We Compared Film Simulations to the ACTUAL Film. Here's What Happened!
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 11. 2021
- This is a fun experiment to see if we can get that "film look" on a digital camera! Links to KEH and more below!
See our video sharing Fuji X Weekly! • Fuji X Weekly - We Wer...
My KEH Affiliate links to sell your gear with an added bonus or purchase something with a discount...
For a 5% bonus on your quote, use the code SNAPCHICK-SELL at shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=164178...
For 5% off your purchase*, use the code SNAPCHICK-1 at shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=164177...
Thank you to KEH for sponsoring a portion of this video!
Learn more about Channel Membership! bit.ly/joinscmember
Follow me on Instagram! / snapchick
Subscribe to my channel! bit.ly/1xHyKVC
Follow me on Facebook! on. 16uZJsI
Follow me on Twitter! / snapchick
I’m on Patreon! / snapchick
See more at www.snapchick.com
I participate in a few affiliate/ambassador programs for companies I use personally. You get the same (or better!) prices and you're helping the channel!
Amazon- amzn.to/3pBSHQ3
KEH- For a 5% bonus on your quote, use the code SNAPCHICK-SELL at shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=164178...
KEH- For 5% off your purchase*, use the code SNAPCHICK-1 at shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=164177...
*exclusions apply
Epidemic Sound- share.epidemicsound.com/tJDbZ
Filmed with...
Camera: amzn.to/2ExBQso
Lens: amzn.to/2wgHEkI
Music: Yesterday's Treasures by Jon Bjork at share.epidemicsound.com/tJDbZ
#filmphotography #fujifilm #photography #kehcamera #ad #kehpartner
Hi! I’m SnapChick. My channel is about photography as an art form and as a lifestyle, with a healthy dose of technology thrown in! I post new videos every week so subscribe here on CZcams, follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Google+, and join in on the conversation!
If this video includes any product links, they may be affiliate links. I participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program and Epidemic Sound Affiliate Program, which allows me to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to those sites. You pay the same price for the item, I get to share the things I enjoy, and I can earn money to support my site when you purchase! My thoughts and opinions are ALWAYS all my own! - Věda a technologie
I have shot film non stop for 22 years. It’s simple it works and I don’t have to charge any batteries before I go out. What it does not do well are those times when you are shooting reduced light family functions when you need a digital camera to capture once in a lifetime events. I also enjoy perusing through my THOUSANDS of negatives in sleeves to find one to process differently, either in a hybrid workflow or using old school Enlarger and a different paper with toning. It’s all fun either way. I love both.
Very interesting, but I'm more curious about the differences in terms of color between various unofficial simulations and the original film.
Interesting. I have shot film and digital for years. One thing I can say is digital still cannot reproduce highlights as well as film. You can shoot a shot of a lighted bulb and print it down until you can see the filament. Something you still can't do with digital. In digital white is white. Also if you have an overexposed negative, you can recover it by using a bath of Photo Reducer. This can uniformly remove the silver and lessen density. On digital, it's hopeless. I love digital but it's not film.
cool. this vid might be 2 years old but as a noob, I'm always picking up new photography knowledge. tq!
The whole point of the Fuji Recipes is to give you a straight out of camera image that looks good and that you can somewhat tailor to your liking so that you don’t really have to extensively edit your pictures. It’s not a perfect film emulation and doesn’t really need to be. That doesn’t mean you cannot edit it a little or make it better. It’s way simpler to dump the jpegs in your phone or laptop and just add some grain or curve/contrast adjustment to them, than editing from scratch with a plethora of options for the direction of the edit. This way, you already have the edit and you can leave it like that or if you really want to tweak the extra 10% you can definitely do that. The recipes provide both great results straight out of camera and a sort of barrier/limitation that reigns your creativity in and makes photography less stressful and more enjoyable.
Thank you for not making this a "versus competition" and declaring a winner. It's not like that, they're different media. Since Fuji tossed out the word "simulation," it's almost required to check what it looks like!
What film developer(s) did you use? Choice of chemicals affects the image characteristics of your film, and how much latitude you have in editing your scans. That's a rabbit hole that gets too deep to explore though, so maybe I shouldn't ask...
Great work!
Another take, if not mentioned yet, is to apply film emulation not at time of capture but later in post. The Nik Silver Efex and Film Pack do a great job at various emulations with much more control after capture. I am primarily a digital shooter but also have several medium format and 35mm systems I use with B&W film.
Excellent video! I still love film after 55+ years of pushing & pulling speeds and tweaking processes. Fuji does a great job with their films & cameras! Thanks for sharing; the curiosity; and the effort to explore! 🙏
I'm a big Fuji fan here, I own three of their X Series cameras. Film SIms look nothing like the film stocks they are based on, but they are cool nevertheless. At a minimum, they take some of the sterile, Digital harshness out of the images and are fun to play around with.
Agreed. I shoot film (mostly 120) 99% of the time, but love my Fuji digital cameras and original Canon 5D. I think so many of these "recipes" (I hate that term for these) look fantastic, I mean really really great. But they don't look like the film stocks they're trying to emulate. I wish they would just name them something else.
I agree. Occasionally the WB will just right that I’ll get a sim recipe looking very close, but it’s rare. If I want the film look, I shoot film or use film presets for LR which are closer approximations to the actual stock.
Years ago, when flagship DSLR cameras had 12 megapixel sensors, I read that Kodachrome 25 24 x 36 mm images had about 25 megapixels of information. After this comparison, I really believe it. My Nikon F2 bodies work great, but I don't see giving up my 45 megapixel sensors. However, everything I learned in my darkroom work with black and white and color printing, every experiment I tried with Zone VI Workshop pushing gray scales, I can use in making better digital photographs. Thanks for this great video. You inspire me.
I've shot a lot of Kodachrome 25 (24 x 36 mm) - processed by Kodak, and I find it hard to believe that the resolution was 25 megapixels. When projected on a large screen, the resolution never seemed to be greater than about 10 megapixels.. Would appreciate hearing other people's experience with this film/resolution....
I made many 8x10 images back in the 60s and 70s, from 35mm negs, including some cibachromes.
I'd be amazed if the resolution was more than 6mp.
@@keitha.9788 - Yes indeed, Kodachrome 25 had the highest resolution of any transparency color film in history. Fujichrome Velvia was a close #2.
@@keitha.9788 - That could possibly be a result of the fact that the typical screen used for projection often had a slightly rough surface which might have seemed to limit the resolution of what you're viewing. But I admit that's just a wild guess. Also, film grain and digital pixels are hardly analogous. Kind of hard to know how to accomplish a meaningful comparison unless you have a scientific mind. I happen to believe that Kodachrome 25 film offered more than just a 25 megapixel resolution.
Film resolution is hard to evaluate because you are usually seeing the result through one or more processes that may have lower resolution than the film. All chemical print processes, including cibachrome add significant blurring of detail in my experience. Actual film resolution can only be properly evaluated using a good quality microscope and lighting that does not accentuate grain by diffraction. Getting that resolution into a visible image is another question. Prints from film, digitally printed from good negative or chrome scans are always perceptually sharper that wet process prints. But practically speaking, I've made and sold countless 32x40 (in) prints from 12 Mp files (Nikon D3) that I NEVER could have made with any film 35mm film by any process including scanning. And most were shot at ISO 400 compared to ISO 25 for Kodachrome.
I've shot Portra in my Leica M3, and my Fuji x-Pro3 side by side and I'll never go back to 35 mm film unless I feel particularly nostalgic for the 60+ year old mechanical M3. Scans from well exposed 4X5 negatives made with my 90 mm Fujinon are another matter, but who can afford a 4X5 digital back!
great comparison guys thanks I have the X100f love that wee beast with a passion, I also shoot various other cameras both film digital 35mm 120 etc etc I think for me it comes down enjoyment I can't live and work without digital it's just so instant flexible reliable and basically easy, the fun part comes from shooting film as you really have to get things right before you expose the film then you have the nervous wait to dev the film then print or digitise to post or print, it's just all very enjoyable. The film grain I love it's authentic and timeless. I shot a frame of my last born a few months ago on Rollei RPX 400 in an old Oly rangefinder I look at it now and it takes me back to photographs I shot in the 80s and 90s, just has a lovely feel to it. Top vid guys regards Paul
Please do some comparisons with color simulations vs film. Great video!
Related issue: do you have better results shooting in color (film or digital) and then converting to black and white? I find I can make the blacks deeper and the whites cleaner in Lightroom with the B&W adjustments when I shoot in color and then convert to b&w.
Really nice and fair comparison. Sometimes I get tired of young people saying that digital always delivers much better and accurate results, while my own personal experience is that 15 years ago, when my son was a baby I never got the same results from my prehistoric digicam and from my 35mm reflex cameras, my son's eyes are green and with the tiny sensor of that Canon PowerShot they just looked sort of brownish, but of course I've got to accept that digital has grown immensely while film is the same glorious film that we already know and love...
Would have been useful, I think, to adjust the a couple of the 100V jpgs for exposure at least to more closely compare the images. I’ve been playing with Fujifilm and Fuji Weekly film sims for years and I find that I can get Tri-X and HP5 sims to very closely match my Epson V600 scans. Color is another matter; there is a vague similarity and occasionally I’ll get very close to the actual film, but it’s not often.
I’d love to see you guys try.
I'm also a big fan of Fuji x-tran cameras getting into film photography, especially on old cameras. This video is great! I myself got similar results as need to push the film a little to get the best results. Also noticed that sometimes film raw can be very tolerant on high contrast scenes.
I don't use Fujifilm cameras, but I love to convert my digital images to black and white, often using Silver Efex Pro to do so. I also shoot a lot of film including black and white so have some familiarity with the differences. The software has film simulation pre-sets, among many other presets to get a variety of different monotone looks. It's a black hole of options, for sure, but the film simulations seem fairly accurate to me. Thanks for this video.
I started shooting film a year ago,that was my first experience with photography in general,a year later I turned into digital too.
My experience is that when you show someone the simulation and then the original little does it change and especialy when it comes to social media not many people seem to realise with all the downgrading that the image goes through.The big difference comes down to side by side comparison and I feel that there is no way to quite get the film feeling due to the nature of the two medium,the one is processing pixels,the other is filling a blank sheet with tones of different chemical reactions.The second one doesn't care about details it just does its own thing,where digital most likely has the code that helps it identify objects that photographers may care.
I don't mind either,I don't prefer either, I do have a soft spot for high speed B&W film that I feel that simulations aren't nearly close to get there, but i can also say that I would prefer every day to do my editing on the pc with a RAW picture rather than over an enlarger (no matter how enjoyable it was) or from a RAW picture of the negative (which even though it is good enough it's not the same if you had the RAW picture from the camera right away).
I just like both what can I say.
Nice video. You should try de-noising the film “scans” in post.
Also get yourself a grayscale target from a company such as XRite. Might really help balance the shots and with the film vs digital comparisons.
Great video Leigh and Raymond, very informative and entertaining. Yes, I would love to see a similar video with color film please.
Hey Leigh: What is the best Photoshop plug-in to simulate B&W films like Ilford Delta, Tri-C, etc.?
I still shoot a roll of film every month. I learned by shooting film in the 70s, and I still love the look to this day. Although I'm impressed with the Fuji, I'll probably keep shooting film on my old Yashica FX-2. I know when I want that look. BTW, automobiles look better on film. I don't know why, but they do.
It’s been a while since I have shot and scanned 35mm but still own my Leica MP. When I did my testing a long time ago I came to the conclusion that I could extract about 18MP of detail from a high quality lab scan e.g. using a flex tight. I still use that figure today when deciding the max size to print a 35mm shot. Problem is there a no high quality scanners available anymore, forcing everyone to use macro digital capture. Not something I’ve tried yet but maybe I will one of these days.
Nice comparisons. Do you have any plans of doing this with chrome samples? When I worked in a photo lab back in the day I was spoiled. I would often over expose my negative film by a stop and then add a button or two to the exposure making the print. Made for rich colors and a feeling I liked with the prints. After not working in the lab and not having a local lab to work with I was less satisfied with my negative prints and turned more to chrome so I could control more of the result. I really want to start scanning these older slides and negatives but still need to get set up to do that. Great video, I look forward to more!
I have a roll of Elite Chrome on my desk right now that I need to send out! I think we will do a color comparison but it will take a bit of time to plan it out. I'll keep in mind your request!
I shoot Sony and Fuji, I tweaked a few of the Fuji film simulations to my liking and then I was able to match them in my Sony, changing the settings in a picture profile. It takes some practice, trial and error but I now have 4-5 film simulations in all my Sony cameras
Now that would be a very interesting read as how you managed that as I am a Sony user myself and only way I got the Enorma simulation to Sony files as a LUT import in Luminar.
I'm such a huge fan of grain in my images. Its cool to see the differences you presented. Nice work!
You guys should try medium format and onto large format. That would be cool
I scannt a lot of negatives from the 90‘s that I Shot with my Olympus and my canon 5 (rebel) and what I found is that many of the pictures I liked were not sharp. But they where pleasing to the eye. And when I zoomed in the grain was the only sharp thing. So to me the difference between digital and film is that you capture the grain while you shoot and this makes a difference. And if you change the film format to bigger formats your results get even stranger and better.
Film curve actually is log file, instead of profile provide in development softwares. They problems we are the Raw file is constraint by the softwares or industrial expected.
This is very interesting. I will also be interested in seeing the difference between various types of color film stock and and digital.
Thank you!
Next, get yourselves to a dark room and do the whole processing and printing of B&W pictures, then compare. It's quite an experience and a lot of fun.
How do you photograph your negatives to get raw files?
The process is ever-evolving but I have a couple videos where I have discussed it. Here's a good one to start with... czcams.com/video/mHzUvRQwjNo/video.html I do have another video coming soon with a gadget that helps, and we have a longer project planned where we go more in-depth in the process. :)
Interesting... do they make a simulation for VP S
I'm doing something similar with Trix and Tmax emulations and it's pretty... good.
Simulation vs replication, it's different right? Also, the simulation on their default are really flat, you have to change the other settings like highlights and shadows.
This is so flawed. First, you are using a Bayer matrix based sensor on the Z7 to scan the film into the digital world. You immediately lose the microcontrast inherent in b&w film stock because the bayer matrix is interpolated. Scan this film on a true RBG scanner like the Imacon or better yet a drum scanner, and this will be immediately evident. The film looks flat precisely because of your scanning method. This makes a huge difference. Essentially you are taking a digital picture of a black and white negative. This immediately invalidates the comparison. Because you are now looking at the output of the camera “scanner”. True scanners have adjustments prior to scanning to adjust output to the film characteristic curve. 2nd, if you are comparing print output, then one needs to actually print the black and white negative onto high quality black and white paper via the chemical process. The difference between that and a digital print will be immediately noticeable. Third, there are virtually grainless b&w stock in 35mm, and serious landscape photographers use medium or large format b&w film to minimize grain as well, and this
will blow digital away. I had a custom b&w lab for 20 years, so I know what I’m talking about.
Limiting "funnel" here is the fact film has been digitized and processed using image processing software which can bend the digitized film image into what the desired image result would be or bend the digital image file into much the same.
The film image would have a very different result if the film image was printed using the traditional wet darkroom process using the highest quality projection optics, enlarger, silver gelatin print papers and such. The other serious limitation is the 35mm film size. If these B&W images were produced with a traditional film work flow on 5"x7" sheet film with the best optics, good view camera and talented/skilled/creative artist/photographer that would be a better comparison to any digital B&W print making process.
When matching the general exposure/contrast of the film image to the digital, the results are almost inevitably very similar, when viewing from a distance or not zoomed in. That being said, I can almost always tell a digital photo with any film simulation applied to actual film by looking at the grain structures. Other differences are that digital cameras often have less noise in the shadows and film has a smoother roll off in the highlights. Whilst it's a complex subject, dynamic range of film is comparable to current digital cameras. It's only been fairly recently that digital sensors have matched film in terms of Dynamics range. The DR achieved in a single image is dependent on a number of factors including film stock, exposure of the negative, developers used, chemical temperatures, developing techniques and the printing process. Scanning the resultant negative is another step which can affect the result where multi-pass scanning can impact the resultant DR in the digital image as well. The resultant grain is also dependent on a number of factors, the main ones being film stocks used, developers, exposure, developing techniques and scanning vs wet printing. Films can range from very grainy such as Kodak 3200 to the virtually grainless Adox CMS 20 which can out-resolve lenses with almost no grain, even at huge enlargements. So saying that film is always more grainy that digital, isn't necessarily true (without even pointing out that film isn't the same as digital noise...). Any film vs digital comparison is fraught with difficulty, even ignoring the pointless "what is better" argument. They're different. It's even more different when comparing a silver gelatin vs ink jet print. The one doesn't match the other and maybe that's where it should be left - Two different approaches to achieving a photo.
It's difficult to produce a universal film simulation because there is no one universal 'film look' for any one film stock. So much depends on film development, choice of chemistry and processing technique.
I will link to Ted Vieira's comparison with the Acros 100 film versus the Fuji simulation. But he pushed his film to 400 ISO, take a look at the difference, if you are like me, you will be quiet impressed with the difference. Pushing the film to 400 exaggerated the contrast that works quite well with this film. In this short video, jump to the 1:30 mark with his information about the "push." czcams.com/video/bwk9xMsgQlE/video.html In fact it is his video that has sent me back to shooting B&W with Acros, pushing it, developing the negative then scanning the negative image into my computer.
Some beautiful Anselesque images!
Nice video
You say they look almost identical. I think they look very different.
I wish you would have tried with adding grain in lightroom.
Also, your discussion of dynamic range is flawed. Negative film stock, both black and white and particularly color, has huge dynamic range, which is enhanced by careful film exposure and development in black and white, i.e. the zone system. Digital sensors have a straight line curve. They clip highlights after a photosite is saturated in a highlight area. It is blown. No detail can be extracted. B&W film has a pronounced curve in the highlight areas. This is called the shoulder of the charteristic curve. This prevents highlights from clipping. There is detail that can be had from that area. This is basic sensitometry.
In my opinion, Acros looks extremely flat and dull, either film or sim. I much prefer the punchy contrast of Kodak films.
I developed B/W negatives and prints back in the late 60s thru early 70s. This whole business of simulating film seems rather silly.
Up next: simulated winding film on reels in a pitch-black room in preparation for development. Chemical smells will add extra authenticity.
Recently I tried to get my Cat to simulate my Dog, unfortunately in the end the Cat was still a Cat and the Dog was still a Dog..... :)
This is not a criticism of your presentation, but IMHO, film simulation is rather pointless. Any film emulsion can be made to take on different looks depending on the developer used. Using something like Pyro or Pota, a BW emulsion could easily cope with 12 ~13 stops of dynamic range. This alone makes digital film simulation just a gimmick. People at times, try and simulate grain by adding digital noise. This never works. Grain is the the fundamental part of the film, noise is an unwanted artefact of a weak signal. I guess these simulations could be thought of effects and probably fun to play with.