Dogman
Veteran
I'm pretty new to Fujifilm cameras, only having bought into the system a few months back when the XP1 prices hit rock bottom and Fuji started reducing prices on their lenses. Overall I am happy as a pig in poop with the Fuji system. I love using the cameras and the lenses are outstanding. But I've been looking closely at Fuji's film simulations with a critical eye and have some observations.
Initially, I was very attracted to the Fuji JPEG film simulations. The colors really popped, moreso than OOC JPEGs from other brands. I was highly impressed and I thought I could just go with OOC JPEGs. That was great--less computer time is a plus in my book. But after a few months of shooting just JPEGs or Raw + JPEG, I'm finding the Fuji color palette less than satisfying. It's a familiar experience for me. When I was shooting color, I enthusiastically jumped from Kodachrome to Velvia and from Ektachrome to Provia and Sensia. A lot of people did at the time. But I found myself gradually moving back to Kodak's transparency films, especially as Kodak began to introduce new emulsions to compete with Fuji's succes. I'm having something of the same experience now but this time with Fuji's film simulations. I'm now moving back toward Raw instead of those OOC JPEGs.
I suppose individual eyes process colors differently. To my eyes, Fuji's color palette is too warm. The greens can become overpowering yet they are also too yellow. Reds are really orange. Skin tones take on the look of someone who eats too many carrots. Sometimes these colors work but, most often, I find them fatiguing. Apparently others do not feel that way. Maybe we've been conditioned to these color tones in photographs over time--very warm and highly saturated. Maybe they look natural now. Maybe I'm overly sensitive to warm tones. Could be a combination of things.
How do your eyes see and how does your brain process colors these days?
Initially, I was very attracted to the Fuji JPEG film simulations. The colors really popped, moreso than OOC JPEGs from other brands. I was highly impressed and I thought I could just go with OOC JPEGs. That was great--less computer time is a plus in my book. But after a few months of shooting just JPEGs or Raw + JPEG, I'm finding the Fuji color palette less than satisfying. It's a familiar experience for me. When I was shooting color, I enthusiastically jumped from Kodachrome to Velvia and from Ektachrome to Provia and Sensia. A lot of people did at the time. But I found myself gradually moving back to Kodak's transparency films, especially as Kodak began to introduce new emulsions to compete with Fuji's succes. I'm having something of the same experience now but this time with Fuji's film simulations. I'm now moving back toward Raw instead of those OOC JPEGs.
I suppose individual eyes process colors differently. To my eyes, Fuji's color palette is too warm. The greens can become overpowering yet they are also too yellow. Reds are really orange. Skin tones take on the look of someone who eats too many carrots. Sometimes these colors work but, most often, I find them fatiguing. Apparently others do not feel that way. Maybe we've been conditioned to these color tones in photographs over time--very warm and highly saturated. Maybe they look natural now. Maybe I'm overly sensitive to warm tones. Could be a combination of things.
How do your eyes see and how does your brain process colors these days?
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I think I agree with you. I've especially noticed that the Fuji greens are often a bit unreal looking. Unfortunately I'm using the X-Pro2 and Aperture, so I have to wait for Apple to upgrade their RAW processor to include the XPro2.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I tend to use 'Classic Chrome' when I'm shooting colour with my XP2. Usually, though, just apply it in Lightroom and work from there. Actually the adobe profile is OK as well.
Mike
Mike
willie_901
Veteran
I never use OOC JPEGS.
Over the years I photographed thousands of lawns during commercial gigs. With LR CC I find the Fujifilm green raw rendering to require much less attention than NEF raw. Selective saturation adjustments are straightforward.
However with Fujifilm raw pinks and magentas require more attention.
Over the years I photographed thousands of lawns during commercial gigs. With LR CC I find the Fujifilm green raw rendering to require much less attention than NEF raw. Selective saturation adjustments are straightforward.
However with Fujifilm raw pinks and magentas require more attention.
nongfuspring
Well-known
I think a lot of fuji users were impressed when they first saw the velvia preset on the back screen, but the novelty wears off pretty quick. When I do shoot JPEG I pick a fairly mild setting and adjust in LR with my own presets. Fuji does a good job but I would very rarely be happy with any camera's SOOC JPEGs, almost all files can be improved enormously with negligible effort in PP.
I'm generally of the school of thought that the editing is more important/creatively exciting than the capture, so I'm happy to do it.
I'm generally of the school of thought that the editing is more important/creatively exciting than the capture, so I'm happy to do it.
sbug
Acceptably Sharp
Know this upfront: I don't have a great eye for color which is why I like to shoot in black and white. That said, I think there are some useful film simulation modes on the Fuji's. I have an X100T and shoot JPEG+RAW and will re-process the raw file in camera fairly often. With the custom settings, you can also do some fine-tuning to the film simulations. For instance, I like the Classic Chrome simulation but I prefer the shadows opened up a bit. That is easy to do in camera and the closer I can get to what I want at that point, the less time I work on them later and that is work I enjoy much less.
Jdi
Established
Interesting. I also was impressed at first. Didn't last long. The greens and blocked shadows were my issues. The greens I believe are due to Fuji's cool daylight WB. Shadows easy to deal with in camera. Adobe sims did nothing for me. So I'm shooting with Astia with the shadows eased up and mostly use raws. I actually like Adobe standard. As is or as a start.
My practical experience with the Fuji digital X series is virtually nil, so I'll only make the point that shooting caucasian people on any of the Velvias would always tend to result in unnatural looking skin tones, so *if* you have been using any of these settings it's likely the software is simply delivering what it was designed to do. Of all the latter day Fuji reversal films, Astia 100F and the Sensia range were arguably the best suited to portraiture, of the presently available types Provia 100F would be best. I can only suggest experimenting with the various emulations (other than any Velvia option) or, even better, (if you really want authentic transparency rendition), to load some Provia 100F.
Cheers,
Brett
Ronald M
Veteran
Japanese films are different color pallet than others. They are made to conform to Japanese vision.
Suggest you adjust the colors for in camera JPEG if the camera has such an adjustment or make a preset in raw processor or best Adobe camera profile editor .
I know Nikons can fine tune colors with WB menu, my Leicas not. Check yours out.
Suggest you adjust the colors for in camera JPEG if the camera has such an adjustment or make a preset in raw processor or best Adobe camera profile editor .
I know Nikons can fine tune colors with WB menu, my Leicas not. Check yours out.
willie_901
Veteran
I start with LR CC Fujifilm Camera Profiles. My default is Pro Neg Standard. Of all the default rendering parameters this one blocks shadows the least. As Jdi mentioned, blocked shadows is trivial to remedy in post and can even be done en masse using a user defined Development Preset during import. When exposure is optimized prudent shadow pushing works rater well.
Switching Camera Calibrations is simple and convenient.
Color rendering is complicated on both technical and subjective levels. When printing there are more complications.
Switching Camera Calibrations is simple and convenient.
Color rendering is complicated on both technical and subjective levels. When printing there are more complications.
I process every raw file worth keeping individually. Color is what you make it to be. If you don't like post processing, then you can't complain IMO.
kshapero
South Florida Man
At first I could not shot RAW with Fuji because my software (ACDSee Pro) did not process it. So I massaged the Film Sims to my liking. So far that has worked.
oftheherd
Veteran
I don't know anything about Fuji digital cameras. But I used to shoot a lot of Fuji film, both negative and chrome. It was biased toward green.
The old timers used to say look at the color of the box when wondering what color the film would be biased for. Fuji was boxed green. And in their film, green was strongest, and almost a little unnatural. But there were some things it went well with. Just as Ektachrome was biased towards blue, and Kodachrome towards yellow. They all had their 'best' use. However, Kodachrome tended to have the best resolution.
All that to say that if you are choosing a Fuji film biased setting, you shouldn't be surprised at getting a green bias imho.
shawn
Veteran
If you don't like the shadows in jpegs you can adjust them with the shadow control in the quick menu. Positive makes them darker, negative will make them lighter.
Shawn
Shawn
gavinlg
Veteran
The color neg and classic chrome profiles are the ones that make the cameras so good. Velvia is okay under very certain circumstances, but otherwise garishly oversaturated much like the film it's emulating.
I usually find classic chrome is absolutely spot on for most anything I shoot. Toned down reds and greens, soft mids and solid darks. Almost everything I have shot in the two years or even slightly longer has been classic chrome lightly massaged in LR.
I usually find classic chrome is absolutely spot on for most anything I shoot. Toned down reds and greens, soft mids and solid darks. Almost everything I have shot in the two years or even slightly longer has been classic chrome lightly massaged in LR.
Dogman
Veteran
I only have one camera with Classic Chrome--an X-E2. My other Fuji cameras are older and predate the Classic Chrome setting. Classic chrome does look cleaner to me than the other film simulations. "Cleaner" meaning less warm, less florescent in the greens. Reds are still off to my eyes but red is a difficult color. I've been noticing the red color in other people's photos on the Net and I hardly ever see a real red color. I recall William Eggleston saying his picture of the red ceiling has never been printed with the correct shade of red because it's such a difficult color to get right.
No matter. I've been shooting Raw+JPEG lately and just going with the Raw and using Lightroom 6 to adjust the color palette to my preferences. My only use for the JPEGs are for reference...and with some subjects the JPEG really does hit the spot. Sometimes greens look good when they glow, sometimes subjects look better really warm and sometimes red really is more like orange than red.
No matter. I've been shooting Raw+JPEG lately and just going with the Raw and using Lightroom 6 to adjust the color palette to my preferences. My only use for the JPEGs are for reference...and with some subjects the JPEG really does hit the spot. Sometimes greens look good when they glow, sometimes subjects look better really warm and sometimes red really is more like orange than red.
borge
Established
Have you tried Velvia on the X-T2 or X-Pro2?
With the new processor, Fujifilm improved the existing film simulations a lot. This is especially noticeable with Velvia. It's still very saturated, but it doesn't look cartoonish'ly and garishly oversaturated in a unatural way like Velvia did on the previous X-cameras... Velvia IS usable with the latest cams, but, it's still very saturated of course.. But just looks less "fake, unatural and overly processed" like it did before.
gavinlg
Veteran
I've noticed this in other peoples examples but haven't tried the newer cameras personally. Pretty impressive though.
Dogman
Veteran
While the Fuji JPEG palette isn't my cup of tea, the Raw files are, IMO, superb. The more I work with them, the more impressed I become.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Kind of amused to read that people tweak the in-camera settings and use RAW.
That's no use then, the RAWs are straight off the sensor and anything you think you see changed is just the JPEG rendering in the EVF and back screen, when you import into software it all gets discarded. So changing from anything but standard settings makes your viewfinder image look good, while the actual RAW might have different lighting balance etc.
My camera is set to the Provia film type, 'standard'. No changes in saturation, sharpness etc. Dynamic Range set to 100. In Lightroom I have created a profile that gets the RAW file closer to the JPEG rendering, it is applied during import.
I've created a second in-camera preset with setting for digital video. This works good for me.
That's no use then, the RAWs are straight off the sensor and anything you think you see changed is just the JPEG rendering in the EVF and back screen, when you import into software it all gets discarded. So changing from anything but standard settings makes your viewfinder image look good, while the actual RAW might have different lighting balance etc.
My camera is set to the Provia film type, 'standard'. No changes in saturation, sharpness etc. Dynamic Range set to 100. In Lightroom I have created a profile that gets the RAW file closer to the JPEG rendering, it is applied during import.
I've created a second in-camera preset with setting for digital video. This works good for me.