote:
It depends on the user’s skill level and the settings in each raw processor used. If I pick Adobe color in an Adobe product, I get Adobe color and not Fuji color. If I pick “film standard” in C1, I get what C1 thinks is optimal color for that brand; and honestly, color accuracy is one arena where C1 shines. If by contrast I pick Fuji Std color in C1, I get what Fuji thinks is their best. Some people may prefer Adobe colors or Fuji colors, but that doesn’t mean they’re more accurate.
So what you are saying (and I agree) is that there are no "Fuji Colors" in the RAW file. The color is determind by the more or less capable programmer of the software who tries to "imitate" the colors of a OOC JPEG with a certain Film Simulation. Using the X-Trans technology was initially also not about color. It was about the use (or non use) of an AA filter.
So if one wants to experience the Fuji Color Science, they need to go with OOC JPEGs. RAW converter (if not using Fuji's in camera conversion program) are creating images that do not have the Fuji Color Science (but may be close).
Fuji has also been very protective of the Film Simulations and Color Science. They have never offered profiles for LR or other programs.
p.1 #9 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Fursan wrote:
I am perplexed by what this actually means?
Are we talking about raw files? It must be as a start. Since jpg files are processed in camera ( according to selected picture simulations ).
If we are talking about raw files would it not depend on the raw editor? Since, and especially for x-trans files , it is my understanding that each raw processor has its own algorithms for x-trans.
In LR I set import for Adobe color. And Profile as neutral.
In any case colors are subjective, and there are numerous ways to tweak color. I never print unedited OOC raw files.
The whole business of "brand colors" is, in my view, way overdone. It isn't just Fujifilm — I've seen long discussions of CanonColor, Nikon Color, Sony Color, and on and on. You'll even see lengthy discussions the "colors" of this or than specific model within a brand or campaign different generations o the model.
I think there is often a lot of confirmation bias at work in these discussions.
Are there differences in color rendition among cameras? Sure. They are partially due to the Bayer versus x-trans sensor arrays, but also (and perhaps more) to decisions about how to interpret the luminosity data for the different channels that are reflected in camera software. But differences don't alway come down to better/worse determinations — sometimes good things can be different but all still be good. Or it may be a matter of preference rather than one being better or worse than the other.
As mentioned earlier, some of the Fujifilm color talk actually derives from the film simulations — a sort of "pre-processing" that does the sorts of things that many of us who shoot raw do in post, though in a more limited and rigidly constrained way. For those who love trying to make digital systems act kind of like they are analog systems from the past, this can be an appealing thing and it leads to people talking about the "colors' of those simulations.
I shoot Canon and Fujifilm and to my mind the results are sometimes clearly different, in some cases more than in others. For example, I'm generally fine with the starting point of raw files for urban/street subjects, while I have to do more adjusting to Fujifilm files of things like landscape subjects to get them where I want them to be. (Again, I exclusively shoot in raw mode and I do not rely on the simulations.) To be honest, I generally like the Fujifilm results SOOC with landscape subjects LESS than I like the Canon results...
In the end, I can get essentially the same kinds of results from my Fufjfiilm and Canon files, and I'm positive that if I showed you prints of similar subjects from both systems that you would not be able to reliably tell me which they came from.
- - -
One small correction/addition to something I read above. If you want to work with simulations you can shoot Fujifilm raw file formats, but you don't have to. Software (at least the Adobe software that I use) offers essentially the same simulation choices in post and you can apply them (and a bunch of non-Fujifilm Adobe profiles) to your raw files in post.
p.1 #10 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Nielk Mike wrote:
So what you are saying (and I agree) is that there are no "Fuji Colors" in the RAW file. The color is determind by the more or less capable programmer of the software who tries to "imitate" the colors of a OOC JPEG with a certain Film Simulation. Using the X-Trans technology was initially also not about color. It was about the use (or non use) of an AA filter.
So if one wants to experience the Fuji Color Science, they need to go with OOC JPEGs. RAW converter (if not using Fuji's in camera conversion program) are creating images that do not have the Fuji Color Science (but may be close).
Fuji has also been very protective of the Film Simulations and Color Science. They have never offered profiles for LR or other programs....Show more →
No, that’s not what I’m saying, or at least trying to clarify. Fuji’s xtrans sensor allows for an entirely different method of demosaicing and color attribution than a typical Bayer *in the raw file*. This has nothing to do with pre baked jpeg output. To get Fuji’s determination of color from a Fuji *raw* file, I’d reco using Fuji’s chosen demosaicer, which in this case I believe is currently Silkypix. (In my case as a FWIW, I find I prefer C1’s interpretation, because it’s proven itself to me as most consistent across camera brands while at the same time being very accurate. But that’s me and I respect opinions here vary.)
For me film sims are a completely different discussion. They are simply just jpeg color pre-bakes one could apply similarly to any jpeg adjustment or output routine from any camera. To clarify, JPEG output, even Fuji sims, are not what I’m referring to with the term Fuji color — I refer to them as simply Fuji’s xxx sim
p.1 #11 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
While I do understand what you are saying about the color impact of the X-Trans sensor, in reality most users never see "the pure" Fuji Colors as their raw converter creates the colors. Anyhow, I do believe that Fuji RAW files are more tolerant to processing, do have a different and more pleasing noise, and those artifacts can be managed now in LR with the direct noise reduction function that doesn't create an additional DNG file.
p.1 #12 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Color from a brand is generally a myth for 99.999999 % of users.
If you go into Lightroom or any other editor and hit Auto, you fall into this bunch of people. Its also a myth for people that don't have calibrated monitors etc and those that don't print their work-
If you are however printing your work and need colors to be consistent across your portfolio, or like a specific color palete, each brand does have differnt starting points and things you have to manipulate your files to get a specific look.
Warm, Cold, magenta tints in the Raw's etc.
What Fuji does bring to the table is the best in the business easy button for looks in camera with Film simulations. Its a very pleasing starting point in most instances and makes the most sense since its for the most part representing an old film stock.
p.1 #13 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
I would like to. give a like to all these responses.
I realize that folks have given me of their time and experience to respond.
I am grateful to each and everyone of them.
I have learnt a lot ( way above my photography level ).
With appreciation and thanks.
Jul 14, 2025 at 05:44 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #14 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Fursan wrote:
I am perplexed by what this actually means?
Are we talking about raw files? It must be as a start. Since jpg files are processed in camera ( according to selected picture simulations ).
If we are talking about raw files would it not depend on the raw editor? Since, and especially for x-trans files , it is my understanding that each raw processor has its own algorithms for x-trans.
In LR I set import for Adobe color. And Profile as neutral.
In any case colors are subjective, and there are numerous ways to tweak color. I never print unedited OOC raw files.
The raw processor is a big part of this that doesn't seem to get near the attention it deserves.
I've used older Panasonic m4/3 and Canon a lot, and the Canon has much better color SOOC. I use DPP on Canon, and the presumably scaled down Silkypix that came free with m4/3 of the day, and preferred them to other processors I tried.
Granted if I was editing heavily I might not care, might not matter. But I don't like to edit that much
p.1 #15 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
I've stopped using RAW files and only shoot 100% JPG now. I realized long time ago that my post processing could never beat what Fuji can generate out of the camera. This is a company that prides itself with film simulations and I'm not gonna argue with that. I just shoot it and save myself time by not editing RAW files anymore and the pics come out awesome.
When I first switched to Fuji, I shot some landscape photos with the X100F using Velvia. Everyone who saw the photos absolutely RAVED about the rich colors. These are non-photography people and have no biases - they just loved the colors that came out of the Fuji. That to me is the best testimonial.
p.1 #16 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Joseph. wrote:
I've stopped using RAW files and only shoot 100% JPG now. I realized long time ago that my post processing could never beat what Fuji can generate out of the camera. This is a company that prides itself with film simulations and I'm not gonna argue with that. I just shoot it and save myself time by not editing RAW files anymore and the pics come out awesome.
When I first switched to Fuji, I shot some landscape photos with the X100F using Velvia. Everyone who saw the photos absolutely RAVED about the rich colors. These are non-photography people and have no biases - they just loved the colors that came out of the Fuji. That to me is the best testimonial. ...Show more →
How come people like my photos and their colors - and I am using RAW and no Film Simulations? Only post processing can get the best out of an image. Doesn't take much time if one knows how to do it, and it creates individual results and not some prefabricated look that is supposed to simulate a film from times long gone.
Film Simulations are Fuji's claim to fame - cause they were a film company (unlike Sony, Nikon and Canon) and so the use that history to built trust in their ability to produce good colors. And colors of an image taken with the Standard Film Simulation are good. But so are images taken with a Sony and the Standard Profile (Sony has improved their colors a lot), and images to which the Adobe Standard profile is applied.
Film Simulations are nothing but prefabricated "edits". My fotos are edited to my taste and in ways that Film Simulations can never achieve.
p.1 #17 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Joseph. wrote:
I've stopped using RAW files and only shoot 100% JPG now. I realized long time ago that my post processing could never beat what Fuji can generate out of the camera. This is a company that prides itself with film simulations and I'm not gonna argue with that. I just shoot it and save myself time by not editing RAW files anymore and the pics come out awesome.
When I first switched to Fuji, I shot some landscape photos with the X100F using Velvia. Everyone who saw the photos absolutely RAVED about the rich colors. These are non-photography people and have no biases - they just loved the colors that came out of the Fuji. That to me is the best testimonial. ...Show more →
Each to his own, and I can understand that some people might be happy with shooting jpgs on their expensive mirrorless cameras.
On the other hand, a lot of photographs simply don’t work as straight jpg images. I photograph subjects that, for example, have rather rage dynamic ranges. this requires some additional work: sometimes underexposing a bit to avoid blowing out highlights, increasing the brightness of shadow areas, etc. (It is basically old-school darkroom work on steroids.)
Unadjusted, well-exposed jpg files can look quite good, but if you photograph subjects that push the boundaries a bit you are going to quickly find out that you can’t… push those boundaries very far with jpg files before they fall apart.
p.1 #18 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
I currently shoot with a Nikon, Fuji, Ricoh and Leica. Shot with Sony for many years. I can tell what camera shot what RAWs just by the colors. Yes through editing you can get them each to look similar but not the same. I specifically stopped shooting Sony because I did not like the skin colors it produced with portraits. It sounds like you are saying every camera raw file converted to an adobe profile is the same?
Nielk Mike wrote:
How come people like my photos and their colors - and I am using RAW and no Film Simulations? Only post processing can get the best out of an image. Doesn't take much time if one knows how to do it, and it creates individual results and not some prefabricated look that is supposed to simulate a film from times long gone.
Film Simulations are Fuji's claim to fame - cause they were a film company (unlike Sony, Nikon and Canon) and so the use that history to built trust in their ability to produce good colors. And colors of an image taken with the Standard Film Simulation are good. But so are images taken with a Sony and the Standard Profile (Sony has improved their colors a lot), and images to which the Adobe Standard profile is applied.
Film Simulations are nothing but prefabricated "edits". My fotos are edited to my taste and in ways that Film Simulations can never achieve. ...Show more →
p.1 #19 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Nick Dakota wrote:
I currently shoot with a Nikon, Fuji, Ricoh and Leica. Shot with Sony for many years. I can tell what camera shot what RAWs just by the colors. Yes through editing you can get them each to look similar but not the same. I specifically stopped shooting Sony because I did not like the skin colors it produced with portraits. It sounds like you are saying every camera raw file converted to an adobe profile is the same?
Nick, no, Sony and Fuji files behave differently when edited. For some reason, Fuji files are "easier" to edit for pleasing results and with the new Enhance/Denoise feature come back sharper and without artifacts. The Adobe Standard profile does, however, level differences between cameras to a certain extent which I think is the point of that profile.
Sony has come a long way when it comes to skin tones and colors in general. My a7cR has very good colors OOC.
p.1 #20 · What do people mean when they say Fuji ( or other camera ) colors are better.
Ironically, I find Adobe does a relatively poor job of color between camera models and by contrast, C1 is much better. Adobes recent AI additions of removing distractions and denoising are excellent, but they need to clean up their color engine. Point here is if you use Adobe to convert, you’re limiting yourself to its soso color output. Even its Fuji emulations are pretty poor.
