YOUR JPEGS DON'T LOOK LIKE FILM

[@andyvalentine9791]

Tbh, as someone who's shot a ton of film, the "film look" varies a lot depending on how well the dev machine is set up, and how you scan it. Every time it's a little bit different, and you can't really say well, that's how portra looks like, even if you shoot two of the same rolls. That being said, I share your opinion, jpg simulations look close enough for me to not care. And it's definetly cheaper on the long run than putting up with the millionth time Kodak raises their prices in the same year.

[@minusmartin]

and THAT is the point of it to me. Love film but sometimes, I dont want to pull out the chemicals to spend hours developing etc

[@davidreichstadter8587]

I suspect that the scanner, scanner lens, scanner software and colour calibration all play part in how the digital representation of the film presents itself. It is certainly a huge challenge to compare film and digital whilst trying to retain some sort of colour consistency Across the two media, All that said, I enjoy taking photos and use whatever tools provide me a pleasing colour aesthetic and tonality.

[@zippywalker6406]

Yes, lots of variables.

[@jayaarah2953]

I agree with this 100%

[@randyk1919]

As a film shooter, Fuji X-T5 owner and fan of Fuji-X weekly, I do think some of these recipes can still be adjusted to be a closer match to their respective films -- or -- at least dialed in to better match the development/scanning results coming out of one's particular photo lab. The Portra 400 recipe, for example, could benefit from removing a bit of yellow from the WB color adjustment and maybe bumping up the clarity a bit. Still, I agree that the differences often lie in the highlight and shadow transitions and film *still* seems like it handles these areas a bit better, especially highlights.

[@caerphoto]

This was my thinking too. Like yeah, the colours aren’t the same, but the whole point of shooting Raw is that you’re not stuck with the settings you picked in camera. Add some magenta and blue and the digital shots would look MUCH closer to the film scans. Goughie, have you tried Fuji’s X-Raw Studio? It uses the camera’s processor to do the conversions, but presents the results on your computer, so it’s much easier and more colour-accurate to experiment with settings than doing it on the camera.

[@ashrafazlan89]

Fuji just need to give us full access to the tone curve. Imagine being able to set your own black/white points, or lift your mids without having to rely on exposure compensation. It would be a gamechanger for the Film Sim community.

[@ellyrion8173]

Having shot film pretty much exclusively (Colour and developing my B&W at home) for the past year I'm very excited to give Fuji a go. Yeah sure Film slows you down, the colours can be wonderful and its awesome to use old cameras - but personally, having a fixed ISO at all times and having to spend at least £23 for 36 colour photos (cheaper if B&W of course) was getting in the way of capturing moments and memories. Thats kinda what photography is all about for me at least. Just sold most of my film kit to buy an X-T4 with a 23mm F2 on the way soon!

[@Goughie]

Hard to disagree! I’ve gone from shooting 50+ rolls a year, to I think so far this year having shot just 3! And tbh, I can’t see me ever using film properly again

[@robertbreining]

Love the honest opinion on the simulations, recipes and how they compare to film. Thank you for that Goughie. I think you really nailed the point that you get awesome looking images, maybe with a film-vibe to not have to edit all of your pictures if you don't want to. Me personally I do not edit images anymore. I rather save the time and enjoy the shooting experience and have lovely images with various recipes in the end. I am a hobbyist after all and the experience I get with Fujifilm brought all my fun back to photography. For me that is all that matters.

[@sc0ttmagoon]

This was really helpful. Thanks for making this direct comparison to the actual film. I don’t think I’ve seen that before. Even if they don’t match exactly, I think the in-camera simulations are one of the fun aspects of a Fujifilm camera.

[@Raist3db]

The important thing to remember is that Fuji themselves has said they are going for the *intent* of those films and not for a direct simulation of them.

[@DonDon-Corleone]

I'm shooting both film and digital. With GFX system and GR series, I do try to simulate "film" look in Lightroom with RAW. It is not "film" look is better, it's because "film look" will bing an illusion that the photo is taken by film so the moment is more previous than digital (cuz you can take hundreds of it and find one perfect moment).

[@CianMcsweeney]

Bit of a shame you didn't discuss Classic Negative, it's probably the film simulation that has the closest behaviour to actual film

[@Goughie]

What film would you compare it too?

[@CianMcsweeney]

@@Goughie Fujifilm superia mostly, just the way colors shift and react to different exposure settings and lighting conditions feels way more natural than Fujifilms other sims. Thanks btw for your Budapest video, here atm and used some of your tips! Loving the trip

[@Answersonapostcard]

Sure, on high resolution screens you can notice the increased resolution and maybe the differences that more modern lenses give over lenses typically used with film cameras. However once printed, put on a wall and viewed from a distance , the differences between film and digital become even smaller. A print should be the end result and this is where the image truly comes to life. Zooming in to an image on a computer screen is missing that point. Also I would argue that effectively you’re just comparing two digital images anyway, only one is scanned and the other is from the camera.

[@Goughie]

I agree with resolution point you’re making but my point is the colours are completely different, this has nothing to do with pixel peeping, especially the Portra one, all of the JPEG ones are green. Agree results from scanning and converting adds variables, and different processes / scanners will be different Interestingly most of my images aren’t destined for print, they are destined for socials!

[@dungbeetle.]

Not sure if the KZbin video compression and characteristics has anything to do with it, but it looks to me like they did a pretty good job with their SOOC film simulations. They've got the basic characteristics down quite well to the point where you can clearly see what they're going for. For folks who don't want to edit RAW files to the n'th degree on a PC, they do provide a look that does a pretty good job.

[@xBenjourx]

Interesting vid! What I noticed most between the portra shots was the contrast (which could be down to the chemistry used for developing) and the white balance. I noted that all of the portra shots had a significant green tint, which was present across all the colours, so adding some global magenta toning might balance the playing field, so to speak.

[@dangerpig]

Another great video, and by the way, I have been using your recipe for a week or so and I really like it!!

[@Goughie]

Glad you’re enjoying! It’ll be on all trip this weekend!

[@TungstenOvergaard]

Love it Goughie. I would say that tweaking exposure compensation, clarity, lights & shadows… (+grain and sharpness) many of the digital images can go to 99% film. Except those you need to tweak color (although some could be just a WB thing). Another though is that when I was a teenager I was using always the same film stock, Kodak Gold 400; well… the pictures where not always the same depending on the cameras I used it (particularly contrast, but light variation in color also). At that time I used family cameras from the 60s/70s as well as a modern (2000) Pentax point and shoot.

[@ronaldt3422]

It was easy to tell the difference for the Portra 400 cause I've seen enough film examples to know that the "yellow tint" adjusted from the white balance does not apply to the whole picture in film. Only those with bright sun light reflected get treated with the "yellow tint" while the other parts of the picture remains unchanged.

[@omarknowsphotos]

Nothing like my morning cup of Goughie to get my day going!

[@brafuptop9786]

Great vid as always mate. Road to 10k!

[@followtheboat]

This is the second video of yours randomly served up to me in the last couple of days and I've really enjoyed them. The only Fuji cameras I own are, ironically, film, but I totally get the following Fujifilm has with its baked-in look and recipes. If I had the spare cash I'd buy one of the range finder style Fujis just for the fun of it. Photography should be fun and Fuji understands that. More importantly, so do you. Keep up the great work.

[@Goughie]

Seems like my videos from the last few weeks have been pushed a lot further all of a sudden! Thank you for the kind words! I agree! For most people they should focus on making photography more fun you! You can’t really go out and buy a bad camera now!

[@just_a_guy]

love the video! I figured it wasn't film because the dynamic range especially in the highlights and shadows that it doesn't look like film. However I think it looks amazingly close right out of camera and like you said if you put it into LR then it can look almost identical. I do like the sims because for me film gives me more of a FEELING and not a look most of the time. so if the recipes give me the film FEEL then that is all im looking for. I have had my Fuji for a couple weeks and I love it already just off the film simulations and the shooting experience

[@alanplatt888]

I've struggled ever since I purchased a Fuji to appreciate or even see the point of a simulation other than B&W. I enjoy your videos but for me comparisons of simulations and recipes falls on fallow ground. I do compare...........because it seems to be the done thing............I do however edit in RAW. My conclusions are, no 2 images have identical edit recipes from my cook book. It is an interesting concept to emulate a classic image sometimes. How did he /she edit to get the result, what is the magic spice I look for. Keep the videos coming, good stuff, food for thought.

[@unmecvrai]

I like your contents because you stay more factual and don't post unnecessary opinions like many others KZbinrs. And even when you say something I don't agree with, it's ok. Have fun.

[@luxdalet]

Awesome video Goughie! Honest as always, and showing us the objective results. And as usual, I agree with your opinion, the recipes do look great even if not on par with the film stocks. And very brave to use that title for the video :D Cheers mate!

[@el_cabroncito]

I use film cameras a lot and I have some Fujis here. Off course the simulations are not equal to film, but it's vert close in some cases, and the funiest thing is because the camera operates like a film camera if you want.

[@JasonLawrenceNoel]

Great video!!! Thank you

[@Raist3db]

Hi Goughie- a couple of points to consider- 1 Fuji on interviews and their X-trans "journey- whatever website" it's called, they explain that they are not trying to simulate the films directly but the *intent* of those films. So yes, they will be different but do they apply or "capture" the "intent" of those films? It's what they said they are aiming. 2 Also you can definitively make the Fuji Film sims loom more like film with the Chrome FX/Shadow/Clarity options, and last but not least the grain sim which you can also use in color. I tried with the Nostalgic Film, with grain and I was surprised how much of a "feel" it gave me back from my childhood in the output- even if it's not identical it does capture that feel somehow.

[@TarrelScot]

I spotted the digital file every time. For me, the sky is always a giveaway. The smoothness of transition between the various highlight areas is wonderful with film, especially something like Portra. I find this even shooting medium format digital. I’ve actually got a diffusion filter on order to see if this does a good job of smoothing out those highlights with a digital file. I think the Velvia is one of the least successful simulations, especially if you try to apply the Adobe version to a raw file. Ted Viera did a detailed comparison of the Acros simulation vs the original Acros film a few years ago. They did seem VERY close! (Vid is on YT). To be honest, if I really want that film look, I’ll just grab the Mamiya 645!

[@MatthewMorse]

I really loved your take on this. And I agree that, in isolation, these get us close enough. Shot-for-shot even film will show some variance, but compared to the digital files, they're just not quite there. All that being said, I do think Fuji cameras put out really gorgeous color, even if they aren't perfect emulations of the film they're trying to replicate.

[@tristanrujano]

Reasons I chose to get the fujifilm x100f; -Cheaper than the V -Rear D-pad -Cheaper than film -compact -fun OVF -Film simulations. -single lense I don’t want to buy a bunch of gear, I want something I can take with me everywhere to document my life and spend less time editing and more time shooting and sharing (whether that be printing or posting). I primarily shoot jpeg only

[@AlexADumbDumb]

I think part of the issue is that Fuji film simulations need to be able to alter exposure settings to better replicate the highlight/shadow retention of film, and add some more advanced curves control to try to emulate the same sort of highlight/shadow transitions.

[@neoroxx]

3:55 I can tell that the image is too clean. It lacks the "fuzziness" of a traditional film photo if you understand what I am talking about. It is very subtle but it's there

[@Goughie]

Halenation and bloom!

[@neoroxx]

@@Goughie I just googled it and yeah. it seems to be the case. I have no experience in film photography but somehow the images look too "clean" to be a film image.

[@forneverarrow]

In my opinion, Fuji’s JPEGs (as anyone else’s) are as good as the camera’s dynamic range allows. Think the process like the editing on Lightroom but on camera and more amount of data thrown out, based only on some parameters (film simulations and recipes). If you edit your raw you can decide what part of dynamic range you will use (more darks or highlights) and with better flexibility on sharpening and noise reduction, let aside the masking tools. For the film similarities, it’s very complicated. You can look at 1000 film photos, even with the same film stock, and you can hardly find more than 10 that looks the same. So you have the flexibility to emulate film from digital format, even SOOC. Take for example the Instagram. I am reading comments almost on every photo shot with X100V in discover panel with the same question: is that film?? From that point Fuji is very successful with film simulations. Personally, I don’t like the camera to decide for me. I am shooting raw and editing in post because I like a more cinematic look (it’s a lot different from film) and my Sony is awesome for that. Lastly, in your comparison photos in the video, the more contrasty and vivid look from film has to do with the lens also. The X100V suffers heavily in this department because it’s lens is very corrected, aspherical design without any character (actually the older models up to X100F were closer to vintage). If you shoot the same with an XE-4 or X-Pro3 and any vintage lens or even a TTArtisan you gonna match the film photos almost perfectly.

[@jorghahn2903]

Interesting. What is the difference between film and cinematic look? I hear these terms all the time but never really understood what people mean with one and the other.

[@Answersonapostcard]

I know some people didn't like the X100f lens due to its softness, personally I would prefer for things not to be so perfect looking. I've also heard that older X100 cameras, some people think their sensors deliver more 'organic' images than the newer ones.

[@forneverarrow]

@@Answersonapostcard That's true! Me also prefer the vintage imperfections in my photos but that's a matter of preference. The older Fuji cameras used a different type of sensor that tended to look a lot like CCD (though it was CMOS) and thus, more like film.

[@forneverarrow]

@@jorghahn2903 It isn't different in a significant way but its more the sum of various details that differentiate these two looks. Filmic look has to do with the replicate of analog film tones, colors and contrast and in my opinion is more generic. Cinematic is more of a technical term and it has to do more with the usage of light and the balance of highlights and shadows. If you want to shoot cinematic you need to shoot backlit or at least side lighting and you need to prioritize the highlights. Also, color grading is more important for cinematic shots. One last detail (for me at least) is the use of grain: for cinematic look you need a less rough and homogenous grain effect. Film grain depends on what kind of film you want to replicate (different ISO sensitivity had different grain) and its in general more rough and pronounced.

[@rickyzagalo]

Thanks for this comparison. It's very useful to put things where they should be. The simulations provide very good images that are inspired by film, but they do not give us the same images. I, personally, enjoy a lot more to use them on Nikon, they are more flexible to customize, there are a lot more "recipes" ready to download and instal and, I think, they provide more changes in the image look, than on Fuji cameras.

[@paulm8157]

Useful content, capably presented, without distracting hype; nice. Just subscribed. If the image pleases you then that’s the bottom line. Folks differ in color perception and device screens likewise differ, making strict comparisons moot, IMO. Your take on converting luts to LR profiles would be welcome; the profiles (e.g., based on film simulations) can be applied to RAW files from other camera makers. What’s ironic, IMO, is folks shooting real film that then gets scanned to digital. Cheers!

[@beyourself9162]

With the new upcoming features in all updated RAW converters we come a lot closer to the film look. It’s exactly what I predicted the film look is created by AI… Still not important for me. For me the question is if I am happy and creative with digital… hell yes…just today I was surprised again that I have more and more keepers. I didn’t took pictures with a real camera since the middle of the 90s. Such a steep learning curve never would have happened in the analog time, which I am a part of. Alone the fact that I can learn tons from my mistakes by cropping right after a photowalk is still mind blowing to me. Without a break I learn instantly from my errors…. ❤I love it…🎉

[@compteprivefr]

The film simply looks more contrasty with brighter highlights and deeper shadows. While at the same time allowing for more imperfections

[@talktalk4503]

Great vid! CCD sensor (Leica M8/9)+ Leica lenses prob give the closest film look from "technical aspects" IMHO (smooth highlight roll off, micro-contrast etc). CMOS ones re too digital. If that makes sense. But Fuji has done a great job tho, no other cams do this. However, film is too time-consuming for today standard. Plus lots of variables in it to make any standard look. Chemicals, darkroom process, and scanning (eg Ansel Adams). Also availability and price. Juz too much. Point is, photography is much more enjoyable w digital these days. Moreover, digital nowadays has given us the same flexibility and opportunity similar to darkroom on film to get the look that we desire. Cheers

[@saifaldin_]

I don’t shoot fujifilm, but i do make my own ‘film’ filters in photoshop to use in my work (I’m a 3d visualiser) It’s a simple process. My method is not accurate at all (referencing a few images from the web), but good enough for my use case. If say, you have a real film camera and a digital one, it’s not that hard to match them in post. Of course it’s a good option to have it straight from the camera (for those who prefer it that way). Having that will save so much time, but on the flip side, you lose control over some aspects of the image.

[@LesterBeasley]

I enjoyed the video and comparisons. To be honest I liked both images. I largely gave up film. I still shoot a role every now and then in my trusty K1000 but with film camera prices going up I've considered selling my film kit and remaining film stock. The price for film cameras and film stock has never been higher. The cost of film just keeps going up and digital is so much more convenient. With software LUT's and presets I can apply a "Look" and tweak it. I don't particularly care anymore if it is a "film" look as long as I can get the image to look like what I envision.

[@Answersonapostcard]

I shoot both X100F and a variety of film cameras. Often I just shoot with the Fuji, especially if I'm travelling abroad and need something 100% reliable and practical, and need to pack light. However I often still prefer the tactile feel of film, and find using the cameras more satisfying. I don't shoot a lot of film though, perhaps only 15-20 rolls a year, so my costs aren't that high based on that.

[@gottanikoncamera]

After dabbling with recipes a few years ago, I came to the same conclusion: they really don’t look anything like the film counterpart. But, as you say, you can still shoot them for their look, as I’d they are a new, original film stock in their own right. TX and HP5 recipes with just minor tweaks, however, can match my film very closely. They are the only recipes I use, and like you, I shoot RAW+jpg. I think the out-of-camera film sim jpgs are flat to give us a bit of post control. If you hit them with a curve, you’re probably closer. Enjoyed your video.

[@zekirami1145]

Great vedio I do have fuji xt5 but I use only provia it come so nice if it is like film 🎦 or not no problem so which one closer to film I wanna to try ?. like your video

[@Goughie]

Try the Fuji weekly website! Lots of inspiration

[@bill3117]

I appreciate the comparison between film and simulations! I wonder if many people today, that have never shot film, would care? That said I started with film years ago (and even worked part-time in a B&W film lab), and can certainly tell the difference. I admire purists that still use film. But, for me digital is just too easy for me to revert to film.

[@bill3117]

@yumpladukfoo whoa using the term purist was not meant as an insult. I used film for many years, and in fact worked in a B&W film lab. Regarding music, I have used records, reel to reel, 8 tracks, cassette, CD, and digital. I’m not sure what ruffled your feathers.

[@collinsal1433]

I love the look of film, but I have never had a chance to work with or use a film camera. I personally do not care tho that it doesn’t look the same because to me, it just looks so cool and to others, who also have no idea what real film looks like won’t know either. I Understand that actual film users may not like It and it looks fake, but for people who just want to enjoy the film look without the price and developing it really is great!

[@tomislavmiletic_]

Fuji recipes you can find online are usually off a bit - too much of a colour cast if you ask me. On top of that, exposure is also a key factor that not too many people care about.

[@showdaKOs]

I do agree. It don't mater as much. Granted, I am not a pro photographer but a community manager. I always shoot Jpeg and raw, but for my work, 85 to 90% of my photos are jpegs. With some tweaks in camera, most of them are good enough to be considered OK as is. And when I do need to go to the raw, I already have a solid base to improve on (mostly when the lighting is challenging). And it help to have the jpeg to compare it to, to know if I improved it or even overdone it when cooking the raw. But it speeed my workflow greatly to use jpegs. If I were a pro landscape or portrait photographer it would be very different. I do landscape for a hobby and none of the simulations I find 100% satisfying (Velvia too saturated, Provia just ok, Classic Chrome too muted, etc), some may give some atmosphere but it's very hit or miss. For street photography or events it work better but you have to nail everything (exposition, framing, etc) in camera.

[@k.j.hulander2204]

Great presentation. Subscribed! I still use my old X-Pro1 with good results even if I miss having the recent film simulations and better autofocus 😑 Playing around with recipes for x-trans 1 (there aren’t many around) trying to accomplish what subsequent models offers built-in has become a bit of a fun challenge. I really want an X100V but with the old camera still producing great shots, I can’t warrant the purchase… yet.

[@-grey]

The digital Velvia is most of the way there in terms of hue matching, it seems like the white balance was just too warm compared to positive film, and other than that just some contrast tweaks in-camera could fix it. The Recipes are atrocious. You can tell a recipe on sight, because it has no colour nuance. They're muddy, overcooked, and green like you're shooting through cheap sunglasses. The white balance is bad and to hide that they use a muted Classic Chrome. The pinks, blues, reds, and magentas get nuked by the brownish orange-green. The rich colour vibrance of film and just the scene in general is lost entirely.

[@tonyhayes9827]

Does scanning the neg digitize its look -its tonal range etc? In which case is a neg only useful if you print it in an analogue darkroom?

[@Goughie]

Yes of course it does! Scanner makes an interpretation, and then so does the conversion software! Lots of variables!

[@Teewinot2]

Agree with a lot of this. I shot a bunch of Velvia, Provia , and Astia chromes back in the 90s. These simulations don't really look like them. At first this disappointed me, but I've since come to quite enjoy several of them despite their marketing name given to them.

[@morii9651]

I think sharpness plays a part in differentiating them. Digital tends to be more sharper due to modern optics and AI tech.

[@alfabethev2.074]

Well ,from one who has been "brought up"with (real physical) film😉 I see the film simulations more like a modern and developed🤪 variant of fuji's classic films Tnx. for you hard work and excellent content 👋🏻😀

[@Angelo_Botta]

Love the video. Thank you.

[@muatao9943]

Interesting comparison. I wonder how much the film camera body and lens contribute to the end result of the film image. For instance, how different would the film Portra image look if it was shot with a Leica body and lens versus a Nikon body and lens. With the Fuji system a film recipe plays a role but so do the lens and the sensor. A first-generation sensor versus a second, third, or fourth. These are just questions. Thanks for the video cheers!

[@darrencoates]

Great video. Out of interest, what thumb grip are you using in your x100v? I’ve the Lensmate one but it covers buttons and dials I’d prefer to be using.

[@Goughie]

Haoge I think the brand is, off Amazon. It does make the shutter dial hard to reach!

[@TechWithBruno]

Great video 👏👏

[@jorghahn2903]

Did you use for the digital Portra photos the FXW recipe with the adjustments you proposed in your Portra video or did you use the original FXW recipe?

[@Goughie]

This is the original! It’s the same images as that video! Our secret! 😂

[@jorghahn2903]

@@Goughie Don't worry, I won't tell anybody... 😉 I don't think that I have ever shot the real Portra but one doesn't need to be an expert to see that the original FXW recipe is way too yellow/green. Would like to see a comparison between your tweaked version of the recipe and the real Portra photos. With all that said, some people's obsession to make digital look like film starts getting annoying... why not shoot directly film then and why does it matter at all? Outside of certain photography communities no one would ever look at my photos and say... "oh nice photo, is it analog?" anyway... The sames is true for recipes and even film stock. Not even back in the analog days anyone has ever asked me for the film stock I was using... 😅

[@kronkite1530]

@@jorghahn2903 Portra is a lovely film (for portraits, naturally, and landscapes when the light suits) but by god is it expensive.

[@marcel9568]

Watching this on my phone, it is hard to read which photo is film or x100v.

[@Goughie]

Thank you for the feedback! I’ll try and make the font a little bigger in future videos!

[@marcel9568]

@@Goughie Thanks!

[@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel]

It takes so much to emulate a film directly, and I don't think Fuji does it particularly well. The colors are even relatively close but many other things like grain, sharpness, contrast, halation etc. are not. Just the way a film is scanned makes the biggest difference. I'm working on new presets with a more scientific method and even there I see that lightroom is so limited by the pure color processing that a 100% color copy is not possible. I think the Panasonic S5II with lut integration and a really good LUT vintage lens will come even closer to film than fuji could.

[@NewerSing]

I thought that you grade film after scanning and there is no “true film” look. In such case - why does it matter if film simulations look like film, if I choose what I like more? I’d grade film to get what I like anyways. This is basically why I don’t shoot film that much nowadays - same grading process but with extra steps and extra risks. Whatever the lab sends me is not what I want, I ask for RAW FFF format scans and do grading and retouching myself, which honestly does not differ in workflow if I get a DNG file from my digital camera

[@thatRyzzle]

I don't think it matters that the film recipes are way off from their original counterparts. I've been shooting and editing RAW/JPEG files for years, and I'm not even a pro photographer-I just want to preserve memories and everyday life as pictures. And I'm honestly tired of editing those RAW/JPEG files just to get away from that dead and boring digital look SOOC. This is why I'm looking forward to the X100VI, as the camera will give me approximations of film-like photos SOOC-and that's more than enough for my use case. Turn on Bluetooth sharing, chuck the photos onto my iPhone, and then share them on Instagram and/or PortraitMode, without editing any of them-my goodness, that just sounds lovely to me.

[@wendallstro]

wow man, great video.

[@jurepog]

I think you could make those recipes look almost exactly like the film. You should try and do it since you have the exact pictures from both at the same time with same conditions. I'd be interested how close you get, especially with portra 400

[@JZStudiosonline]

Seems like the difference could be attributed to the image being a JPEG so certain colors and saturations can only go so far? You'd have to look at where in the chain the signal processing is.

[@PaulTakesPhotos]

If you take the same shot on a x100 or xe1 you'll get better results. Especially the x100 sensor is much closer to the film stock

[@Goughie]

Been debating a video on this, grabbing a gen 1 and comparing to current and seeing the differences!

[@PaulTakesPhotos]

@@Goughie go for it! In my opinion the older fujifilm sensors come way closer to the actually film. The XT1 also comes to mind. Replicating actual film on digital will always be impossible in my opinion, as film always has to be produced using chemicals which impact the colours and tones. But it is just my opinion

[@Goughie]

@@PaulTakesPhotos even away from the comparison to film there’s definitely a view in Facebook groups that older cameras had nicer colours! So could be fun to test!

[@PaulTakesPhotos]

@@Goughie i just sold the xe1 and xt2 and replaced them with the xt30mII, same specs as the x100v (i sold it long time ago). The image quality in terms of sharpness and DR are superior the colours are great but it misses the imperfection and nuances in colours that olde sensors habe

[@wreespace]

i could tell the image was digital because of how it handles highlights mainly or fails to. especially in the smol clouds. Also i do not think it is possible to match film effects digitally. We can get damn close to it where it would be very difficult for a regular person to tell the difference, but we can't really match it simply because how differently light reacts to a current gen digital sensor and to chemicals. How highlights and shadows get affected in analog and digital are quite opposite processes to each other, so it is not possible. yet.

[@willsmc10]

The portra recipes tint is always way off with a green undertone.

[@WhoIsSerafin]

I would say they do, but I’m not looking for the film look I’m looking for a look I like with just a touch up in Lightroom. I’ve tried dozens and dozens and I’ve only found two I use consistently with raw as a backup. Yours, you shared a few weeks ago and classic chrome I tweaked a little. I’ve done classic chrome on my Olympus cameras also.

[@jaspercaelan4998]

If I'm shooting digital I just want my colors to look accurate. The film simulations don't look like film, just badly processed raws.

[@butchgo5346]

Why compare a graphic file format to filters that merely color grades jpeg photos to look like film?

[@doptimist]

I think the majority of fujis film profiles and the recipes tend to muddy the image in pursuit warmth. Kyle McDougall does s good job of getting them very similar but it takes more work than just applying a LUT.

[@Goughie]

Kyle McDougall is awesome!

[@cigarocean]

There are alot of non photographers that only want that vibe without digital work after shooting. i think for that purpose just shooting jpg`s the results are very good.

[@Goughie]

For sure! quick and easy to get good results

[@azchamone]

Always too much of a green cast in Portra simulations, which turns the yellow a murky green, when in reality, they’re more golden from the stock. Big giveaway

[@geofff6671]

Having shot many films which Fuji “simulated” I’m glad Fuji film simulations are not that accurate. The best that can be said is that the simulations are inspired by films. Real velvia while saturated can quickly block up and loose detail when subjects are colourful to start with and shadows quickly go to black in constrasty situations. It is really a film to shoot when there is little colour - think grey days and no bold greens or blues. Provia looks nothing like the film simulation. The Provia film sim is for the most part much better. Classic chrome is probably the simulation that I’d regard as not as good as Kodachrome. Kodachrome was quite good at handling saturated subjects in low contrast light because it was a contrast film with relative low saturation. CC has a bit to much green and yellow in the white balance for my liking.

[@winc06]

My question is why would you want digital to look like film which looked that way because that was the best they could do? I reviewed some of my old slides several years ago to possibly scan some I wanted to see without a projector and it was disappointing to see the color changes, how soft they were, how they lacked detail even taken with a Leica M3 and Summicron lens. Certainly not up Fuji standards even back when I reviewed them. Nostalgia is OK, but it has become an industry. It is similar to the pictorialist period when photography tried to imitate art. It did not last and is mostly forgotten.

[@yoitsjust]

The easiest way to get the film look is the print the digital Jpegs and rescan it to get that film texture. Then you color correct

[@TrendyWhistle]

The main thing I notice in the color film photos is halation, it doesn’t exist on the jpegs. Other than that I like the Fujifilm jpegs. Maybe a later camera generation can simulate halation in camera.

[@kronkite1530]

I feel humbled. Following your last video here, I got into an argument with someone decrying the JPEG’s not realising he was only referring to the Fuji Weekly recipes rather than the camera options. But, looking at your examples I was shocked to see (a) how easy it was to spot the film v Fuji examples but, especially, (b) how awful one looked even before being shown next to the film = the beach shot on the Portra version; dull, flat and a greeny yellow tone, plus the omnipresent turquoise/teal sky. So, does it matter? Yes, to me because yet again I’m selling (as of last week) my last digital camera after wasting years and 1000s on flip flopping from manufacturer to manufacturer and going back to film (120 and 35mm) with (the matter!) the now relatively huge cost, restrictive costs on my income. Resolution really isn’t the issue - I have sold even 35mm images to libraries and publishers and prints too; well scanned, even before such as a super Resolution or Topaz Gigapixel etc., pretty big prints are doable - it is that cost. I doubt anyone who came to photography once digital was established can appreciate how spoiled we were by film prices back in the 70s and 80s. I used to moan, of course, but looking back, if prices had been as high as now I doubt I could have taken 1/4 as many shots - from 35mm through 4” x 5” without bankruptcy. So, I’ve dithered and regret doing this but I just can’t consistently enough get the look I want from even the recipes, and shooting now just for me, will be parsimonious but hopefully more regularly happy with the results.

[@wonderfulworldofty]

The Portra 400 from Fuji X Weekly is too green, tried it multiple times with different scenes and exposures but all I see is the green hues lol

[@kanecain1981]

I think the biggest misconception regarding film sims is the belief that you are getting one-to-one results. Fuji has never claimed one-to-one reproduction. They often say their simulations are "inspired" by the real thing, but never 100% accurate.

[@tashihishey34]

The colour of film and the clarity of digital in my opinion would be the Leica M8/M9 digital files.

[@kronkite1530]

I regret selling my M8 (for more resolution, DOH!) as it really did look as close as I have found. Images Thorsten von Overgaard has published on his webpage and YT channel with the even earlier CCD sensor in the DMR module for the R8 and R9 do look so pleasing, and he’s said similar to you. But 20 year old electronics in a now £2000+ camera / module seems very risky.

[@flipper3691]

Not into film but I like character and I don’t spend time in LR or anything. I was a Sony shooter, I owned Leica (m8.2 and Q), loved the glass and Zips M mount. Sony was serving us terrible kit primes… why? My x-e3 came with an XC 15-45 that is super sharp, gives tons of character and costs nothing. That is respect to your customer. I bought other lenses, more expensive, but the XC line takes nothing away in IQ. I will stick with them.

[@arturgajewskiphotog]

Shooting with film has only nostalgic value. Don't know why though, since nobody seems to watch movies on VHS :D

[@Goughie]

And nobody listens to music on vinyl….

[@stew_redman]

Fuji have done a great marketing job, selling "film style" to people that don't shoot film. If you only post to Instagram or other social media you can save a fortune by just using your phone and filters. I always tell people that if they want an authentic film look then shoot film. It's as much about the experience as it is about the pictures.

[@aquaticlibrary]

I’d say it’s more marketed towards film shooters that want a digital alternative for convenience and price savings. The X100V is the only one in the lineup I’d say is marketed for non-film shooters to get that experience and not by Fujifilm but by IG and TikTok hype.

[@stew_redman]

@@beehoney3055 The full film experience is only gained by shooting film. Most modern digital cameras produce incredible colours and images. I shoot with an R5 for most of my digital work, but I have an extensive collection of film cameras in 110, 35mm and various medium formats. What camera you shoot with is personal choice. I fail to see any advantages of shooting Fuji - it offers no real-world advantages for most people and hangs somewhere between a smartphone and a "pro" mirrorless camera. There are many methods, programs, presets, filters and effect to produce the look you want. I'd rather start with a good RAW image that I can change to produce different results. Personal choice is also a huge factor in picking a camera. I chose Canon because I have hands and the full-frame cameras are the most comfortable for me to hold for long periods. The R5 also lets me get very fast shots without messing with dials and settings whilst keeping my eye stuck to the viewfinder. If I want the analogue experience I shoot film.

[@mmatiasautio]

I think the only problem here is if Fuji is claiming they look like film while it’s clear that they don’t. I would say they’re more like “inspired by film” simulations. I wonder why it is so hard to make a camera that would output film like images. You would think that with all the processing power and knowledge available this would have been nailed like 10 years ago already. Any modern camera probably has computing power equivalent to a smart phone. Maybe one day…

[@hogsa7287]

Easy way to tell. The film looks soft on 4K monitors and TV's almost as if it was a touch out of focus.

[@teleaddict23]

The Fuji recipes look manipulated, they usually have quite a strong colour cast. Whereas the film has the nice film colours but looks more natural

[@ZiroWatt]

a little bit of grading and you can match the film image, or at least get it close enough to not tell the difference, besides the unique grain and faded look. I think film can look awesome, but modern film is definitely not an unattainable look with digital

[@al404]

I think the problem with recipes is that they work with WF shift

[@hunterhart1]

Knew this was about to stir up some shit 😅

[@JoeLopez]

They are not meant to match 100% and I feel they do accomplish the intent.

[@000dreamweaver]

Everytime i want to make a JPEG warmer but it gets in the highlights just ugly yellow/Green their is nothing like the warm Look of portra. This colourtone do not exist

[@Goughie]

I shared a video a couple week back that's my own recipe that's a warmer look, definitely not like portra! but a warm look you might like

[@aquaticlibrary]

The thing about “Recipes” are they are just created by your average photographer and shared with others. If you want a film look, pick your favorite film stock and adjust the settings to look as similar as possible.

[@JJ_Photo]

One thing you forget to mention. Your "real" analog film shots you show here, are also digital. They are scanned. And scanned negatives are processed with a color algorithm in the scanner software. Even the white balance is calculated/manipulated 😉 So, as you say, it all doesn't matter. Just use and process for your own likings. I have never scanned an analog image, and succeeded to match the analog result made with chemicals in the darkroom. It can't be done - only come close.

[@Goughie]

I do mention this in the full videos, there’s so many levels of interpretation. Even in the darkroom you hit so many variables, chemicals, temperatures, lighting, paper choice, is there such thing as a like for like comparison probably not 😂

[@3c3c3c]

The day will come when they make an AI that mimics film perfectly

[@philipcooper8297]

It's all in the glass.

[@alexsteiner7544]

FINALLY someone has said the simulations don't look like the film stock. I've said this for years to constant bashing on forums saying they are identical and as someone who shot these stocks for years I know they really aren't. As for the portra one the recipe is far too blue and flat. You can get a similar if not better look taking them and editing in LR.

[@andersistbesser]

Film just makes the picture worse. Its cool if you want a Stylish look but i dont get the film hype.

[@vladibarraza]

Digital looks much better, sharper, without halation, etc.

[@jebeq2007]

I beleive that over 95% of Fuji shooters have never even touched a film camera and truely believe they are actually getting a real film color from recipeis. I think " Film Simulations/Recipes" are nothing more than a Color Grade Preset. I shoot 90% film and can tell you that Recipes are far from the real film look.. I also own 5 Fuji cameras including the new X-T5 and have given up on recipes. I just shoot raw and feel that I get a more realistic film look with my VSCO presets in Lightroom. At any rate if people are happy with recipes, so be it!

[@mex5341]

in all these examples Jpeg from a camera look better . With proper WB and sharpness

[@jan-martinulvag1962]

You did not even try to get the digital images look like film

[@Goughie]

What should I have done?

[@jan-martinulvag1962]

@@Goughie You can change settings in the camera to get closer to film

[@v_stands_for_value124]

Setting skill is needed to make simulations look like film