Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji Digital General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Forget RAW and go ACROS
Old 06-04-2017   #1
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Forget RAW and go ACROS

Interesting comparison of all the SOOC monochrome options in the Fuji X cameras as well as post-processing. Looks like that gen III sensor is the real deal, especially for the ACROS simulation mode.

http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...initive-review
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2017   #2
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look is for me an additional incentive to focus on using JPEGs
Seriously? Waste of time reading this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2017   #3
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,479
Looking at the comparison sections of the whole photo, I preferred the look of in-camera JPEG w/o grain. Nice smooth creamy tones. I presume that's pretty much the same results as when shooting Raw and using Lightroom to convert to B&W.

I don't get the purpose behind trying to make monochrome digital look like B&W film. Most attempts to make digital simulate film just makes the image look artificial. Digital B&W has its own look and characteristics that are really quite beautiful.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2017   #4
MaxElmar
Registered User
 
MaxElmar's Avatar
 
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 588
Yeah, about that Acros simulation... It doesn't look like Acros to me. Why mess around with a simulation anyway? If I want a film look I use film. Fake film is fake.
__________________
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xenotar/


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2017   #5
DKimg
Registered User
 
DKimg's Avatar
 
DKimg is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Florida
Posts: 155
+1 for the simulation not looking like actual Acros film. I'll stick to Acros film until it's completely discontinued....
__________________
DK
www.DKimg.com
Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar
Pentax 67ii / Zeiss 110FE F2
Fuji GX680 / EBC 180 F3,2

eBony-cameras RW45
Rodenstock 150mm Apo-Sironar-S
Zeiss Planar 135mm f3,5 T*

Ansco LF 8x10 / Kodak Ektar 203" f6,3
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2017   #6
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
Seriously? Waste of time reading this.
That statement is somewhere between objective fact and a mere opinion. Hope you don't reject everything on such grounds.
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2017   #7
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxElmar View Post
Yeah, about that Acros simulation... It doesn't look like Acros to me. Why mess around with a simulation anyway? If I want a film look I use film. Fake film is fake.
Noted. Please bear in mind that every shooting mode in the Fuji x cameras are a simulation including the standard look that tries to mimic Provia 100. Also do folks make such statements for the Leica Monochrom?
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2017   #8
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
I don't get the purpose behind trying to make monochrome digital look like B&W film. Most attempts to make digital simulate film just makes the image look artificial. Digital B&W has its own look and characteristics that are really quite beautiful.
Yeah this is a sentiment I can get behind. Looks like there is a market demand that is driving this. Note the popularity of apps that mimic films these days. Or the cult like popularity of the Ricoh GR cameras for specifically the high grain mono look. Either way I am glad that an option is available for those who seek it.
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #9
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Raw is for squids.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #10
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Raw is for squids.
Haha! Even there I prefer fried calamari.

P.S. Almost the national food of Australia.
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #11
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrequent View Post
Hope you don't reject everything on such grounds.
Of course I do, if the conclusion is so wrong.

The guy compared three in-camera bw settings with the LR Acros preset. If the conclusion was: "I like the in-camera Acros setting best", that would be ok.

But the conclusion was: "no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look" and that was not even part of his "definitive review" because he didn't compare raw converters.

The Acros preset int the Fuji cameras is not bad at all but it's wrong to believe that this is THE Acros film look.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #12
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Fair enough Tom. Thanks for clarifying.
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #13
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
The Acros film sim is really nice. No experience with the film, so can't compare, but shooting with it is great fun.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #14
fjolnir
Registered User
 
fjolnir is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Posts: 28
Afaik main draw of the acros sim is the grain simulation, which is really fantastic at higher ISOs, obviously that can't be reproduced in a raw processor that doesn't do the same kind o noise processing. Depending on the picture, I sometimes use the in camera raw processor to get it 90% of the way and then apply curves,dodges&burns on the computer.

I wish Fuji would just release a desktop raw processor that could do it though..

Last edited by fjolnir : 06-05-2017 at 07:45. Reason: Spelling
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #15
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
The Acros film sim is really nice. No experience with the film, so can't compare, but shooting with it is great fun.
That seems to be the general opinion that I have seen.

P.S. Love those concert shots on your Flickr. Beautiful colour. Do you find the EVF only aspect of the X-E1 limiting at all compared to say an X-100 or X-Pro?
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #16
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjolnir View Post
I wish Fuji would just release a desktop raw processor that could do it though..
That would be nice but I doubt Fuji will go that route for two reasons: [1] this is clearly some secret sauce, and [2] fits right into their marketing that you can get the look SOOC without too much post-processing.
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #17
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrequent View Post
That seems to be the general opinion that I have seen.

P.S. Love those concert shots on your Flickr. Beautiful colour. Do you find the EVF only aspect of the X-E1 limiting at all compared to say an X-100 or X-Pro?
Oh hey thanks! Yeah, that's the main thingI've sinced switched to an XPro-2 but the EVF X cameras work great, if you don't mind not having an optical finder. I also prefer the larger size of the XPro models.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #18
Out to Lunch
Registered User
 
Out to Lunch's Avatar
 
Out to Lunch is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 5,312
Even with the Fuji x100t without ACROS you get interesting b&w results when applying the yellow and red filters. I've learned to avoid noise reduction in post-processing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #19
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
Looking at the comparison sections of the whole photo, I preferred the look of in-camera JPEG w/o grain. Nice smooth creamy tones. I presume that's pretty much the same results as when shooting Raw and using Lightroom to convert to B&W.

I don't get the purpose behind trying to make monochrome digital look like B&W film. Most attempts to make digital simulate film just makes the image look artificial. Digital B&W has its own look and characteristics that are really quite beautiful.
I really disagree. For me, the beauty in B+W film is partly in the grain. Grainlessness is just dull. In the analogy i've been making for a while, Grain is like the brush strokes in a painting. Take them away, and it's a poster.

I do agree that a lot of grain simulation isn't so great, but it's getting better. I really like AlienSkin Exposure, and i think it's best to use it on a flat, unmanipulated file first, and then to do curves/corrections and such, so that the grain is also affected the same way the grain on a film negative would be. Too many people apply grain afterward, and that's just not how it works in analog. Then, if feeling ambitious, i'll layer a scan of real film grain on top with all of its inherent randomness.

Why try to make monochrome digital look like B&W film? Digital capture gives certainty. You know if you got the shot. No need to 'cover' yourself. You can move on to other compositions and ideas. There's a time savings. There's a cost savings, after you own the equipment, and depending on how much you shoot/process. There's no need to transport and clear film through security scans when traveling.... Lots of reasons, if you love the look of film and embrace the convenience of digital.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #20
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,888
Wait, if you use RAW you can choose ARCOS in the "Profile" menu of LR. Why should I use the less flexible jpeg version? Wait scratch that altogether... I like post processing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #21
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Wait, if you use RAW you can choose ARCOS in the "Profile" menu of LR. Why should I use the less flexible jpeg version? Wait scratch that altogether... I like post processing.
To get Fuji's version of ARCOS jpeg processing. The LR profile just tries to duplicate the tonality. Fuji's in camera processing is tonality (look at all the headroom it leaves for highlights) as well as totally different noise reduction processing. Instead of trying to reduce noise it more or less substitutes grain in place of the noise. It essentially makes the ISO dial a grain dial and is where in camera is fairly different from using PP like LR or DXO Filmpack or whatever.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #22
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,888
Got ya Shawn, but still way too inflexible for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #23
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
The Acros preset int the Fuji cameras is not bad at all but it's wrong to believe that this is THE Acros film look.
Hmm so if company that does both Acros film, and Acros film preset (for the sensors that they also have developed), what really is THE, then?

They could even tune their films to better mimic digital presets, if they wanted.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #24
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
To get Fuji's version of ARCOS jpeg processing. The LR profile just tries to duplicate the tonality. Fuji's in camera processing is tonality (look at all the headroom it leaves for highlights) as well as totally different noise reduction processing. Instead of trying to reduce noise it more or less substitutes grain in place of the noise. It essentially makes the ISO dial a grain dial and is where in camera is fairly different from using PP like LR or DXO Filmpack or whatever.
From the horse's mouth :

http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/the-...ulation-acros/
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #25
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
They could even tune their films to better mimic digital presets, if they wanted.
Perhaps we are not considering the variability one can get with different developers? Or really what is the one true ACROS look? I agree that if Fuji doesn't know, who would for that matter?
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #26
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
It is o.k. if one's limited to some digital format and would like a bit from the look of films on it. But, for film lovers this looks way too different (not to mention that it does not feel like).
Maybe this is how close a sensor can get to Acros. From personal experience, to get a descent bw sooc you have to change the way you meter the scene. You can get close to that, but just not at it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #27
DwF
Registered User
 
DwF's Avatar
 
DwF is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrequent View Post
Perhaps we are not considering the variability one can get with different developers? Or really what is the one true ACROS look? I agree that if Fuji doesn't know, who would for that matter?
I agree with this from infrequent. Fujifilm have every right and good reason for marketing to create some buzz and market their product. I have seen some beautiful images that used the simulation. For myself, I still feel I have an edge with the RAW file.

There is no question that the film takes on a different look depending on development/chemistry. And the look is quite different than the digital simulation.





These were from a very recent roll using my Olympus XA and developed in Rodinol 1:50 for 12 1/2 mins.
__________________
DwF DwFs Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #28
ruilourosa
Registered User
 
ruilourosa is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Does he really expect a donation for this kind of thing? he just took some photos in a digital camera...

photography is not reality, neither in film nor in digital.

If someone wants film look just take some pictures with film...

simulation mode is the way of life today... people just simulate...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #29
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
They won't be simulating those XA pics above, with any software.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #30
ruilourosa
Registered User
 
ruilourosa is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
photography is a simulacrum
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-05-2017   #31
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
That doesn't mean all simulacra are equal, or similar. So?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #32
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,363
Why make the look of your photography depend on the software a manufacturer supplies? What if that manufacturer decides not to supply it anymore, you stick to the same camera forever?

Raw and converters at least gives you the option to develop your own method that is model-independent, possibly even brand-independent.

Stating that digital B&W made to resemble film 'looks fake' tells me one, possibly two things: you started out with the wrong, high-contrast sensor camera and your skills in processing to film-like B&W are lacking. It's perfectly possible to get results that mimic film so much that you can hardly tell the difference. I do that when I want the result to look like a 400ISO-exposed shot, while the camera was on 1600ISO or more. I can't do that with film on 1600ISO.

In the end, the vast majority of people doesn't care what medium you used, they just (dis)like the image no matter what.
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #33
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
Stating that digital B&W made to resemble film 'looks fake' tells me one, possibly two things: you started out with the wrong, high-contrast sensor camera and your skills in processing to film-like B&W are lacking. It's perfectly possible to get results that mimic film so much that you can hardly tell the difference..
Not really. What is possible is to convince yourself your digital picture looks like it could have been taken by a film camera. There is an area where the looks overlap, but they look very different almost all of the time. So, if you process for that specific look where they overlap, you can call yourself the winner, and imply other people's skills are lacking after they bought the wrong 'high contrast sensor' . You want to handle that t shirt or those clouds with digital? It'll look hard.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #34
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Not really. What is possible is to convince yourself your digital picture looks like it could have been taken by a film camera. There is an area where the looks overlap, but they look very different almost all of the time. So, if you process for that specific look where they overlap, you can call yourself the winner, and imply other people's skills are lacking after they bought the wrong 'high contrast sensor' . You want to handle that t shirt or those clouds with digital? It'll look hard.
I can do both in one image and not make it look hard contrasted, Ranchu. Lower contrast sensors (older sensors) and filters get you a long way in reducing the contrast in the recorded image. From there on it's easier to add contrast if necessary.

Those that lack the skills to get the image when they need it to be start out with a modern, higher contrast sensor (like the Fuji XF sensor) and forget the filters. Result: high contrast recorded image that need contrast reducing, and that's no starting point to get an image that is 'film-like'.

I'm saying nothing new here. In a darkroom, it's easier to add contrast to a soft negative than it is to reduce contrast on a hard negative. Or wouldn't you agree?


Still, I don't need to have my digital files look like film, but I'm arguing that with the right choices I can. I call that a skill (since it can be learned) and those who complain that it's not possible, lack that skill.
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #35
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
You're saying nothing new here because it's the same dodge that's been used for years. I don't believe what you're saying. You will never take a digital picture of a new white t shirt that looks like the one above, no matter how much you claim you can. You lack the skill, too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #36
ruilourosa
Registered User
 
ruilourosa is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
digital has its looks and i find very uninteresting to make it look like something else...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #37
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Tri-X in Rodinal?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #38
ruilourosa
Registered User
 
ruilourosa is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
hp-5 in PMK? technical pan in pota? apx-25 in rodinal 1+100? royal pan in fx-16? tri-x in 777 panthermic? agfa copex in C-41 CD?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #39
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
You're saying nothing new here because it's the same dodge that's been used for years. I don't believe what you're saying. You will never take a digital picture of a new white t shirt that looks like the one above, no matter how much you claim you can. You lack the skill, too.

Couldn't let that slide.

Sony A7 ARW-file shot at 250ISO off tripod, Tamron Adaptall24-35mm set to 35mm 4.0. Quick shot with sort of the same lighting in my garden and an un-ironed shirt. This was Lightroom hand processed only.

The PNG compression (Apple screen shot) reeks mild havoc on it but the shirts have similar transgressions from lights to shadows.

I'm pretty certain that if I wanted, I could recreate the tonality of the white t shirt completely.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ruilourosa View Post
digital has its looks and i find very uninteresting to make it look like something else...
Me too, but I'm arguing that it can be done if one wanted too.


Now back to daily reality, there's other stuff to do for me.
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2017   #40
ruilourosa
Registered User
 
ruilourosa is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
its a hard thing to replicate silver gelatin printing in digital...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:58.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.