3 ms·

Film simulations are cool. While I always take RAW images, I often use the builtin film simulation bracketing of my Fuji X-Systems to generate three JPEGs at th

by jcynix 4y ago

Film simulations are cool. While I always take RAW images, I often use the builtin film simulation bracketing of my Fuji X-Systems to generate three JPEGs at the same time. This often gives me nice JPEGs which I can immediately pass on to family and friends, who view them on the smartphones or tablets and are happy without me doing time consuming RAW processing. Interestingly you can generate those simulations later in camera too while reviewing your images. And Darktable has some Fuji film simulation recipes builtin too for a start. Last but not least some sites, for example https://fujixweekly.com/ https://fujixweekly.com/, publish and review various film simulation recipes.

caseyohara 4y ago
Fuji's film sims are lovely and make for great images right out of the camera. I have an X-T4 and X100V and the simulations are one of my favorite parts of the X system. I also bracket the film sims, but I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three.
- jcynix 4y ago
  > I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three. Same problem of choice here too, and that's where the somehat tedious manual post-processing in-camera comes to the rescue, if needed.
- spindle 4y ago
  I love the film sims when I'm feeling arty, but most of them are so far away from realistic colours that I've ended up almost always using the plain one (Provia) unless I'm photographing someone who's monochrome. (A lot of my best friends happen to be monochrome, and then I can use film sims to change the colours of the background.)
  - smogcutter 4y ago
    FYI, the provia colors are so rich because it’s simulating low speed, color-rich positive slide film. If you ever have the opportunity to shoot and project actual provia slides, go for it-they’re gorgeous. Velvia is a slower, even more saturated slide film. Its sim colors probably read as more “unreal” to you. Fuji negative reads colder and more desaturated (to my eye), which is also probably why it may appear more manipulated and “unrealistic” in a digital context.
bredren 4y ago
I use latest gen iPhone pro and haven’t considered an actual camera to record video. I’m filming family events, do you find using an actual camera changes the dynamic of collecting memories? (For example the amount of additional attention the size of the device draws?) Also, I shoot RAW photos on iPhone pro and am very happy with the results and editing capability. The hardest time I have is making the time to properly edit the originals to something ready to share. It seems like dealing with another transport method from a camera would add to the friction of a workflow. Do you find that to be the case? For example, does taking on an x-systems workflow mean a greater commitment to the process of producing a finished product?
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Even an ancient Mini-DV camera looks... better somehow despite the potato resolution. I think it's the optics, but I'm not sure.
  - girvo 4y ago
    It's the optics, plus the computational photography on phone cameras (done to make up for the limited optics) giving a certain "look" to most phone photos. Not a bad look, most love it! But certainly different to other devices.
- spindle 4y ago
  For my purposes (recording memories plus just a tad of artiness), my phone camera is at least as good as my Fujifilm X series big camera (and actually probably better), except for zooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. That is a very big exception. There are so many great photos I could never have got with my phone because the subject was too far away. Another positive is that you can get a big camera that's virtually indestructable, unlike any phone (but then you probably had the phone anyway). Also, yes, I find getting the photos off the camera does add friction to the workflow.
- komali2 4y ago
  I shoot raw jpeg on fuji and basically never edit. The workflow friction is high enough to cause month or more delay between taking and sharing pictures. Plus I find it tedious and boring. All I do when I shoot on camera is plug it into my laptop or PC and immediately upload the good jpegs to Google photos. From there I can download on phone and reupload to wherever (not Instagram, I don't care about it). I have plans to put a section on my website for my favorite photos. So no I don't find x workflow to require a commitment to process. It's only slightly harder than just shooting on the phone. I disagree with others saying phone is good enough. Lens characteristics (shooting aperture priority to choose depth of field) alone is a good enough differentiator for me to justify carrying a camera. Luckily there are very portable solutions for those that want better than phone without dropping 2k and 500 on camera and lens. Old Fuji mirrorless are all basically phenomenal and only miss out by having lower rez sensor, slower autofocus, and maybe missing one or two film sims. I shot on an xe2 with the f2 23mm for years to great effect. I hear and see great things coming from Ricoh as well which is point and shoot and very portable, not sure price though. I think phones take phenomenal pictures but their sensors and lenses are quite tiny.
girvo 4y ago
Fuji's film simulations and hardware are the reason I continue to shoot with their cameras today, so it's awesome to see a product like this extending that awesome output to others in an integrated fashion. I still don't shoot RAW on my X-E4, weirdly enough.
chimerasaurus 4y ago
Capture One also supports Fuji sims natively. It’s an excellent combo of you shoot Fuji. It’s so handy to swap the sim in post.

by jcynix 4y ago

caseyohara 4y ago

Fuji's film sims are lovely and make for great images right out of the camera. I have an X-T4 and X100V and the simulations are one of my favorite parts of the X system. I also bracket the film sims, but I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three.

jcynix 4y ago
> I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three. Same problem of choice here too, and that's where the somehat tedious manual post-processing in-camera comes to the rescue, if needed.
spindle 4y ago
I love the film sims when I'm feeling arty, but most of them are so far away from realistic colours that I've ended up almost always using the plain one (Provia) unless I'm photographing someone who's monochrome. (A lot of my best friends happen to be monochrome, and then I can use film sims to change the colours of the background.)
- smogcutter 4y ago
  FYI, the provia colors are so rich because it’s simulating low speed, color-rich positive slide film. If you ever have the opportunity to shoot and project actual provia slides, go for it-they’re gorgeous. Velvia is a slower, even more saturated slide film. Its sim colors probably read as more “unreal” to you. Fuji negative reads colder and more desaturated (to my eye), which is also probably why it may appear more manipulated and “unrealistic” in a digital context.

bredren 4y ago

I use latest gen iPhone pro and haven’t considered an actual camera to record video. I’m filming family events, do you find using an actual camera changes the dynamic of collecting memories? (For example the amount of additional attention the size of the device draws?) Also, I shoot RAW photos on iPhone pro and am very happy with the results and editing capability. The hardest time I have is making the time to properly edit the originals to something ready to share. It seems like dealing with another transport method from a camera would add to the friction of a workflow. Do you find that to be the case? For example, does taking on an x-systems workflow mean a greater commitment to the process of producing a finished product?

actionfromafar 4y ago
Even an ancient Mini-DV camera looks... better somehow despite the potato resolution. I think it's the optics, but I'm not sure.
- girvo 4y ago
  It's the optics, plus the computational photography on phone cameras (done to make up for the limited optics) giving a certain "look" to most phone photos. Not a bad look, most love it! But certainly different to other devices.
spindle 4y ago
For my purposes (recording memories plus just a tad of artiness), my phone camera is at least as good as my Fujifilm X series big camera (and actually probably better), except for zooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. That is a very big exception. There are so many great photos I could never have got with my phone because the subject was too far away. Another positive is that you can get a big camera that's virtually indestructable, unlike any phone (but then you probably had the phone anyway). Also, yes, I find getting the photos off the camera does add friction to the workflow.
komali2 4y ago
I shoot raw jpeg on fuji and basically never edit. The workflow friction is high enough to cause month or more delay between taking and sharing pictures. Plus I find it tedious and boring. All I do when I shoot on camera is plug it into my laptop or PC and immediately upload the good jpegs to Google photos. From there I can download on phone and reupload to wherever (not Instagram, I don't care about it). I have plans to put a section on my website for my favorite photos. So no I don't find x workflow to require a commitment to process. It's only slightly harder than just shooting on the phone. I disagree with others saying phone is good enough. Lens characteristics (shooting aperture priority to choose depth of field) alone is a good enough differentiator for me to justify carrying a camera. Luckily there are very portable solutions for those that want better than phone without dropping 2k and 500 on camera and lens. Old Fuji mirrorless are all basically phenomenal and only miss out by having lower rez sensor, slower autofocus, and maybe missing one or two film sims. I shot on an xe2 with the f2 23mm for years to great effect. I hear and see great things coming from Ricoh as well which is point and shoot and very portable, not sure price though. I think phones take phenomenal pictures but their sensors and lenses are quite tiny.

girvo 4y ago

Fuji's film simulations and hardware are the reason I continue to shoot with their cameras today, so it's awesome to see a product like this extending that awesome output to others in an integrated fashion. I still don't shoot RAW on my X-E4, weirdly enough.

chimerasaurus 4y ago

Capture One also supports Fuji sims natively. It’s an excellent combo of you shoot Fuji. It’s so handy to swap the sim in post.