Forget RAW and go ACROS

[shawn]

Wait, if you use RAW you can choose ARCOS in the "Profile" menu of LR. Why should I use the less flexible jpeg version? Wait scratch that altogether... I like post processing.

To get Fuji's version of ARCOS jpeg processing. The LR profile just tries to duplicate the tonality. Fuji's in camera processing is tonality (look at all the headroom it leaves for highlights) as well as totally different noise reduction processing. Instead of trying to reduce noise it more or less substitutes grain in place of the noise. It essentially makes the ISO dial a grain dial and is where in camera is fairly different from using PP like LR or DXO Filmpack or whatever.

Shawn

 

[jsrockit]

Got ya Shawn, but still way too inflexible for me.

 

[jarski]

The Acros preset int the Fuji cameras is not bad at all but it's wrong to believe that this is THE Acros film look.

Hmm so if company that does both Acros film, and Acros film preset (for the sensors that they also have developed), what really is THE, then? 😀

They could even tune their films to better mimic digital presets, if they wanted.

 

[Brian Atherton]

To get Fuji's version of ARCOS jpeg processing. The LR profile just tries to duplicate the tonality. Fuji's in camera processing is tonality (look at all the headroom it leaves for highlights) as well as totally different noise reduction processing. Instead of trying to reduce noise it more or less substitutes grain in place of the noise. It essentially makes the ISO dial a grain dial and is where in camera is fairly different from using PP like LR or DXO Filmpack or whatever.

From the horse's mouth 😉:

http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/the-newest-film-simulation-acros/

 

[infrequent]

They could even tune their films to better mimic digital presets, if they wanted.

Perhaps we are not considering the variability one can get with different developers? Or really what is the one true ACROS look? I agree that if Fuji doesn't know, who would for that matter?

 

[Sid836]

It is o.k. if one's limited to some digital format and would like a bit from the look of films on it. But, for film lovers this looks way too different (not to mention that it does not feel like).
Maybe this is how close a sensor can get to Acros. From personal experience, to get a descent bw sooc you have to change the way you meter the scene. You can get close to that, but just not at it.

 

[DwF]

Perhaps we are not considering the variability one can get with different developers? Or really what is the one true ACROS look? I agree that if Fuji doesn't know, who would for that matter?

I agree with this from infrequent. Fujifilm have every right and good reason for marketing to create some buzz and market their product. I have seen some beautiful images that used the simulation. For myself, I still feel I have an edge with the RAW file.

There is no question that the film takes on a different look depending on development/chemistry. And the look is quite different than the digital simulation.

These were from a very recent roll using my Olympus XA and developed in Rodinol 1:50 for 12 1/2 mins.

 

[ruilourosa]

Does he really expect a donation for this kind of thing? he just took some photos in a digital camera...

photography is not reality, neither in film nor in digital.

If someone wants film look just take some pictures with film...

simulation mode is the way of life today... people just simulate...

 

[Ranchu]

They won't be simulating those XA pics above, with any software.

 

[ruilourosa]

photography is a simulacrum 🙂

 

[Ranchu]

That doesn't mean all simulacra are equal, or similar. So?

 

[johannielscom]

Why make the look of your photography depend on the software a manufacturer supplies? What if that manufacturer decides not to supply it anymore, you stick to the same camera forever?

Raw and converters at least gives you the option to develop your own method that is model-independent, possibly even brand-independent.

Stating that digital B&W made to resemble film 'looks fake' tells me one, possibly two things: you started out with the wrong, high-contrast sensor camera and your skills in processing to film-like B&W are lacking. It's perfectly possible to get results that mimic film so much that you can hardly tell the difference. I do that when I want the result to look like a 400ISO-exposed shot, while the camera was on 1600ISO or more. I can't do that with film on 1600ISO.

In the end, the vast majority of people doesn't care what medium you used, they just (dis)like the image no matter what.

 

[Ranchu]

Stating that digital B&W made to resemble film 'looks fake' tells me one, possibly two things: you started out with the wrong, high-contrast sensor camera and your skills in processing to film-like B&W are lacking. It's perfectly possible to get results that mimic film so much that you can hardly tell the difference..

Not really. What is possible is to convince yourself your digital picture looks like it could have been taken by a film camera. There is an area where the looks overlap, but they look very different almost all of the time. So, if you process for that specific look where they overlap, you can call yourself the winner, and imply other people's skills are lacking after they bought the wrong 'high contrast sensor' 🙄. You want to handle that t shirt or those clouds with digital? It'll look hard.

 

[johannielscom]

Not really. What is possible is to convince yourself your digital picture looks like it could have been taken by a film camera. There is an area where the looks overlap, but they look very different almost all of the time. So, if you process for that specific look where they overlap, you can call yourself the winner, and imply other people's skills are lacking after they bought the wrong 'high contrast sensor' 🙄. You want to handle that t shirt or those clouds with digital? It'll look hard.

I can do both in one image and not make it look hard contrasted, Ranchu. Lower contrast sensors (older sensors) and filters get you a long way in reducing the contrast in the recorded image. From there on it's easier to add contrast if necessary.

Those that lack the skills to get the image when they need it to be start out with a modern, higher contrast sensor (like the Fuji XF sensor) and forget the filters. Result: high contrast recorded image that need contrast reducing, and that's no starting point to get an image that is 'film-like'.

I'm saying nothing new here. In a darkroom, it's easier to add contrast to a soft negative than it is to reduce contrast on a hard negative. Or wouldn't you agree?


Still, I don't need to have my digital files look like film, but I'm arguing that with the right choices I can. I call that a skill (since it can be learned) and those who complain that it's not possible, lack that skill.

 

[Ranchu]

You're saying nothing new here because it's the same dodge that's been used for years. I don't believe what you're saying. You will never take a digital picture of a new white t shirt that looks like the one above, no matter how much you claim you can. You lack the skill, too.

 

[ruilourosa]

digital has it´s looks and i find very uninteresting to make it look like something else...

 

[Ranchu]

Tri-X in Rodinal?

 

[ruilourosa]

hp-5 in PMK? technical pan in pota? apx-25 in rodinal 1+100? royal pan in fx-16? tri-x in 777 panthermic? agfa copex in C-41 CD?

 

[johannielscom]

You're saying nothing new here because it's the same dodge that's been used for years. I don't believe what you're saying. You will never take a digital picture of a new white t shirt that looks like the one above, no matter how much you claim you can. You lack the skill, too.

Couldn't let that slide.

Sony A7 ARW-file shot at 250ISO off tripod, Tamron Adaptall24-35mm set to 35mm 4.0. Quick shot with sort of the same lighting in my garden and an un-ironed shirt. This was Lightroom hand processed only.

The PNG compression (Apple screen shot) reeks mild havoc on it but the shirts have similar transgressions from lights to shadows.

I'm pretty certain that if I wanted, I could recreate the tonality of the white t shirt completely.

digital has it´s looks and i find very uninteresting to make it look like something else...

Me too, but I'm arguing that it can be done if one wanted too.


Now back to daily reality, there's other stuff to do for me.

 

[ruilourosa]

it´s a hard thing to replicate silver gelatin printing in digital...