It was quite beautiful and I took some pictures from the balcony. My reason was not just to have some photographic fun but also to create some images to promote the sale of my house.

I posted this image on FaceBook and a friend commented: “if he had a red umbrella that would be a competition print possibly loan collection!”

I’m sure it was a compliment and a way to stimulate me in a moment I’m getting far away from photographic competitions and some associations. But this made me think.

Why do we have to modify every image with a contest or likes in our mind? I like this picture because it’s real. It was not snowing anymore so no need for an umbrella, eventually why red when the most common umbrellas here are the cheap interchangeable black ones?
This is not a contest image that will catch the attention of a judge in 3 seconds on a screen, but I do not care, it is an honest one.

Part of my idea is to show how beautiful is the view from this house. I want happy buyers that will enjoy real views for the years to come, not pissed buyers because they will never see what I showed in my images. No matter if the image will win some contest where over editing is become the only way to win.

Yes, as photographer I see things and moments that other people will not see, but still will be there for them to look for and find.

The reality is what matters to me
I know for a contest I will probably need to pump the clouds with filters and editing tools. But I like the clouds as they were.
It happens probably two or three days a year to have those kind of clouds but it happens. It is not a fantasy.

In advertise, as in contests, we now see a lot of fake realities. We see teenagers trying to adapt at the point where beautiful girls deform themselves thinking to have more likes, as we can see in this great project by Rankin

I have to follow my ethic and if I create an advertise, or generically an image that is note pure fantasy, I want it to be something that people can experience in their reality, also if without my effort to evidence some aspects they will probably never notice.

The serious problem is that with all the editing people start to not trust images. We are so used to pumped images that we do not expect to see the same reality if not in a display of our devices.

And here is the other problem.

Yesterday I took from my window some pictures of the sunset. No retouch, daylight white balance, some levels to compensate the flattening of the high dynamic range of digital cameras and nothing more.

Almost nobody will believe these images are not retouched. I will not use them to promote the sale of my house.
It is not so common, a sunset that colorful does not happens every day at this latitudes, but it happens.

At this point to sell sometime is better to not show the best because everybody will think is retouched. The average still have some trust.

Please note the beautiful change of colors in just 10 minutes. Yes I love the Fuji XPro-2 coupled with CaptureOne!

I forgot… just drop me an email if you want to buy this beautiful panorama and enjoy it comfortably from a 4000sqf apartment with a 360 degrees view, a great 4 cars garage, a huge cantina and luxury fully furnished

Digital or Film? Fuji Acros Digital on a XPro-2 compared to Fuji Acros 100 Film on Hasselblad 6×6… who will be the winner?

Few weeks ago I did a non scientific comparison between black and white digital and film, using my beloved Fuji XPro-2 and a Pentax 67 with Ilford FP4.

The article got a lot of interest and was also published on Fuji X Passion magazine.

I decided to improve the test and use Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 film, instead of Ilford FP4 and Hasselblad instead of Pentax. The use of actual Acros film instead of Ilford is obvious and needed for a less casual comparison. Hasselblad instead of Pentax is because I suspected some lack of sharpness was caused by the lenses, and since I have used Hasselblad all my life and I’m sure were the best analogue medium format camera and optics, I simply wanted to eliminate every variable related to the lens.

As I said before:

• I know that, scanning the negative, part of the process is still digital so is not perfect
• I do not intend to give all the answers
• I did this just for fun and to understand myself a little better

How did it go this time and who won? Not easy questions!

Technical premise, the Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 film was developed in Ilfotec HC 1+47 for 8 minutes at 20C, after a 3 minutes prewash in water, and followed by a stop bath and 4 minutes fixing in Ilford Hypam 1+4.
In the image captions there are the specific data for each image.

I started in a snowy day, with absolute flat light and no real highlights in the scenes. The opposite of what I did in the previous test. It was not really a choice, but it was snowing and I wanted to do it anyway… yes, I would rather be in Florida than in the Italian Alps… and not just for the weather!

Fuji Acros 100 – Hasselblad 500 C/M with 80mm f 2.8 – Exposed at 1/60 f 8

First image, a fountain with the church in the background. When I arrived I looked around and thought “1/60 f8” then I took my Minolta Spotmeter and measured the light, exactly 1/60 f8.
I was with Gian Cerato, a dear friend and colleague and asked him what he imagined was the exposure and he told me “1/125 f5.6” and we laughed about the simplicity of film photography. No matter if the best quality is on digital or film, film have the simplicity on its side, once you set the ISO with the film choice there are just shutter speed and aperture that can be set with the old rule 1/ISO at f16 for a sunny day… the table found on every film box!

Please, note the stupidity of Italian bureaucracy that put a bar code for the water service on the fountain… an old fountain with a stupid and ugly white placard very visible from the best point of view. I avoid further comments to not get in jail…

As soon as I took the picture with film, I got my XPro-2 and kept the same settings. Last time I noticed that I always had very underexposed images, even in RAW, if I used the setting from the meter, so I decided to use the Fuji 200 ISO as if it was a 100 ISO to give that stop of overexposure needed in my previous experiment.
Now the image came out one stop overexposed, so I had to trash the jpg and use the RAW and correct one stop… All started to sound strange…

Fuji XPro2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/60 f8 ISO200 – In camera conversion ACROS simulation

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/60 f8 – RAW transformed in CaptureOne 11

CaptureOne 11 has not the Acros simulation… so no comparison here, but I learned a lesson: something was going on in the camera.  The base ISO did not seem to be constant and I was sure the ISO were set to 200 and not Auto.

So in another location I was more careful on checking the histogram and evaluate the exposure.

Fujifilm Acros 100 with Hasselblad 500C/M and 80mm f2.8 – Exposed at 1/60 f11

As usual the exposure was perfect with film. With digital I corrected a stop for the difference in ISO and came out almost perfectly exposed.

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – Exposed at 1/125 f11 ISO 200 – Acros simulation, in camera jpg

The tonal rendition is really perfect, the differences between the film and digital simulation are very minimum and can depend more on the developer used than on the film and simulation parameters.

I was positively surprised. Fuji really did an awesome job with the ACROS simulation.

We can see very similar results in the other pictures following. And still the XPro-2 set at 200 ISO continued to act properly as 200 ISO!

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 11.5 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f14 ISO 200 – Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 8.5 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f9 ISO 200 – Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 f8 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f8 ISO 200 – Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 f8.5 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f9 ISO 200 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

For now all is good… exposure perfect using the same setting for film and digital just correcting for the ISO difference.

So I decided to take some pictures inside to test the sharpness and some higher contrast subject.

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 20sec. f8 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 22sec. f8 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

As usual the film excels in the highlights but this time, with the Zeiss 80mm and Acros instead of FP4 the sharpness is the same as you can see in the 100% enlargement.

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 20sec. f8 Fuji Acros 100 – 100% enlargement

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 22sec. f8 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation – 100% enlargement

You can read the book covers in both images, and the 100% scan of the film with the Imacon 848 is actually 7400px wide vs. the 6000px of the Xpro-2

At this point I will be curious to test a medium format digital camera (Fujifilm? Pentax? PhaseOne?) against a 4×5″ film.

In my mind I was sure a medium format film was superior to a 24MP aps-c camera regarding linear resolution. I was wrong.

On the next picture I went very high contrast, and again I noticed underexposure on the Fuji XPro-2. The details in the highlight disappear and the shadow become dark, closed. Using the RAW the highlights can be recovered and the dark tones opened up, but the JPG is kind of dark and high contrast compared to the film.

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 2 sec f8 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1sec f9 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

I had the confirmation that the sensor sensibility was acting strange.

I reread the manual and found nothing useful but… the Dynamic Range settings. I was on Auto, not on a fixed setting. I will have to do some test with also the highlights compensation turned off. Basically I discovered I did not spend the right time to know the camera and test it. RTFM repeated to myself as a mantra… in this case the XPro-2 F manual not mine “Photography: The f Manual“!!

I turned the Dynamic Range to ISO100 and did some other tests, this time in a sunny day and using the Hasselblad 903 SWC, to have a situation similar to the pictures I took in the previous comparison with the Pentax 67 and the 45mm.

Hasselblad 903 SWC – 1/125 f8.5 – Fujifilm Acros 100

Fuji XPro-2 with 16mm f2.8 – 1/250 f9 – Jpg from camera with ACROS film simulation

Still in the digital version we have problems with the highlights and the shadows are a little dark, basically a lot of contrast, but now the medium grey area are exposed correctly. This happens also with the RAW. So I suppose that the Dynamic Range settings changes the ISO sensibility of the sensor, lowering it when there are high contrasts in the scene to try to preserve the highlights.

But, no matter what is done, the highlights always get burned, it’s a problem of the sensor saturation. Film is much more tolerant, and I have to say I love this tolerance.

Now with less contrast in the scene… all is perfect again.

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 14mm f2.8 – 1/250 f11 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasselblad 903 SWC – 1/125 f11 – Fujifilm Acros 100

If you want to see more pictures let me know and I will do a second part of this article and show the other pictures.

But this is enough for my non scientific conclusion.

• Medium format Acros film on Hasselblad has basically the same resolution of the XPro-2.
• The Fuji lenses are absolutely superb, at the level of Zeiss/Hasselblad!
• Digital sensors sucks in the highlights, even underexposing and recovering the shadows form the RAW file, still there is a sensor saturation that cuts and blows up the sun and similar highlights.
• The tones can be the same in digital and film, is a matter of settings.
• Fujifilm did an impressive job creating the ACROS film simulation.
• All the settings in the digital cameras are a pain in the neck (I wanted to be polite lol)

As personal consideration, I really love both results.
Film for me is simple and I dream of a digital camera without settings except for the ISO/aperture/shutter speed. Nothing more, no display, menus, dynamic range etc. Just a RAW on a memory card and nothing more. But I dream… I know!

I also noticed that, even doing a comparison, when I take the film camera in my hands I already know what I want to photograph, the almost exact point of view and camera settings, with digital I tend to find the picture in the viewfinder and at the end I take always more than one picture. I do not like the digital attitude and I cannot keep the film attitude with a digital camera in my hands. This is my problem, nobody forces me to not use the digital as a film camera!

As soon as I had the Hasselblad in my hands I felt at home for two reasons.
First of all the cameras were so simple, well designed and all similar so was easy to get used to them. With digital I spent the same years than I spent shooting film, but each brand and model is different, with different controls, different menus and too many things to remember. After the first reading of the Hasselblad manual I never opened it again, with digital I need the manual in the bag because every time there is something I do not remember, and yes, supposedly, I can setup the camera and use it as an analogue camera… but then I do not know why but something changes, can be a button pushed in the bag or while I take the camera out, but I had the image proportion changed, the level disappeared, the usual exposure compensation or the diopters correction. At least the ISO are easy on the XPro-2! I know many people hate that ISO dial, I love it!

The second reason is that I love the square format, I’m ok with a rectangular like the 4×5″ or 6x7cm, it is not too much rectangular, but the square is my preferred format. The 3:2 proportion of the 135 full frame or the Aps-C, it is too rectangular for me. It does not reflect my vision.
So, as soon as I took the Hasselblad, I felt connected again, the camera was just a natural extension of my eyes.

I would love to try some medium format digital, to compare it with a 4×5 film and to see if a less rectangular sensor will make me feel again more connected with the camera.

After this comparisons and using again my old working tools I decided how I want the digital camera of my dreams:

• Square format
• No LCD
• Only RAW files produced
• Nothing more than ISO/Aperture/Shutter settings
• In the viewfinder simply exposure data, a grid, the level and the histogram
• Diopter correction and compensation dials, if present, with a lock on them!
• No other settings, I want a sensor that will always have the ISO I choose and always responds in the same way
• A battery lasting at least 3 years!!!

Again, I know I’m dreaming… but dreams are free so why not?!

After this test I’m sure I will continue to use both digital and film. Film photography gives me the pleasure of the mental process, digital the easy “development”.

My next step, as soon as I will have the time, will be to test deeply the Fuji XPro-2 to understand the sensor limits and the effects of the settings also on the RAW format. I imagined that the RAW was not influenced by the various settings, it was my mistake.

All this said, I still love the XPro-2… just, as I said in a previous article… please let me deactivate all the buttons and the &#@%^#* compensation dial via firmware!!! Please Fuji… listen to me… that compensation dial is a pain!!!

Is Black and white better with digital or film? I compared the Fuji Acros film simulation on my XPro-2 with an Ilford FP4 film on my Pentax 67.

Lately I had the time to scan old negatives and I was pretty impressed by the quality and quantity of information available on film, so I decided to use film again, particularly for the PhoenixPhotoProject.
The quality of the images created was pretty impressive so I decided to try some film in medium format. I used to work with Hasselblad but I decided to get a used Pentax 67 and have some fun with it. Next time a Pentax vs Hasselblad comaparision!

I took some pictures on the snow in a sunny day. The dynamic range a the quality of the tones were great and I started to have the feeling that film can be better than digital sometime.

I decided to do a simple non scientific comparison and take the same pictures with the XPro-2, in RAW and jpg with the Acros simulation, and with the Pentax 67 with a roll of Ilford FP4.

The choice of a medium format film, compared to an APS-C digital is very simple, 24 MegaPixel is supposed to be equivalent as resolution to a medium format film ~100 ISO.

I measured the exposure with my beloved Minolta Spotmeter F set to the FP4 125 ISO, I then corrected 2/3 of a stop the shutter speed on the Fuji to compensate the 200 ISO base sensibility and used the same aperture.

The negative had been scanned with an Imacon 848 at maximum resolution (~6000x9000px) and downsized in Photoshop to the 4000×6000 pixels of the Fuji XPro-2. But you cannot see the full resolution here… I will figure out how to bypass the WordPress size limit, for now I will give the full size on request.

The only thing I did to the scan was to set the levels to have a complete histogram from pure black to pure white, no curves and no other corrections. In Photoshop I just checked the levels and cleaned some dust. Nothing more than what I always did in the darkroom choosing the exposure and paper contrast and using a little brush.

The point of the test for me was to see the differences with as less post-production as possible, both for the film and for the digital files.

Yes, I noticed, I have to clean the lens and CCD on the Imacon because two darker horizontal lines are visible in the sky… I’ll do it!!!

I know what someone will say so here some disclaimers:

• Yes, Acros digital to Acros film could have been better, but I had the Ilford in my fridge
• Yes, it is a scan so part of the process is digital
• Yes, you see it on the computer so you see it in digital
• Yes, to do a right comparison there is the need to compare prints, analogue and digital
• Yes, I do not intend to give absolute answers to all your questions
• Yes, one day I will rebuild my darkroom
• Yes, I will do some inkjet prints of both and compare them also if is not pure analogue process

For the blog I had to resize the images at 2500px maximum size that you can see clicking on the image. If you want to see the original size files, drop me an email from the contact page and I will give you a Dropbox link.

Pentax 67 with 45mm f4

For the first image I choose a very contrasted subject with the sun behind some tree branches. This is a subject that really stresses digital and, in fact film is quite superior.

Fuji XPro-2 14mm f2.8 – Jpg from camera ACROS film simulation

The digital version is the jpg straight out of the camera. What is impressive is to see the 100% detail of the sun.

Pentax 67 45mm f4 – 100% crop

Fuji XPro-2 14mm f2.8 – Jpg from camera ACROS film simulation

The tree branches are sure sharper in digital and there is less flare in the lens… but the sun is completely blown out and burns all the details in its area.

I consider this 1-0 Film vs Digital.

Something to notice is the difference in exposure. The XPro-2 always produces darker images than the film. I tested the camera meter with the Minolta Spotmeter and they measure the same, so I think in reality the sensor has a sensibility lower than declared. Since the limit of digital is in the highlights that makes sense, better to slightly underexpose than risk to overexpose the highlights.

I decided to take also a test for a less extreme light situation but with some great details to test the resolution. I took a pictre of the monument to the war victims of the Italian town of Boves. Yes… it is a very ugly monument I know… it was already horrible before they inserted that ugly vases you can see in all italian cities (probably produced by a politician with some power in perfect italian style ) but there was contrast and visible details and was easier than kidnap a person and force him/her to keep a visible newspaper!

Pentax 67 45mm f4 – Ilford FP4

Fuji XPro-2 14mm f2.8 – Jpg from camera ACROS film simulation

Again the digital is darker than the film, but here is interesting to take a look at the details…

Pentax 67 45mm f4 – crop 100%

Fuji XPro-2 14mm f2.8 – Jpg from camera ACROS film simulation

The difference is impressive and totally in favor of digital. I did not used a tripod but I’m pretty sure I was stable in both situations and the image is on focus in both situations. On the film, also at the maximum resolution is almost impossible to read the names.

I say for sure as sharpness Fuji Digital Acros vs Ilford F4 on Pentax 67 is 1-0

But I did some other test…

This is a picture of the PhoenixPhotoProject box. Very simple, on the balcony with direct sunlight.

Pentax 67 235mm f4 MACRO – Ilford FP4

Fuji XPro-2 55-200mm – RAW elaborated in CaptureOne 11

No much difference here, there is not an evident winner. The level of details is the same and the contrast difference is something that can depends simply on the levels.
As usual the digital is darker, and in this case I worked on the RAW file to make it more similar to the film.

Now the most impressive difference. The images are so different that I though I did something wrong, but checking my notes I did all right, simply I think the effect of the flare in the Pentax is what changes all.

Pentax 67 45mm f4 – Ilford FP4

Fuji XPro-2 14mm f2.8 – Jpg from camera ACROS film simulation

Fuji XPro-2 14mm f2.8 – RAW converted in CaptureOne 11

The last images show, probably, more the difference between modern and older lenses than the difference between the film and sensor.

Now some simple subjects…

Pentax 67 200mm f4 – Ilford FP4

Fuji XPro-2 55-200mm – Jpg from camera ACROS film simulation

Pentax 67 45mm f4 – Ilford FP4

Fuji XPro-2 14mm f2.8 – Jpg from camera ACROS film simulation

The Ilford FP4 was developed in Ilfotec HC 1+32 for 8 minutes as indicated for the FP4 exposed at the nominal 125 ISO.

Personally I like the more natural tones of the film and how well the highlights are managed but I also like the precision and sharpness of the Fuji XPro-2.

I’m writing the post while I’m listening at a Dexter Gordon vinyl, a special edition by Blue Note and I think I will never have the same feeling with a CD. I do not even consider mp3! But I also like the precision of the CDs, the separation of the instruments and the very crisp sounds.

In photography is the same, the round warmth of analogue versus the crisp precision of digital.

I like them both and since I left Canon to Fuji I really enjoy digital. Fujifilm managed to give natural colors and tonalities to digital and minimize the downside of the technology.

I will continue to use film and I will continue to use digital following my mood and the specific needs of different photographic projects.

What I like most of analogue photography is the slow pace involved in it. I like to use an external meter to evaluate the scene without looking in the viewfinder but pre-visualizing the image in my mind. I like the short time while I advance the film and the feeling under my fingers. I like to have to deal with no menus and no other things than aperture and shutter speed. I like the resistance of the manual focus lenses compared to the gummy feeling of  the focus on autofocus lenses (Fuji did a good job, better than Canon on this also… but still is not a mechanical medium format lens) and I like the heavy camera in my hands and the clack of the shutter and mirror.

With digital I get in digital mood, I shot too much and my eyes are always in the viewfinder (I love the OVF and if you want to know why check this article). I try to force myself to slow down but at the end I take always too many pictures.

It is the same with music, I like the big vinyl cover, the  time to take the disc out of it, clean it with the carbon fiber brush, put the stylus, wait for the click when it finds the groove and finally listen to the music in silence. My mind become focused 100% on the music.

Yes, I listen to mp3 on the computer while I work, but I’m not focused on the music, I just avoid the silence.

To conclude, I love my Fuji XPro-2 and I love film photography, I’m simply not a monogamous photographer!

Sometime is nice to just relax walking around and enjoying the beauty.

All the images are taken with a Fuji XPro2 and 60mm f2.4 lens.

As many photographers I never explored RAW converters before, everybody was using Adobe, I was using Adobe. Photoshop is really a standard in image editing and I used it to retouch my scanned images well before the digital cameras became the norm. When I got my first digital it was the normal choice to convert the RAW in ACR, and I continued for years with the same workflow.

When I changed from film to digital I was stuck in photographic mental crisis.
With film I used the Fuji Provia a lot for my commercial assignments, and that was meaning the need to be able to have perfect light and exposure. The tolerance of the Provia was a maximum of a third of a stop, and to be precise, when I used it in the view camera, I considered the tenth of a stop variations. All my pictures came out technically perfect (I think also artistically but I try to be modest ).
With digital I never got the perfect picture out of the camera, I always had to correct the white balance (a lot of magenta dominants with Canon files) also with studio photographs illuminated with the Broncolor flashes that are perfectly chromatically controllable and stable, and usually I had to correct the exposure curves and other parameters.
It was very frustrating. Digital was supposed to be better than film, but the pictures were never good enough out of the camera… and I really do not like the time dedicated to post processing!

One day Adobe decided to make us pay the rent for its products. I did not liked software subscriptions and I do not like it still now, and I decided to try some alternatives I could buy. I did not read many reviews or software comparisons, I just googled for “RAW converters” and downloaded the trial version of the many options available.

I took some pictures made in studio, on location, different subjects from industrial to nudes, and I opened the images in the various software without applying any retouch.

With my surprise my photographic crisis disappeared: the files opened in CaptureOne were great straight out of the camera. No need to change the color balance, also on picture I taken with the Auto White Balance (since then I though it was a totally waste of resources to use it), no need to adjust the curves on the images exposed in studio and no need for sharpness and noise reduction adjustments. Finally I was able again to take correct pictures in camera and dedicate the post processing to the eventual creative enhancements and not to corrections.

The difference is that CapturOne uses a specific ICC color profile for each camera model to elaborate the RAW. That is basically what allows the file to be converted with correct colors and curves. Yes, there are other important things in the conversion engine, but I think the support of the ICC standard from the camera to the final output is the more important.  In the first versions I used there were some little limits in the available functions but the beauty of the files made me forget them.

Going on in the years a lot of functions were added and the Color Editor, Color Masks and the layer masks are probably what I use more. I can now have a full workflow in CaptureOne and limit to Photoshop some minor retouching if the file needs it.

The point of this blog post is simple: do not listen to other photographers, bloggers and magazines, you can easily download the trial versions of the software and test it on images you know well and see what is better for you.
I have specific cameras and my own style, so I choose CaptureOne, you can feel better with other software, but give a try to all the options and use your eyes to evaluate.

So, go to PhaseOne, download it and test it with your own eyes.

Have fun and, if you decide to buy it, use the coupon AMBBARBANO to save 10%.

More on the version 10 later!

Infrared with X Pro 1

I always enjoyed infrared photography, starting with the Kodak Infrared film I always had great satisfaction exploring the infrared part of the spectrum.

When I switched to digital photography I forgot infrared for a while until I got my Canon 5D converted to infrared by LifePixel. The conversion was great, the support was perfect but when the camera was sent back to Italy the italian customs asked me to pay the taxes not only on the modification but also on the value of the camera. At the end of the game I had to spend around 700 Euros for a conversion that costs usually $300.

I decided to convert a Fujifilm X Pro 1 to infrared and this time I decided to try to do it myself buying the filter directly in Italy from Adriano Lolli Costruzioni Ottiche Meccaniche and avoiding all the import costs.

The choice of the X Pro 1 was very simple. I had bought a new X Pro 1 with the 18mm when the new model came around, I did it because was really a great deal (450 Euros included an extra battery, a memory card and the leather bag, since than the price went up a lot and I see now X Pro 1 new body only around 700 Euros on the net). I bought the camera as a “toy” to keep with me always, just to have a light camera comfortable in my pockets. It turned out I really love the camera. The quality of the images is absolutely great, the optics are very sharp and as I was used in the past with the Hasselblad SWC or the Linhof Technica I have again an optical viewfinder and I love it. The optical viewfinder (with the option to check with the EVF) brought me back to a more rational way to look at the subject, I have to think the image and not just watch it on a display and this fits perfectly my style.

As filter I went for a standard 720nm filter. I use it only for black and white and there is still some color that can be used in post processing to enhance some areas and make masks.

So I had some free time and decided to buy a used X Pro 1 and convert it to Infrared. The advantage of an infrared mirrorless over a DSLR is that the focusing and the exposure are measured directly by the sensor, so the focus shift does not affect the autofocus and the exposure is calculated correctly also in auto modes. If you were used to infrared film, guessing the focus on the lens red dot and the exposure based on the feeling of the sun on your skin, you can understand that the option of everything automatic seems like a paradise!

To have an idea of what the project involved I followed the DIY instruction on Life Pixel website. The instruction are pretty detailed and miss just few details. My initial idea was to buy a camera with the viewfinder glass broken, but when I saw it got sold on ebay for few bucks less than a working one in perfect conditions I went with the working one. Since I imagined to have to repair the viewfinder glass and I had no idea if the task was easy or complex, I bought online for $12 the X Pro 1 service and repair manual. It was worth the money!

In the DIY instructions on Life Pixel there are few things missing.

The first is that there are some elements between the sensor and the sensor support, they have different thickness and quantities and must be removed and reinserted in the same exact position because are used to align the sensor perfectly to the focal plane.

The second problem is that when you arrive at the step when you are supposed to unscrew the sensor there is a screw not accessible and covered by the viewfinder support so the viewfinder must be removed.

Third It’s easier to remove the speaker from his place than to desolder the cables.

Fourth and most important, I did not desoldered the anti dust glass but simply flipped it to the right with the sensor and I was able to put it together again.

Fifth, if you have a 1mm IR filter you can detach the old seal from the original filter, very carefully (!!!) and reattach it on your IR filter. In this way you can have the anti dust system working perfectly.

The steps to do this were almost all easy except for the desoldering and soldering.

I had to disassemble the camera first to take the measures of the original anti IR filter because the supplier did not have them. So after I disassembled the camera I had to place all the elements in clean plastic bags (the one used to freeze food are perfect) and wait a week before I had the new filter.

I was afraid to forget the correct place for the screw so I used a method learned from Wheeler Dealers where the mechanic, Ed China, used it for engine parts. It is very simple, just take a piece of paper and draw a simple scheme of the parts you are disassembly, for example the back of the camera, draw a spot correspondent to the position of the screws, do a little hole in it with a cutter and when you take off a screw insert it in the paper. In this way you will remember exactly where every single screw needs to be and you will not loose them. All the papers with the screw inserted can be put in order in a box, when you mount back the camera just take the papers in order and it’s done! And you will be able to do the reverse process also after months.

To be sure to have no dust stuck between the sensor and the IR filter I cleaned all my desk perfectly and waited rainy days, very humid both for disassembling and assembling so there was less dust flying around.

I was very surprised when I tested the camera and I found no dust at all on the sensor, or better I found some dust but was on the outside part and went away with a simple cleaning.

And… when you reassemble the camera check twice to have reattached all the connectors or you will have do do as I did… disassemble agin few parts and insert the connection you forgot!

Since I decided also to change the skin of the Fuji with some more fun red leather I was not very careful to preserve the original leather. I used the skin bought from Aki-Asahi Camera Covers, very easy to use following the instructions on their website and the final result seems to be appreciated by a lot of people. I sure like it!

To complete I found on Amazon a red thumb support and I bought from PrintArteMagazine the Sailor Strap.

I do all the postproduction with CaptureOne 9 and there are no problems for the white balance as with other software. You can see here a tutorial on how to use CaptureOne for infrared photography, and you can download a trial version form the PhaseOne website and if you like it you can use the coupon code AMBBARBANO to get a 10% discount on it.

I tested on the IR camera the 18mm and really is not usable for the center hotspot, the 14mm and it is absolutely perfect, the Samyang 12mm f 2.0 and is not usable at all. I played also with an old Pentax 50mm 1.4 that is working well and the Hasselblad 80mm that is perfect.

The total cost for the operation, included the camera, was around 350 Euros. The satisfaction to not have to pay to the customs some money I did not owe to them because the camera was already mine and not imported… it has no price!

Below you can see a 5 minutes video of my Fuji X Pro 1 conversion.

You can check what is new here, and do not forget to use the coupon code AMBBARBANO when you buy it to get the 10% discount!

Every weather situation is different and can provide an original interpretation of the subject, even the fog that is usually not the best scenario for IR, can come out pretty good.

All the pictures are elaborated with CapturOne 9.

Saving in jpg to share BW on internet is a crime and you can see it form the banding in the sky… bust still Internet does not manage 16 bits files…

I had my camera modified by LifePixel and it’s a lot of fun… soon also some pictures!