Видео

Great video! Your detailed comparison of the different strengths of black Pro Mist filters was really insightful. It's fascinating to see how each level affects the final look, and I appreciate your tips on when to use each one. The examples you shared from around London were perfect for illustrating the differences. Thanks for breaking down the pros and cons of using these filters-definitely something to consider for achieving that filmic look. Looking forward to more of your weekly videos!

nice 🫡🫡

clueless

1/4th is the sweet spot for me.

Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to this! There's no such thing as too much pro-mist!! 🌫😅

It's worth noting that the apparent diffusion at a given filter strength will vary with FOV; tighter focal lengths will amplify the effect. A focal length disclaimer for the example shots would be helpful. FYI

Couldn't tell much in daylight but in night 1/8 is good but I won't go much more than 1/4. 1/2 and 1 looks too much.

Really nice, thanks for the test! 1/4 seems the sweet spot to me. At nighttime, it's way more intense and even 1/8 is quite noticeable.

hard to compare the softness difference when the focus is jumping all the time. 2:34

If you are doing more scenic productions, maybe even fictional short film productions, you could also use the full stop or even stack ontop of it, if you are in a scene that shows a memory of whoevers memory we are looking at in that scene. Thats definitely something to consider.

I think there was a problem with the auto-focus in the video. Were you using a fujifilm camera lol

Funny video, I followed you on threads. I look forward to your film type content.

Just found your channel; I quite enjoy what I’ve watched so far. The thing about Fuji X Weekly’s Gold simulation: I’ve never been a fan. And one thing too, is that your film images came down to how the lab tech scanned your negatives. They seemed to be quite heavy on the reds and warmth, not at all like Gold 200 would normally render…

Labs scans were ass, yours were very nice, good job!

A few tips on getting better colours: 1. Be sure to adjust white balance with the dropper (W key) on the film border (the brown part) prior converting. This is very important and you should always do this! This also means that you don't have to bother with WB on your camera. 2. Make sure that you crop out the film border before converting, or set the "border buffer" to the appropriate % so that the film borders don't show up; don't worry, this won't actually crop your images, it will just take that area into consideration when it analyses the colours. 3. Use roll analysis. Assuming that you've already WB-ed all the pictures and set up the negatives so that border buffer works across all images, select all the negatives and open up NLP. Then make sure to click on "Roll Analysis" before hitting convert. If I'm converting a whole roll of the same film stock, I usually do not touch WB/Tint at all, most of the time I'm adjusting brightness and shadows. Personally I like to stick to the Linear or Lab - Soft profiles. Good luck!

I feel it's very much a matter of personal taste, which is why it's great to have a home lab!

Loved your scans - they’re far more full of life.

After my trip to Yosemite, I realized that 35mm is not enough for landscape photography. Nice shot. And I really like your color style. Can I ask what recipe you use?

Is there any softening while using built in nd filter?

Where can I find the same microphone muffler you are using?

hey man great video! love that gimbal

comparing film and digital film simulation in a screen is a stupid idea, sure film simulation looks good and people talking shit about it are missing the point, but film is a physical media, try comparing 2 enlarged prints one printed from digital and the other developed in photographic paper, completely different specially if you look up close or enlarge a lot, it's like comparing the monalisa with a digital painting that with as much attention to detail and finesse as the monalisa, if you look in a screen sure they're about the same quality, but the "true painting" is a material medium, the way light interacts with the semi-translucent layers of dissolved paint could never be achieved with a digital painting printed in the highest quality possible, its about hic et nunc and materiality, go read Walter Benjamin or something

This is a comparison of images at opposite ends of the spectrum, it’s not surprising there were significant differences. The Fuji is a very modern bsi sensor and state of the art lens, the canon 300 and ef lens is 25 years old, and the Kodak gold known for oversaturation and heavy grain. I think the Fuji files could have been processed to more closely match the Gold, and using say Portra 160 and better film glass would have given a film result closer to the digital files. In short I think comparing the images is a pointless exercise, each could be modified to match the other. But what was great, and perhaps the sleeper point to this video, was your comment that using film slowed you down, made you think more about the composition, and gave you a greater connection with the process. That is exactly my experience with film……………bravo, and do try more film photography…….and tell us how it goes!!

bad film exposures or terrible scanning ruined the comparison

How do you film your video ? the quality is insane

I don't think it's even possible to objectively compare film to digital. If you scan the film won't that just digital vs digital? The process of developing the film makes a big difference more so the scanning. It boils down to preference and affordability. I shoot film now because I still enjoy the analog experience of it and the digital cameras I want is either too expensive or out of stock. I'm no pro so the photos that I like is subjective.

As the wise old man said use the right tool for the right job. Use the one that matches what you want to do for that application. Nothing wrong with having multiple cameras for different things.

Ha!! I took pics of that same M-Benz at 6:32 when I was in London in January! Except I chose to include the back half of it with the pink flat as main subject shooting from across the street. I used the Q2 and it's one of my favorite images from our trip.

Great channel and video editing! Keep it up!!!

I like the film better, but both are cool

I am biased, but I liked the film shots. For me, the strength in digital is to not emulate film. They shine for different reasons.

I think a nicer way to do these comparisons is to shoot the films first in an easily replicable situation, develop it, and then later try to shoot as similar as possible images with the Fuji, preferably using a vintage lens, tweaking the settings and white balance until it actually comes close to the film results. The question most people have in mind when it comes to Fuji Film Simulation are _"is it _*_capable_*_ of taking pictures that resemble films"_ and how _far_ can you *push* the system for that purpose? Obviously it won't be able to 100% replicate film (and the lens will have big a factor too), it's just a simulation after all and how one develops the film greatly alters the end result, but so far not many video has tried to see the Film Simulation's full potential. The problem I see with most video that does this _"Film Sim vs Film"_ thing is that practically everyone just quickly put in some recipe they found online, the accuracy of which is questionable to begin with, using films that may or may not have decayed with development process that make the images looks different from what the recipe maker got in mind when they made the film sim, shot with your typical ultra sharp lens of the modern age on the Fuji, and then compares the results. Essentially there's no real effort in making the Fuji comes close to the real thing in the shooting process, people see that it's not very similar, and just concludes that this is _"the limit to digital attempting to simulate film"_ when it could easily get even closer.

Amazing comparison of both formats. I do like that the simulation has a little more ‘true to life’ look to it, but the unexpected results for developing film adds an extra layer of excitement once you see the final product. And in this case it certainly came out on top.

Well done and great to see young people like yourself embracing film. I have started photography during 1979 and later was doing it professionally for weddings. The film colours you shown on the street portraits closely resemble those 1980-90s and early 2000 when I was doing portraits. The film I was using was the professional Portra 160, I think nowdays its the 400 but never tried colour. I still don't think the digital can match the lovely colours of film especially when you process and print chemically without scanning. The closest I got to the film is with my D700. Now of-course I only do photography as a hobby and with film I only shoot BW and process and print in my darkroom, but my bulk of photography is done with my D700 and have no intention of getting any new cameras. Hopefully the camera manufacturers will see the demand and start manufacturing some nice simple film cameras. Cheers

Lab where they scanned film didn't do a great job... Same film can look completely different depending on who is doing the scanning and in most of your film shots red is too dominant which it shouldn't be (unless you want it to be). But nevermind film or digital, colour cast or not, shots are dope!

If Canon made an update modern one. I would definitely buy it! I'll be using this instead of using my phone. Wish for a similar camera style.

if you scan those with vuescan as a RAW File, you can adjust the Whitebalance in NegativeLabPro - and i think those results would be more matching

Hello. I guessed correctly!!! But what gave it away was the lack of contrast and chalky appearence of the portrait: they just haven't gotten around to giving a "real" look to skin texture and that is actually what got me selling my Fuji X100V and getting the "cheapest" Leica+lens that I could find (Leica M4 and 35mm Summicron version2). Thanks for your video

Ah. So I guessed wrong. How fun. And very interesting! What a great post!

I'm guessing B was the film. Only because "exposures." As for people telling you to shoot film, sod off. Do what you love to do. :) Great post, GB. Thanks! I'm only at the beginning. But just still watching.

Thanks for your video! Always good, and high quality. For the purposes of anyone learning about this I want to clairfy that this is Film vs Recipe, not simulation. Or at best Film vs. Edited simulation. An actual example of a Film vs Simulation would be Superia vs Classic neg, or Reala vs Reala, Acros vs Acros, Velvia vs velvia, etc. There hasn't been a lot of Superia Film vs Classic Neg, if you ever want to do a part 2 of this.

Great video Gabriel - it's great hearing your experience and perspective from making this change. Single purpose devices like the ones you've adopted have definitely made a big comeback, and I think it's for the very reasons you've outlined here. It's important to find ways to take back your attention and find strategies to be intentional in the smart world.

Is it possible to apply a film simulations to movies. I can’t find how to anywhere. I want to be able to use something like kodachrome64 on my videos. I can use the presets , just not my recipes.

All can be done in Adobe PS Neutral Filters for years.

That confidence is really an issue for many creatives! I saw this Video on the starting page of your channel and had to write a short comment. Do what you love

Ok but those shots look nothing like film, let alone gold 200

Great video Gabriel, I still feel like a robot talking to camera - so can definitely relate. Subscribed 👍🏻

Yay. No morw buying presets. Just save a sample and drag to match look window

Can you share the recipe you used? 🙏

eu amo essa câmera 😞💗