p.6 #1 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
A third purpose: I am colorblind to the point of monochromatic vision, but my small audience (family, friends) enjoy color photos. When I'm not shooting black and white, I rely on film sims to do the heavy lifting, with a bit of contrast tweaking by me. "It's a landscape? Velvia sounds right" produces a much better result than my futzing with WB and color adjustments.
A reliable set of film simulations is a comfort.
Otherwise agree with most of the above. Even in my situation, I shoot raw and post process...that's where the fun is (as an old darkroom rat). But life got easier when LR and C1 added the Fuji film simulations as profiles.
p.6 #2 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Another aspect of film not yet discussed directly is that while we made an emulsion choice based on a desired outcome, whatever we chose then also directly dictated how we shot with it. It affected how we pre-visualized and exposed, along with decisions about appropriate filtration. Most of us carried multiple bodies or backs (or sheet-holders) loaded with various emulsions for in-the-field flexibility; we didn't limit ourselves to one single emulsion. And of course the big difference with digital, especially shooting raw, is many of these decisions are now made after the fact "in the darkroom," instead of while we're exposing.
p.6 #3 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
jeffnesh wrote:
A third purpose: I am colorblind to the point of monochromatic vision, but my small audience (family, friends) enjoy color photos. When I'm not shooting black and white, I rely on film sims to do the heavy lifting, with a bit of contrast tweaking by me. "It's a landscape? Velvia sounds right" produces a much better result than my futzing with WB and color adjustments.
A reliable set of film simulations is a comfort.
I'd say any kind of "reliable preset" is a comfort in that situation. Adobe Vivid will work better on some than Adobe Color.
Jul 30, 2025 at 10:13 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.6 #4 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Shooting jpegs kinda gets me back to the early days of digital, when I didn't really know what to do with a raw file and didn't really care. Any of that I can capture is probably more important than technical considerations
p.6 #5 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Jack Flesher wrote:
Another aspect of film not yet discussed directly is that while we made an emulsion choice based on a desired outcome, whatever we chose then also directly dictated how we shot with it. It affected how we pre-visualized and exposed, along with decisions about appropriate filtration. Most of us carried multiple bodies or backs (or sheet-holders) loaded with various emulsions for in-the-field flexibility; we didn't limit ourselves to one single emulsion. And of course the big difference with digital, especially shooting raw, is many of these decisions are now made after the fact "in the darkroom," instead of while we're exposing. ...Show more →
I wouldn't say 'most' carried multiple bodies, cameras were expensive and ownership of more than a couple was quite rare. Changing films and occasionally re loading part used 35mm was indulged in. I usually carried two with 'normally' Kodachrome in one and either HS Ektachrome or FP4 black &;white in the other.
For larger formats than 35mm the most you got was 12 exposures so changing film types was easier and most of my pro work was done on 120 or 5x4. Usually carried 3 types of film in 5x4 (Ektacolor S and L,and HP4) unless something specialist was needed for a particular job.
Working from RAW in digital requires thought about particularly exposure when taking the photos. An exposure that will enable the best DR etc from a RAW file will look too dark on a jpeg SOOC.
p.6 #6 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gyoung143 wrote:
Working from RAW in digital requires thought about particularly exposure when taking the photos. An exposure that will enable the best DR etc from a RAW file will look too dark on a jpeg SOOC.
Gerry
Again, for a very relevant example of your point, see this.
p.6 #7 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
Again, for a very relevant example of your point, see this.
Yes, it's been so for a while, and I'm sure has been discussed on this forum not too long ago. Lots of recoverable detail in the shadows, easy to lose highlight detail. Requires a different approach to exposure than film.
p.6 #8 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gyoung143 wrote:
Yes, it's been so for a while
Gerry
Indeed. The article at that link is a decade old!
Jul 30, 2025 at 06:55 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.6 #9 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
Again, for a very relevant example of your point, see this.
That photo reminds me of going out to try the modern approach. After shooting mid day at a local bayou, I just thought it made no sense to do it like that (to put it politely.) Went back later when the light was actually good.
If that's several hours from home or several miles hike in, might make sense to do it like that. It did turn out, and granted, i'd probably use raw on a scene like that. But I haven't had much luck doing it this way, don't really enjoy it, either.
p.6 #11 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
AmbientMike wrote:
That photo reminds me of going out to try the modern approach. After shooting mid day at a local bayou, I just thought it made no sense to do it like that (to put it politely.) Went back later when the light was actually good.
If that's several hours from home or several miles hike in, might make sense to do it like that. It did turn out, and granted, i'd probably use raw on a scene like that. But I haven't had much luck doing it this way, don't really enjoy it, either.
I wouldn't say the approach was 'modern', it's really the same as we did with negative films in principle, with difficult shots with high brightness range you would 'expose for the shadows' and shade or dodge ehen printing. Only with digital you might 'expose for the highlights' and use the shadow slider on LR. Think of the RAF file as RAW material (pun intended) for your picture rather than the final product like a machine print from.a lab would have been. You take control.
If it's a difficult subject you can often do several exposures, they come for 'free' on digital, just a turn of the exp comp dial etc.
p.6 #12 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
As someone who still shoots film, shoots jpegs with film sims and shoots RAW when I feel it is warranted I have a few more perspectives. None of the film sims look particularly like film, in particular none of the sims or recipes do a good recreation of Kodachrome or Velvia. I suspect most people using recipes are doing so to give a photo a particular look or emotion rather than trying to look like a particular film.
I use recipes as I mostly prefer to pre-process out in the field than in post. If I come back from a week of holidays with 500 photos I don't want to be PP them all, especially when most of them will go nowhere other than my hard drive. But this is easy, I hear you say as you can apply global edits or a presets to all your RAW files. Well doing this is pretty much the same as shooting Jpeg, but worse as it applies the same look to all shots, unless you go back to individual editing. Having seven recipes in custom settings is like being able to shoot with seven different film stocks on the fly.
But what about blown highlights and shadows that are too dark? There is no particular rule that says highlights can't be clipped or shadows can't be black. Either can look bad, but there is no rule that says a clipped highlight is automatically bad. I check exposure before and after i shoot and if it looks good it looks good. A common problem I see with a lot of digital processing is the shadows are lifted and the highlights preserved so carefully that there is detail in every part of the frame and no macro contrast between the subject and periphery. The photos end up having an unrealistic HDR look. This often detracts from the subject. The GFX photo thread is full of shots like that because GFX cameras have so much dynamic range. Add to that there is too often an massive overuse of saturation, and clarity.
I accept that I am going against what a lot of people think is a good photo, namely, super sharp, vibrant colours, detail throughout the shadows and in every part of the frame. To me there is often beauty in imperfection because it's a more realistic representation of the world.
People also use RAW to deal with bad light, and if you have to shoot in bad light you don't have much alternative. But there is still no substitute for shooting in good light. There are a lot of photos around that aren't overly interesting because people have tried to use PP to compensate for bad light when it might have been better to try something else.
No one has ever said to me, "that's a great film simulation you have used". I'm not sure it's ever been said to anyone.
p.6 #13 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
As someone who still shoots film, shoots jpegs with film sims and shoots RAW when I feel it is warranted I have a few more perspectives. None of the film sims look particularly like film, in particular none of the sims or recipes do a good recreation of Kodachrome or Velvia. I suspect most people using recipes are doing so to give a photo a particular look or emotion rather than trying to look like a particular film.
Probably, and I mostly agree with you.
I use recipes as I mostly prefer to pre-process out in the field than in post. If I come back from a week of holidays with 500 photos I don't want to be PP them all, especially when most of them will go nowhere other than my hard drive. But this is easy, I hear you say as you can apply global edits or a presets to all your RAW files. Well doing this is pretty much the same as shooting Jpeg, but worse as it applies the same look to all shots, unless you go back to individual editing. Having seven recipes in custom settings is like being able to shoot with seven different film stocks on the fly....Show more →
I *prefer* to have a set of images I output from my raws all looking similar -- in the art world it's part of being a series. Moreover, I have more than 7 "styles" saved in my raw converter software for an even wider variety of looks; and it's nothing like "just shooting jpeg from the start," since I do get to better control highlight and shadow levels and transitions.
But what about blown highlights and shadows that are too dark? There is no particular rule that says highlights can't be clipped or shadows can't be black. Either can look bad, but there is no rule that says a clipped highlight is automatically bad. I check exposure before and after i shoot and if it looks good it looks good. A common problem I see with a lot of digital processing is the shadows are lifted and the highlights preserved so carefully that there is detail in every part of the frame and no macro contrast between the subject and periphery. The photos end up having an unrealistic HDR look. This often detracts from the subject. The GFX photo thread is full of shots like that because GFX cameras have so much dynamic range. Add to that there is too often an massive overuse of saturation, and clarity. ...Show more →
I agree and also dislike the HDR look to many images; and even dislike the tone-mapped ones that are attempting to add "realistic" contrast to the otherwise overly flat image. In fairness, it's one particular and unfortunately very prolific poster in the Fuji GFX thread that does the heavy HDR and tone-mapping. Yes, the GFX has so much DR that it almost always needs to be "leveled" before output, and that's precisely what the level (or curve) slider does in the raw converter adjustments; AND do way better than the in-cam jpeg trims.
I accept that I am going against what a lot of people think is a good photo, namely, super sharp, vibrant colours, detail throughout the shadows and in every part of the frame. To me there is often beauty in imperfection because it's a more realistic representation of the world.
I agree that some imperfections can add character or feeling. But poorly captured and/or poorly processed globally aren't the same thing as say selective DoF or color saturation choices.
People also use RAW to deal with bad light, and if you have to shoot in bad light you don't have much alternative. But there is still no substitute for shooting in good light. There are a lot of photos around that aren't overly interesting because people have tried to use PP to compensate for bad light when it might have been better to try something else.
No one has ever said to me, "that's a great film simulation you have used". I'm not sure it's ever been said to anyone.
With digital, I'm making a lot more decent images in bad light, and without artificial light, than I ever did with film. Respect YMMV.
p.6 #14 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gyoung143 wrote:
I wouldn't say the approach was 'modern', it's really the same as we did with negative films in principle, with difficult shots with high brightness range you would 'expose for the shadows' and shade or dodge ehen printing. Only with digital you might 'expose for the highlights' and use the shadow slider on LR. Think of the RAF file as RAW material (pun intended) for your picture rather than the final product like a machine print from.a lab would have been. You take control.
If it's a difficult subject you can often do several exposures, they come for 'free' on digital, just a turn of the exp comp dial etc.
Exactly. This is how photographers worked in the film era though we have flexibility and capability with digital that we would have died for back then.
In those days, when confronted by a scene like the one in my example, we would have done pretty much the same thing I did in my "digital darkroom" example expose the scene to capture the maximum usable scene data with an eye to extracting it in "optical/chemical post" in the darkroom. The really serious photographers did all kinds of stuff to accommodate such scenes pre-expose the film to protect the shadows; alter the film development temperature, time, and chemistry with the image in mind; and dodge/burn under the enlarger.
Back then, with negative film, you probably would have "over-exposed" my scene, since the roll-off in the bright tones (darker on the negative) would protect the highlights a bit while capturing more of the details at the dark end of the luminosity spectrum. In an extreme case (which this isn't) you could have pre-exposed the negative so that there was at least some detail in the darkest areas.
A note to anyone judging the quality of light in the scene by looking at my original dark capture the light was actually beautiful on those trees, which is why I stopped to photograph them. Poor light wasn't the problem. The problem was that the dynamic range between the shaded trees and the brilliant white clouds was simply too large to be captured in a single SOOC exposure.
I was a film photographer for a few decades before moving to digital, so much of what I do involves adapting and extending familiar darkroom approaches to the digital medium.
Geoff D F wrote:
But what about blown highlights and shadows that are too dark? There is no particular rule that says highlights can't be clipped or shadows can't be black. Either can look bad, but there is no rule that says a clipped highlight is automatically bad. I check exposure before and after i shoot and if it looks good it looks good. A common problem I see with a lot of digital processing is the shadows are lifted and the highlights preserved so carefully that there is detail in every part of the frame and no macro contrast between the subject and periphery. The photos end up having an unrealistic HDR look. This often detracts from the subject. The GFX photo thread is full of shots like that because GFX cameras have so much dynamic range. Add to that there is too often an massive overuse of saturation, and clarity. ...Show more →
You are right that no rule says you cannot clip highlights or block shadows and in some cases that can work just fine.
On the subject of "A common problem I see with a lot of digital processing is the shadows are lifted and the highlights preserved so carefully that there is detail in every part of the frame and no macro contrast between the subject and periphery..." I'm glad that you referred to it as "a common problem" and not as, for example, "a feature of post processing to protect highlights and preserve shadow detail."
For whatever reason, viewers often tell me that my photographs (particularly my landscapes) 'look natural" and "avoid too much post processing" and are not "over-processed."
That fascinates me since I sometimes actually post-process rather heavily. It just isnt obvious.
The difference is that I'm doing so in an attempt to make what the camera captures (which is distinctly different from what the eyes/brain see) look "natural" and "believable" to viewers.
What I"m getting at is that when you see those images that don't appeal to you, that isn't necessarily the fault of post-processing per se. Rather, it is often the fault of poor and/or heavy-handed post-processing or of using canned methods.
This, by the way, was as true in the film era as it is now.
Jul 31, 2025 at 11:18 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.6 #15 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
Exactly. This is how photographers worked in the film era though we have flexibility and capability with digital that we would have died for back then.
In those days, when confronted by a scene like the one in my example, we would have done pretty much the same thing I did in my "digital darkroom" example expose the scene to capture the maximum usable scene data with an eye to extracting it in "optical/chemical post" in the darkroom. The really serious photographers did all kinds of stuff to accommodate such scenes pre-expose the film to protect the shadows; alter the film development temperature, time, and chemistry with the image in mind; and dodge/burn under the enlarger.
Back then, with negative film, you probably would have "over-exposed" my scene, since the roll-off in the bright tones (darker on the negative) would protect the highlights a bit while capturing more of the details at the dark end of the luminosity spectrum. In an extreme case (which this isn't) you could have pre-exposed the negative so that there was at least some detail in the darkest areas.
A note to anyone judging the quality of light in the scene by looking at my original dark capture the light was actually beautiful on those trees, which is why I stopped to photograph them. Poor light wasn't the problem. The problem was that the dynamic range between the shaded trees and the brilliant white clouds was simply too large to be captured in a single SOOC exposure.
I was a film photographer for a few decades before moving to digital, so much of what I do involves adapting and extending familiar darkroom approaches to the digital medium.
You are right that no rule says you cannot clip highlights or block shadows and in some cases that can work just fine.
On the subject of "A common problem I see with a lot of digital processing is the shadows are lifted and the highlights preserved so carefully that there is detail in every part of the frame and no macro contrast between the subject and periphery..." I'm glad that you referred to it as "a common problem" and not as, for example, "a feature of post processing to protect highlights and preserve shadow detail."
For whatever reason, viewers often tell me that my photographs (particularly my landscapes) 'look natural" and "avoid too much post processing" and are not "over-processed."
That fascinates me since I sometimes actually post-process rather heavily. It just isnt obvious.
The difference is that I'm doing so in an attempt to make what the camera captures (which is distinctly different from what the eyes/brain see) look "natural" and "believable" to viewers.
What I"m getting at is that when you see those images that don't appeal to you, that isn't necessarily the fault of post-processing per se. Rather, it is often the fault of poor and/or heavy-handed post-processing or of using canned methods.
This, by the way, was as true in the film era as it is now....Show more →
Well, no, you couldn't have captured that on color film, for the most part
Did you have a color darkroom? You mentioned a darkroom, but b&w is COMPLETELY different in terms of contrast control, it's pretty much expected there, but contrast control is difficult to impossible on color images. It is more than a bit disingenuous if you are not talking about color darkroom.
All kinds of light that looked great in person looked like garbage on film.
p.6 #16 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
AmbientMike wrote:
Well, no, you couldn't have captured that on color film, for the most part
Did you have a color darkroom? You mentioned a darkroom, but b&w is COMPLETELY different in terms of contrast control, it's pretty much expected there, but contrast control is difficult to impossible on color images. It is more than a bit disingenuous if you are not talking about color darkroom.
All kinds of light that looked great in person looked like garbage on film.
You had no choice of contrast grade in colour printing, that in any case is part of the total artifice that is black and white. But you certainly could shade, dodge and burn when printing, which is what this about.
p.6 #17 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
Again, for a very relevant example of your point, see this.
The article you link to is well-done and quite helpful for advancing in post-processing. Good job!
I do think that postprocessing is a critical step in making an image one's own. Although photographers like Salgado and Cartier-Bresson did not do their own printing, they had fabulous craftsmen making the prints who gave them what they wanted.
p.6 #18 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
chiron wrote:
The article you link to is well-done and quite helpful for advancing in post-processing. Good job!
I do think that postprocessing is a critical step in making an image one's own. Although photographers like Salgado and Cartier-Bresson did not do their own printing, they had fabulous craftsmen making the prints who gave them what they wanted.
...and in Cartier Bresson's case he kept a close eye on what was done, especially no cropping.
I worked for an agency in London for a time, and for several other companies who employed multiple staff photographers as well as free-lancers. They all had specialist darkroom staff, kept the photographer's busy taking pictures and the darkroom lads were usually better at it than us.
p.6 #19 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Wonderful, Cartier Bresson. Which brings me back to why I am using my X-Pro3 more than my a7cR :-)
Just bought the Sony RX1R MkIII. It is a dream camera! Brilliant image quality and very appealing design. Small, yet powerful. Gives me 35/50/70/100mm in one package. Pleasing image colors, almost no noise. Let me stop right here. It is super expensive. Sold my RX1R MkII a a good price, and now also my Leica Q2 and one of my X-Pro3s. But I am keeping one X-Pro3 Why?
Taking images with the RX1R MkIII is easy. Turn it on (fast), select crop factor, aim using AF-Lock, fire. Done. But using the X-Pro3 is very different. Selecting a focal length. More deliberate and critical scene selection, almost cautious as if not to waste film, checking exposure and adjusting by using the color histogram, setting and double checking focus.
I am glad that there are cameras like the Sony RX1R MkIIII and the X-Pro3. Just hope that Fuji can somehow transpose the old X-Pro values to whatever is to come in the future. The X-E5 gives some hope.
p.6 #20 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Nielk Mike wrote:
Not sure why, but I have a perfect 60MP camera with three primes (24/50/90) that are small, reasonably fast and sharp. All I have to do is point the camera at something and I will get a sharp image - whether the subject is static or moving.
But instead of taking that perfect photo gear, I am more often than not grabbing my X-Pro3 with the 27f2.8 or the 23/35/50 Fujicrons. Instead of just aiming at a subject I need to make sure that critical focus is where it should be, the hybrid VF is so-so, the camera is not smaller than the Sony, and I am not using the vintage dials for exposure time, EV ore ISO (Exposure is on A, EV is on C and controlled by the front wheel, and ISO is on one of three Auto positions). The only other control I do use is the f-stop ring.
Why, then, am I using the X-Pro so much and with delight? It is a mystery. From a rational point of view, the Sony is the better option in terms of IQ and handling. I don't care about Film Simulations, either. What is it that makes using the X-Pro such a special thing? Is it the less than perfect overall technical performance? Since I am not using the vintage features, is it just the vintage look and feel?
It seems to me that the reason for me is the (relatively) slow process of taking an image. It is not just aim and shoot. It is aiming, calling up the color histogram to adjust exposure, checking or selecting focus, and then finally take the shot. It makes me "think" and "feel" about the image more than just shooting.
If this is the reason, then an X-Pro X with no dials on the top plate and just the dials in the front and the back would work for me, right?
In fact, it seems as if Fuji's less than reliable AF is one of the reasons I like to use the X-Pro (and the other cameras) so much. That and the distance scale with the DoF indicator are part of the experience.
The X-T3 and the X-E3 are providing a similar experience. Let's see if the X-E5 does, too. ...Show more →
Perhaps same reason Id rather drive a manual sports car than let the car do all the work and have all the fun. 🤣
