Why I Switched from Film to Fuji
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 11. 2023
- 👉🏻 Become a better photographer in 3 minutes:
codymitchell.com/insider
🎥 Check out the gear I used to make this video:
codymitchell.com/kit
🌐 Website:
codymitchell.com
📷 Instagram:
/ degreesoflight - Věda a technologie
if you want your images to look like film, why dont you just shoot film?
I think you already know the answer to that.
Save money, alot of money. Make better/bigger prints
"just shoot film" lololol
Let’s say you buy a roll of Fuji superia 200 (36 exp) that will be 14 bucks or so, then add development, scans and prints you should add another 20 or so… and it adds up fast… very fast
@@agusorellana5551 in Sweden a roll of Portra400 + developing and scanning would cost me over 60usd for 36 images
Not gonna lie, I was quite relieved when your conclusion rolled around. You were one of the first film photography channels that I stumbled upon when I picked up shooting film last year. The passion with which you talk about things, especially in videos like the ones you did on Portra and 400H, really inspired me to go through with it. I know shooting film is expensive (I have been feeling that as well), but I hope you stick with it and keep producing amazing pictures and videos!
I appreciated that, Sebastian! Fear not, I'm not gonna stop shooting film anytime soon! :)
I've been a fuji shooter the past 5 years and love what I was able to achieve out of the X-T3 and now the X-T5. I ALSO shoot film and definitely prefer the aesthetic as well as the workflow of shooting film. Having said that, I would try experimenting with other Fuji film recipes and also tweaking the settings in camera to see what results you can achieve that are closer to your preferences. There are endless looks you can achieve in camera just by playing with the various setting options. One last little note, if you find a recipe you really like, try switching the film simulation the recipe is using as it's base look, you might find another simulation makes a huge difference. Best of luck on your journey!
This! I love Fuji's color science but I can never make these online recipes look good as is, they're a good starting point but I end up tweaking my own and achieving incredible results that way!
2nd this as a fuji user
I went from digital to film, then back to digital with Fuji, and recently I just decided to stick with film. Fuji was exciting for a while, but eventually it just wasn't enough. The only way I will ever do digital again at this point is buying a monochrome camera, which only Leica and Pentax are doing, at various questionable prices for me at the time. If Fuji ever made a monochrome camera it could be an instant buy, who knows. But I just can't find any enjoyment in the digital picture process now.
And that's really it for me. I could spend hours post-processing digital to make it close enough to film to satisfy me, but it's genuinely more time than what I spend processing and scanning film nowadays. Great video, but it's funny how I've gone through this cycle twice, and ended up back at film. Great video as always.
As for hiking up mountains I drag 30-40lbs in a 4x5 kit, and that's not including me also bringing my Nikon FM2n. Good exercise haha.
Thanks! And I feel you. Digital has a time and a place but it is no replacement for film in either process or results! Gonna keep experimenting. If I were to bring two cameras on my backpacking trip then my bag would have easily been 50 pounds. 40 was more than enough 🥵
Ive shot film for a few decades. I will tell you, I went back from the XT5 to the XS20 for the older sensor. It seems more like film to me than the newer 40mp on the 5. I recently purchased a used XT3, and also love that camera's look.
As I've been experimenting with a dual camera setup for hiking, traveling, etc (digital for video, & film for photos); I think I've come to the following conclusion;
To be filming and shooting photos at the same time, it's going to feel cumbersome regardless if you have just one camera or not. To have to swap in the settings between video or stills, use a tripod for certain shots, etc, it comes to the same level of "inconvenience" as just carrying two cameras. In fact, I think the ease of not needing to try to remember to swap my settings correctly or navigate menus is what I prefer. Mild, bodily inconvenience when physically moving with the cameras makes creating much easier to me than bogging down my brain or workflow through the digital means of settings or menus, if that makes sense, haha.
I totally feel you on the whole "cumbersome" aspect. The Fuji tries to tackle this with a feature called Movie Optimized Control that allows you to quickly toggle back and forth between settings for photo and video. I didn't cover this in the video as I'm gonna go further into detail as I follow this topic down in a future video, but while its intentions are sound, the real world experience of going between photo and M.O.C. leave a lot to be desired. Especially when all the tactile shutter, aperture and iso dials are locked into their photo settings. Alas, I don't know if there is a single camera that will be able to simultaneously do photo and video as well as two separate cameras with their own respective strengths but necessity (at least in certain scenarios) compels me to continue to try! Appreciate your thoughts dude!
@@Codacolor Definitely keep trying; I've seen great results from many of these tactile Fuji cameras, but have yet to try them myself. Perhaps you'll convince me. Maybe we'll run into each other overlanding and we can shoot sometime! Keep on rockin homie!
The X-T5 (and previously X-T4) is the best hybrid photo and video camera exactly because it has a fast switch between the photo and video mode. I can be taking photos and then quick move over to video grab a couple clips and then back to photo. I personally prefer the X-H2s video images better for the stacked sensor, open gate 6.2k and no crop, but for travel and for fast switching between photos and videos the X-T5 wins hands down.
Cody, I've been shooting with a Fujifilm for about 4 years now. I agree, it doesn't look the same as film, but it is certainly the most film-like digital camera I've ever used. I've generally found film recipes to be disappointing and I find that they rely way too heavily on warming up white balances to make it look film like. To me, it just gives muddy tones. What I have found works well is to make sure you're shooting at at least 4x the base ISO, so on the X-T5, shoot at ISO 640. Then, lean into the Dynamic Range settings in the camera. You can try shooting Dynamic Range: DR400, and it'll give you a softer shoulder on your highlights that feels more filmic. Also there is D Range Priority that can be used. It uses a combination of the Dynamic Range plus your Tone Curve to optimize overall image tonality. I find it tends to look a little too low contrasty, though, especially when it's on the higher setting. But, I might suggest trying out something like the Classic Negative or Nostalgic Negative film simulation, plus DR-400, and a tone curve with -2 highlights and maybe 0 or -1 shadows. See if it gets you closer to where you want to be. I'd avoid messing with the white balance color tweaks, in general, and just roll with the native color the film simulations offer. In this sense, it'll be more like shooting a different film stock that you've never shot before instead of trying to emulate one you are looking for.
For everything I have read, saw and try by myself, I concluded that, when digital tries to simulate film, the best it can achieve is to simulate the tones, but it lacks the texture and density that caracterize the analogue films.
That's why I don't understand all the excitement about the Fuji recipes. I tried, but I've come to the same conclusion that you have come to. So I sold the Fuji equipment and got back to my Nikons to get my jpegs that, for me, come out absolutely right, after taking the time to fine-tune the Picture Control. And they have dozen to download and install on the camera.
Your videos are real first class.
I am so glad to finally hear someone else say that these recipes don’t look like film, lol. And while a few, emphasis on “few” can look decent, I don’t think I’ve seen one with good skin tones. I’ve gone back to shooting RAW and using presets, mostly Mastin Labs, to get the look I want. I don’t mind the post.
I don't know if it'll ever truly look like film but I'm sure with the right amount of tweaking and experimenting with creating presets I'll be able to get something that's "good enough."
My recommendation for the film sims is to add in the editing afterwards when shooting RAW. This will still give you all the raw editing power while starting from a good base.
Old Olympus Pen Half frame lenses are pretty rad on Fuji's. Pentax Auto 110's are fun too.
Excellent Review Cody!! Nothing compares to shooting the real film!!!
Thanks so much! Couldn't agree more.
great video, where the dog harness and goggles are from? many thanks in advance
Can't wait to see what you can output once you get the video to where you want it
Thanks Chris! Fingers crossed!
Wait, is that a bag...inside a bag ?! SICK !!!
grain, for me, is critical for that "feeling". even when I'm working in post-photography (AI generative, e.g. Midjourney) images, I'm still taking them through an editing process that includes adding in some pleasing grain and it helps SO much.
Hi Cody, thanks for the nice video. Actually I shoot Fujifilm for years now and use recepies only as a starting point for post processing. Especially if you use vintage lenses you need a software to deal with the "flawes" of the lenses. However the strenghth for me is rather, that I don´t need that much effort to turn the RAW images in convincing frames in Capture one. Mostly I spend 30 seconds to edit an image. merry christmas!
Really cool to see a very fond place to me. The Glass House Mountains of Australia. When did you visit?
My family lives in Maleny, so I visit as often as I can!
Used to shoot a lot with Fuji and Leica digital. The convenience is definitely nice but nothing compares to film reproduction IMO. Still needs heavy post processing.
Keep experimenting! Even film scans need some post-processing. I've never had a lot of luck with the built in simulations eitiher, but using them as a starting point in processing does help.
Forsure! All for experimentation. Just a bit underwhelmed by how much work they require in post, whereas film scans I feel like are already 90% to where I want them to be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@Codacolor that 90% would the lab putting in the hard work similar to if you were to outsource digital post-production.
the only swiss knife digital camera I have tried so far is Sony A7R5, hands down. People say it is a boring camera, hey, what are you expecting a good quality blank canvas to be exciting?
What about the Fujifilm H2S?
If you're using lightroom, it may be part of why your images look different in post than on the camera's LCD. Capture One has done a better job for me 🤙🏽🤙🏽
I would love to see how this develops. Can you get a fuji recipe that matches what you are already familiar with? I have the x-t5 and I really like it. It’s my only camera.
I have yet to see a recipe that does it for me across the board. The raw files seem solid but the recipes not so much.
I bought a fuji x-s10 for the same reason - wanting to get close to a film look straight out of camera and not having to take the time to edit my photos and although it sometimes works - most of the time I still have to edit them to have nice colors and tones.
Random question, where'd you get those doggy sunshades? They look like they'd fit great on my border collie.
They're called Rex Specs. Slater has to wear them because of an autoimmune disease in his eyes that is exacerbated by UV.
@@Codacolor Thank you! Beautiful doggo BTW, wouldn't mind seeing more of him around.
Cody, would the increase noise be partly due to the increased resolution of the XT5 ? The XT5 is a fine camera though. Skin tones render better than the Sony.
Hypothetically, the noise should be more fine on the X-T5 because the pixels are smaller, which leads me to believe that its more of a picture profile issue than anything. The X-T5 is definitely a powerful camera for photos (at least when raw), but IMHO the video leaves a bit to be desired, and in my experience, the colors and skin tones haven't been any better than my experience on Sony thus far.
If you want a more filmic look you should get an older fuji camera that has an older x-trans sensor, those give more that vintage still you might be looking for, check out a used X-T1 for instance
Appreciate the tip! However the older Fujis don't have video specs up to par with what I need so unfortunately my options are limited to recent releases, at least as far as my hybrid shooting needs are concerned.
@@Codacolor that's try they really lack in the video department, you can probably later if you want pick one up as just a photography camera since the old was you can get them very cheap now a days, personally I'm shooting on an X-T30II
I shoot both film and digital, though I like older digital camera more than new, and one of my favorite are Fuji S3 Pro and S5 Pro. However I shoot more on Canon and Nikon DSLR, of course the older one like EOS-1Ds Mark III or D3, I think they are good but I like the color from the camera like S3 Pro and S5 Pro more, but in a certain circumstance I like Sigma SD1 Merrill more than any camera but it has its own quirk that make it a pain to shoot in many situation. In most case Canon and Nikon work more reliable so I use them most of the time, the result are good but they lacked some quality the Fuji S3 and S5 or Sigma have, and they are far from looking film-like.
On the other hand, when I shoot film, I don't know but most of the time I don't like the result from consumer film like Kodak ColorPlus or Gold or Fuji equivalents, I feel like the picture have low quality, however I like the high end film which cost me a lot and I can't shoot them really often unless I shoot in black and white, and I still have a feeling when looking to scanned film picture on monitor that they lacked sharpness or cleanliness I expected so much that they will be better than digital pictures which really disappointed me back when I just got into photography (which I started from film because mid to high end DSLR still pretty expensive back then even in used market and I really hate how low end DSLR body feel, even today I still don't have any DSLR or MILC that released later than 2012 because how expensive they're as I only want to have mid to high end body only). I understand that characteristic later on when I learnt more but recently there're another problem on shooting film, especially slide film for reference, all standard E-6 lab in my country already ceased to exist. From cost to rarity of service, and many occasions that it's not really practical to bring many film along, and then some lingering feeling from back in the day, I still feel like digital are better sometimes.
However, no matter if I shoot film or digital at the time, I never feel like it's a good idea to have one camera do both still and video, camera for me are for still picture only and video is the duty of video camera or camcorder, I bring my Sony FDR-AX100E along anywhere when I want to get some video footage even though some of my camera can shoot video.
Tiffen glimmerglass, my friend.
I shoot weddings with an X-H2s, primarily in ProRes422 and H.265 for anything slowmo. I've found that the ProRes files render shadow detail much cleaner than the H.265 files even on the highest bitrate. It's consistent with your tests, so something to keep in mind for your videos in the future. I would be interested to hear your extended thoughts on the colour grading though, I work with a pro editor for my weddings (he mostly works on sports docos that use FX3 and FX6) and he thinks that it's much easier to get a great looking image out of the files compared to Sony, though Sony defo has more flex in terms of information to work with. I also agree on the simulations, I usually apply the simulation I want in Lightroom to my RAW files and find a look from there, but mostly I stick to Provia and Acros. Sick video as always!
ProRes is definitely much more ideal than H.264/265. Unfortunately the X-T5 doesn't offer that option. I'm guessing the X-H2S does because it's a more video centric camera?
In my experience this far, even at higher bitrates, the X-T5 footage requires much more work. I much prefer grading Sony footage. As long as I do my job correctly in camera, the grading is a breeze. In depth video on color correction is in pre-production currently so stay tuned for that!
Oh sheesh I thought they put ProRes in the X-T5, lol my bad. Yeah the X-H2s is defo more video focused, so that would make sense!
Keen to see the colour correction vid!@@Codacolor
Disregarding texture, the close to stock Classic Neg is very close to Fuji Superia 100 scans done on a Frontier. It’s a very good match but Fuji’s internal grain isn’t really accurate.
I thought you would say very biased things about the colour because it is 'fuji' camera, 'they are the master of the colour' like others youtubers. Your comments really hit the spot, like my experience with some of my fuji camera X100, X100S, XT20, XE2. I also invested in the lens with 35 1.4, 23 1.4 and 18-55. Kit lens is amazing btw. Eventually I get rid all of it because the color always seems off for me. Back to 5D classic, it's more filmy without any gimmick 'film simulation'. 😂 Nice vids, thanks!
Great video as always. The film recipes never worked for me either. They are simply not as versatile as film is, and the ones called "portra" look absolutely nothing like it.
I will say though: I do stick to the x-pro3 and the 50r now. I have invested a lot of time in making custom presets for color and contrast edits in Capture One to look like film. I just use the presets and adjust white balance, exposure and contrast slightly. Makes for a much nicer workflow than scanning film yourself and/or paying for someone else to.
A tip also, which you may already know: The X-trans sensors are made to work with Capture One, not lightroom. The RAW film sims look significantly off in Lightroom. Just a heads up!
Love the channel
Agreed. Definitely not as versatile. The raws are great but the sims, not so much. Would be super interested to shoot on a GFX sometime.
And yes, I figured out the color issues the hard way. I was able to get around it with a simple sRGB conversion though so Lr has been working well for me so far.
Thanks!
You mentioned trying a few FujiXweekly recipes but didn't explicitly mention trying the built-in simulations. I assume you tried them, with the same results?
You're right. I should have talked about them specifically as well. I gave them all a try but I found them to feel even more digital than the recipes. Don't get me wrong, they look great as far as digital is concerned but they still needed a lot of work in post. By themselves, they didn't do it for me.
but doesn't film also require a lot of post production?
Just had a thought… what if you change the color profile of the film sim to Adobe RGB instead of sRGB. I wonder if that would change anything.
I had the camera set to Adobe RGB at first and I think it made things worse when I got the images back onto the computer. Reverted back to sRGB and that worked better. For my use cases at least.
@@Codacolordang, I thought unlocked the secret haha
I was surprised to see you take an XT-5 while it's a very good camera overall, I think that something like the GFX100 II would be a better choice for what you do, while sure it's very expensive, but I still think that the concept of 1 camera for everything would come at a cost, specially with the type of photography you do.
Totally get that, and I agree. The GFX was up for consideration but for my particular use case, size and weight was also a big consideration. While I would love to experiment with the GFX line in the future, I wanted to see if the X-T5 lived up to the hype in both the video and photo sides of things.
I was going to suggest that you pick up an older ccd sensor camera but the whole point of your needs is to be able to shoot video and stills with the same camera. Most photographers are gear centric individuals and sticking to one camera is very hard for most .
Haha very true. Gear Acquisition Syndrome is a real thing.
Yay film!!!
Woohoo!
I think the Fuji X cameras are good. better in some ways and gives me something workable compared to my old digi cameras. I have the GFX and I think it's a better answer to comparing a film photo. You'll still have to do post, but, it'll be cooler experience. Oh, and check out the Mitakon (;
The GFX line looks great. I was between the X-T5 and the GFX100S but given that size and weight was just as much of a consideration for my application as its capability, I went with the smaller sensor. Looking forward to dabbling in medium format digital in the future!
i've been on that route ... film as a kid ... than digital with everything full frame ... than apsc for the size ... than film again with rz67/SL66/645 etc etc. ... than GFX cause it's not that big and it is way better than APSC and as great as film ... will never look back
hellyeah
Once you touch the GFX sensors, hard to go back anymore
Would love to get my hands on a GFX100 one of these days!
At the end of the day aps-c just isn't that good. I don't think you'll find a camera at all which does everything you want: film quality images straight out of camera and good video as well; digital just does need editing. If money isn't an object the gfx will give you stunning video and better images than a mamiya, but they do still require plenty of editing; the raws are really flat.
TTartisans lenses and shoot raw. Fuji jpegs are unfortunately hugely overhyped.
I've tried 2 fuji cameras, and I really don't get the hype. The colors from the default film simulations were pretty dismal. On the other hand, monochrome was absolutely excellent, so I have considered buying an older fuji camera to use exclusively as a monochrome camera.
Still, I think there are quite a lot of people who say Fuji Digital cameras can capture film like pictures, and I just don't see it.
To be fair, plenty of digital photographers actually feel the same way about film, exposure, light control, shutter speed, film type, cost, developing, post tweaking, scanning printing, what paper grade, quality ect. Many people as you say, dont see the hype for film because its a pain. Fuji allows you to control all those things at a much less inconvenient in, bake in hard, soft big and small grain with higher resolutions without scanning at a much lower cost with plenty of film simulations to suite your style. Photography is extremely subjective, what others love might not your taste and what you love might not be others taste. The great thing is that people will continue to shoot both analog and digital photography for fun and professional.
@doctorsnarf8764 I agree photography is subjective. I was stating my personal opinion, and I think I made that clear. What other people want or like to do their business.
LOOOOOOL
dont we all
Film is film, digital is digital. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it will always be. Don't shoot digital if you want film.
Background music is way too loud; good video though
You really have to experiment with the film simulations. Classic chrome is overly brown and teal at base, 2 recipes from film.recipes, the Kodak Pro Image 100 and Kodak Portra Urban deal with this quite well. Additionally I much prefer Classic Neg and Eterna as bases. Some favorites are Fuji Super HG v2 and Fuji Reala 100 from Fuji X Weekly and Fujicolor Ambiance from Film Recipes for Cneg. And Vintage Eterna from FXW and Arthouse Cinema from film.recipes. Finally use a Tiffen Glimmerglass 1 to add some mild filmesque halation without the dreamy effect of other diffusion filters.
They definitely aren't as straightforward as they're made out to be. Thanks for the insights!
@@Codacolorno they’re not super straightforward at all but in a way that’s what makes them great imo. There are so many options to tweak image quality ever so slightly. I.e. color chrome adds some analog like highlight detail to bright colors, color chrome blue is similar to shooting film with a sky filter, clarity adds analog type micro contrast, etc. I would also use older x mount lenses or those with more optical character like the 35 1.4 R, 18mm & 23mm f/2, Zeiss Touit 32mm 1.8, Viltrox 13mm 1.4, etc. over using new lenses like the 18mm f/1.4 R WR which is clinically a perfect lens but leads to a sterile digital image that has no feel to it.