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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Fuji is starting to get to me!
Old 02-11-2020   #1
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Fuji is starting to get to me!

The X100V and X-Pro3..
Why? Because I have been seeing more and more images online taken with the Classic Negative Film Simulation mode.
And I love it.

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #2
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,241
don't panic it might pass in a few days...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #3
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
The X100V and X-Pro3..
Why? Because I have been seeing more and more images online taken with the Classic Negative Film Simulation mode.
And I love it.

Fuji is why I stopped using colour film...
__________________
De-gassing progress:

Leica M2, Nikon D700, Bronica RF645, Leica CL, Summicron 40mm, Rolleicord Va, Hasselblad 500 CM Zeiss Planar, Leica 50mm Summicron V3, Hasselblad PME51 metered prism, Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 534/16 & Ensign 820 Special - all gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #4
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas's Avatar
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,615
Oh, I thought you can’t stop buying Fuji films...
__________________
My Flickr
________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #5
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
The X100V and X-Pro3..
Go for them... I don't even use anything else anymore....for digital. Maybe the X100V first?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #6
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by valdas View Post
Oh, I thought you canít stop buying Fuji films...
Actually I can't. Love feeding my kameras C200.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #7
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
I played with the NikFx plugin in LR, which has film simulation filters. I filtered these using their Fuji Superia 200. It pretty much 'just' saturated the colors, increased contrast and blocked up the shadows a bit. I was curious to see how they would compare to Fuji's in camera Classic Negative mode.
Ya, while I like what NikFx has done, it does not compare. Plus it adds several processing steps plus it only saves as a TIFF so the files then become very large.














FYI I used an M240 + Lux Asph 50
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #8
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
The X100V and X-Pro3..
Why? Because I have been seeing more and more images online taken with the Classic Negative Film Simulation mode.
And I love it.

Unless that Classic Negative Film Simulation mode includes a setting for AgfaPan APX-100, Kodak Tri-X and Kodak Plus-X, I'm not interested.

Best,
-Tim

PS: Not to thread hijack, but I've got some of that Kodak Pro Image 100 film (that Michael does such wonderful work with) coming tomorrow, so the Leica's are going to get a workout. Maybe if the X100V could simulate that film, and my old favorite Ektachrome EPP-100, then I might be interested.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #9
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
You can see that the NikFX filter blows out highlights too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #10
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Unless that Classic Negative Film Simulation mode includes a setting for AgfaPan APX-100, Kodak Tri-X and Kodak Plus-X, I'm not interested.

Best,
-Tim

PS: Not to thread hijack, but I've got some of that Kodak Pro Image 100 film (that Michael does such wonderful work with) coming tomorrow, so the Leica's are going to get a workout. Maybe if the X100V could simulate that film, and my old favorite Ektachrome EPP-100, then I might be interested.
I think it just covers Fuji products?
Hey, I'm not quitting real film any time soon! Just like these simulated Digital images from Fuji more than regular Digital images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #11
helenhill
mod chasing light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 5,811
I still love the previous version X100F... stellar
Cool that prices now are dropping with the version Vour now
__________________
Flickr.

______________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #12
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 8,113
It is never going to look like film scans. It just in camera processing presets to make image looking good. Those who likes them are lucky.
I prefer to like camera rendering closer to original RAW. Fuji is nice, but personally I prefer Olympus.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #13
Henry
Registered User
 
Henry is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 227
I had the second X100 camera, and although I liked it a lot I never really got along with it. The menus were obnoxious (not a huge issue, but it nagged) and the viewfinder was always busier and less intuitive than I hoped.

The images looked great, but the process of using the camera felt too much like using my phone (which I love to photograph with, but that's not usually why I pick up a camera rather than the phone).

I say: try one out for a week and see how you like it? No reason not to rent and give it a go.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #14
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
It is never going to look like film scans. It just in camera processing presets to make image looking good. Those who likes them are lucky.
I prefer to like camera rendering closer to original RAW. Fuji is nice, but personally I prefer Olympus.
This review shows how well the Classic Negative mode works

https://jonasraskphotography.com/201...nsive-preview/

I have an Oly PenF and its film modes are nice but not this nice. I use it as a Monochrom camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #15
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry View Post
I had the second X100 camera, and although I liked it a lot I never really got along with it. The menus were obnoxious (not a huge issue, but it nagged) and the viewfinder was always busier and less intuitive than I hoped.
If you think Fuji menus are horrible, just about any other digital camera is even worse... other than Leica.

As for the VF (EVF or OVF), every single piece of information can be turned off leaving just a bare VF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #16
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry View Post
I had the second X100 camera, and although I liked it a lot I never really got along with it. The menus were obnoxious (not a huge issue, but it nagged) and the viewfinder was always busier and less intuitive than I hoped.
The viewfinder is configurable in what it displays. You can have nothing more than the framelines if desired.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #17
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Fuji is nice, but personally I prefer Olympus.
I now only use Olympus digitals for personal black & white images because I cannot depend on them for paying jobs. The Olympus broke once too often. Thus far, my Fuji digitals have been more dependable.


Candid Wedding Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #18
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,544
Fuji's in-camera Provia mode is seriously awesome. Plus, the lenses are tiny and weather rated. I do all my color work with an X-T3 and love it. I should have bought an X-H1 when they had this insane sale two months ago and they were dirt cheap.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #19
agentlossing
Registered User
 
agentlossing is offline
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by narsuitus View Post
I now only use Olympus digitals for personal black & white images because I cannot depend on them for paying jobs. The Olympus broke once too often. Thus far, my Fuji digitals have been more dependable.





Candid Wedding Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Took me a moment with that photo! I've used M4/3 cameras for a long time and I'd easily say Panasonic is the more durable choice for bodies. Olympus designs cameras with lots of panache but Panasonic know how to make good cameras.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #20
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Yeah I just shot a bunch of images around the house w my PenF. The film modes do not compare to Fuji. But it does do a sweet monochrome.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #21
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,321
I have not succumbed to the X-pro, but I like my X100 so much, and my X10 and X20, that I might go for one of those one of these days. Probably should get all the lenses, too, so it would wind up being expensive . . .
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #22
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by narsuitus View Post
I now only use Olympus digitals for personal black & white images because I cannot depend on them for paying jobs. The Olympus broke once too often.
Funny, I had the same experience. Shutter speed dial cap fell off my e-p1, baseplate bent from light tripod use and my E-3 lost several screws over a small period. Never had another digital body (canon, Nikon, Fuji) come apart like those Olympus's.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2020   #23
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,415
At the rate I'm having issues with film labs, I just might go all digital, and that X100V looks like a good place to start though I'm still hung up on it being a fixed mount lens.


PF
__________________
Waiting for the light

Last edited by farlymac : 02-14-2020 at 20:00. Reason: Corrected camera model designation
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2020   #24
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,591
Love the XPros, at least the "1" and "2". Don't really need or want the "3". Also love the X100...the "S" is the model I use and I don't have any desire for the newer models. Can't say enough good about the handling or look of the images.

'Course I only shoot Raw and I process about 99% as B&W. I seldom do color. I do recall that when I got my first Fuji camera I tried some of the film simulations and I totally hated them. All of them. To my eyes the colors were a just...wrong. Shooting in Raw and processing the color in Adobe Standard to taste looked better to me. Again: I almost never shoot color anyway.

Fuji menus are simple compared to Olympus. I really like the way the OMD EM1 does B&W but I hated the way the camera handled and the menus were a nightmare.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2020   #25
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
This review shows how well the Classic Negative mode works

https://jonasraskphotography.com/201...nsive-preview/

I have an Oly PenF and its film modes are nice but not this nice. I use it as a Monochrom camera.
I am not so sure. One of the first images of classic negative mode, the kayak on the water, shows very ugly banding in the sky. This is the kind of problem, still unresolved in 2020, that pushed me away from digital and has me still using film for the foreseeable future for color. For B&W, the difference is even more stark; no digital capture comes even close to film there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2020   #26
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by olifaunt View Post
I am not so sure. One of the first images of classic negative mode, the kayak on the water, shows very ugly banding in the sky. This is the kind of problem, still unresolved in 2020, that pushed me away from digital and has me still using film for the foreseeable future for color. For B&W, the difference is even more stark; no digital capture comes even close to film there.
I'm not a digital apologist (and I more or less only shoot film) but I guarantee that is either bad editing or bad compression (or both) in post.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2020   #27
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,833
I upgraded my XE-1 I'd used for 6-7 years to a X-T2 this Winter. I do love the color choices. I barely shoot color film anymore. I shot the new Ektachrome. But after $12 for a roll, then $18 for processing and scanning (so-so scans that I can do better on), and the week delay....it's not worth it. I am satisfied with the Velvia setting, High Negative, and I'm playing with the Classic Chrome now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2020   #28
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by olifaunt View Post
I am not so sure. One of the first images of classic negative mode, the kayak on the water, shows very ugly banding in the sky. This is the kind of problem, still unresolved in 2020, that pushed me away from digital and has me still using film for the foreseeable future for color. For B&W, the difference is even more stark; no digital capture comes even close to film there.

I don't see any banding, viewing the image on a recent MacBook Pro.

Not saying you don't see it, just I don't.

Also be aware that these are images compressed etc for the web. Everything I post via Flickr looks horrible compared to the actual images I have (for example)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2020   #29
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
I upgraded my XE-1 I'd used for 6-7 years to a X-T2 this Winter. I do love the color choices. I barely shoot color film anymore. I shot the new Ektachrome. But after $12 for a roll, then $18 for processing and scanning (so-so scans that I can do better on), and the week delay....it's not worth it. I am satisfied with the Velvia setting, High Negative, and I'm playing with the Classic Chrome now.
You have to scan film yourself (digicam). I would not be shooting film if I had to pay for that. Too expensive (I shoot a lot), most times mediocre results and I hate the wait. Especially because I used to mail it out and so would wait until I had enough rolls to send (as shipping one roll or many cost the same).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2020   #30
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
I don't see any banding, viewing the image on a recent MacBook Pro.

Not saying you don't see it, just I don't.

Also be aware that these are images compressed etc for the web. Everything I post via Flickr looks horrible compared to the actual images I have (for example)
+1

Same here with my MacBook Pro.
__________________
Brian

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

Old 02-12-2020   #31
philosli
Registered User
 
philosli is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 91
Why simulating if you can use the real?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #32
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by philosli View Post
Why simulating if you can use the real?
I agree.

And yet...

For me it makes digital images look attractive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #33
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by philosli View Post
Why simulating if you can use the real?
Because they are never the same...as film. if you prefer digital, then maybe a simulation might be the look you are looking for. Why use ordinal over D76? Why use Ekatchrome over Velvia? I prefer RAW, but some people like a simulation and there is nothing wrong with it...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #34
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Atherton View Post
+1

Same here with my MacBook Pro.
I wonder if we are looking at the same image:
https://i2.wp.com/jonasraskphotograp...g?w=3000&ssl=1

Banding is obvious to me on several different machines, including my calibrated laptop and iPad Pro. Especially the purple band above the kayak, but also several bands in the top right quarter of the image. It is more obvious when viewed through my slightly tinted reading glasses but even without them it is visible if you look for it. You can click on the mage to enlarge to full size and then it is really very obvious. This is supposed to be a camera jpeg and the full size version is large so I doubt PP or web compression has anything to do with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #35
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by olifaunt View Post
I wonder if we are looking at the same image:
https://i2.wp.com/jonasraskphotograp...g?w=3000&ssl=1

Banding is obvious to me on several different machines, including my calibrated laptop and iPad Pro. Especially the purple band above the kayak, but also several bands in the top right quarter of the image. It is more obvious when viewed through my slightly tinted reading glasses but even without them it is visible if you look for it. You can click on the mage to enlarge to full size and then it is really very obvious. This is supposed to be a camera jpeg and the full size version is large so I doubt PP or web compression has anything to do with it.
I checked that link, looked at it full size, do not see any banding. My MacBook Pro has a calibrator on it that runs continuously. The only 'band' I see is the lake's horizon line above the kayaker. Which is part of the image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #36
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
I checked that link, looked at it fun size, do not see any banding. My MacBook Pro has a calibrator on it that runs continuously. The only 'band' I see is the lake's horizon line above the kayaker. Which is part of the image.

I guess that shows the danger of publishing images viewed using only a Macbook then (as the author probably also did).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #37
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 8,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
I upgraded my XE-1 I'd used for 6-7 years to a X-T2 this Winter. I do love the color choices. I barely shoot color film anymore. I shot the new Ektachrome. But after $12 for a roll, then $18 for processing and scanning (so-so scans that I can do better on), and the week delay....it's not worth it. I am satisfied with the Velvia setting, High Negative, and I'm playing with the Classic Chrome now.
It looks like Iím not yet to quit on film.
I get 4 cad Kodak Gold in local Walmart and it is developed for 6 cad, same week, near work. 7 usd in total. And I own two scanners. They are not expensive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #38
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,369
I 100% see the banding. It's not as obvious as some I've seen, but I do really think it is from editing or compression, and has nothing to do with digital capture.

Even the 3000 x 2000 image is resized from the "original" SOOC jpeg.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2020   #39
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by olifaunt View Post
I wonder if we are looking at the same image:


https://i2.wp.com/jonasraskphotograp...g?w=3000&ssl=1
I would hope so! IntriguingÖ

Full size or not, on three separate machines (Apple and PC), what I see with my eyes on my screens appears different to what you see with your eyes on your screen.

You see banding, I donít.
__________________
Brian

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

Old 02-13-2020   #40
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 8,113


On decent PC with dedicated graphic card, not on-board one. If it is not visible on Macs, then FujiFilm should specify it in written. I check images regularly on same PC and no defects like this. Only if it comes from the image.
  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 20:44.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.