Some additional notes: I purposely kept the camera IQ settings all zeroed out. Had I increased noise reduction to maybe -2 or higher, I would have had less noise. However, for this video, I just wanted to test with default settings. As if you just picked up the camera, with no extra adjustments, and went out shooting in low light to see what would happen. If you do use ACROS, try playing around with the sharpening or noise reduction setting in-camera and see what results you get.
I hope fuji gives you the recognition you well deserved and free cameras and lenses. Your channel has by far been the most educational similar to andrew & denae, omar.
That's fantastic! Required viewing for anyone who wants to make the most of their film sims. All that work is much appreciated. BTW, I believe your original ISO video is also where we see the birth of "THE like and subscribe."
Thank you so much Eric!!! Excited to make live now!! And I'll need to go back and check that. There's a story behind that I'll share at the 100K celebration!
For years before I got a digital camera, I shot in very low light using HP5 and stand developed in Rodinal. Now I use the Acros film simulation and it looks downright clean. Ha! Great video as always, thank you!
You are the best! I like the change to the intro. A very timely video. With winter settling in in Canada I am taking images at our local museums in poor light. 6400 is common.
I enjoyed this video, thank you! I like what you said at 6:19! Recently I’ve really appreciated the film grain simulations. That retro vibe pretty much unique now (compared to the modern day devoid of noise RED look). 🕹👾⚡️🤘🏽
Confirms my findings with acros and monochrome. I really didn’t know what to think of this bad performance. You made it wonderfully clear. Thanks a lot and keep on your fine and enjoyable channel.
Being a film shooter also, I like the grain that's added to Acros. I have a Capture One preset that adds a little more grain that will approximate Acros film pretty well.
I think Fujifilm should really tap onto the creative power of their users and make a software/app enabling people to create complex color manipulation instructions, perhaps LUTs, which could be directly uploaded into their cameras. Also, we should be able to save manipulated images in RAW format along jpeg.
Thanks for the tests!! At least now I know what to use for portraits and street photography. Interesting that some of my favourites are also the worst performing. Perhaps there's something about the grain from Acros and Classic Neg that adds to the image. Been trying to do contrasty shots in old/vintage locations and a bit of wabisabi from grain adds to the mood.
Thanks; extremely helpful. As an Acros fan I'll certainly switch to Monochrome in the conditions you describe here. I tend to use Eterna anyway so that's a relief!!
I'd say this info is more useful for video. I recently made the regrettable decision to film an event with challenging lighting conditions in Standard instead of Eterna, my usual go-to for video. Trying to clean up the footage on my limited computer has been a challenge.
Yikes, I had to pause at 1:23 in. I’m 4-months new to Fuji with an x100v. One of the grand beauties (compared to Canon) is that upon importing RAW files into Lightroom Classic is the film simulation profile (Acros, Velvia, etc) stays with the file! It’s heavenly. Did I find a “gotcha?” Do I get points? 😁 And now back to the video. Love your vids.
Eh. Noise does not bother me at all. I would use any of the film sims at any ISO up to 12800. I don't think I have ever tried to shoot above that. If I am concerned about noise, I will try to add more light to my scene (as you said). If I cannot do that, I will just use the noise to my advantage by considering it an artistic element. I just crank up the grain setting.
Yep. Choosing between Eterna or Provia or PNS based on their high ISO noise performance is like choosing between a sports car, a pickup truck, or a station wagon based on their sound systems. Kinda misses the point.
Fuji seems to have intentionally designed their 'noise' to be smoother and inherently more 'grain' like than other brands. I have done some observation and am generalising somewhat but I don't think Fuji's noise character is bad. I find it useful. The iso amplified grain though not awful is not as good as the grain setting in the camera which is a great tool for film simulation building.
MAN ! The same about video would be amazing. I guess F-log will clearly win, with this kind of 2000ISO kind of dual gain. But as Eterna stand well ! I would be amazed to test that also. I don't get the chart. But as you shown the camera more than the color chart, I'll do it my way xD Grest job, as always !
Thanks, that’s a great video to help understand some generalities about high ISO performance. It seems, that based on your video ProNeg Std is the winner above 3200 or Monochrome if you’re going for that look. Your overview definitely makes me rethink my use of Acros when I’m doing street photography in low-light settings.
Thanks! You could also keep the ACROS, but try turning down the sharpness to maybe -3 or so and see if that improves it. I used '0' for the setting but would love to do another comparison with the settings for that adjusted in-camera.
Modern cameras like the X-T4 only really have 2 real analog gain levels, or in other words have a dual gain architecture. Usually at the lowest non extended ISO and somewhere around ISO 800. All of the other values are just digital amplification and you can digitally amplify the RAW file in post and get a very similar result. Those two analog gain level are the only 2 real ISO values the camera has.
Thank you. I like black and white gig photos and have been using Achros. Very noisy but I think they look like the old film days. But I shall try monochrome or the eterna now and maybe will be clearer. As it’s dark and all manner of lights inside I am always at 3200 or higher
this is most interesting to see. I personally (sadly) still film video with my xt1 and without Etherna or Log I use the Pro Neg. Std and -2 on everything to try to get as a flat image as possible. Maybe Ill try at least Provia as an alternative if it creates less noise.
A question that comes to mind is; If you are using film simulation, do you want the images to look like digital photos with low noise, or do you want them to look like film photos?
This gave me an idea! I’m new to all of this but what if you purposely shot high ISO even during the day to get a Granier look. Would this be way different vs adding the grain option in camera?
What an interesting comparison! Pro neg std and Eterna are two of the lowest contrast film sims. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? Ironic about Acros, as Acros film was renowned for being fine grain! I shoot a lot of Astro, always in raw. Might try some in jpeg. Irrespective of the film sim, the noise control in those jpegs is fantastic!
Hello pal2tech! I’m having trouble regarding saving my white balance in the custom setting for the film simulation. Whenever I switch to the next custom film sim it will carry the white balance shift that was set on the first one I have tried on. Tried resetting the custom settings and saving it again but no luck.
thank you Chris, your video encouraged me to use ISO 6.400 on my fuji outdoors in rainy weather today in Germany. Conclusion: even X-E2 is well suited for this "high" ISO.
Hi, I use the XT4 in aperture priority mode most of the time. I have noticed that if I set the ISO manually instead of keeping the ISO in automatic mode the camera will set a faster shutter speed in low light conditions. For example, if the Camera automatically sets the ISO to 6400 the camera will set the shutter speed at 50. If I manually set the ISO to 6400 the camera will set the shutter speed to 80. This is all other settings being the same. So if I manually set the ISO I can get slightly faster shutter speeds from the camera. Do you know why this would happen?
Hi do these film simulation modes help create cinematic look for movies? I like Sony A6400 better but am attracted by the Fuji feature as I have no colour grading knowledge nor do I want to do it! Any suggestions?
Dear pal2tech. Thank you for another great video. I'd like to get a variable ND filter as you also recommended. I use lenses that take 52 mm, 58 mm and 62 mm filters. Is it a good idea to get one 62 mm variable ND filter and 2 filter adapters for the smaller lenses or would you get a separate filter for each lens? Thanks!
Hello ! I got mine recently with 18-55 mm , but the image quality is bad even when i shoot with low ISO , do you think something wrong with the cam ? Or it doesn't handle high iso in low light ? Thanks
So im turning insane... Ive been editing some raw fotos, and noticed, that they only look good on my screen: So I thought, maybe the screensettings are the issue, and if i just edit on my mac, itll be fine... right? WRONG. The same Raw pic is more yellow on my Tower Comouter and the Histogram shows it. Meaning it doesnt appear different, it is. I manually selected all the same settings. Is there some stuff hidden in Xraw studio, that maybe I changed a few month ago, and is still active? If so, why do my pictures look different anywhere else? (Iphone and mac?) Does the Histogram show the colors my screen shows? Im so confused :( Ive poured hours into this, and now my work is for the cat as we say in german. The pictures are more yellow, and a lot brighter on my screen, than on anyone elses...
Hey Chris great thanks... XT4 - Issue...when I try to set my Command Dial setting, nothing sticks.. I want to set it to adjust ISO, but no matter what I set It wont stick.. Any help would be great
I enjoy your videos and knowledge. Pixel peeping in this video is exaggerated. The human eye will not recognize this noise to my belief. Unless for large prints I never value noise at more than 50% zoomed in.
Actually ISO is not part of the Exposure triangle, if you look at your diagram that you had in a video, ISO is applied after the picture is taken, It's not part of the exposure triangle. ISO is nothing more then amplified gain after the picture is taken, just before it's written to the card, it's nothing more then taking your picture in Lightroom and sliding the exposure slider to make it brighter that is it, it's post production with in your camera before it's written to the card. Now In a analog film camera ISO is part of the exposure triangle because there is first no electrical or digital work here, it's chemicals built on the film and you just set your ISO dial accordingly to what the film is graded to, that's why you see in a camera shop or cvs film has numbers on there, 100, 200, 800 those are the ISO settings... also ISO is not the same in every camera as you think if you got a fujifilm camera ISO 200 would really be ISO 100, or in nikon iso 100 is iso 100 Don't take my word for it here is proof of what ISO does and how it works.. th-cam.com/video/QVuI89YWAsw/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/-dHGkwY4GDA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/q1oM7AgIMTg/w-d-xo.html
That is a false analogy and one of those pointless arguments that people love to bring up over and over again, just like the focal length equivalencies discussion. Regardless of how it works technically, ISO is very much a part of the exposure triangle when it comes to practical photography. You cannot change ISO in post even if you shoot raw, you can brighten the exposure and reduce noise but the iso you set in-camera is the irreversible starting point, just as when you shoot film. If a photo is correctly exposed at f2 1/50 iso6400 and you take the same photo with f2 1/50 iso100 you will end up with a black image where most of the data is unrecoverable in raw. Therefore you cannot ignore iso when you set your exposure, and therefore it is clearly a part of the exposure triangle in real-life photography. In low light you need to make a choice, do I lower my shutter speed and risk motion blur? Do I open up my lens fully and risk getting too short dof? Or do I raise my ISO and introduce more grain? The day we get an iso slider in Lightroom (and similar programs) and can go from iso 100 to 51200 in post and get the same quality as if iso was set in the camera, that is the day your argument would hold for practical usage, but only if you shoot in raw. If there is no practical application then the argument is pointless.
@@johansphoto NO IT'S NOT, you just think it is. but it has nothing to do with exposure, NOTHING... All ISO is, is amplifying the signal the sensor picks up Nothing more, you see ISO is applied in the camera well after the picture is taken, the shutter is clicked, the signal goes from the Censor, to the analog converter, then to the AD converter then it goes to the digital gain chip, Which is the ISO, ISO is applied well after the picture is taken, so there for it has nothing to do with the exposure triangle at all. The Exposure was processed well before ISO is applied.> This is something you idiots seem to not get.. ISO has nothing to do with Exposure In Digital Photography. NOTHING!!!! ISO is nothing more the exposure gain post production after the picture is taken with in the camera, there is a video that proves it.. Some one took a picture at 100 ISO which produced a black picture then turned up the ISO to 3200 then the exposure was proper, then he took the black picture in light room and slid the exposure up to where it looks exactly like the picture taken at 3200 ISO they look no different.. TIme LINE 6:33 proves it in this video link but you won't watch it because your dumb th-cam.com/video/QVuI89YWAsw/w-d-xo.html
@@AMomentInTimeProductions Thanks for that pleasant answer! I did my own test with one RAW image that is correctly exposed at ISO 12800 and using shutter speed 1/60 and aperture f8. Then I took an identical picture ISO 160 with the same aperture and shutter speed so it comes out almost black. It does not work at all. Lightroom can only lift the exposure 5 stops which still leaves it underexposed by a couple of stops. On top of that, the ISO160 image lifted five stops is MUCH grainier (and with a bad color cast) than the ISO 12800 raw file that was correctly exposed right out of camera. Try it yourself! So, my test clearly shows that the ISO setting in camera has a strong impact on the final result and the results are far from identical. However, this is of course an extreme example so let me give you the benefit of the doubt. For smaller exposure differences it should work and maybe there is some other software that could push the exposure further and even maintain the image quality. But that would still not take ISO out of the exposure triangle. Regardless how much you can change the ISO in post there is still only a small ISO-range that would give you a proper exposure and if you ignore this when you take the photos you could end up with very grainy pictures in low light situations. I have no interest in how ISO is applied technically in a digital camera. All I care about is the practical implication for the photographer. The exposure triangle is primarily a pedagogical tool to help photographers (and cameras for that sake) to calculate and set a proper exposure. If you set your camera to aperture priority and with a fixed ISO your shutter speed will be calculated based on the ISO and aperture you have set. Shutter speed priority works the same way. So with both of these settings ISO is as important as shutter speed and aperture when calculating the exposure and therefore a part of the exposure triangle. The fact that ISO is applied afterwards does not matter since the value that will be applied is already set and is an integral part of the original exposure calculation. Only if you shoot in manual mode with Auto ISO can you ignore your ISO setting, but you do so at your own peril. You risk introducing a lot of noise if you ignore the impact your aperture and shutter speed will have on the ISO/amplification (call it whatever you like) needed to achieve a properly exposed image. So if you want to control the look of your image you had better not ignore ISO when you set your other exposure parameters.
@@johansphoto Of course there is going to be a limit to how much lightroom will allow you to up the exposure, that is not the point.that's why camera's have what they call extended ISO which means going to them going over the ISO that the camera can produce, you can still go over that in lightroom by doing it twice but your still going to have a garbage picture.. and i have tested it as well worked for me. ISO is in a camera is nothing more then what you can do in lightroom in post production and dos the exact same thing.. Even blackmagic doesn't call it ISO they call it gain which is the correct term for it it's applied GAIN. I'm not going to argue with you i know i'm correct...
@@AMomentInTimeProductions Yes this truly is a pointless discussion as I pointed out from the very beginning, so we might as well end it here. Nothing you have said supports the argument that ISO is not part of the exposure triangle in practical usage. As I have proven above when you take a picture your ISO setting is an integral part of the exposure calculation in almost all scenarios. Then you can call it Gain or whatever you like, it does not matter what the name is or how and when it is applied, the calculation is still based on your current ISO-setting otherwise your S and A modes would not work. I redid the test using raw-files from my Sony camera and a smaller ISO difference this time, 100-3200. After lifting the exposure the pictures look quite similar until you magnify them. With magnification the image with the correct ISO-setting (and thus correct exposure) in camera looks much better than the ISO 100 picture where the exposure was lifted in Lightroom. So I will continue to keep ISO in mind for the best possible result when setting my exposure.
I'm sorry but, I don't care how entertaining a video is you shouldn't watch it while driving or operating heavy equipment. That being said, I'm going 80+ on the highway right now. Love your videos. You tell me things I never thought I wanted to know
Hey. Thanks for the breakdown video. A couple of key points of info: Monochrome is actually the grey scale of Provia so it's no surprise that they are very similar. Also, Acros has a built-in grain to it that you cannot completely remove, so it's not that it's performing worse ISO-wise.
Certainly everyone has their own taste's when it comes to grain in their simulations. My favourite simulation of all time is Acros cranked all the way up to 12800 with no NR or artificial grain. Even if you think you want lower noise in your images in general, if you've never tried high ISO's on both colour and B+W simulations on the fuji system id say give it a shot. I found my top favourite simulations in both colour and monochrome function best when i shot them above 3200. Of course colour falls apart beyond 6400, but really try cranking up your monochrome simulations to the absolute limit. You might like the result! pst pst, Fuji-X weekly has lots of simulations. If you're starting out, try experimenting from the simulations already out there.
You're the Man...but don't forget to add the Red filter to that mix ! I like my grain as I like my coffee : black as the night and hot as hell, and lots of it
by the way in digital photography when you apply more ISO it's not grain, it's noise from amplifying signal, just like you get distortion in a radio when you crank up the volume too high and it gets distorted, same thing.. That so called grain your seeing is not grain at all it's noise it's the digital signal image falling apart from trying to boost the signal, In film photography that is grain, grain in film photography is from the chemicals on the negative, it's the same pattern no matter what picture how ever in digital it's noise that is never the same pattern and also showing color distortion and color falling apart..> it's not grain it's simply garbage your seeing because the signal has been depleted. it's just like taking a drink in one glass you got a full glass of whiskey, the other you got half whiskey and half water, the one with half and half will not get you as drunk as the one with pure whiskey and no water, same idea with ISO.. It's an image that is watered down because they wasn't enough pure exposure so water was added to brighten up the picture.. th-cam.com/video/8vcpiswF3y0/w-d-xo.html there is one video that proves this. th-cam.com/video/1sMn6Nc5a2I/w-d-xo.html
@@AMomentInTimeProductions yea I’m aware but personally I don’t care about the specifics so much. I like what I see and I don’t get caught up with the pixel peep perfection. I’m perfectly happy with how I shoot with my Fuji.
Interesting, I eschew grain for the opposite to match my personal aesthetic: -1 shadows, +2 noise reduction and+1 sharpness. The dark shadows mean the subject pops more, and the noise reduction smooths the image
Thank you for your hard work and all of the valuable information you provide. In my opinion, you have the best Fujifilm-centric TH-cam channel, bar none. Early on (since the X-T1) I standardized on using Pro Neg Std. Why? I shot film from 1970-2001 and with my medium format cameras, standardized on Kodak’s Vericolor III professional color negative film as it provided moderate contrast, very fine grain, true to life colors and details in highlights and shadows. I see almost the exact same characteristics in the Pro Neg. std. film simulations. It renders beautifully. Again, thank you for all you do.
Acros was intended to be a “grainy” film simulation from Fuji’s own website so it’s not surprising you found this to be the case. I actually like the noisier looking image as it creates a certain nostalgic look. Here is what Fuji has to say about Acros: “To achieve the ACROS like texture, the film-like “graininess” is another important element. To be specific, ACROS mode has a completely different noise reduction algorithm from other modes. The “graininess” of the silver-halide films are what we see as “noise” in the digital data. For color images, they are the unwanted noise, but in the monochrome images, it becomes an important texture.”
Like Acros Fuji adds grain to Bleach Bypass to emulate the film process. Bypassing the bleaching process which keeps the silver which produces more grain.
I absolutely love to use Pro Neg Std and Classic Chrome. I use these for almost everything. I mainly use Pro Neg Std for fashion studio work and Classic Chrome for car shoots/outdoor portraits.
Check Pro Standard as RAW. Pro Neg Standard is a sim of the old NPS series films, which were famous for being pushed. Lots of sports photos taken with NPH-800 pushed a stop. I'm wonder if the color handling makes your eyes skip over the grain/noise.
Very interesting thank you! I never noticed it before and actually use Acros when I shoot at 6400 thinking it makes the noise look better but obviously I was wrong. Besides I never use Monochrome, another obvious wrong decision. Now I shoot in RAW but I'll definitely give a try and compare with Acros next time I shoot in low light conditions. Thanks again! Cheers!
Respectfully, I also appreciate clean images but would like to offer another viewpoint, which is... If *you* think the Acros noise looks better at 6400, then it IS better. I have to believe that in any art form, our interpretation and taste play a huge role in what inspires us -- and this matters, to me, more than measurements. For example, I LOVE the grain Fuji adds to the Acros simulation. At low ISO I may add some weak (or even strong) grain with certain film sims, but at high ISO the Fuji noise can have an (almost) film-like look that I often like (without adding artificial grain in-camera).
monochrome is just provia without colors, but acros actually have some taste and even more with filters on. But actually surprised the film simulations affects the noise, what makes you have the idea to test this?
Some additional notes: I purposely kept the camera IQ settings all zeroed out. Had I increased noise reduction to maybe -2 or higher, I would have had less noise. However, for this video, I just wanted to test with default settings. As if you just picked up the camera, with no extra adjustments, and went out shooting in low light to see what would happen. If you do use ACROS, try playing around with the sharpening or noise reduction setting in-camera and see what results you get.
Thanks Chris!
I hope fuji gives you the recognition you well deserved and free cameras and lenses. Your channel has by far been the most educational similar to andrew & denae, omar.
What a deep comparison! Please, talk more about fuji simulations. Very interesting topic is the look they reach when are overexposed.
That's fantastic! Required viewing for anyone who wants to make the most of their film sims. All that work is much appreciated. BTW, I believe your original ISO video is also where we see the birth of "THE like and subscribe."
Thank you so much Eric!!! Excited to make live now!! And I'll need to go back and check that. There's a story behind that I'll share at the 100K celebration!
For years before I got a digital camera, I shot in very low light using HP5 and stand developed in Rodinal. Now I use the Acros film simulation and it looks downright clean. Ha! Great video as always, thank you!
Sorry you had to stand.
You are always the go to Fuji channel! Hey Fuji ya listening?
Excellent video 😊!
Superb. I guessed Eterna, just on the basis that it acts a bit like higher dynamic range without *being* higher dynamic range :)
Professor Fuji! Great experiment! Aren't these cameras amazing! Still rocking my X-T3
Awesome Steve!!! X-T3 is best all-around mirrorless camera on the planet.
@@pal2tech my X-T2 produces grainy images. An idea for future videos perhaps -- how to make your images silky smooth
You are the best! I like the change to the intro. A very timely video. With winter settling in in Canada I am taking images at our local museums in poor light. 6400 is common.
Sometimes you manage to find things I did not know I wanted to know.. and just do a home-run :D This was one of those
Thank you! 🙏 🙏 🙏
I enjoyed this video, thank you! I like what you said at 6:19! Recently I’ve really appreciated the film grain simulations. That retro vibe pretty much unique now (compared to the modern day devoid of noise RED look).
🕹👾⚡️🤘🏽
Thanks Vishal!!!! I hope you're doing well man!!! 🙏
Confirms my findings with acros and monochrome. I really didn’t know what to think of this bad performance. You made it wonderfully clear. Thanks a lot and keep on your fine and enjoyable channel.
Glad I could help! Thank you so much!!
Thank you for your comments
Being a film shooter also, I like the grain that's added to Acros. I have a Capture One preset that adds a little more grain that will approximate Acros film pretty well.
I think Fujifilm should really tap onto the creative power of their users and make a software/app enabling people to create complex color manipulation instructions, perhaps LUTs, which could be directly uploaded into their cameras. Also, we should be able to save manipulated images in RAW format along jpeg.
Thanks for the tests!! At least now I know what to use for portraits and street photography. Interesting that some of my favourites are also the worst performing. Perhaps there's something about the grain from Acros and Classic Neg that adds to the image. Been trying to do contrasty shots in old/vintage locations and a bit of wabisabi from grain adds to the mood.
Thank you so much Chris! So helpful! Been struggling with the noise in Fuji files (xt3)! Thanks!
I wondered about that...thanks for doing the work for us!
Thank you, this answered my question. Great video, as always!
Great review Chris and hugely helpful!
Thanks Florian!!!!!
This is pure gold information!
Fantastic!!! Thank you!!
Thanks; extremely helpful. As an Acros fan I'll certainly switch to Monochrome in the conditions you describe here. I tend to use Eterna anyway so that's a relief!!
Classic Chrome is my go to for low light. Live music photography mostly.
I know it’s been a year but thanks so much for the excellent information.
Thank you! Fantastic video! Can you tell me which fuji cameras have the classic negativ movie simulation? Thank you
With a new intro.
Thanks for sharing.
Absolutely.
Now Chris next: What about The Advanced Filter Settings and ISO.
Not to push you, but I do XD
VEry useful video, thank you!
I'd say this info is more useful for video. I recently made the regrettable decision to film an event with challenging lighting conditions in Standard instead of Eterna, my usual go-to for video. Trying to clean up the footage on my limited computer has been a challenge.
This is super helpful information. Thank you.
Yikes, I had to pause at 1:23 in. I’m 4-months new to Fuji with an x100v. One of the grand beauties (compared to Canon) is that upon importing RAW files into Lightroom Classic is the film simulation profile (Acros, Velvia, etc) stays with the file! It’s heavenly.
Did I find a “gotcha?” Do I get points? 😁
And now back to the video. Love your vids.
But if the film simulation is appended to the RAW then it aint RAW no more.
Awesome ❤
Great informative video!
Eh. Noise does not bother me at all. I would use any of the film sims at any ISO up to 12800. I don't think I have ever tried to shoot above that. If I am concerned about noise, I will try to add more light to my scene (as you said). If I cannot do that, I will just use the noise to my advantage by considering it an artistic element. I just crank up the grain setting.
Yep. Choosing between Eterna or Provia or PNS based on their high ISO noise performance is like choosing between a sports car, a pickup truck, or a station wagon based on their sound systems. Kinda misses the point.
I would say extremely helpful, Chris. Thank you!
Fuji seems to have intentionally designed their 'noise' to be smoother and inherently more 'grain' like than other brands. I have done some observation and am generalising somewhat but I don't think Fuji's noise character is bad. I find it useful. The iso amplified grain though not awful is not as good as the grain setting in the camera which is a great tool for film simulation building.
Excellent and informative!
MAN ! The same about video would be amazing.
I guess F-log will clearly win, with this kind of 2000ISO kind of dual gain. But as Eterna stand well ! I would be amazed to test that also.
I don't get the chart. But as you shown the camera more than the color chart, I'll do it my way xD
Grest job, as always !
Thanks, that’s a great video to help understand some generalities about high ISO performance. It seems, that based on your video ProNeg Std is the winner above 3200 or Monochrome if you’re going for that look. Your overview definitely makes me rethink my use of Acros when I’m doing street photography in low-light settings.
Thanks! You could also keep the ACROS, but try turning down the sharpness to maybe -3 or so and see if that improves it. I used '0' for the setting but would love to do another comparison with the settings for that adjusted in-camera.
Modern cameras like the X-T4 only really have 2 real analog gain levels, or in other words have a dual gain architecture. Usually at the lowest non extended ISO and somewhere around ISO 800. All of the other values are just digital amplification and you can digitally amplify the RAW file in post and get a very similar result. Those two analog gain level are the only 2 real ISO values the camera has.
Very interesting. Im gonna have to start using eterna and monochrome more at night!
Great clear presentation. I found using Velvia above iso 6400 gets a bit noisy. Thank you for such informative presentations
Thank you. I like black and white gig photos and have been using Achros. Very noisy but I think they look like the old film days. But I shall try monochrome or the eterna now and maybe will be clearer. As it’s dark and all manner of lights inside I am always at 3200 or higher
this is most interesting to see.
I personally (sadly) still film video with my xt1 and without Etherna or Log I use the Pro Neg. Std and -2 on everything to try to get as a flat image as possible. Maybe Ill try at least Provia as an alternative if it creates less noise.
Thanks! Helpfull as always.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together. You mention classic chrome negative but what about straight classic chrome. Any difference?
Great video as always! I’ll try Pro Neg Std with highlights and shadows variations.
On it today!!!! Thanks Tony!! Cheers!
great video.. very useful
Dam, nice B roll.
is Fujifilm film simulation different from the photo taken in JPEG and the simulation made later in RAW
Hi, at the beginning you said that film simulations were not saved if shot in raw ? I’m new with fuji, thanks
A question that comes to mind is; If you are using film simulation, do you want the images to look like digital photos with low noise, or do you want them to look like film photos?
hello. how can I find what film simulation I used in DXO ? You know that ? thank you
This gave me an idea! I’m new to all of this but what if you purposely shot high ISO even during the day to get a Granier look. Would this be way different vs adding the grain option in camera?
What an interesting comparison! Pro neg std and Eterna are two of the lowest contrast film sims. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? Ironic about Acros, as Acros film was renowned for being fine grain! I shoot a lot of Astro, always in raw. Might try some in jpeg. Irrespective of the film sim, the noise control in those jpegs is fantastic!
yeah, I think it does. And you are right: the noise control is amazing!
Hello pal2tech! I’m having trouble regarding saving my white balance in the custom setting for the film simulation. Whenever I switch to the next custom film sim it will carry the white balance shift that was set on the first one I have tried on. Tried resetting the custom settings and saving it again but no luck.
I wish I could show you some pictures but the only problem I have is on the WB Shift not saving in the custom setting
what about shooting those xmas lights? what film sim?
thank you Chris, your video encouraged me to use ISO 6.400 on my fuji outdoors in rainy weather today in Germany. Conclusion: even X-E2 is well suited for this "high" ISO.
Awesome
Hi, I use the XT4 in aperture priority mode most of the time. I have noticed that if I set the ISO manually instead of keeping the ISO in automatic mode the camera will set a faster shutter speed in low light conditions. For example, if the Camera automatically sets the ISO to 6400 the camera will set the shutter speed at 50. If I manually set the ISO to 6400 the camera will set the shutter speed to 80. This is all other settings being the same. So if I manually set the ISO I can get slightly faster shutter speeds from the camera.
Do you know why this would happen?
I loined sumptin'. Much grass! Or sod, it seems.
Hi do these film simulation modes help create cinematic look for movies? I like Sony A6400 better but am attracted by the Fuji feature as I have no colour grading knowledge nor do I want to do it! Any suggestions?
Dear pal2tech. Thank you for another great video. I'd like to get a variable ND filter as you also recommended. I use lenses that take 52 mm, 58 mm and 62 mm filters. Is it a good idea to get one 62 mm variable ND filter and 2 filter adapters for the smaller lenses or would you get a separate filter for each lens? Thanks!
Hello ! I got mine recently with 18-55 mm , but the image quality is bad even when i shoot with low ISO , do you think something wrong with the cam ? Or it doesn't handle high iso in low light ?
Thanks
So im turning insane... Ive been editing some raw fotos, and noticed, that they only look good on my screen: So I thought, maybe the screensettings are the issue, and if i just edit on my mac, itll be fine... right? WRONG.
The same Raw pic is more yellow on my Tower Comouter and the Histogram shows it. Meaning it doesnt appear different, it is. I manually selected all the same settings.
Is there some stuff hidden in Xraw studio, that maybe I changed a few month ago, and is still active? If so, why do my pictures look different anywhere else? (Iphone and mac?)
Does the Histogram show the colors my screen shows?
Im so confused :( Ive poured hours into this, and now my work is for the cat as we say in german. The pictures are more yellow, and a lot brighter on my screen, than on anyone elses...
Great
Good video
Thank you so much!
And now...if you do the same comparison in Capture One, then you see the much more better results with all film simulations :)
hey pal did you forget to test log? lol
Hey Chris great thanks... XT4 - Issue...when I try to set my Command Dial setting, nothing sticks.. I want to set it to adjust ISO, but no matter what I set It wont stick.. Any help would be great
Are you in Movie Optimized mode? Make sure that is turned off.
@@pal2tech Thanks Chris, actually I learned I have to set the ISO dial to C.. then it works..
I enjoy your videos and knowledge. Pixel peeping in this video is exaggerated. The human eye will not recognize this noise to my belief. Unless for large prints I never value noise at more than 50% zoomed in.
If you shot one raw file at each ISO then processed JPGs in each film sim from the Q menu, do you think the results would be the same?
that would be dangerous to watch while driving :D
I'm thinking of selling my XT-4
Actually ISO is not part of the Exposure triangle, if you look at your diagram that you had in a video, ISO is applied after the picture is taken, It's not part of the exposure triangle.
ISO is nothing more then amplified gain after the picture is taken, just before it's written to the card, it's nothing more then taking your picture in Lightroom and sliding the exposure slider to make it brighter that is it, it's post production with in your camera before it's written to the card.
Now In a analog film camera ISO is part of the exposure triangle because there is first no electrical or digital work here, it's chemicals built on the film and you just set your ISO dial accordingly to what the film is graded to, that's why you see in a camera shop or cvs film has numbers on there, 100, 200, 800 those are the ISO settings...
also ISO is not the same in every camera as you think if you got a fujifilm camera ISO 200 would really be ISO 100, or in nikon iso 100 is iso 100
Don't take my word for it here is proof of what ISO does and how it works..
th-cam.com/video/QVuI89YWAsw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/-dHGkwY4GDA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/q1oM7AgIMTg/w-d-xo.html
That is a false analogy and one of those pointless arguments that people love to bring up over and over again, just like the focal length equivalencies discussion. Regardless of how it works technically, ISO is very much a part of the exposure triangle when it comes to practical photography. You cannot change ISO in post even if you shoot raw, you can brighten the exposure and reduce noise but the iso you set in-camera is the irreversible starting point, just as when you shoot film. If a photo is correctly exposed at f2 1/50 iso6400 and you take the same photo with f2 1/50 iso100 you will end up with a black image where most of the data is unrecoverable in raw. Therefore you cannot ignore iso when you set your exposure, and therefore it is clearly a part of the exposure triangle in real-life photography. In low light you need to make a choice, do I lower my shutter speed and risk motion blur? Do I open up my lens fully and risk getting too short dof? Or do I raise my ISO and introduce more grain?
The day we get an iso slider in Lightroom (and similar programs) and can go from iso 100 to 51200 in post and get the same quality as if iso was set in the camera, that is the day your argument would hold for practical usage, but only if you shoot in raw. If there is no practical application then the argument is pointless.
@@johansphoto NO IT'S NOT, you just think it is.
but it has nothing to do with exposure, NOTHING...
All ISO is, is amplifying the signal the sensor picks up Nothing more, you see ISO is applied in the camera well after the picture is taken, the shutter is clicked, the signal goes from the Censor, to the analog converter, then to the AD converter then it goes to the digital gain chip, Which is the ISO, ISO is applied well after the picture is taken, so there for it has nothing to do with the exposure triangle at all.
The Exposure was processed well before ISO is applied.>
This is something you idiots seem to not get..
ISO has nothing to do with Exposure In Digital Photography. NOTHING!!!!
ISO is nothing more the exposure gain post production after the picture is taken with in the camera, there is a video that proves it..
Some one took a picture at 100 ISO which produced a black picture then turned up the ISO to 3200 then the exposure was proper, then he took the black picture in light room and slid the exposure up to where it looks exactly like the picture taken at 3200 ISO they look no different..
TIme LINE 6:33 proves it in this video link but you won't watch it because your dumb
th-cam.com/video/QVuI89YWAsw/w-d-xo.html
@@AMomentInTimeProductions Thanks for that pleasant answer! I did my own test with one RAW image that is correctly exposed at ISO 12800 and using shutter speed 1/60 and aperture f8. Then I took an identical picture ISO 160 with the same aperture and shutter speed so it comes out almost black. It does not work at all. Lightroom can only lift the exposure 5 stops which still leaves it underexposed by a couple of stops. On top of that, the ISO160 image lifted five stops is MUCH grainier (and with a bad color cast) than the ISO 12800 raw file that was correctly exposed right out of camera. Try it yourself!
So, my test clearly shows that the ISO setting in camera has a strong impact on the final result and the results are far from identical. However, this is of course an extreme example so let me give you the benefit of the doubt. For smaller exposure differences it should work and maybe there is some other software that could push the exposure further and even maintain the image quality. But that would still not take ISO out of the exposure triangle. Regardless how much you can change the ISO in post there is still only a small ISO-range that would give you a proper exposure and if you ignore this when you take the photos you could end up with very grainy pictures in low light situations.
I have no interest in how ISO is applied technically in a digital camera. All I care about is the practical implication for the photographer. The exposure triangle is primarily a pedagogical tool to help photographers (and cameras for that sake) to calculate and set a proper exposure. If you set your camera to aperture priority and with a fixed ISO your shutter speed will be calculated based on the ISO and aperture you have set. Shutter speed priority works the same way. So with both of these settings ISO is as important as shutter speed and aperture when calculating the exposure and therefore a part of the exposure triangle. The fact that ISO is applied afterwards does not matter since the value that will be applied is already set and is an integral part of the original exposure calculation.
Only if you shoot in manual mode with Auto ISO can you ignore your ISO setting, but you do so at your own peril. You risk introducing a lot of noise if you ignore the impact your aperture and shutter speed will have on the ISO/amplification (call it whatever you like) needed to achieve a properly exposed image. So if you want to control the look of your image you had better not ignore ISO when you set your other exposure parameters.
@@johansphoto Of course there is going to be a limit to how much lightroom will allow you to up the exposure, that is not the point.that's why camera's have what they call extended ISO which means going to them going over the ISO that the camera can produce, you can still go over that in lightroom by doing it twice but your still going to have a garbage picture..
and i have tested it as well worked for me.
ISO is in a camera is nothing more then what you can do in lightroom in post production and dos the exact same thing..
Even blackmagic doesn't call it ISO they call it gain which is the correct term for it it's applied GAIN.
I'm not going to argue with you i know i'm correct...
@@AMomentInTimeProductions Yes this truly is a pointless discussion as I pointed out from the very beginning, so we might as well end it here. Nothing you have said supports the argument that ISO is not part of the exposure triangle in practical usage. As I have proven above when you take a picture your ISO setting is an integral part of the exposure calculation in almost all scenarios. Then you can call it Gain or whatever you like, it does not matter what the name is or how and when it is applied, the calculation is still based on your current ISO-setting otherwise your S and A modes would not work.
I redid the test using raw-files from my Sony camera and a smaller ISO difference this time, 100-3200. After lifting the exposure the pictures look quite similar until you magnify them. With magnification the image with the correct ISO-setting (and thus correct exposure) in camera looks much better than the ISO 100 picture where the exposure was lifted in Lightroom. So I will continue to keep ISO in mind for the best possible result when setting my exposure.
I'm sorry but, I don't care how entertaining a video is you shouldn't watch it while driving or operating heavy equipment.
That being said, I'm going 80+ on the highway right now. Love your videos. You tell me things I never thought I wanted to know
LOL!!!!!!
Çok hızlı konuşuyorsunuz. Bu yorucu oluyor...
+
Hey. Thanks for the breakdown video. A couple of key points of info: Monochrome is actually the grey scale of Provia so it's no surprise that they are very similar. Also, Acros has a built-in grain to it that you cannot completely remove, so it's not that it's performing worse ISO-wise.
Certainly everyone has their own taste's when it comes to grain in their simulations. My favourite simulation of all time is Acros cranked all the way up to 12800 with no NR or artificial grain. Even if you think you want lower noise in your images in general, if you've never tried high ISO's on both colour and B+W simulations on the fuji system id say give it a shot. I found my top favourite simulations in both colour and monochrome function best when i shot them above 3200. Of course colour falls apart beyond 6400, but really try cranking up your monochrome simulations to the absolute limit. You might like the result!
pst pst, Fuji-X weekly has lots of simulations. If you're starting out, try experimenting from the simulations already out there.
You're the Man...but don't forget to add the Red filter to that mix ! I like my grain as I like my coffee : black as the night and hot as hell, and lots of it
I agree. I personally love CN at 1600.
by the way in digital photography when you apply more ISO it's not grain, it's noise from amplifying signal, just like you get distortion in a radio when you crank up the volume too high and it gets distorted, same thing..
That so called grain your seeing is not grain at all it's noise it's the digital signal image falling apart from trying to boost the signal, In film photography that is grain, grain in film photography is from the chemicals on the negative, it's the same pattern no matter what picture how ever in digital it's noise that is never the same pattern and also showing color distortion and color falling apart..>
it's not grain it's simply garbage your seeing because the signal has been depleted.
it's just like taking a drink in one glass you got a full glass of whiskey, the other you got half whiskey and half water, the one with half and half will not get you as drunk as the one with pure whiskey and no water, same idea with ISO..
It's an image that is watered down because they wasn't enough pure exposure so water was added to brighten up the picture..
th-cam.com/video/8vcpiswF3y0/w-d-xo.html
there is one video that proves this.
th-cam.com/video/1sMn6Nc5a2I/w-d-xo.html
@@AMomentInTimeProductions yea I’m aware but personally I don’t care about the specifics so much. I like what I see and I don’t get caught up with the pixel peep perfection. I’m perfectly happy with how I shoot with my Fuji.
Interesting, I eschew grain for the opposite to match my personal aesthetic: -1 shadows, +2 noise reduction and+1 sharpness. The dark shadows mean the subject pops more, and the noise reduction smooths the image
Thank you for your hard work and all of the valuable information you provide. In my opinion, you have the best Fujifilm-centric TH-cam channel, bar none. Early on (since the X-T1) I standardized on using Pro Neg Std. Why? I shot film from 1970-2001 and with my medium format cameras, standardized on Kodak’s Vericolor III professional color negative film as it provided moderate contrast, very fine grain, true to life colors and details in highlights and shadows. I see almost the exact same characteristics in the Pro Neg. std. film simulations. It renders beautifully. Again, thank you for all you do.
Acros was intended to be a “grainy” film simulation from Fuji’s own website so it’s not surprising you found this to be the case. I actually like the noisier looking image as it creates a certain nostalgic look. Here is what Fuji has to say about Acros:
“To achieve the ACROS like texture, the film-like “graininess” is another important element.
To be specific, ACROS mode has a completely different noise reduction algorithm from other modes. The “graininess” of the silver-halide films are what we see as “noise” in the digital data. For color images, they are the unwanted noise, but in the monochrome images, it becomes an important texture.”
Awesome video! I'm also trying to find a good night film simulation. Hate editing night raw files
Thanks!!! Try out Pro Negative Standard or Monochrome...
Like Acros Fuji adds grain to Bleach Bypass to emulate the film process. Bypassing the bleaching process which keeps the silver which produces more grain.
I absolutely love to use Pro Neg Std and Classic Chrome. I use these for almost everything. I mainly use Pro Neg Std for fashion studio work and Classic Chrome for car shoots/outdoor portraits.
Check Pro Standard as RAW. Pro Neg Standard is a sim of the old NPS series films, which were famous for being pushed. Lots of sports photos taken with NPH-800 pushed a stop. I'm wonder if the color handling makes your eyes skip over the grain/noise.
Love me some film sims 🌹
Do you believe the xt4 has dual native iso? Some people claim it does as a hidden feature.. i believe it’s supposed to be 3200 iso when it kicks in
Thanks for this test. It confirms my unscientific and untested observations that my Acros-based pics are noisier than the black and white ones.
Very informative. Was Pro Neg Hi similar to Pro Neg Std.? Thanks
Useful. I found pro neg st best for my daytime and eterna best for night. And so.
I’ve been subscribed to your channel for ages and your videos are no longer coming up in my feed!
I love Acros at 12800 :)
Good job! Thanks for this :-)
Very interesting thank you! I never noticed it before and actually use Acros when I shoot at 6400 thinking it makes the noise look better but obviously I was wrong. Besides I never use Monochrome, another obvious wrong decision. Now I shoot in RAW but I'll definitely give a try and compare with Acros next time I shoot in low light conditions. Thanks again! Cheers!
Respectfully, I also appreciate clean images but would like to offer another viewpoint, which is... If *you* think the Acros noise looks better at 6400, then it IS better. I have to believe that in any art form, our interpretation and taste play a huge role in what inspires us -- and this matters, to me, more than measurements. For example, I LOVE the grain Fuji adds to the Acros simulation. At low ISO I may add some weak (or even strong) grain with certain film sims, but at high ISO the Fuji noise can have an (almost) film-like look that I often like (without adding artificial grain in-camera).
It's the higher contrast in Acros that jazzes up the grain. Higher contrast gives the effect of more sharpness/detail.
monochrome is just provia without colors, but acros actually have some taste and even more with filters on.
But actually surprised the film simulations affects the noise, what makes you have the idea to test this?
Why do I have noise on my RAW files with low light, but not in the JPEG? What am I doing wrong? Is RAW more sensitive to ISO?
Great video. Thanks for this, it is a real eye-opener!