p.2 #1 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Joseph. wrote:
Nah, I'm cool with that. Yes it's a gimmick, but I like it
I'm not gonna turn this into ANOTHER raw vs jpg arguments so let me re-phrase my answer: "OP, if you like the XP3 then enjoy it. You probably like it more because it's engaging and fun to use." THERE.
Why not the best of both worlds? I've started to experiment with recipes on my X-T5 after meeting Ritchie of fujixweekly at a sponsored event and ahead of receiving my pre-ordered X-E5. I shoot RAW+JPEG. I can still post process the RAW files while sharing the JPEGs SOOC if I want to do so. The recipes add a different - and to me, fun - aspect to my hobby.
Jul 25, 2025 at 03:02 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #2 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Shooting raw with an eye towards pp and thinking about pp too much in the field is mostly miserable. So I shot jpegs mostly for 2-3+ years recently.
Been shooting older bodies so I'm hesitant to give up anything shooting jpegs and it's good to get back to raw but man, thinking about pp too much in the field ruins it
p.2 #3 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
AmbientMike wrote:
Shooting raw with an eye towards pp and thinking about pp too much in the field is mostly miserable. So I shot jpegs mostly for 2-3+ years recently.
Been shooting older bodies so I'm hesitant to give up anything shooting jpegs and it's good to get back to raw but man, thinking about pp too much in the field ruins it
I pretty much only shoot Jpeg. If I am shooting what I think is going to be an important shot then it is Jpeg and RAW. But despite internet myths otherwise, if a jpeg is close to the look you want they can cope with quite some pp to make perfect.
In fact I don't know how the myth started that jpegs can't be edited.
p.2 #4 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
As for liking the Fuji better with its faults and shortcomings...limitation breeds creativity!
For recipes...If one can dial in the look they want in camera and know how to expose correctly, why not? It's not that much different than shooting raw, adding a profile/preset and then turning it into a jpeg. I was shooting raw + jpeg for a while with some custom recipes I made in the X Raw program. The Raw usually didn't process better and many times I'd like the jpeg more. I shot many different scenarios and created a bunch for different conditions. If the scene calls for it, I have raw under the last preset. It's just funny how people crap on in camera processing when they wind up doing similar in computer. Yes I know there is more control, but the direction is the same.
p.2 #5 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
I pretty much only shoot Jpeg. If I am shooting what I think is going to be an important shot then it is Jpeg and RAW. But despite internet myths otherwise, if a jpeg is close to the look you want they can cope with quite some pp to make perfect.
In fact I don't know how the myth started that jpegs can't be edited.
No one says that JPEGs can't be edited - there are just limitations that can't be overcome. Such as proper WB setting.
p.2 #6 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
No one says that JPEGs can't be edited - there are just limitations that can't be overcome. Such as proper WB setting.
I come across youtubers and other "experts" dispensing advice all the time saying if you intend to edit your photos you should shoot RAW. Jared Polin is just one example.
p.2 #7 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
I come across youtubers and other "experts" dispensing advice all the time saying if you intend to edit your photos you should shoot RAW. Jared Polin is just one example.
"You should" - not "you must". Editing software like LR is aimed at RAW files and the editing latitude is far greater than with JPEGs. That includes WB, Noise, highlight recovery, dynamic range control etc. A messed up RAW can be saved, a messed up JPEG only so far.
p.2 #8 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm the same way — I regard "capture" as half of the work, with the post-processing "realization" of the image being he other half.
I like Ansel's comment on this... to paraphrase," (The negative I the score, the print is the performance.)
When I first learned photography back in the day with film and an actual dark room, this is exactly how I felt. Taking the picture was half the job. And the darkroom was the second half.
Only difference now is that instead of film and a dark room, it's electrons on a sensor and the light from my computer monitor.
p.2 #9 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
mjm6 wrote:
I don't understand why people feel the need to disparage others in this way for choosing a different path for their own photography.
There is no disparaging of people who use it. In fact, whatever makes people happy. But I do feel strongly about the usefulness of Film simulations. Most of them are very close and I seriously doubt that someone who looks at an image and is not the photographer will notice any difference.
So, power to those who use them, though I will never understand why the do :-)
p.2 #10 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Well I’ve been shooting RAW for many years with my Sonys and Canon cameras (including DSLRs) but only doing a limited amount of “color” manipulation over the years. I’ve also just bought into Fuji again after being away for 3-4 years because I thought I wanted to use film simulations. My original plan was to buy the new X-E5 which I have not received yet but really wanted to learn it more so I decided to buy a used X-T5 to learn it sooner and found a mint one at a very good price. It definitely been an interesting experience and admit the latest X-T5 is smaller than both my compact Sony bodies. The Fujifilm f/2 lenses are close enough in the Sony f/2.5-2.8 G primes in size and the smaller zooms are about the same IMHO.
Admit I’m struggling to get film recipes programmed in but then I learned that Lightroom and other tools could potentially give me the same ability with RAW files, especially if they came from a Fuji body so you can hopefully achieve the same effects. So I’m rethinking the approach I want to take. Right now I have the camera set to create both RAW + JPEG ( or HEIF ) and I see advantages to both I guess.
I do want to understand what is the best software to process Fuji RAW files to take advantage of the Fuji sims. Is Lightroom the best application or do people recommend another one to get access to The Fuji Film Simulations? Thank you for your time.
p.2 #11 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
chez wrote:
Yeh this fascination of trying to make images look like they were shot with film baffles me. We have unlimited looks using post processing…why limit yourself to a very narrow view?
It is just a preset look. If they called it 90s Fashion look or Soft Portrait 6 or whatever nobody would say "why do people try to make it look like film". I use them as a starting point, in fact I have LR presets on top of base "film" profiles etc. No different to other presets etc.
p.2 #12 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
No one says that JPEGs can't be edited - there are just limitations that can't be overcome. Such as proper WB setting.
The jpg file also has far less dynamic range and will fall apart more quickly if you need to do things like push shadows.
Also, you don’t need to limit yourself to jpg if you want to use sims. You have options. You can shoot raw+jpg and have the full raw file to work with in post should you need it. YOu can also simply shoot in raw and apply the Adobe versions of the Fujifilm sims in ACR or LR in post… without losing the IQ pluses of raw files.
swldstn wrote:
I do want to understand what is the best software to process Fuji RAW files to take advantage of the Fuji sims. Is Lightroom the best application or do people recommend another one to get access to The Fuji Film Simulations? Thank you for your time.
You are going to hear from folks telling you that Adobe products are no good with Fujifilm files and that you’ll need to use this or that other post-processing software. There are some interesting alternatives to Adobe should you be interested in them…
… but Adobe products work just fine with Fujifilm files, and they hav some additional benefits in terms of file management and compatibility with the rest of the photography world… when’re Adobe is still the standard.
And, as I mentioned above, if you are trying to sort out how to combine the better file quality of raw compared to jpg AND you are interested in using Fujifilm sims (I’m not)… you can bring your raw files into Adobe products (I use ACR) and simply apply the slims there in post.
p.2 #13 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
swldstn wrote:
Well I’ve been shooting RAW for many years with my Sonys and Canon cameras (including DSLRs) but only doing a limited amount of “color” manipulation over the years. I’ve also just bought into Fuji again after being away for 3-4 years because I thought I wanted to use film simulations. My original plan was to buy the new X-E5 which I have not received yet but really wanted to learn it more so I decided to buy a used X-T5 to learn it sooner and found a mint one at a very good price. It definitely been an interesting experience and admit the latest X-T5 is smaller than both my compact Sony bodies. The Fujifilm f/2 lenses are close enough in the Sony f/2.5-2.8 G primes in size and the smaller zooms are about the same IMHO.
Admit I’m struggling to get film recipes programmed in but then I learned that Lightroom and other tools could potentially give me the same ability with RAW files, especially if they came from a Fuji body so you can hopefully achieve the same effects. So I’m rethinking the approach I want to take. Right now I have the camera set to create both RAW + JPEG ( or HEIF ) and I see advantages to both I guess.
I do want to understand what is the best software to process Fuji RAW files to take advantage of the Fuji sims. Is Lightroom the best application or do people recommend another one to get access to The Fuji Film Simulations? Thank you for your time....Show more →
In cam sims are fine if you want a quick, simple postcard image to put out with no post processing. Your whites may be blown a little or blacks clipped a little or WB a tad cooler or warmer, but it’s going to look decent.
As said above, you have a LOT more DR in the raw file and can therefore push the file around significantly without blown whites or clipping black, and dial in a very precise white balance. You can also apply a pre-designed style or canned film sim for a uniform look with a button push and compare several versions of the same image side by side.
Raw processing is so easy and the net result frequently enough superior to the in-cam JPEG, I no longer bother shooting anything but raw. I use Capture One and find its workflow and tools superior to what Adobe provides, but still use PS for finishing touches. As such, I pay for 2 software licenses instead of just Adobe. Adobe does have better file cataloging, but I feel the results I glean from C1 totally worth the price and dealing with two workflows, but understand most won’t agree.
p.2 #14 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Jack Flesher wrote:
Raw processing is so easy and the net result frequently enough superior to the in-cam JPEG, I no longer bother shooting anything but raw. I use Capture One and find its workflow and tools superior to what Adobe provides, but still use PS for finishing touches. As such, I pay for 2 software licenses instead of just Adobe. Adobe does have better file cataloging, but I feel the results I glean from C1 totally worth the price and dealing with two workflows, but understand most won’t agree.
Aside from using my iPhone (and I sometimes use raw on it!) I have not shot a jpg image in years — I don’t recall the last time, but it was probably back when we sometimes felt we had to in order to get sufficient buffer depth when using burst mode.
For those who like to keep it simple, your raw conversion program, be it Adobe (ACR or LR) or something else, probably has the ability to do automatic renditions of the raw files… which is what is happening in your camera. You can also choose all o fthe Fujifilm sims (at least in Adobe products) and apply them to your raw files… without committing to one of them at the time of exposure. (When you shoot a sim on your Fujifilm camera in jpg mode there is no going back.)
And you’ll have the full image data from the original exposure in that raw file, so you ‘ll be able to push and pull it any way you want should the need arise.
I’d argue that the only reason to shoot jpg on these modern cameras is if you literally don’t want to do anything after the file leaves the camera other than upload it as is.
p.2 #15 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Ritche Roesch of Fuji X Weekly recently posted a discussion titled Everyone Uses Film Simulations that is worth a read. The premise of the discussion is:
The problem with saying “I don’t use Film Simulations” is that each time you look at the EVF or review on the LCD the photo you just captured, you are seeing it with a Film Simulation applied, most likely Provia. You are seeing the world through the lens of that Film Sim each time you use your camera.
p.2 #16 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Eduard wrote:
Ritche Roesch of Fuji X Weekly recently posted a discussion titled Everyone Uses Film Simulations that is worth a read. The premise of the discussion is:
The problem with saying “I don’t use Film Simulations” is that each time you look at the EVF or review on the LCD the photo you just captured, you are seeing it with a Film Simulation applied, most likely Provia. You are seeing the world through the lens of that Film Sim each time you use your camera.
That’s a fact, but I don’t see it as a problem.
I look thru the viewfinder (or at the rear screen) to frame and compose, not to evaluate colors. (To the extent that I do that at the time of capture, it is by looking at the actual scene directly, not thorugh a viewfinder.)
This is true, as you note, even when I’m (as always) recording raw image files. It has virtually no relevance to my final image, whose characteristic I will determine by adjustments to the raw file in post.
So, while the viewfinder (of any mirrorless camera) technically is “using simulations,” that’s and entirely different thing than letting the simulations determine the qualities of the photograph itself.
p.2 #17 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
"You should" - not "you must". Editing software like LR is aimed at RAW files and the editing latitude is far greater than with JPEGs. That includes WB, Noise, highlight recovery, dynamic range control etc. A messed up RAW can be saved, a messed up JPEG only so far.
One the one hand i completely agree. On the other hand, why would anyone want to start with a messed up RAW file? Now this comment doesn't apply to wedding photographers or photojournalists who may have to react quickly, but for most amateurs who are shooting for fun, if your exposure is off why not just shoot it again. I suppose my perspective is heavily influenced by being mostly a slide shooter back in the day. With E6 film you either get it right in the field or you don't. There is development but no post processing. But different strokes for different folks.
p.2 #18 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
One can argue that maybe RAW shooters should learn how to expose a scene correctly instead of relying on software to fix their mistakes! Film shooters didn't have the safety net of raw processing. I used to shoot several weddings a month with film and thinking of doing that now would give me anxiety. All these recovery and AI tools can be too much of cutch at times. I'm guilty of sometimes saying during a shoot 'I can just fix it in post' as opposed to when I shoot film today, I slow down and make sure I'm going back to exposure basics, since film is so expensive now.
p.2 #19 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
One the one hand i completely agree. On the other hand, why would anyone want to start with a messed up RAW file? Now this comment doesn't apply to wedding photographers or photojournalists who may have to react quickly, but for most amateurs who are shooting for fun, if your exposure is off why not just shoot it again. I suppose my perspective is heavily influenced by being mostly a slide shooter back in the day. With E6 film you either get it right in the field or you don't. There is development but no post processing. But different strokes for different folks....Show more →
The honest truth is that we (almost) all occasionally get an exposure “wrong” for a variety of reasons. With very few exceptions (I’ve never met them), every photographer sometimes misses — perhaps working under pressure, perhaps the conditions change while shooting, perhaps and so on.
So, “messed up files” happen. (Messed up film images happened, too.)
Beyond that, and this is the main point I think lots of us are making, quite often the only way to get a good image out of a challenging exposure is to expose to protect the highlights and bring the shadows back in post. You have hardly any leeway to do that with jpg, but you have a whole lot of room to do that with raw.
I know that slide shooters didn’t work that way back in the day. Yes, I shot slide film, too. You got what you got, and that was it. But with film it has always been more like how digital/raw works today. You expose with. your post-processing (or film development and printing) in mind, trying to get the most useful image data to work with.
p.2 #20 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
I think we are largely in agreement. I did say at the outset that if I'm shooting for what I regard as a serious purpose I shoot both RAW and jpeg. The only point I wanted to make and this goes for probably the majority of amateurs that shoot jpeg to document their lives, is that jpegs can cope with quite a bit of adjustment.
The quality of Fuji's jpegs is a key selling point for the brand and Fujifilm seems to be doubling down on that.
