Comparing Fuji Acros To Olympus Monochrome; How Do They Differ?

In the post for February 15, 2017, I explored the idea of matching color palates between two specific camera that I own, the Fuji X-T2 and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II.  I wondered whether or not the color palates could be matched or whether their basic engineering and sensors rendered colors so differently and unique that it would be unlikely to do so. You can read that post here.

An extension of those thoughts was comparing the black and white palates of both cameras, specifically Fuji Acros and Olympus Monochrome.  

Before I received my X-T2 last September, I read and read and read about how wonderful the Acros film simulation was in the Fuji X-Trans III cameras. Being a lover of black and white photography, when I received my X-T2, I found myself choosing the Acros film simulation and liking it very much.  Skip to now.  

I acquired an Olympus E-M1 Mark II in late January and I started wondering how different the Acros simulation is compared to what Olympus provides in their "Monochrome" simulation.  Well, the only way to find out is to run some tests for comparison.  Being it is winter in SE Virginia and the landscape is barren and devoid of snow and is of little visual interest, I find myself testing and learning about my gear during the winter months.  In the other three seasons, I'm just out wandering and making images as much as possible.

Disclaimer:  This is not a rigorous scientific test under controlled laboratory conditions but an experiment to see what differences I could find between the black and white renditions of Fuji Acros and Olympus Monochrome.  If you think I've made any errors in testing technique, please advise as I try to put out the best information I can.

I photographed the X-Rite Colorchecker Passport with both cameras in full sun.  My X-T2 was set for Acros (no filters) and my E-M1 Mark II was set for Monochrome, no filters. Both cameras were set at default settings for curves, shadow and highlight detail, etc.  That means both presets should render tonalities as default right out of each camera.

The Fuji X-T2 JPEG Acros film simulation right out of the camera (click to enlarge)

Here is the X-Rite Colorchecker Passport in color for reference (click to enlarge)

The Olympus E-M1 Mark II Monochrome film simulation right out of the camera (click to enlarge)

Here are the Fuji and Olympus black and white renditions side by side so you can directly compare how they render each color patch.

Fuji Acros on left; Olympus Monochrome on right; the middle gray patch, bottom row
third from right, was matched for luminance, to compensate for about 1/3 stop difference of in-camera exposures.
Mataching middle gray should give a realistic idea of how the rest of the color tonalities are rendered for comparison.
(click to enlarge)

Here again is the Colorchecker in color for reference (click to enlarge)

What difference do I find?  

When I first tried to measure the reflectivity (luminance) of the various color and gray patches, it became obvious that there was a point to a point and a half difference in measurements from different places within each patch.  To make each patch consistent across its entire area, I exported the comparison image to Photoshop and blurred it 15 points with Gaussian Blur.  That blurring gave a consistency across each patch.  The variations in measuring patch across its surface were gone.  

I then measured the various black, gray, white and color patches and recorded the luminance reading for each.  These readings have a possibility from 0, which is pure black to 100 which is pure white.  I have included the luminance readings on each patch on the black and white JPEGs as well as within each patch for easier comparison on the color image of the Colorchecker below.

Direct comparison of Fuji Acros black and white tonal rendition versus Olympus Monochrome tonal rendition
The Fuji Acros JPEG is on the left and the Olympus Monochrome JPEG is on the right.  The numbers on
each patch are representative of their brightness on a scale of 0-100
and show how each color patch is rendered by the two cameras.
(click to enlarge)

Direct Comparison in tonal rendition in color (click to enlarge)
The red numbers are from the Fuji Acros image file and the blue
are from the Olympus Monochrome file.  Here you get a direct
comparison as to how bright each color is recorded.  Again, Fuji is in red
and Olympus is in blue.

Analysis

How does the Fuji Acros and the Olympus Monochrome renditions differ?

Working from the bottom up, we find Acros is a bit more contrasty.  The whites are a bit whiter and the blacks are just a tad darker.  There is about a 5% difference in overall contrast.  That will give the images a bit more "punch" to them.  Not much, but a little bit.  The other side of that coin is the Olympus Monochrome will give you a little more detail in the shadows and highlights out of the camera.  

If you look at the two patches directly adjacent to whitest patch on the left and blackest patch on the right, the Olympus renders the (left) light gray patch just a bit darker, and the (right) very dark gray patch a little lighter than does the Fuji.  That means there will be a tad more detail in the highlights and shadows in the Olympus image files.  Again, not a significant difference, in my opinion, but if you are working right out of the camera with no editing, there will be a little difference.

A slight regression....

In the old film days, we would call this a difference in the "characteristic curve." Without going into too much detail, a characteristic curve typically looked like an s-curve instead of a straight line, representing black to white.  Digital is mostly a straight line.  The the top of the s-curve was called the shoulder and the difference in the curve of the shoulder represented more or less contrast in your highlights.  The bottom was called the "toe" and represented contrast and detail in the shadows.  Here is an example:

Look familiar?  Looks just like the "Curves" panel in Photoshop or Lightroom
where you can change the tonality of different parts of you image.  With film
you would manipulate development time to change the shape of the curve to
change the overall contrast of the negative, not specific parts as with digital.  Much less flexibility.

There were only a few ways to optimize negative contrast to match your subject and the light in which you were photographing.  Films were manufactured with different characteristic curves, some more contrasty than others (different toe and shoulder curves). You tried to pick the best film for your subject matter and light conditions.  Also, you could over or under expose the film to help change contrast.  That was usually done in tandem with over or underdeveloping the film.  The combination of the two could nicely lower the contrast and keep good detail or, going the other way, keep the subject from looking very flat having not enough contrast.

Additionally, film developers had different properties and different developers could be used to tailor to a subject to render it as you desire.  Again, the idea was to end up with a characteristic curve so detail in the shadows or highlights was nicely rendered and the overall scene had proper contrast.  These manipulations were relatively minor compared to what we have available in today's digital world. 

If you printed enlargements, you had two additional parameters to adjust your prints if you didn't get it right with film and development.  You had a variety of contrast grades in printing paper (normally from 1-5, but some variable contrast papers stretched that from 0-6, I believe) and you had print developers and developing time would could be varied. If you didn't get the print right with those adjustments, you were pretty much out of luck. 

Regression over....back to the analysis

In our test comparing the bottom row and the two cameras' black to white renditions as represented by the patches, there isn't much difference, but some.  Five percent.  These differences could be enhanced or eliminated in editing, if you so choose. 

Working up one row, the primary and secondary colors (blue, green, red, yellow, magenta and cyan) are probably of the most interest after the black to white tonal renditions.  The Fuji renders red (25%), magenta (13.5%) and blue (15%) brighter than the Olympus.  I think that is significantly different.  The green, yellow and cyan are within a percentage or two in reflectance and probably within statistical significance.

For the Fuji camera, the browns, darker greens and bright reds will reproduce very similarly as will the pinks, cyans, lime greens and yellows render similarly.

In the Olympus camera, the purples and blues will render a similar tone as will the magentas, cyans, greens and oranges.

One other observation is that the darker and lighter flesh tones (can we really define what a flesh tone is? Probably not), the brown and the pinkish hues render lighter on the Fuji so individuals' skin from pink to dark brown will render a bit brighter in the Olympus Monochrome images. 

If you were a serious black and white photographer, it would be an advantage to fully understand how each camera will render in your images.  As I have said many, many times, the better you know your gear, the better images you have the potential to make.

That being said, it is less important today to understand all this if you are photographing digitally with RAW images and converting to black and white as you can manipulate the tonal reproduction of any of these colors individually to achieve any look you want for any particular image.  That, my friends, is so amazing compared to what used to be.  Be thankful!  But if you want to use one of the JPEG simulations, this exercise may be helpful to your understanding of what results you can expect.

You can do some additional analysis if you want.  The information is here.  I won't go into any more for this post.

I think the bottom line for me is that there are differences in how the Fuji Acros and Olympus Monochrome render various colors as well as image contrast.  Neither is better than the other, just different.  Once can choose which one is better liked, but again, that is highly personal.  

I think the differences matter most if you are sending out JPEGs right out of the camera and don't conduct any editing later.  However, with the highly malleable digital image files, even black and white 8-bit JPEGs, as well as superb editing software available today, I think one could easily replicate either if one wanted to put the time and effort into creating presets to do so as long as the overall exposures were close.

I hope you found this of interest.  I did.  Maybe it will help you better understand why the differences exist between these two cameras and manufacturers.

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook 

All content on this blog is © 2013-2017 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.