3 ms·
The Fuji film sims are pleasing to the eye but by no means are they close to their namesake film stocks.
by CarVac 5y ago
The Fuji film sims are pleasing to the eye but by no means are they close to their namesake film stocks.
- yesimahuman 5y agoYea I think that's the primary issue to me. The Acros one is pretty good but the others leave a lot to be desired. The Velvia simulation is basically just a high saturation mode without the magic of Velvia. Classic Chrome doesn't look like any film stock I'm familiar with. Compare this to RNI film's preset pack for Lightroom which I find are much more interesting. I think a big reason they won't ever come close to true film is that proper film simulation is likely lossy (grain/etc) which no digital film simulation in a camera is going to risk.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago> Compare this to RNI film's preset pack for Lightroom which I find are much more interesting. Sure but now you're paying a yearly subscription for Lightroom and buying third party presets. The Fuji profiles are free with the body and are pretty good for the vast majority of users. Besides if you're developing from raw anyways, you probably don't care about the Fuji sims in the least. It's apples to oranges. For more casual JPEG shooters they're easily accessible and look great.
- yesimahuman 5y agoSure but I'm talking about the pursuit of the best quality film simulation, not merely a good enough solution for most people (which X definitely is, to be clear!)
- benEatsWorld 5y agoI think they are kind of lo-fi copycats of the RNI film profiles. The Fujifilm's Classic Neg looks suspiciously similar to the RNI's Fuji Pro 160ns while having visibly poorer quality in the shadows and dark skintones compared to RNI. And the RNI profiles are definitely the best in class and built after the real emulsions very carefully, at least I can confirm that for Fuji Pro, Fuji Superia and Kodak Portra & Ektar - the stocks I'm very familiar with.