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!
Thank you, I appreciate that! Next weeks video I actually scan this film with my DSLR and use negative lab pro... and the differences are kind of unbelievable
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…
Thank you, glad you're enjoying! and agree... I don't think the lab did a great job on the scans, but I'm continuing to try and practise my self scanning, so I can get some better comparisons in future!
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
Thank you very much for such a kind comment! there is something special about film for sure. I'm hoping with cameras like the Pentax 17, we're heading in that direction!
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!!
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.
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.
Thank you, I appreciate that! and interesting, I don't think I'd grasped the differences in terms, I'll have to look into making an update like you suggest!
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
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.
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.
Nothing against Fuji, but Film simulations have zero similarities to actual films. I shoot both digital & film and develop at home for reduced costs. There are fundamental differences on why this will never look similar, no matter the recipe and/or film stock. For example : 1) If you under-over expose a film, it will have a completely different look, even if it's the same film/camera. (Especially in the same roll, if the dev times are not adjusted) 2) White balance drastically changes how a picture looks in film, even in the same roll. 3) Development. Different labs use different chemicals/scanners, making it impossible to get one universal look of a film. You can push/pull film, make a completely different look when it comes to contrast, color casts etc. 4) Colors in film, like in real life, is an additive process, compared to RGB, which is the opposite. For example, adding more color in film, will make it look darker, while in digital, it will look more bright. Have a look on actual Kodachrome film to see how the colors look :) 5) Dynamic range is bigger in film (well, in most of them), compared to digital cameras (especially APSC), having more details and smoother highlights/shadows. 6) Grain in films is something physical, which can be quite unpredictable, depending on each roll, exposure etc. In digital cameras, it look more like digital noise.
I think that's a great way to do a video, but it's not this video. I wanted to demonstrate the differences between film and a recipe you might find online, I don't really want to create my own recipe, it's two different things! Thank you for the feedback though, that's a video idea I might look into in the future
@@Homer-0 that's not my point. Film is organic and the result varies greatly, I already recognized that in my original comment and points out that replicating film with digital is impossible. The point is to see how close Fuji can get to the real thing, thus by shooting and developing the films first one can then starts pushing the simulation to it's absolute limit. It's an exercise not to claim _"film simulation can replace actual film"_ but instead a test of mettle, of whether this well known feature is either an overblown hype or can this actually fool most people into thinking the images are shot with film. It's fine if you're not interested in seeing how far the Fuji can get, but these types of videos inherently call for that intrigue and again, I'm somewhat disappointed by the lack of attempt to make the Fuji images look similar to the film results.
@@gabrielbailey802 thank you for the reply! Sorry that I essentially dumped all my frustrations with the many _"Fuji film simulation vs film"_ I've watched onto you. Don't sweat it, I also understand that what I proposed is quite the ordeal to go through and I preferably would've done so myself had I got the resources. Wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
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.
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
I actually really wasn't impressed with the scans. My next video is scanning the negatives by myself with my camera and they turned out so much better! Video coming on Sunday!
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!
Thank you, I appreciate that! Next weeks video I actually scan this film with my DSLR and use negative lab pro... and the differences are kind of unbelievable
@@gabrielbailey802 Film is fun... hope you enjoy your journey with it. I will definitely stop by to see the new video
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…
Thank you, glad you're enjoying! and agree... I don't think the lab did a great job on the scans, but I'm continuing to try and practise my self scanning, so I can get some better comparisons in future!
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.
100%, sometimes I just need a burst mode and crazy fast AF
How do you film your video ? the quality is insane
Thanks I appreciate that! I use a Sony ZV-E1, shoot in Slog, then colour grade
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
Thank you very much for such a kind comment! there is something special about film for sure. I'm hoping with cameras like the Pentax 17, we're heading in that direction!
@@gabrielbailey802 It is a good start.
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!!
Thank you! I've got an exciting trip coming up this weekend and I'm taking a lot of film with me to try out, will make a video and report back!!
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.
Thank you, I appreciate that! 100% agree, and the process is so much more intentional, I enjoyed it a lot
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 Chris, always appreciate your support!
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.
Thank you, I appreciate that! and interesting, I don't think I'd grasped the differences in terms, I'll have to look into making an update like you suggest!
Ah. So I guessed wrong. How fun. And very interesting! What a great post!
I don't blame you, if I was guessing I think I would have said B too!
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
interesting! Enjoy the Leica, that's a dreamy setup for sure!!
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.
definitely agree!
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.
Nothing against Fuji, but Film simulations have zero similarities to actual films. I shoot both digital & film and develop at home for reduced costs.
There are fundamental differences on why this will never look similar, no matter the recipe and/or film stock. For example :
1) If you under-over expose a film, it will have a completely different look, even if it's the same film/camera. (Especially in the same roll, if the dev times are not adjusted)
2) White balance drastically changes how a picture looks in film, even in the same roll.
3) Development. Different labs use different chemicals/scanners, making it impossible to get one universal look of a film. You can push/pull film, make a completely different look when it comes to contrast, color casts etc.
4) Colors in film, like in real life, is an additive process, compared to RGB, which is the opposite. For example, adding more color in film, will make it look darker, while in digital, it will look more bright. Have a look on actual Kodachrome film to see how the colors look :)
5) Dynamic range is bigger in film (well, in most of them), compared to digital cameras (especially APSC), having more details and smoother highlights/shadows.
6) Grain in films is something physical, which can be quite unpredictable, depending on each roll, exposure etc. In digital cameras, it look more like digital noise.
I think that's a great way to do a video, but it's not this video. I wanted to demonstrate the differences between film and a recipe you might find online, I don't really want to create my own recipe, it's two different things! Thank you for the feedback though, that's a video idea I might look into in the future
@@Homer-0 that's not my point.
Film is organic and the result varies greatly, I already recognized that in my original comment and points out that replicating film with digital is impossible.
The point is to see how close Fuji can get to the real thing, thus by shooting and developing the films first one can then starts pushing the simulation to it's absolute limit.
It's an exercise not to claim _"film simulation can replace actual film"_ but instead a test of mettle, of whether this well known feature is either an overblown hype or can this actually fool most people into thinking the images are shot with film.
It's fine if you're not interested in seeing how far the Fuji can get, but these types of videos inherently call for that intrigue and again, I'm somewhat disappointed by the lack of attempt to make the Fuji images look similar to the film results.
@@gabrielbailey802 thank you for the reply! Sorry that I essentially dumped all my frustrations with the many _"Fuji film simulation vs film"_ I've watched onto you.
Don't sweat it, I also understand that what I proposed is quite the ordeal to go through and I preferably would've done so myself had I got the resources. Wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
I like the film better, but both are cool
I appreciate that!
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.
Nice! Thanks for weighing in! I think for photographers it's easy to know and feel the difference, so others I think it's not so obvious
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 gave me a chuckle! Film is special for sure, it's a luxury to be able to shoot both!
bad film exposures or terrible scanning ruined the comparison
I actually really wasn't impressed with the scans. My next video is scanning the negatives by myself with my camera and they turned out so much better! Video coming on Sunday!