Jpeg-only week one with Velvia Film simulation

It's my first week of shooting in Jpeg-only with custom film simulations on my Fujifilm X-E2, and I've already completely rearranged my recipes!

Cobden Lagoon, early evening. X-E2 with 16-50mm XC. f/8 @ 1/20th, ISO 3200. Velvia recipe

In my last post I explained how I've set up the seven custom slots to allow for white balance adjustments for each film recipe. This relies on heavy use of similar film stocks that use the same WB channel adjustments. Mostly, this meant using Kodak film recipes. But when I took a series of test images (again, see last post), I came away feeling that there wasn't enough variance in the final results. All the images looked a bit too similar. 

So, I decided to start from scratch, and have now programmed in a whole new set of recipes that are hopefully going to give me a bit more variance between 'looks'. I've kept the first two film simulations from my previous set (Kodak Ektachrome 100SW and Fuji Acros), and have added Agfa Optima 200, Agfa Scala, Fuji Velvia, Ilford HP5 and Kodak Gold 200. I feel a lot better about this set of recipes - it feels a bit more 'democratic'. Two Kodak, two Fuji, two Agfa and one Ilford. Sounds pretty good to me.

Cabbage tree and tussock. f/8 @ 1/30th, ISO 3200

I've been itching to get out and start shooting (always a good sign), and got my wish this week after work. We've been having some lovely sunsets here recently (it's mid winter), and driving home from work I could see that the sky was starting to colour up nicely.

However, the sun also sets pretty quickly this time of year, so you need to be at the right place at the right time or you'll miss the light. 

There is a lagoon walk not far from where we live, so my wife and I headed off from home towards the lagoon, hoping that the light would last - and colour up enough to get some decent images. 

I took my Fujifilm X-E2 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens, the 50-230mm XC and a spare battery. I don't carry a tripod when we go out walking in the evening. My wife is happy for me to wander around with the camera, but if I started setting the tripod up every 5 minutes I think that her good nature would be sorely tested. So I grab anything I can hand-held, and don't mind cranking the ISO up if I have to.

In fact, all of my film recipes use 'Auto' ISO - with the colour stocks topping out at 3200, while the B&W simulations get cranked up to 6400 if necessary. If it's a toss-up between camera shake at low ISO's, or getting the shot with some 'noise' (grain) at high ISO's, I'll get the shot with noise every time.

Most of the photos I took while on the walk were captured at ISO 3200. And while there certainly is some 'noise' if you zoom into the image, I certainly don't find it objectionable. I understand that noise is a subjective thing. Some want as clean an image as possible at ISO 250,000 - whereas others (like me) don't mind a bit of noise in an image.

Cobden Lagoon blush. X-E2 with 16-50mm XC. f/8 @ 1/20th, ISO 3200. Velvia recipe

If I was blowing the images up super-large for printing then it might be a different case. In that scenario I would use a tripod and lower my ISO as much as possible. But these are just 'test' images to start to get a feel for the particular film recipes, so they were only going to be for the web or social media anyway.

With the sky starting to 'pink-up', I knew I wanted to shoot with a recipe that gave me the richest possible colour. So I set my custom slot to C5 - Fuji Velvia. Colours don't get more punchy than on Fuji's Velvia slide film, and as can be seen from the images accompanying this post, it was certainly the right choice!

Purple Haze. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 1600. Fuji Velvia film simulation

 

Initially I thought that I had lost the light and had left it too late. But when I held the camera up to my eye, the evf exploded with colour! The above image certainly didn't look like this to my naked eye. But with the Velvia recipe, the light was intense, and incredible. I snapped some images, showed my wife the back of the screen, and she couldn't believe the colour I was getting.

Full disclosure - all of the recipes I'm using are taken off of the internet - and more specifically, from Richie Roech's excellent Fuji X Weekly blog. I have, however, had to modify them slightly, since most of his custom film recipes are designed for the X-Trans III sensor (and the X-E2 uses the earlier X-Trans II sensor).

Cobden Lagoon Sunset colours. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 1600

Now, the keen observers among you (of which I'm sure there are many) will no doubt be saying - "Hang on a minute. Don't Fujifilm cameras come with a pre-exisitng Velvia film stock already programmed in"? What do you need a 'Velvia' custom recipe for"? Excellent question, and point well taken.

All Fujifilm digital cameras do indeed come with the Velvia film stock included (as well as Astia, Provia, Monochrome etc). And while the Velvia film recipe I'm using starts with the Velvia stock as a base (obviously), it 'tweaks' it to produce even more Velvia film-like goodness!

My Fuji Velvia recipe for the X-Trans II sensor looks like this:

Fuji Velvia

Film base: Velvia

DR:200

Colour: +2

Sharpness: +1

Highlight Tone: -1

Shadow Tone: 0

Noise Reduction: -2

White Balance: 'Auto' (+1R, -1B)

ISO: Auto up to 3200

Cobden Lagoon Sunset. Fuji X-E2 with 16-50mm. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 1600. Velvia recipe

Am I pleased with the results? You betcha! The vibrancy it produced from the small amount of colour that could be seen by the naked eye is incredible. And yet, the first few images I took on the walk (seen above) are 'fairly' realistic to what I saw at the time. So yes, it's punchy and colourful - but not so over-the-top so as to look fake and unuseable. Not great for portraits, but amazing for landscapes - exactly like the actual Velvia film stock. 

Of course I will need to try it out at other locations, under other lighting conditions. But if this night at the lagoon was anything to go by, I think I may have found my go-to landscape film recipe!?

In praise of the Fujinon XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS

Maybe it's just me? But I think that Fuji's cheap, lightweight, plastic, consumer-based kit lens - the Fujinon XC16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS (to give it its full title) - is a damn fine lens! Damn fine.

Now to be fair, it also happens to be the only lens I've ever used in the Fujifilm lineup. So maybe I haven't got that much to compare it to? I do know, from reading and watching other reviewers, that Fuji's optical quality is spoken of in extremely high regard. Words like 'outstanding' and 'exceptional' are used on a very regular basis by anyone reviewing the XF primes or pro level zooms. And yet almost nothing is ever said about the XC range of lenses. And if they are mentioned at all, it's almost in embarrassment, and they quickly move on to more 'serious' optics.

I think this does the Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens a severe injustice. I really do. Because while I may not have any experience with other Fujinon lenses, I have a plethora (yes, I said a plethora) of experience with other lenses, over a more than thirty year photographic career. From consumer kit zooms to cheap plastic primes, mid-range third party offerings to expensive pro level glass - I've shot with (and owned) them all. And while the Fujinon XC 16-50mm lens might not be the best lens I've ever owned, it certainly is far from being the worst.

Lake Brunner Water Taxi. Fujifilm X-E1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens. F/11 @ 1/125th, ISO 800. 23mm (35mm equiv)

 

100% crop of lower right corner. Click image to enlarge

That's not damning with faint praise either. Honestly. Because while I certainly can't claim that it's the best lens I've ever owned, I also believe that it's a truly fantastic lens, capable of remarkably good results - especially for the price that you will pay for this plastic 'kit' lens. Most reviewers completely disregard this lens, or ignore it completely as if it doesn't even exist. And I believe they do so to their own detriment.

Ok, so it's not made of metal. Yes, it is an all plastic construction - right down to the lens mount itself. But not - I repeat NOT - the optics. They are, of course, made of glass. Fujinon glass. 12 elements, in 10 groups, including three aspherical lens elements and one ED lens element. The good stuff. So whilst the body might be of consumer-grade construction, Fuji haven't skimped where it matters the most. With the optics.

Cross section of XC 16-50mm lens elements

Plastic it may be, but it's also a very good plastic (is there such a thing in this day and age?). The fit and finish is excellent, and the zoom ring turns smoothly and without any barrel wobble. I won't lie - a metal lens mount would have been nice, and wouldn't have added any discernible weight (or cost) to the lens. But for such an incredibly light lens (just 195 grams) for a zoom, I can see why Fuji have opted for the plastic lens mount. For its intended user base (this is a consumer grade lens by Fuji's own definition), they probably didn't see it getting very heavy use, and may even be the only lens that the average consumer ever owns? So I guess there might not be a lot of lens-changing going on anyway. And besides, we're long past the point where plastic lens barrels on consumer products are of concern. Canon and Nikon have been doing it since the introduction of consumer digital SLR's in 2003 (with the Canon D300).

Carters Beach, Westport. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f5.6 @ 1/240th, ISO 200. 23mm (35mm equiv)

100% crop of central area. Click image to enlarge

So let's get over the all-plastic thing shall we? Let's concentrate instead on what it does have going for it. And there's plenty.

It's lightweight, well constructed, and has glass optics with some nice aspherical elements thrown in for good measure. It also has image stabilisation built in to the lens (up to 3.5 stops), seven rounded aperture blades, a quick and silent autofocusing motor, and focuses as close as 15cm's for 'macro' images. It's not weather-sealed (neither is the 18-55mm), but really, what do you expect at this price point?

Ultimately, what I'm most interested in with any lens, of course, is IQ (image quality). What do the photos that this lens takes actually look like? And in this regard I only need one word: fantastic! Honestly - fantastic. From the very first image I took with the Fujifilm X-E1 and 16-50mm XC combination I was blown away. Crisp, clean, clear, colourful, sharp - all of the above. And while a good deal of this is down to the x-trans sensor, it still needs the lens to translate all that x-trans goodness into a final image.

Truman Track, Punakaiki. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f5.6 @ 1/550th, ISO 200. 16mm (24mm equiv)

100% crop of lower left corner. Click image to enlarge

I'm not going to lie to you, dear reader, and tell you that the Fujinon XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS is the sharpest lens I've ever owned - because it's not. But it is plenty sharp enough. Just look at the 100% corner crops of the images in this post. They aren't bitingly sharp - but only the very best of the very best lenses actually are. You know, the ones you pay $1000+ for. For a 'kit' lens performance, these are excellent results, especially when you consider that all but the last image here (the one taken at Motukeikei Beach) were shot hand-held.

So while it might not be the sharpest tack in the box, I actually find this to be a positive. Sometimes I find bitingly sharp optics to have a very obvious 'digital' quality to them. Not so the Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens. It's sharp, without being 'digitally' sharp. It has, dare I say it (ok, I will) a more film-like quality to it. It's sharp (often very sharp) where it needs to be, yet also beautifully smooth in other areas. It's hard to define exactly, but I do find the images that I'm getting from the 16-50mm XC to be very beautiful. Drop dead beautiful, in fact.

Motukeikei Beach Sunset. Fuji X-E2 with 16-50mm XC. f11 @ 1/2sec, ISO 200

100% crop of lower right. Click to enlarge

Steady on! Am I gushing over this cheap little hunk of plastic a bit too much? Surely it's just a lens you 'put up with' until you can afford a 'real' lens? I take my landscape photography very seriously, so of course I'm going to 'upgrade' first chance I get - right?

Well, not so fast. Recently (as in this week), I had the chance to do just that. Buy a 'better' lens for the X-E2 (see my last post). I looked very closely at the Fujinon 18-55mm f2-4, and almost pulled the trigger on one. But then a few reviews I read suggested that the IQ of the 18-55mm wasn't really an upgrade. I'm thrilled with the IQ I'm getting from the 16-50 XC lens (can't you tell). Would I be more thrilled with the IQ from the 18-55mm? I'm not convinced I would.

Yes, the 18-55mm is 'better' built (more metal), and yet it still doesn't have weather-sealing. And yes, it's a 'faster' lens - but as primarily a landscape photographer working around f11, I don't necessarily need faster. And also, as a landscape photographer, I'm going to choose the 16-50mm over the 18-55mm because of its focal range. 16mm (24mm equivalent) is useful to me, and preferable over 18mm (27mm equivalent). Surprisingly, at wider focal lengths, that extra 2mm makes a huge difference  - especially on an APS-C sized sensor.

Realistically, my upgrade path is actually to go to the Fujinon 16-55mm f2.8 - which is weather-sealed, and which, I'm sure, is a superior lens. And I probably could have afforded one if I'd waited for a good secondhand deal. But the 16-55mm f2.8 would also come with its own set of problems. Weight being one of them. At 655 grams, it's over three times the weight of the 16-50mm XC lens - which would definitely be noticeable on my X-E2.

So in the end, after weighing up all the pros and cons, I decided that the Fujinon XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS lens was, in fact, the perfect lens for me. So I've bought another one to go with my X-E2 (after having sold my original lens with my X-E1). My 'new' (secondhand) one is the version II model (slightly updated OIS apparently), in all-silver. Should pair up very nicely with my silver/black X-E2.

Lake Brunner Boats. Fuji X-E1 with Fujinon XC 16-50mm. f8 @1/125th, ISO 250. 23mm (35mm equiv)

Apologies if this post has gone on a bit long, and become a bit of a rant in places? But it does annoy me that so many 'serious' photographers and reviewers dismiss the XC lenses as 'inferior' rubbish. They are, as I have discovered much to my joy, nothing of the sort.

Since I'm not really a prime kinda guy, and since I've discounted getting both the 18-55mm and 16-55mm (at least for the foreseeable future), then I guess I'll keep using the XC 16-50mm plastic fantastic for my 'serious' landscape photography. And since my experience with this XC lens has been so positive, I'm considering getting the 50-230mm XC telephoto as well. If it's anything like its smaller sibling, then it just might be a real gem of a lens too? Can't wait to find out...