Fuji X Series vs. Fuji Pro 400H

N

N.delaRua

Well-known
Local time
10:45 AM
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
363
Quick summary, author uses Fuji XE-1 and 35 mm vs. Nikon F100 50 f/1.8 with Fuji Pro 400H to compare color palette.

http://www.rebeccalily.com/film-digital-fuji-xe1-400h/

I found this little gem on the Fuji X pro scoop it site.

I have to admit I am surprised. One, the author did a great job equalizing exposure and it it really shows her mastery of exposure.

There are some tonal differences, but overall I am very impressed by the digital files. Wish the were a little bit bigger for closer inspection.

My only interest is as an avid film photographer, I want something that gets me close quickly to film emulsions i.e. if I don't have to shoot raw and tweak each file for hours that would be awesome. For some reason I viewed Fuji's jpeg presets as gimmicky but it appears they are pretty close.

I would have loved to see a portrait because skin tones really matter to me. Anyway, thought this community may be interested in this comparison.
 
As if we need another film vs digital debate on here!

That said, very interesting stuff. To be honest, I think this speaks well of both Fuji film and the recent Fuji digitals. Both look good to my eyes. It all depends on how you want to interpret the results. For me, the results are so similar that it just reinforces my love of film and reminds me why I don't need an X-series camera any time soon. I'm going to load my M6 up with 400H tonight.
 
VERY interesting, thanks for posting it. In general, I think I prefer the film shots, but its very very close. I agree...I'd like to see some skin tones in the mix as well.

What I don't know, because she doesn't state it in the post, is how much exposure work she did to the X files. She said that no color work was done, but nothing was said about the rest of it. I doubt that these are straight out of camera...overexposing by a stop would definitely yield blown highlights without some recovery later.
 
You guys are great. I didn't post it as a digital vs. film fire starter. I was impressed by the similarities between the two files.

That being said, Anjoca, you made me think in the opposite way: why not just continue to shoot film!

Lol... now I am totally confused.......
 
I agree that it would have been more beneficial to truly pixel peep. Differences in DOF aside, i'm surprised the film shots seem as sharp as the digital. But, i've recently seen some other Fuji 400H shots that were impressive WRT sharpness. I haven't used this film myself, but plan to.

Wonder why the film was overexposed by 2 stops and the digital by 1 stop. If i'm shooting a 400 speed color film, i'd really like to be able to use it at 400, not 100. I guess it affects (for the better) the color? Prevents blowouts? Is this film really this delicate?
 
Yeah, I am not really sure why she choose to underexpose +2 for the film and +1 for the digital. Maybe she likes the color rendition of both when pulled like that, and brings the values back up in post.
 
N.delaRua said:
if I don't have to shoot raw and tweak each file for hours that would be awesome.
Click to expand...

If you need hours for working with raw files then you are doing something completely wrong. Setting up a custom raw profile in lightroom is faster than setting up the in camera jpg engine.
 
N.delaRua said:
Yeah, I am not really sure why she choose to underexpose +2 for the film and +1 for the digital. Maybe she likes the color rendition of both when pulled like that, and brings the values back up in post.
Click to expand...

Actually, she OVERexposed, not underexposed. People do this to color film often to give an (apparently) softer and pastel-like color palette.
 
This is a great comparison, and shows that the X-E1 makes a very good case to no longer rely on Pro400H, but it doesn't say whether these were shot in raw, jpeg, or what. No settings information other than exposure compensation, either.

Edit: she does say they were shot in raw and processed in Lightroom in the comments further down. Hmm...

But her note about the split-tone effect in Pro400H is what made my ears prick up. The creaminess of Pro400H is what grabs me, and I think that the highlight and shadow tones have something to do with that. If I can mimic the peach and blue tones in the highlights and shadows, I'll be another step closer to mimicking Pro400H in digital.

Edit: I've had a good look at Rebecca Lily's site, and I think I will be throwing money her way very soon. Her Lightroom presets are fabulous!
 
I have one technical question here: we're comparing the rendering of the (analog) reality made by a digital sensor in the XE-1 vs. the rendering of a (analog) negative made by a digital sensor in a certain scanner. Wouldn't be the scanner as important as the digital camera to be able to form an opinion about the results? I guess that in some cases the scanner could be even more relevant!
 
If you have spare $1500+ to put down for xtrans setup - go for it. If you are on budget, 5-packs of 400H are way to go. So simple.
 
btgc said:
If you have spare $1500+ to put down for xtrans setup - go for it. If you are on budget, 5-packs of 400H are way to go. So simple.
Click to expand...

Just for fun: Hexar AF goes for about $500 and the X100s (also 35mm 2.0 equivalent) is $1300.
Let's assume you process at Costco for $3 (processed and scanned, though I'm not sure if that price is current and the scans will be JPEGs considerably smaller than 16mp).
5 packs of 400H are about 35 bucks (minimum), or $7 a roll.
So $10/roll total gets us 80 rolls of film or 2880 exposures... and Fuji film prices are apparently going to rise.

A more fair comparison (Used original X100 vs used Hexar AF) nets us only 5 to 15 rolls.

Of course this assumes that you already have a decent computer and that you don't already have a film camera like a Hexar AF. It also doesn't account for time/gas spent going to and from the lab. These kinds of comparisons are far from perfect and almost silly really.

I'm not trying to say that one medium is better than another (I use and love both), just that film isn't always far and away the cheapest option.
 
Sam N said:
Just for fun: Hexar AF goes for about $500 and the X100s (also 35mm 2.0 equivalent) is $1300.
....
I'm not trying to say that one medium is better than another (I use and love both), just that film isn't always far and away the cheapest option.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Photography, either film or digital, isn't cheap hobby. Heck, even good pencils and paper cost a lot more than one could think.

Also, $10 camera will do same as $500 Hexar, if one isn't after Hexar experience.

And what's more important - my point isn't "film is cheaper", I say exactly what I said - those who shell out good money at once, jump right on digital. Using $10 (but still great) camera and film, expenses are spread over time. One can rent car and use advantage of private transportation not paying whole price at once. Something like that.
 
These discussions always make me laugh out loud. The passion and conviction RFF users emit is one of the many reasons I frequent this site. Thank you all for that.

One observation on the linked writeup and this discussion: No one has mentioned the process used to get the film shots into digital form. That's a major flaw in this conversation. Were they shot, printed and then scanned? Was the film scanned? In either case what type of scanner was used? Regardless of how these questions are answered the images evolved as they went through each step in the process. That said it's an interesting discussion and comparison just the same.
 
I noticed the 400H is still doing a better job in the highlights. 5th shot down the blown digital red/orange boat and nearby white wall show a pretty clear advantage to the 400H. Still, in most frames it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. Nice comparison.
 
mobilexile said:
These discussions always make me laugh out loud. The passion and conviction RFF users emit is one of the many reasons I frequent this site. Thank you all for that.

One observation on the linked writeup and this discussion: No one has mentioned the process used to get the film shots into digital form. That's a major flaw in this conversation. Were they shot, printed and then scanned? Was the film scanned? In either case what type of scanner was used? Regardless of how these questions are answered the images evolved as they went through each step in the process. That said it's an interesting discussion and comparison just the same.
Click to expand...

You might want to read these responses more closely, as Adso has beaten you by a couple of hours in pointing out that the scanning method is very important......

On topic, I like the film better. Not invested in either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom