The 4th, 5th and 6th episode of Fuji’s film simulation is now online at Fujifilm X World.
In Episode 4 they talk about the PRONEG Film Simualtion.
“PRO Neg. The tonality is very soft, and the skin tone appears very soft. The rich tonality reflects the lighting setting perfectly. If you just press the shutter button without thinking of the final output, then it will just produce a boring flat image. The film simulation is most effective when you have clear vision of the final output. The film simulation is great for studio portraiture where you have time to think about composition, lighting, pose, and expression. […] “PRO Neg. Hi” has a harder tonality when compared with “PRO Neg STD”,”
Epsiode 5 is all about ASTIA:
“ASTIA is designed to be used under little or no lighting and subject in action. The film simulation is carefully designed to express the soft skin tones and not to wash out at the high end while making the shadow end a little hard. Tonality is designed so that it is sharp enough even without the use of lighting.”
In Episode 6 they cover the film simulation PROVIA:
“No matter what the subject, lighting, or the shooting environment may be, you will find the photos non-collapsed when it is taken in PROVIA. You will also probably find yourself not needing to change the settings when you shoot in PROVIA.”
We talked about Classic Chrome here and Velvia here.
Get Your FUJI X-SHIRT here in USA and here in Europe & CO.
Learn more about the 100% Fair Trade Chartiy X-shirts here
68 Responses
Astia is definitely my preferred. I just like the way it renders and the only other simulation I use is Classic Chrome for a small amount of shots.
Yep, Astia for me too – I just love the way it renders highlights, and it has a good amount of contrast in the shadows.
PrO Neg. Std is my absolute go to film simulation, since I consider it as a ‘flat profile’, which is ideal when I transfer shots to my to edit on my smartphone and throw online afterwards.
Unable to vote due to lack of classic chrome.
you can vote anotehr Film Simulation
Of course I can Patrick but it would not be a fair selection. If I was to give an honest response it would be Sepia as that is what I like for portraiture on my Micro Four Thirds equipment, unfortunately the Fuji rendition is not as nice, I find it harsh.
Also voted on Pro Neg Std, because I shoot a lot of skin, but I don’t use it for nothing else.
For general I use Provia, at night CC.
The film simulation profiles are completely useless for me.
I always shot raw.
Allow me a little rant please: this obsession with film simulation is really unhelpful. If you really want control over the final look of your work, and to ensure your photography in unique, tweak and chop and change and create a preset that fits your artistic expression and use that! (You can even use film simulations as a baseline to make it easier.) don’t just shoot in JPEG film presets or click an established preset in Lightroom and be done with it!
Using fuji’s film simulations is lazy, and your output will look like everyone else’s. art which is lazily made is much less likely to be good art. Let people ask themselves ‘how did he take that photo? How did he process it?’ Stop trying to make your lives easier – instead, think ‘in 2015, with all the tools available and when everything’s been done, how can i make this photo say what I really want to say?’ (If the answer to that question really is ‘by using Velvia mode like all the others, be my guest!)
(And yes, processing is just one part of the equation of a good photo!)
Exactly. All photographs created before digital post-processing where no art at all. Simplification as an artistic concept? Overrated.
Except that many photographers in the “good old days” were never involved in darkroom processing. In that sense they were the JPG users of the time. Nothing wrong with that. Others would spend time in the darkroom either with their someone else doing or themselves. Nothing wrong with that either. To each his own. Your opinion is highly respectable up to the point where you pass judgement on how things should be done which is only valid /for you/
All good points made here, yours included. I appreciate the discussion and you’re right, I shouldn’t pass judgment on what doesn’t fit my own workflow and goals.
Jano’s point – that there are two groups of photographers – does make sense also. Each to their own.
This actually reads okay when i envision you saying this into the mirror in the morning. And it’s great that you’re trying to improve your work, but i don’t know if it’s the best strategy. ^.^
Frankly, I find the jpeg film simulations refreshing.
What makes your work look like everyone else’s is relying on the same vsco filters, instagram filters, tacky hdr, nik monochrome and lots of post-processing decisions made in appallingly poor taste.
Because everyone’s goal of taking pictures is being unique and becoming a famous photographer?
There are two main groups of photographers: one group wants to create art that will get them attention and will be recognised as unique, new and innovative. That part is becoming increasingly difficult in a world with millions of good photographers using digital cameras. Since it’s becoming more difficult many are turning to increasingly unique – but often not beautiful anymore – images. Nothing wrong with that if it’s your goal.
My goal – I’m more of the second kind like most enthusiasts I believe – is just to create beautiful images. Art and memories for myself, for my family, for friends. I much prefer taking photos than processing them. If I participated in a competition I wouldn’t use a simulation. But for everyday shooting – bring it on. It’s not like the film simulations are Instagram presets, they’re just a certain feel and yes, they can be used quite effectively to actually express something I felt (if I choose them consciously).
I really hate how my Velvia slides look like everybody else’s…
I’d rather spend one more second on thinking about composition and perspective BEFORE I take the picture instead of hours processing raw files.
And most of the time an extraordinary picture happens because you moved your ass to a place into a location/situation where you can’t really be sure what happens next.
Luck is much more important than pixel peeping. Just my opinion.
Have a good day!
Classic Chrome and Pro Neg Hi for me.
Though, more often than not, I use VSCO instead of the film simulations.
Velvia only looks good for certain scenes. There’s often WAY too much contrast and it often has an over-saturated look. Provia is a good profile to use overall, but sometimes also Astia. I use the film simulations/camera profiles (in Adobe) as a place to START. That’s not my finishing point. If someone likes the image as is, that’s great, but if you want to tweak your images, something like Velvia is really a bad profile to start with. You’re much better off starting with Provia or Astia for a more natural look. It’s all about what each person prefers. No right or wrong choice here.
Superia 800, but sometimes 1600…but that is from my CaptureOne Styles. Would be nice if Fuji would work one of those into their simulations.
I use pro neg std, but with +2 color. That makes it closer to provia, color wise, but still more flat tonality. This is a good starting point.
Question for the interchangeable lens users: on the X10, I’ve noticed that Astia tends to give greenery a yellowish tint, so much so that I avoid Astia & basically switch between Provia and Velvia (if I don’t just up and process Raw). Is that true of Astia on the interchangeable lens cameras, too?
Astia here, nearly 100% of the time. Just like back in the film era. Soft yet punchy, and I love how it renders the skintones.
Depends on the day and light really. Love CC but most of the time i’m in ASTIA mode. A few days the mood is right for PNH doing street. It’s also fun to play with the B&W filters in camera too.
Note that I do shoot RAW + JPEG so I have options.
Since I use the in-camera raw converter, I use the film simulations. I primarily use Astia and Pro Neg the most as a base. Then I will adjust the tone curve in Capture One.
Pro Std. Hacked my X100S to try CC and it’s nice as a novelty, but the appeal wore off pretty quick. None of the profiles are exactly right for me, so given I’m always going to tweak the image in LR a little anyway, Pro Std is what I default too for the flattest base image.
The problem then is I can’t quite decide which I prefer, trying to edit a JPG with a flat profile and losing some DR and dealing with overly-aggressive NR (even at -2) or shooting RAW and taking the detail hit since there isn’t a single RAW converter which retains as much detail as the camera’s own converter does.
How did you hack your X100S? Or do you mean you edited the EXIF in post?
The camera itself, in the same way I believe Arias’ and Hobby’s cameras had CC put on them. You basically just get the latest X100S firmware, rewrite it to read as an X100T (essentially it’s the same as shooting RAW and editing the EXIF later), rip the CC profile from X100T firmware and copy it over to the X100S in place of a profile you don’t use. (I.e. when you select Velvia on my camera, it’s actually using the profile of CC.)
I’m not actually sure if you need to rewrite the camera itself to read as an X100T in order to get the profile to copy over, but for the sake of also being able to use RAW files with the CC profile in LR, I did that anyway. I also think that not only have I invalidated my warranty, but I’m pretty sure if I try to ever update the firmware or try to factory reset, it’ll brick the camera. Not sure and I’m too scared to test it, so for now it works and if I have problems later, well, I guess then I’ll just have to buy an X100T. So far no such problems.
cool, didn’t think that’d be possible but.. there you go! evidently they don’t sign/verify their images before writing!
Yup, it’s pretty simple if you’re used to messing about with custom firmware and general mods. Wasn’t entirely sure it’d work, but since Arias said he first tried CC with an X100S that Fuji just stuck the simulation into, I figured I’d give it a try and yup, works.
From my poking around, I’m pretty sure Fuji cameras could use something along the lines of Magic Lantern. What I’d like to test out—if I had spare bodies that I could risk bricking—is if new simulations or custom simulations could be loaded onto other X cameras. The S & T I had some confidence in since Arias and Hobby had it done and it’s the same sensor, processor and lens, but I don’t know how things like the X100 and X-E1 would act if you tried to put in stuff from the X-T1 or whatever. It’s not like Fuji have changed the actual workings of the cameras that much. More heavily customised firmware might be possible, or if not then at least custom software to boot on startup.
Now all we need is an unlimited battery hack.
See, when messing about it did seem possible to more or less copy & paste parts of each camera’s firmware to the other. (Okay, not quite that easy, but nowhere near as hard as writing custom firmware for some other devices.) That made me think that maybe things like the extra viewfinder functionality in the X100T could be disabled by making the camera think it was an S and therefore didn’t have those features. In theory, the less you use the more battery life you should get, so writing out certain functions should increase battery. You could of course simply cut up the firmware entirely to just plain break functions, but I think replacing them with ‘near enough’ S code would be safer and less prone to errors than just hitting delete all over the T’s. I think you could strip out or downgrade things like the exposure metering display, the clock, maybe choose to lower the screens’ frame rate and maximum brightness, that kind of thing. Simplify the camera as much as possible. Take it back to the stone age and the battery shouldn’t be half as stressed.
… But I’m mostly guessing at this point. I mess with firmware all the time with various devices, but batteries and power supplies are the one area I never risk touching. Electricity, even in small amounts like the Fuji batteries contain, isn’t to be messed with. Actually putting these ideas into action requires someone with deeper understanding of the hardware itself, and the budget to afford to ruin many bodies 😉
Sheesh, don’t take it so seriously, it was a joke!
But since you’ve started on a serious note… What did you use for a disassembly/recompiling? (or have you just messed with it in a hex editor?)
…Inserting ret (or retn/retf) at the beginning of unwanted subroutines is a time proven way of getting rid of them.
The usual binwalk & GNU binutils plus IDA, with HxD for the few times I’m daring enough to try editing hex; hex editing isn’t something I’m terribly proficient at and my eyes tend to glaze over if I try to do anything that takes longer than 60 seconds. I’ve done a lot with games consoles but when it comes to other devices I more or less rely on binwalk holding my hand and only messing with what is immediately obvious. (Hence I gladly theorise but will never have the nerve to actually put any of this talk into action.)
I often use Astia, sometimes CC, and when I want some headroom for light post-processing either Pro Neg Std or RAW.
I’ve had some interesting results by using EV +1 or so in sunny summer days and Velvia too. +1 to compensate for harsh clipping of shadows. Since the colors are so deep already, an EV +1 compensation doesn’t seem to harm the exposure too much either.
In general, I wish these filters weren’t so harsh on the shadows. I’ll look into customizing them but always forget… :p
It’s easy, don’t like the black shadows either so i raised the ‘shadow tone’ setting a bit in the menu and it works great.
hello configure their preset camera classic Chrome, shadows, highlights, color?
when shooting in jpg and classic chrome, how to set highlights, shadows, color, sharpness?
Go to the Q menu (press Q button on camera) and change them there.
Yes!! My cuestions is how do you like setting
Check out http://weshootfuji.com/2015/04/24/custom-fuji-camera-settings-the-q-menu/ for some ideas
Using film simulations is rather useless unless you are a beginner. You have the camera decide on your post processing instead you take control in a RAW converter. Simulations are great for newbies or people who don’t care. Has no use for serious work.
Wow, somebody is feeling superior.
Hahaha, no don’t worry. My guess is you are a big fan of simulations. My second guess is you love instagram filters too 🙂
I appreciate the film simulations, and i respect peoples choice to use instagram, if that is what works for them.
As you know the simulations are not the kind where grain or any other effects are added. They are basically standard camera profiles that control color tones, saturation, contrast and curves etc. Fuji simply decided to give each of them a name with a specific character that people will recognize, and learn to use in the right condition. It’s a great strategy.
All cameras and Raw processing software have profiles one way or another, call it calibration if it makes you feel better, because that is in fact what it is.
Creating something straight out of camera the way you wanted in the moment is part of the experience. It can give people a jump start in Raw even, or when the JPG works then you don’t NEED to go in and edit the Raws to bits.
Doing so just because some superiority complex told you JPG are for n00bs doesn’t make you a better photographer. And believe me i wished it did, i would be the master as an avid Raw shooter. But the trick is getting off your high horse and knowing when something works or doesn’t.
And you seriously told me I was arrogant?
All those poor landscape photographers who shot Velvia slides, if only they had had Sjoerd’s wisdom before, they wouldn’t have made such a mistake…
My guess is you never shot film?
Serious? This is your argument. Compare an analog film to a digital filter?
At least mine is an argument and not just a question… Feel free to explain to us what the difference is in your opinion.
In analog days people were limited in postprocessing their work. One of the methods was picking a certain film with certain characteristics. It was than also very important what chemicals you would choose to get to a certain look. Today we have Lightroom, Photoshop and other digital tools to do post processing. To get the wanted view you have a whole toolkit to your availibity to get the look you want and more importantly. The look that makes your work unique. Filters in digital cams and “film” plugins for Lightroom is a great marketing concept. People will fall for that. But it doesn’t make you a complete photographer. In my opinion filters is a consumer gadget.
You are entitled to have your own opinion and if you feel comfortable with using film simulations it is not up to me to judge you. I’m just explaining my personal point of view on this matter.
Okay, that’s a level we can actually discuss on instead of just insulting the other.
Yeah, in analog days we were limited in what post processing could be done. But negative film could be post processed quite a bit actually. So were all those who chose slide film beginners? No. They knew what look they wanted and which film would give it to them.
Are you only a complete photographer if you use all the possibilities technology offers? Then you must use a zoom lens. You must use artificial light. You must use a tripod. And a monopod. And a drone. And remote trigger. And tethering. And a medium format camera. And manual focus. And autofocus. And, and, and. That’s such nonsense. You choose what tools you need and that varies for every photographer. What counts is the result.
The problem is that many photographers can’t imagine that there are others who have other needs, styles and wishes. Thom Hogan can’t imagine that anyone could live without world’s fastest AF. Some photographers think that you’re incomplete unless you use artificial light for your portraits. Sjoerd thinks that everyone wants their work to be unique and wants to spend hours editing each and every image.
Not everyone is like you. I don’t want my photos to be unique in the sense that I will become famous. I want them to be special to the people I shoot and I want to do that with as little time on the computer as possible. So far nobody has complained about the results 😉
If I think an image is good enough to be worth my special care I’ve got the RAW file to work with. For most things now, I’ve shifted to using the in-camera RAW converter because I love what I can produce with it most of the time (never used JPEG when shooting Nikon).
I never stated people don’t have choices. If you feel fine with your current workflow that’s fine to me. Why would I care. However I think you give a lot of control away when you rely on filters. And that is a fact. But if the outcome pleases you than that is fine. Don’t feel insulted when I disagree. I just have an opinion like you.
Okay, we’ll settle it with that.
I know I lose control but that is a deliberate choice. I know when I need more control and I have both the skill and the means to use that when needed.
Thing is, you called us beginners for using the simulations. That’s more than an opinion, that’s quite a judgement. If someone is unable to edit RAWs by hand and therefore relies on filters that’s a different story. But choosing a filter when it works does not make anyone a beginner.
I just liked to start a discussion on this sudden filter “hype”. It is no problem to use them when it works for you. But I’m afraid it makes people not learning skills anymore. We run the risk it makes people lazy and we endup with loads of pictures that all look the same. Therefore my maybe bit harsh reaction.
All those sports photographers are newbies and don’t care. Gotcha. Same as photojournalists. Yeah, makes sense.
Yeah all those sports photographers use Fuji and pick a simulation.
No, they pick a Canon or Nikon and pick from one of the simulations on those brands.
I think you are confused by in camera custom presets you adjust to your liking if JPG is needed instead of pre-cooked film simulations.
Uh, no. I’m not.
Yep you are. But feel free to use them. I never told people not to use it.
Well I shoot RAW+JPEG for convenience….
Sometimes yes. I do the same when I want to share a picture quicky. But I keep the RAW for later when I edit them seriously.
Initially that’s what I thought as well, and I’m also someone who doesn’t use any pre-made presets/actions/looks/recipies, but I have to say that these film simulations are actually quite useful and are nothing like the usual pre-baked filters or retro-hipster effect one-trick pony apps. The Fuji profiles are actually really good and very well thought out.
Some time ago I shot a job for a client under extremely low, severely dimmed light (which resulted in an absurdly warm color temperature, causing massive underexposure in my blue channel). I had to use my X100 with the TCL because of the dead quiet shutter, and I was able to get quite good looking colors as well as a lot more color differentiation using the film simulation profiles (via Adobe Camera Raw), much better than what I am able to get with the Adobe Standard profile or with the camera profiles for my Nikon system, where comparable images always just go to a muddy matte brown with blue or purple noise. I also tried Capture One on the same images to see if it would work better, but to no avail, so it wasn’t just an issue with the Adobe converter.
I might have been able to achieve something of a similar quality with a lot of work in Photoshop in LAB mode or something like that, but definitely not from within the raw converter. The film simulations definitely made a lot of difference. Granted, that was an extreme situation, but I’m now occasionally using these simulations for regular work as well.
Also, I find that most of the film simulation profiles seem to be optimized for printing, they don’t quite work as well on screen as they do in print, so just looking at images on a screen doesn’t quite show you the whole picture.
Another point I found is that the Fuji profiles are not quite as prone to saturation clipping (one of the biggest weaknesses of Adobe Camera Raw) as the Adobe Standard profile is. They still won’t make ACR into Capture One, but at least I found the Fuji profiles make the problem not quite as bad, even though it is still pretty apparent.
The Adobe version of these profiles also has a way too strong black point, so I tend to always have to do some work to recover some shadow detail, and you’ll probably want to tame Classic Chrome’s overly cyan skies a bit via the HSL sliders or combine the image with a copy of itself converted with a more conservative profile in Photoshop because it is such a strong and recognizable look by itself, but overall, I find the profiles to be a really great feature that I use more than I would ever have imagined when I bought my Fuji.
You can adjust JPEG parameters, and if one of the film simulation modes is close enough to your personal taste, than all the better. CC is like that for me (and I was processing raw NEFs in a bit similar way already).
Has no use for serious work? I just used for a week long behind-the-scenes documentary of Saigon’s largest celebration, getting complete creative freedom at the locations I was sent to. Actually, most of the portfolio I sent to the creative director was stuff I did with the x100t, because I wanted to do this job with this camera. CC was a part of that. But I do tweak it a bit further to suit my taste and for consistency.
I’m trying to understand the diagram about hard tonality and soft tonality. Isn’t this the same as represented as curves in Photoshop, where the s-curve gives the hard tonality ?
It refers to contrast.
My favorite film simulation is… RAW.
when they are shooting in jpg and classic chrome, how you like set highlights, shadows, color, sharpness?
NR-2, H-Tone -1, S-Tone -1, Sharpness -1 (on the Fuji X100t). I never use DR settings, this is a way to protect highlights to some extent. This also lowers contrast a bit. But contrast is something you can always add back.