Dogman
Veteran
Neither. First photo is too warm, like most things Fuji. Second photo is too cool, almost Ektachrome 64ish.
I prefer monochrome. From Raw.
I prefer monochrome. From Raw.
Classic Neg vs RAW image comparison
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 5K
View Range
Well-known
Huss, profiles are not presets. Just because Adobe LR uses its default profiles doesn't mean you shouldn't use any of the other profiles available in LR. Also you can make your own profile using one of the X-Rite products.
Remember raw is not an image. Some profile has to be used in a raw converter to take the data in the raw file's table and convert it to an image. There are a lot more than two profiles available.
Remember raw is not an image. Some profile has to be used in a raw converter to take the data in the raw file's table and convert it to an image. There are a lot more than two profiles available.
Huss
Veteran
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Caught in between Huss...
I like the sky in ‘classic neg’
And the bottom blue base of wall in RAW
Go figure 🙄
I like the sky in ‘classic neg’
And the bottom blue base of wall in RAW
Go figure 🙄
Huss
Veteran
See that's my dilemma!
I think the sky in the RAW is too blue/digital looking. Of course that can be adjusted but the point of using jpegs vs RAW is to not have to adjust stuff. At least for me!
I think I will just go w the Classic Neg for a while and see how it goes. Using this new software is like using new hardware - it takes a little while to get used to it.
This is to be a stand in until my regular film dev comes back online (my shops are temporarily closing).
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Well, yeah!
That’s always the dilemma. It’s always going to be the dilemma🙂 Any camera, any time.
And not just for you.
When there was nothing but film and film cameras, and someone only had one camera, one had to accept the fact that somedays you had a situation that screamed out for Kodachrome, and the camera was loaded with Portra 160. Or, vice versa. And you lived with it, just took the shot and moved on. This situation bothered some people to some extent. Some other people, on the other hand, just shot everything with Kodak Gold 200 for years and never gave it a second thought, and it never even occurred to them, so it never bothered them, that other options might give them better results in different situations/ different subjects/different goals.
These latter people are the SOOC jpg. people. There is not only nothing wrong with that, it’s so much simpler there is a beauty in that.
But, it’s limiting. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s limiting.
The problem with digital and the advent of RAW capturing is that it opens up such a large window on so many different results that can be achieved from one single “capture”, so many different “looks”, that you can achieve results head and shoulders above what any jpg. result will ever be able to provide. These new possibilities are great. They are also a time killing rabbit hole for anyone with any hint of OCD such as myself. 🙂 As much as I understand the allure of the SOOC lifestyle, and as often as I have tried to force myself to stay there, it’s impossible. The itch to explore possibilities which don’t exist with SOOC always needs to be scratched.
That was one of the great things about film. You pressed the shutter, dropped them off at the drugstore, and two days later you picked them up and found out which ones “came out”. The ones that “came out” you put in a shoe box and that was that. Happy and satisfied. The rest of the day was totally free to do something else, like get blottoed on St. Patrick’s day. Shooting jpgs. offers almost as much freedom.
These two photos in question, the jpg whites are muddy ochre-ish, the whole photo looks muddy. If that is the desired look, the in camera preset nails it.
The RAW conversion seems garish, especially the blues, but at least the whites are right. If the whites looked like that in person, which maybe they didn’t.
Anyway, jpgs. or RAW conversion followed by tinkering to make it perfect. That’s as it ever was and neither Fuji nor anyone else has any kind of a leg up on magic jpgs. They are only great if they happen to match the look a given person wants. Which they might. Kodak Gold 200 was perfect for many people day in day out. It’s like that.
I’m obviously self quarantined and bored today.
Huss
Veteran
Totally agree with you Larry.
A friend of mine showed me all the presets on Alien Skin Exposure. There were so many it, to me, is impossible to decide which one to use.
And a reason why, given the choice, I just shoot film!
A friend of mine showed me all the presets on Alien Skin Exposure. There were so many it, to me, is impossible to decide which one to use.
And a reason why, given the choice, I just shoot film!
nightfly
Well-known
I prefer the top Classic Negative version, but could live with either and focus on taking photos if I decided I was never going to fuss with what came out of the camera.
Not for nothing but this was part of the reason I bought (and still use) an M9, I really like what comes out of there without much temptation to futz with the RAWs much.
That being said you could come up with your own set of actions as a preset or your own camera profile that gets automatically applied and decide that's what your photos will look like and be done with it.
Not for nothing but this was part of the reason I bought (and still use) an M9, I really like what comes out of there without much temptation to futz with the RAWs much.
That being said you could come up with your own set of actions as a preset or your own camera profile that gets automatically applied and decide that's what your photos will look like and be done with it.
benlees
Well-known
This thread is a great warning to the rabbit hole known as colour RAW files. I've discovered over the years my ears don't work that well, I have poor taste (in all meanings!), and, so, it is inevitable my eyes are flawed and only getting worse: I stick to in camera JPGs. If they're "wrong" I might not even know it!
Huss
Veteran
The thing about a great jpeg sooc is that it also is a smaller file than a RAW.
So less file space being used, less time futzing.
That is if you like the jpeg output!
Fuji has lots of film sim presets in camera. I'm playing with this one as I predominantly shoot color neg film and this is meant to be the closest to that. So for when I can't do the real thing, I'm hoping this will do.
I have pushed down the highlight curve in camera as the standard setting blows out anything bright.
Which actually is opposite the behavior of colour neg film.
So less file space being used, less time futzing.
That is if you like the jpeg output!
Fuji has lots of film sim presets in camera. I'm playing with this one as I predominantly shoot color neg film and this is meant to be the closest to that. So for when I can't do the real thing, I'm hoping this will do.
I have pushed down the highlight curve in camera as the standard setting blows out anything bright.
Which actually is opposite the behavior of colour neg film.
shawn
Veteran
That can be a great way to go. In Lightroom after getting a preset one likes LR can be set to always apply that as the default (per camera serial number) so your RAWs will already have a finished look to them. But since it is still RAW you have the ability to go back to scratch if desired. Can save a lot of time.
Shawn
shawn
Veteran
If you are working on tweaking the JPEG engine try Fuji X Raw Studio. It makes it dramatically easier to try all the settings and see the changes in real time. Once you find what you like you can put those settings into the camera directly. It is a great utility.
Shawn
Huss
Veteran
Thanks for the tip Shawn.
Ste_S
Well-known
It's not the RAW that's too blue/digital, it's the default Adobe colour profile you're using.
You're essentially comparing Adobe Colour jpg vs Fuji Classic Neg jpg.
Huss
Veteran
Yes, the RAW is just raw data captured.
To view it, it is shown as a jpeg image. As I am using LR, it would be Adobe's take.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I prefer the Fuji to the LR, but prefer real Fuji Pro400H even better (and I hate that - I'd prefer digital to be as good!).
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
Huss, just some food for thought:
I’ve spent a few years on the streets with the X-Pro2 and now the X-Pro3 and other than a couple of days when I used the Acros sim, I always shoot with the color film simulations (JPEG only, never RAW). While I think all the film simulations are great and have their own unique look, I always wind up going back to “Astia”.
Astia by Fujifilm’s definition is for softer color and contrast for a more subdued look.
I don’t agree with that definition, I see Astia as being the one simulation that gives me the colors and contrast that I’m seeing with my own eyes when I look at the world I’m photographing.
X-Pro3 & 35mm f2 lens - Astia film simulation (JPEG out of the camera)
X100F - Astia film simulation (JPEG out of the camera)
Anyway, I’m just sharing info, please feel free to ignore it.
All the best,
Mike
I’ve spent a few years on the streets with the X-Pro2 and now the X-Pro3 and other than a couple of days when I used the Acros sim, I always shoot with the color film simulations (JPEG only, never RAW). While I think all the film simulations are great and have their own unique look, I always wind up going back to “Astia”.
Astia by Fujifilm’s definition is for softer color and contrast for a more subdued look.
I don’t agree with that definition, I see Astia as being the one simulation that gives me the colors and contrast that I’m seeing with my own eyes when I look at the world I’m photographing.
X-Pro3 & 35mm f2 lens - Astia film simulation (JPEG out of the camera)
X100F - Astia film simulation (JPEG out of the camera)
Anyway, I’m just sharing info, please feel free to ignore it.
All the best,
Mike
shawn
Veteran
Huss
Veteran
Huss, just some food for thought:
I’ve spent a few years on the streets with the X-Pro2 and now the X-Pro3 and other than a couple of days when I used the Acros sim, I always shoot with the color film simulations (JPEG only, never RAW). While I think all the film simulations are great and have their own unique look, I always wind up going back to “Astia”.
Astia by Fujifilm’s definition is for softer color and contrast for a more subdued look.
I don’t agree with that definition, I see Astia as being the one simulation that gives me the colors and contrast that I’m seeing with my own eyes when I look at the world I’m photographing.
X-Pro3 & 35mm f2 lens - Astia film simulation (JPEG out of the camera)
X100F - Astia film simulation (JPEG out of the camera)
Anyway, I’m just sharing info, please feel free to ignore it.
All the best,
Mike
Hey Mike, thanks for the tip! Those look great and I'll try it out.
Take care
Huss
jsrockit
Moderator
Looks to me that you can just make the color temperature warmer on the RAW and it’ll be similar. That’s the beauty of raw.
