If it hadn’t been for the Fujifilm GFX100RF, I wouldn’t have taken such an interest in in-camera processing. But Fujifilm made a big play on simulations, which are an up-front temptation on the new RF, and I just had to get used to the idea.
It’s not that I scorn out-of-camera JPGs, it’s more that I’ve never felt the need to use them. Traditionally, I prefer to shoot RAW and do my processing back at base. Other photographers have different workflows, and I can understand why it’s useful to have ready-processed images to share instantly.
Simulations
When I reviewed the GFX100RF last month, I became really hooked on the useful film simulations. In fact, I went so far as to use out-of-camera shots extensively in the test. I was delighted with the results and concluded that it is good to use in-camera processing for demo shots as a way of maintaining comparability.
This new enthusiasm prompted me to investigate Leica Looks. Here is a similar range of off-the-peg image options. But it also includes the distinctive “look” of well-known photographers. I started by downloading a set of Looks, or simulations, but have left the photographer simulations until another time.
The Leica Look
Ever since I can remember, there has been the Leica Look — a distinctive signature of any output from a Leica lens or camera. I can’t say I could define it, or, even, recognise it. But tens of thousands of Leicaphiles are convinced it can be detected at a glance.
Even more, thousands claim to be able to tell instantly if a particular picture has been taken by a Leica or A.N. Other. Again, I remain unconvinced, but I admire the intuitive capabilities of my fellow snappers.
First, a few examples of one of Leica’s standard JPG recipes, Vivid.
There are three ready-made colour options, Standard, Vivid and Natural, plus two B&W recipes, Natural and High Contrast. Now you can add up to six Leica Looks to the list, giving you a good choice of options. Naturally, you can adjust the values to your taste.
The term “Leica Look” is apt, and is ideally suited to describing these simulations. Fuji had film stock to simulate, while Leica has had to depend on its distinctive signature (the Leica look, if you wish) in developing these recipes.
The Fujifilm RF review includes dozens of images produced by the film-simulation recipes, so no need to labour the point here. One example will do — see above. But a few more initial samples will demonstrate that Leica is offering strong competition with its new Leica Looks.
Downloading and installing
Before going into the detail, Leica Q3, Q3 43 and SL3(-S) owners can download the Leica Looks via the Leica Fotos app. It’s straightforward. You then follow the instructions to download them to your camera, where they appear in a sub-menu of JPG Settings. A further useful step is to assign Leica Looks to the options available in the Customise Control/Thumb-wheel settings.
This direct access to film simulations, as well as aspect ratios and digital zoom, is a hallmark of the Fujifilm GFX100RF, but the Q3/43 does almost as well. Crop modes on my camera are assigned to the right-hand button above the screen (the left-hand button toggles the display).
Assigning to the thumb-wheel
And I now can quickly set the thumb-wheel to Leica Looks (moving the wheel then scans through the options). Aspect ratios still lie buried in my Q3 43 menus, but I suppose could assign them to a thumb-wheel option if I thought I would use them as much as I did on the RF.
In any case, the Qs have a limited range of options (3:2, 4:3, 1:1 and 16:9) which pales in comparison to the fulsome fare offered at the RF table (with its own dedicated dial, no less…).
A strange limitation imposed by Leica is that only six “Leica Looks” can be installed on the camera at any time. If you want more, you must first remove one and then replace it. This is an odd restriction, and is at variance with Fujifilm’s generous set of 20 simulations available in the camera. I presume we are at early stages and that Leica will soon increase the limit.
One trick that Fujifilm has up its sleeve and which is missing in the Leica system, is the ability to use film simulations when editing RAW files in Lightroom. This is a sensible and useful feature which, after discovering it existed, I use frequently when dealing with RF material. For instance, in the test, I needed to show one picture (the tugboat Victory) in all 20 simulations for comparison purposes.
Initially, I embarked on a series of 20 individual shots, changing the simulation after every one. The result was awful. The pictures were all over the place, although I could have had better success if I’d used a tripod. Then I turned to the Lightroom editing menu and, by using one image, I was able to apply the 20 simulations consecutively, maintaining the one composition. This was the result.
The recipes
As you will see from the tables, Leica and Fujifilm approach processing recipes differently. Fujifilm (as the name implies) has a rich history in the manufacture of film and owns some impressive names which were common currency in the days before digital. It’s only natural, therefore, that all the Fujifilm simulations are based on these looks.
Leica, on the other hand, has a strong reputation for creating a special signature and lays special emphasis on the role of well-known photographers in the development of the brand’s image. Leica Looks is in its early stages, but shows great promise. Currently, we have one lonely artist, Greg Williams, but we can look forward to many more, I hope. What about a Henri Cartier-Bresson look, Leica?
Leica Looks is also rather hobbled because only six of the 15 Looks can be loaded into the camera at the same time (at least that’s the case with the Q3 43, other cameras could differ.) And there is no way of adding a Look to a RAW file during processing in Lightroom. This is something I have found extremely useful in the Fujifilm set up.
As I say, though, it’s early days yet.
First impressions
So far, I am impressed with the results from the Leica Looks. They have also reminded me of the excellence of that f/2 APO-Summicron 43mm. After immersion in Fujifilm for the past few months, I’d go so far as to say the Leica lens is a tad sharper and is capable of capturing even more detail at a distance than the Fujinon 28mm. However, this is a considerably longer lens and optical will always win over digital.
As an aside, the 102MP medium-format Fuji offers 43MP pixel density at 43mm full-frame equivalent, compared with the 60MP available on the Q3 43. Just saying…
Conclusion
Manufacturers such as the two mentioned here, Fujifilm and Leica, are paying increasing attention to showcasing off-the-peg JPG simulations. I can see that they offer instant gratification that is lacking in the shoot-raw-edit-later school. Budding photographers these days are flattered by the effortless images they can produce on a smartphone.
Often, their first experiments with “proper” cameras produce indifferent and disappointing results, and we cannot assume that every buyer of a modern camera is going to turn immediately to the complexities of post-processing software. So, manufacturers are providing instant gratification with their ready-made simulations and looks.
But there is another aspect. With the impressive output of modern digital cameras, well-constructed JPG images are probably all that many photographers require. I’d be the first to admit that I’ve relied mainly on self-processed RAW files in the past. Indeed, I’ve rather scorned the idea of JPG as being the photographic equivalent of a microwave dish of chicken korma. Thanks, mainly to Fujifilm, I am experiencing a conversion.
This is a quick and dirty assessment, mainly by way of introducing Leica Looks if you haven’t yet looked. But I do like Leica “Blue”… something different and quite appealing. The options are definitely worth trying if you are a Q3/43 or SL enthusiast. And I would be interested to hear your conclusions and experiences in the comments section below.
Do you rely on JPGs from the camera, perhaps with a bit of post-shoot tweaking, or are you a do-or-die RAW type of photographer? Please let us know in the comment section below.
And which do you prefer?
The feature image of the classic Rover car at the top of this article is an out-of-camera Leica Q3 43 Vivid interpretation. It is followed by a similar shot taken with the Fujifilm X100VI. The car colour is subtly different in the two shots. But which do you prefer?
| MORE READING | |
| Fujifilm GFX100RF long-term review | Leica Q3 43: How I love thee |
| Resistance is futile: I gave it and for the thing | The camera that sees like the human eye |
| City of bridges with the Q3 43 |
Leave a reply and join in the discussion
The comments section below every article is a friendly, non-confrontational space where you can air your views without fear of stirring the sort of hornets’ nest that is so often a feature of websites. We welcome your views on the content of our articles, and your opinions on all aspects of photography are a lifeblood for Macfilos. Please let us know, in the section below, if you agree or disagree with our authors’ opinions — and please have no hesitation in adding your advice if you think we’ve overlooked anything important.
I thought it was interesting to juxtapose this article with Andrew Tobin’s discussion of how he prepared his photos to be presented in a book.
Others here are better qualified to analyze it, but it strikes me that over my lifetime, there’s a sea change in how photography is consumed. In the 1950’s when I was growing photos would have been available in glossy magazines or expensive art books.
How much have we really gained from ‘snap, camera adjusts, post online’?
I totally agree. The question now in 2025 is perhaps, how do we view photographs rather than how do we take them?
Chris
That is a very important distinction Chris, and worthy of a longer discussion.