Clark.EE
Well-known
Looking back through light room the other day, it occurred to me that, unreliable as it was.
My old M8 did produce amazing Colour (and B &W) photographs.
The best of any digital camera I have possessed.
The Fuji is OK. At least it turns on takes pics etc when you want it to.
Unlike the M8 & a loan M9 I had.
So down to the question. Which Film simulation mode would match the M8
Files best?
My old M8 did produce amazing Colour (and B &W) photographs.
The best of any digital camera I have possessed.
The Fuji is OK. At least it turns on takes pics etc when you want it to.
Unlike the M8 & a loan M9 I had.
So down to the question. Which Film simulation mode would match the M8
Files best?
taemo
eat sleep shoot
I'm curious but do you have any samples of color images taken with the M8?
I personally love the Fuji colors SOOC, very reminiscent of Fuji film but I was pretty impressed with the M9 too for the couple of months that I owned one as well.
I personally love the Fuji colors SOOC, very reminiscent of Fuji film but I was pretty impressed with the M9 too for the couple of months that I owned one as well.
It's not surprising that the Fuji cameras look like Fuji films and the M8 looks like older Kodak film... it's going to be hard to match them based on in camera settings.
mfogiel
Veteran
So you want a film simulation mode for a digital camera, to make the output look like another digital camera?
It's a bit like asking which champagne is going to make Coca Cola taste like a Pepsi.
Why not drink something decent to begin with?
It's a bit like asking which champagne is going to make Coca Cola taste like a Pepsi.
Why not drink something decent to begin with?
MCTuomey
Veteran
The closest I can get to the M8's output is from my M9's files. And even then not the same. Reasonably exposed, at lower iso's, I don't think I've ever seen a finer 10 mpx file than the M8's. Fuji x-trans files ... no way I can get them to resemble the M8's. Not making a comparative judgment here, the x-trans files are just different, so I use them for different subjects, light, etc.
Trooper
Well-known
Can you elaborate? I love my Fuji, but I will always long for a digital Leica. I shoot mostly portraits of young women...which would you use?
MCTuomey
Veteran
Well, for paid portraits I'd take my X-T1 and 56/1.2. Fuji skin tones are very good, the 56/1.2 is excellent for portraiture, the EVF is 100%, AF is pretty solid, but you probably know that already. All-around, with something like a 24/28 and a fast 50 and IR filters, I'd take the M8, shooting at iso 640 or below all day and night.
Trooper
Well-known
I agree with your assessment of the Fujis. Thanks for quelling my desire to buy an M9/ME/240 that I can't afford right now. One day though, I will own a digital Leica!
doolittle
Well-known
Weren't Fuji introducing a "classic chrome" emulation mode which was meant to be kodachromey, or is that just for certain models?
Though I imagine tweaking the raw files to your taste would give the best results.
Though I imagine tweaking the raw files to your taste would give the best results.
nongfuspring
Well-known
+1
Ideally, modify colour (jpeg or raw) in photoshop to suit. Colour balance, channel mixer, curves, etc. are your friend.
daveleo
what?
+2
don't wait for a camera manufacturer to give you exactly what you want, coming right out of the camera.
twopointeight
Well-known
Pro Neg Standard with my Xpro1 at 800 iso often looks similar to the files from my M8.2 at 640 iso (sold) in overcast light.
Clark.EE
Well-known
A couple of M8 shots where I love the Colours.
& a B & W. But we all know how good the M8 is at B & W.
Kings Cross & B & W Nokton 50 1.5
The other is Summarit 35 2.5
Attachments
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Just to be clear from the outset, I am NOT anti-digital. I have a Nikon D800, a Fuji XPro1, XE1 and X100.
However, one of the things I have always liked about film is, aside from processing mistakes / cross-processing, you will have a pretty good idea whet you'll get from Portra 400 compared to Sensia 400, etc. This doesn't vary if you swap Nikon for Canon, Hasselblad for Rollei - aside from a bit of an effect from one lens coating to the other.
This thread seems to suggest that there's a "look" some are after and it's dependent upon the chip. Presumably, this could have serious impacts if a professional changed systems - particularly if they shoot regularly for one customer who wants a consistent "look" to their advertisements, etc.
The only answer seems to be to get good at building presets on something like Lightroom that can convert one inherent "look" to another "desired" look. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic but I'm sort of glad I don't have to worry about this personally.
However, one of the things I have always liked about film is, aside from processing mistakes / cross-processing, you will have a pretty good idea whet you'll get from Portra 400 compared to Sensia 400, etc. This doesn't vary if you swap Nikon for Canon, Hasselblad for Rollei - aside from a bit of an effect from one lens coating to the other.
This thread seems to suggest that there's a "look" some are after and it's dependent upon the chip. Presumably, this could have serious impacts if a professional changed systems - particularly if they shoot regularly for one customer who wants a consistent "look" to their advertisements, etc.
The only answer seems to be to get good at building presets on something like Lightroom that can convert one inherent "look" to another "desired" look. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic but I'm sort of glad I don't have to worry about this personally.