 |
| JPEG image file; Pro Neg. Std. Film Simulation (this has been slightly edited) (click to enlarge) Fujifilm X-T4; 16-55mm f/2.8 @ 16mm; 1/250th sec. @ f/16; ISO 800 |
Now that I've settled on only using Fujifilm gear, specifically an X-T4 and a few lenses, I decided to finally get around to really learning the differences between the various film simulations. Yes, I've played and experimented with them a bit in the past, but my goal is now two-fold. First, I plan on shooting RAW plus JPEG to ascertain what percentage of the kind of images I routinely make will be just fine using the JPEG file format and second, I plan on using the automatic bracketing function in the camera to bracket three different film simulations for each exposure I make—two color and the third black and white. That way, I can directly compare the various differences in color, hue, saturation, luminance, contrast, etc. of the color palates of each simulation.
After I complete my experimenting, if all goes as I hope, I can set my camera to shoot RAW (for insurance) + JPEG and a film simulation (or simulations for different types of subjects) that best suits me. Plan B would to have some sort of modification of that. I'll just have to wait and see.
Diving deep into the menu system, you Fuji users know how many parameters are adjustable when setting up your film simulations. There seems to be thousands of ways to modify the included film simulations. I chose three to begin my experiment. I made modifications to match what I feel would suit me the best. For all of my past as well as my current Fuji cameras, I had already standardized on Pro Neg Std., which to me is a close match for my old stalwart film in my medium format film days—Kodak Vericolor III Negative film. It was a film used by wedding photographers, portraitists, etc. I liked it because the colors were very accurate, not exaggerated, a softer contrast to hold highlight and shadow detail and very fine grained. Vericolor film had to hold the detail in a white wedding dress as well as a black tuxedo in the same shot. Remember, back then, there was no contrast adjustments when printing on color paper. The film's ability made you or broke you. So Pro Neg Std. is what one of my film simulations will be to start this experiment.
I set up the three film simulations in my X-T4 (with some of my own modifications which I will also evaluate) for Pro Neg Std., Classic Neg. and Monochrome R. After I've worked these three for a while, I'll switch to three others. I then went out and made a trial run the other day (very bright sunny day at about 10:00 a.m.; lots of contrast! On purpose). The images you see posted here are the result of some of the scenes I photographed. All of these images are JPEGs straight out of the camera with the exception of a slight bump with Lightroom's Exposure slider. That is another thing I want to learn. Where exactly does my histogram have to lie in order for exposures to be exact straight out of the camera. I bumped these up about 1/2 stop, which tells me "0" on the Exposure Compensation Dial just underexposes slightly. Fujifilm was smart in engineering that way as that helps not blow out any highlights on very high contrast scenes. If this trend continues, I may just set my Exposure Compensation Dial on +1/3 or +2/3 Stop and see if that slight bias plays nice with the JPEGs.
When editing them in Lightroom, some differences were immediately apparent in color, hue, contrast and saturation. The first thing I noticed is that the white balance for Pro Neg Std. and Classic Neg. are very different. I had the camera set on Auto White Balance. I pressed the shutter once and the camera recorded all three images. I found it strange that the two color JPEGs had a markedly different white balance. Hmmm? That tells me that Fujifilm must bake in a bit of a color bias into the Classic Neg. simulation. To make their white balances look identical, I had to add +6 Yellow and +14 Magenta to the Classic Neg. image, which subtracts the red/orange bias. I'll make a mental note of that for the future.
Additionally, the Classic Negative simulation turns the greenery a cyan color. I don't care for that and I would probably not prefer to use that simulation for both of the newly discovered color biases. But that is what experimentation and the learning process is all about.
Finally, the blue of the skies are reproduced a bit differently as well. The Pro Neg. Std.'s blue sky RGB reading is R=70, G=73 and B=85. The same location in the sky for the Classic Neg. image is R=58, G=72 and B=80. Quite a difference in how the blue is reproduced. (My color computer and color monitor is color calibrated).
Here are some of the images I made, as I said, SOOC JPEGs, with the exception of adding about 1/2 stop exposure to counteract the slight underexposure for the old building and church images. The farmhouse images are SOOC. You should be able to see some of the differences I described but I don't know how well due to Google's manipulation of the uploaded files.
NOTE: For those of you who may wonder, I set my in-camera JPEG sharpening on +1. I have found that to best suit my taste for sharpened images for use on the Internet. My Lightroom Classic export sharpening is always set on “High” for electronic viewing. For printing I normally will use Photoshop’s sharpening tools.
 |
| Pro Neg Std. (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Classic Negative (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Monochrome with the Red filter. (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Pro Neg Std. (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Classic Neg (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Monochrome with the Red filter (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Pro Neg Std. (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Classic Neg (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Monochrome with the Red filter (click to enlarge) |
I want to make a comment on photographing using the JPEG file format. First, yes, RAW image files will always be better. In the past, I've characterized the difference between the two as going to the grocery store and buying the ingredients to make a cake and going to a bakery and having a cake made for you. Buying the ingredients allows much more flexibility and customization but bakery cakes can be superb as well. Some people just don't want to bake their own cakes and shouldn't be goaded into doing so. One of the reasons for these experiments is to ascertain if I can reduce my editing time by making JPEGs most of the time.
The naysayers of using the JPEG file format will tell you that it has less dynamic range, only 8-bits of data, etc. All true. But what they aren't telling you is that JPEG files are still very malleable, can take a lot of manipulation and correction/modification if necessary. Its not as though your are stuck simply with what comes out of the camera. You can edit JPEGs in much the same way as RAW files, but you also need to remember their limitations. If your aim is to simplify your photography or you don't like to spend the hours extensively editing RAW files, shooting JPEGs is a viable alternative that shouldn't be overlooked. However, like anything, educate yourself through experience in shooting with the requirement of shooting JPEGs. The key is to have a precise an exposure as possible.
Gordon Laing is a UK YouTuber, a highly respected camera and lens reviewer and has written a book on shooting with JPEGs. I believe that is his main method of photography. The book title is, "In Camera: How to Get Perfect Pictures Straight Out of the Camera."
Here is an Amazon link if you are interested. I haven't read it but what I've read about it, I think it may be worthwhile if you want to improve your images SOOC.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07YS8MFYB/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
One note to Fujifilm and they have heard it many times in the past. When setting the camera for RAW + JPEG and bracketing film simulations, not only do you get your three film simulation selections, but you also get three RAW files. Why? I only need one. There has to be some sort of technical reason for this that they cannot solve otherwise I'm sure they would have altered the firmware to have 3 simulation bracketed images + 1 RAW file. I hope they can change this in the future.
Finally, I have no relationship, personal or business with Mr. Laing, Amazon or any other manufacturer. I have no affiliate links, no pass through clicks for me to get commissions and I buy and pay for everything I have paying the same prices as do you. I just try to pass on what I have learned about photography over the past 51 years so others can enjoy it as much as I still do.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2021 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment