Thanks for your take. I've had my decades of film photography, often including lab work. And of intensive use of Photoshop. These days, I gain most of my enjoyment from the act of taking the camera and making the photography. Digitally, of course. I don't aim at achieving a certain "film look" - this day and age and technology is something different, for sure. I use my presets in camera when I am out (e.g. tweaked recipes), and I may tweak a little bit on the computer when I'm back home, but I usually got close already to what I imagined. For my enjoyment photos. Having said that ... I shoot Raw + JPEG, and for critical images (whatever this is) I work from Raw.
I will admit one of the reason I chose Fujifilm when I (finally) made the switch to digital from film, was the selection of available film sims. But, what I found was none of the film sims gave my images look I wanted and after using a few I decided I don't think I want my images to look like they were shot with film. I am not sure I understand the retro or nostalgic desire that seems so common today. Practically speaking, today's technology allows your to be more creative than ever. I also found I actually enjoy the editing process and I am creating my own "look" for my images - on ongoing process. The result is I never use film sims and just shoot RAW. Side note; I also have boxed all my vinyl record albums and enjoy listening to better quality digital music.
I've never used the film simulations on my X-T3 simply because the digital images never really look like the photos taken with film. I simply process each image to recreate what I saw when I look the image. I have a few presets saved on DXO and used them as a base to work from.
Heartfelt thanks, Craig: this is the most important video I've watched since acquiring a new Fujifilm X-T5 several weeks ago. I've been taking some time to learn my way around the X-T5, having previously owned a Lumix FZ2500 (bridge) camera. Full disclosure: I've been somewhat bamboozled by the deluge of information concerning the X-T5's built-in Film Simulations. The additional tsunami of blogs, TH-cam videos and advice on film recipes, the literally limitless options and tweaks...I've begun to find it overwhelming. I did a search to see if anyone had opted to avoid the whole business - this video came up straight away (and I am already a subscriber, Craig). As a result, I'm going to switch the camera back to RAW-only for now - because that's what I was doing with the Lumix, with pleasing results. I like editing in Lightroom, and I'm not into visual clichés (I think some of the 'nostalgia' associated with film sims and recipes runs into that territory). So, a question. I know you're not wedded to any particular brand of camera. What is it, then, that you particularly like about Fujifilm? It's not the Film Simulations! It would be interesting to know. Thanks again for this video, and for the channel, which is really, really excellent. Greetings from Melbourne, Australia.
I love the idea of film sims, and agree with some of your points but would like to offer a bit of a rebuttal. I actually own an old minolta, and have been shooting on it for a year and a half. My day job is programming, so I love the feel of it being analog in the same way that my vinyls are. I love the spontaneity, and the grain and colors of film really make it feel nostalgic in a way that digital can't really do. There's even some joy in waiting for it to develop, and getting surprised about what worked when messing around, and what didn't work when I thought it would. Id love to keep shooting on film indefinitely. If I could afford it lol. To me, it really does come down to cost and not wanting to spend hours in lightroom on a computer. I went on a week long trip and shot 6 rolls of film, and my wallet really hurt. My local shops charge ~$18 US to develop, and film itself isn't cheap these days either, with a roll of cinestill being $16 and portra being around $18. If I want to really go hard and take more risks with composition and lighting, I have to burn an assload of money to do so, then find out that what I did looks bad in a week or two. Being gen z, student loans are already enough and the rent is too damn high, so having my hobby be limited by finances twists the knife even more. One could ask why don't I shoot digital, but honestly, I already spend too much damn time on my phone and computer for work and socials. Last thing I want to do is sit on a computer and do things there. Id rather be outside shooting and working on getting better at hard skills like composition. The modern film simulation is more than good enough to achieve that. As for simulations vs real, I see similar fighting with amp simulations with guitar production. Recording analog takes amps, effects, mics, etc in addition to recording software. That gets expensive fast. Many folks I know who are into production, myself include, are opting to do neural DSP style amp simulations. Why wouldnt we? A sim costs $100 and sounds pretty damn close to accurate. Old guard folks bemoan it pretty heavily, calling it sterile and the like, but oh well I want to be able to buy a house one day and streamline my time haha. Is it as good as film? Absolutely not. Is there some tactility lost by not popping in the film? Sure. But I would disagree with the argument that it cheapens the process compared to shooting film - it just built for a group of people that have different prerogatives, who want to focus on shooting, while staying out of the editor and keeping things more affordable per shot
Bought a Fuji XT1 for that retro film SLR look and feel with the film simulations in mind. I enjoy using it and yes the simulations can give that film look, settings can be tweaked. I shoot Nikon DSLR's not the Z but D series. Bought Fuji as a small lightweight hiking camera but daughter decided to take it for herself, she recently though bought a cheap Praktica film SLR! saying she's interested in film shooting. Well I shot film back in the day but moved away from it to Digital and yes Digital has many many advantages that which we all know. But just like Vinyl & CD are completely different technologies. So is Film and Digital photography, advantages and disadvantages in both. But should someone truly want a complete Film shooting experience then it has to be on an Old Skool Film SLR! Digital will give you the convivence and ease with less outlay on money through film simulations to achieve a film like look, but it will never be what 35mm film was and still is even today. Sure the cost of shooting film now is expensive just like listening to Vinyl records can be costly. You know, I just might give film another go and go back in time to how it was...
Its not just the look or the experience, its having all the power of digital with photos that have a similar appearance to film, without having to spend money on film, processing and spending time scanning negatives. Personally I'm not a fan of super-clean and overly sharp, artificial looking digital images as they often look like computer images and not photos, in the quest for perfection all the soul is lost.. I need some grain in most occasions as I like the texture it gives and the Fuji Across simulation especially delivers this quite well, as higher ISOs are used the amount of grain increases. I see the film simulations as 'film 2.0', not quite the same as film but they take the general asthetic and add to it through having a much higher resolution, better capture of light, and so on, without the photo looking like something created using Adobe Illustrator. I probably wouldn't have a dedicated digital camera at all, if it wasn't for the X100f and its film-inspired look, feel and images. I was never that satisfied with digital cameras until I bought one, and now I alternate between the Fuji and film, depending on my needs, limitations, or how I feel at the time..one can not replace the other, they are just different.
I think these film recipes work much better. for colour film simulation than foe black and white. Any black and white film can have many different looks depending on the developer, filter, agitation, processi g temperature, etc etc none of thesecan be si.ulated using a single recipe. This is why black and white film photography is so rewarding.
Hi Craig, as a long time Canon user, I have recently bought a new (to me) Fuji camera which, in looks reminded me of my old 35mm cameras and have been enjoying the film sims quite a bit, often playing around with the custom in camera settings to tweak them and I dont really see much difference between editing a RAW file in Lightroom, Camera RAW or whatever and editing a jpeg in camera with film sims and custom settings. TBH I dont really remember how 35mm photos and slides looked as its so long since I used film cameras, so I just look on the Fuji film sims as a bit of fun. Anyway each to their own I guess, the world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same things, as someone wiser than me once said.
I don't think there is a right or wrong here. I appreciate the film sims and have a few custom recipes I like. For 90% of my images documenting my daily life the camera jpgs a perfect. This means I no longer spend hours in front of a computer editing and spend way more time with my family or out photographing. I usually only edit in Lightroom if I have a really special image. With the cost of film, I will also use a Fuji simulation to "preview" a shot that I am about to take in my Hasselblad 500cm.
I fully agree to most of what you say. But as you know most people take photos to be shared on some kind of social media where they want them to look like the other photos. I like your comment about Zf, which is just a nikon verison of your fujifilm camera. I do have a fujifilm (X-T3), was meant as a supplement to my FF Nikon, but I lack the output from my previous Olympus setup, less MP, but nicer photos than the fujifilm. Strange, and yes working on getting something done about.
I grew up shooting film. I have an XT-3 that I bought specifically for the film simulations. I like being able to try out different recipes and tweak them. The rest of this comment has nothing to do with film recipes, more to do with post processing. I find it odd that people can apply "light leaks" and "fogging" to images in post. When did that become "Art"? when I was growing up, if you had a light leak, you had to get your camera repaired.
Totally not into these film simulations either. Naming the Nikon ZF as Nikon's version of a fuji went a bit far though... to my mind, Fuji has just been trying to buy a look they never had. Nikon's past is there for all to see. Not a Nikon fanboy really... but that's neither here nor there. I do miss the stunning grain I got from certain films in certain lights but it's so hard to replicate in the real world now. Could never go back to film but I really appreciate being able to compose a shot in B&W with the simulation while taking a Raw shot and being able to process from colour in Post.
"Hi Craig, great vid, no more to be said! except if you were a new shooter today, would you know what the heck Kodachrome 64 Ecktachrome etc was! Its just nostalgia for me remembering what type of film I used. But quiite strange to want your brand new camera with great options, to take pictures that simulate tech from forty -fifty years ago! Have I said to much😱
Thanks for the explanation! You've made a video 5 years ago about how you've stopped shooting RAW with PEN-F. In this video you say you process the RAWs yourself - did something change your view on the necessity of RAW files? I've found myself lacking desire and time to fine-tune my pictures with Darktable, so while I still use JPEG+RAW option, only JPEGs gets printed/sent to social media.
I appreciated the conversation but there's a really large embedded error here - Craig consistently refer to "simulations" and "recipes" as if they're the same thing. For the purpose of the discussion, I get it, but but for the record: The simulations, or "film sims" are the set of *Profiles* bundled with the camera. They are Fuji's attempt to simulate their old films and are chosen through a native D-pad optionn (left-arrow). Recipes are very different - they are created by YOU the user and stored into slots, then selected usually from the Q menu. You can make whatever Recipes you want and they have nothing to do with Fuji's menu of their old films. In Lightroom, the difference is the same as that between choosing Profiles and Presets - very different. Referring to Fuji's film sims as akin to user-made recipes is unfortunately a pretty big technical error that clouds this discussion.
I don’t understand why people say film is expensive compared to digital. The Fuji X100vi is £1600. You can buy a very good 35mm camera with a very good lens for £200, if b&w you can get your development equipment for £50 and colour about £150. You can buy a bulk loader for £15 and then a bulk roll of film for £100 (18x36 rolls of film) that will last you a long time. Chems will cost you about £50 start up then £100 a year max. So start up costs less than £500 that would keep the average amateur going for 6 months, the. You have £1000 for film and chems, that is about 3-4 years worth. In the meantime you will have sold the x100vi for the x100vii. Imho using film is probably the one thing that would significantly improve the intermediate digital photographer.
You can buy a good SLR and 50mm lens for £25 or less! I think I have learned more through using old film cameras, especially the ones that pre-date light meters, than I have with digital. However all the development, scanning and printing is very time expensive. Film is also not very practical when travelling abroad for example, when you have less time and more things to see and do. And then you come back to the UK with a dozen rolls of film to scan... I do like the anticipation from sending off the film to the lab though...
Film simulations are not about emulating the film experience, they are attempting to emulate the film look. There are of course cameras that do attempt to bring the user closer to the film experience, Leica M-D, Fujifilm X-Pro3 and Pixii though. The two are very different.
@@e6Vlogs it's a look people seem to like, certain looks go in a out of trend. CCD sensor digital cameras have sky rocketed in price recently, especially small digital cameras for that 2000's look(?) or perhaps it's the film 'like' look (not really but many do say it's 'filmic'). Personally I can understand someone wanting a stylised photo out of the camera without them needing to go via software to edit it. Problem is no preset, profile or 'film simulation' can make a bad photograph good, in my experience it actuslly tends to distract from the photo itself. I like you used hipstermatic a lot for a period of time, and I expect our past selves that did use it might be able to answer your question better.
@@e6Vlogs Forget about all this marketing and social media blabla about "film look". They're just colour profiles and sometimes they can produce a nice JPEG straight out of camera. That's at least how I see it and how I use them. I always shoot raw + JPEG and then decide if I like and keep the JPEG or if I process the raw file in Capture One (where, btw, you have the same profiles, well, not really the same but very close, and can use them as a starting point for your raw processing).
Enjoy your videos. But , by your logic, anyone who loads their camera with HP5 is “settling” for Ilford’s concept of what B&W film ought to look like. We all have to start somewhere digital or analog.
One should shoot whatever way that helps to create the image one wants, but after a 40 plus year career shooting professionally, a very large part of that shooting film. I am at a loss to understanding why people who want to shoot on film for the "look and experience" but then scan the negs into digital files. If you want the film look one for me has to do the whole process analog in order for it to be the "look and experience"
In this digital age, how do you show people your analogue results with scanning? Even I was scanning my film results to sell via photo agencies15 years ago.
Hi Craig, if a photographer wants that film look maybe they need to hire a Film Camera for the weekend, to get the real Film experience. I listen to Vinyl Records and also listen to Cassettes. Sorry GEN Z. There is one more thing you forgot to mention is YOU DON'T DO PRETTY, HA HA 😂 . Nice video Craig.
@@Answersonapostcard Never mentioned listening to vinyl the car. It's meant to be appreciated. I don't think millions of people who listen to vinyl, listen to it in the car. It's all about nostalgia, and a lot of people can relate to my comment and think about the great memories they had with Vinyl records and Cassettes. It's just a positive comment.
@@seaeagles6025I agree and nostalgia never gets old, but for me the sound of old vinyl can sound better than their CD equivalents of that era. I want the film look but taking my film SLRs, TLRs etc isn't always practical, but the Fuji fills the gap as a good inbetweener. For example I couln't take my Flexaret with me to Spain for the weekend as its too heavy and bulky, and I would burn through so much film and not get a lot of the photos that I wanted due to its much slower way of photo taking.It would slow me down too much for it to be practical.
Excellent thoughts once more. „Don’t pretend to be what you are not“ is definitely true for one’s images and style. The „never used a layer in my life“ is so liberating 👍 How about a „non photoshop photoshop course“? ( I still marvel at your iconic non-vlog-vlog ).
Trying to emulate the film experience with a digital camera is much like listening to a Emerson, Lake and Powell record pretending it is an Emerson, Lake and Palmer performance!
Thank you for your opinion on Fuji simulations. I feel they are gimmicky, much like the AI in editing software. They take away the creativity that made us want to be photographers in the first place. Just my opinion.
Some photographers prefer to spend more time taking photos than moving sliders. If you like the results from the film sims then why waste time editing/processing?
@@c0ldc0ne I think there is nothing wrong with having the film simulations but many of the so-called "recipes" produce indeed a very gimmicky look that in most cases has little or nothing to do with film stock after which they are named. Actually, I've never understood why people spend 2,000€ on a camera and then make their photos look as if they had applied a simple IG filter on a photo taken with their mobile phone. I use the film simulations and I also adjust contrast, saturation, WB etc. depending on the light or situation but I don't make all my photos look yellow or green only for pretending that they were shot on Portra film (when in reality film does not even produce these heavy colour casts).
@@jorghahn2903What you're referring to as recipes are sets of parameters provided by third party websites that are based on the various film simulations, but not created, named or endorsed by Fuji. Criticising Fuji for that is like saying that Sony's picture profiles are gimmicky because someone cranked their settings to an unnatural extreme and slapped an old skool film stock label on it. I'm not sure why you'd want to second guess people's preferences in different color/tone/contrast responses, regardless of how much they spent on their camera. Some people just like over-saturated colours while others prefer muted tones. Some contrasty, others flat. Some natural colours, others a certain hue. I bet that most don't care what film stocks those profiles (pretend to) look like and just prefer a certain aesthetic (either downloaded as a "recipe" or dialed in manually).
@@c0ldc0ne Sorry, but you may have misinterpreted my comment. I hoped that it was clear that I was referring to recipes and not to the original film simulations. Actually, I did not mention Fujifilm (the company) at all. Also, I don’t care how others process their photos, so it was definitely not my intention to criticize anyone. I believe though that there are quite a few who care about recipes looking like film stocks... (based on what I see/read on social media). Btw, there are also recipes that can produce a very nice look (normally those that go not crazy on WB shifts).
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
Craig, your ability to come up with thought - provoking videos so consistently is extraordinary. I'm so glad I came across your channel.
Thanks for your take.
I've had my decades of film photography, often including lab work. And of intensive use of Photoshop. These days, I gain most of my enjoyment from the act of taking the camera and making the photography. Digitally, of course. I don't aim at achieving a certain "film look" - this day and age and technology is something different, for sure. I use my presets in camera when I am out (e.g. tweaked recipes), and I may tweak a little bit on the computer when I'm back home, but I usually got close already to what I imagined. For my enjoyment photos.
Having said that ... I shoot Raw + JPEG, and for critical images (whatever this is) I work from Raw.
I will admit one of the reason I chose Fujifilm when I (finally) made the switch to digital from film, was the selection of available film sims. But, what I found was none of the film sims gave my images look I wanted and after using a few I decided I don't think I want my images to look like they were shot with film. I am not sure I understand the retro or nostalgic desire that seems so common today. Practically speaking, today's technology allows your to be more creative than ever. I also found I actually enjoy the editing process and I am creating my own "look" for my images - on ongoing process. The result is I never use film sims and just shoot RAW. Side note; I also have boxed all my vinyl record albums and enjoy listening to better quality digital music.
I love my Fujifilm camera (X-T4) and agree with you on everything you said. I play with the film simulations but end up editing the RAW files.
I've never used the film simulations on my X-T3 simply because the digital images never really look like the photos taken with film. I simply process each image to recreate what I saw when I look the image. I have a few presets saved on DXO and used them as a base to work from.
Heartfelt thanks, Craig: this is the most important video I've watched since acquiring a new Fujifilm X-T5 several weeks ago. I've been taking some time to learn my way around the X-T5, having previously owned a Lumix FZ2500 (bridge) camera. Full disclosure: I've been somewhat bamboozled by the deluge of information concerning the X-T5's built-in Film Simulations. The additional tsunami of blogs, TH-cam videos and advice on film recipes, the literally limitless options and tweaks...I've begun to find it overwhelming. I did a search to see if anyone had opted to avoid the whole business - this video came up straight away (and I am already a subscriber, Craig). As a result, I'm going to switch the camera back to RAW-only for now - because that's what I was doing with the Lumix, with pleasing results. I like editing in Lightroom, and I'm not into visual clichés (I think some of the 'nostalgia' associated with film sims and recipes runs into that territory).
So, a question. I know you're not wedded to any particular brand of camera. What is it, then, that you particularly like about Fujifilm? It's not the Film Simulations! It would be interesting to know.
Thanks again for this video, and for the channel, which is really, really excellent. Greetings from Melbourne, Australia.
The simple answer to your question, is to go back and watch the videos around the swap. I tell all in those.
I love the idea of film sims, and agree with some of your points but would like to offer a bit of a rebuttal. I actually own an old minolta, and have been shooting on it for a year and a half. My day job is programming, so I love the feel of it being analog in the same way that my vinyls are. I love the spontaneity, and the grain and colors of film really make it feel nostalgic in a way that digital can't really do. There's even some joy in waiting for it to develop, and getting surprised about what worked when messing around, and what didn't work when I thought it would. Id love to keep shooting on film indefinitely.
If I could afford it lol.
To me, it really does come down to cost and not wanting to spend hours in lightroom on a computer. I went on a week long trip and shot 6 rolls of film, and my wallet really hurt. My local shops charge ~$18 US to develop, and film itself isn't cheap these days either, with a roll of cinestill being $16 and portra being around $18. If I want to really go hard and take more risks with composition and lighting, I have to burn an assload of money to do so, then find out that what I did looks bad in a week or two. Being gen z, student loans are already enough and the rent is too damn high, so having my hobby be limited by finances twists the knife even more. One could ask why don't I shoot digital, but honestly, I already spend too much damn time on my phone and computer for work and socials. Last thing I want to do is sit on a computer and do things there. Id rather be outside shooting and working on getting better at hard skills like composition. The modern film simulation is more than good enough to achieve that.
As for simulations vs real, I see similar fighting with amp simulations with guitar production. Recording analog takes amps, effects, mics, etc in addition to recording software. That gets expensive fast. Many folks I know who are into production, myself include, are opting to do neural DSP style amp simulations. Why wouldnt we? A sim costs $100 and sounds pretty damn close to accurate. Old guard folks bemoan it pretty heavily, calling it sterile and the like, but oh well I want to be able to buy a house one day and streamline my time haha.
Is it as good as film? Absolutely not. Is there some tactility lost by not popping in the film? Sure. But I would disagree with the argument that it cheapens the process compared to shooting film - it just built for a group of people that have different prerogatives, who want to focus on shooting, while staying out of the editor and keeping things more affordable per shot
So happy I happened upon your channel. The content is engaging, and you are an amazing photographer.
Welcome aboard!
Bought a Fuji XT1 for that retro film SLR look and feel with the film simulations in mind. I enjoy using it and yes the simulations can give that film look, settings can be tweaked. I shoot Nikon DSLR's not the Z but D series. Bought Fuji as a small lightweight hiking camera but daughter decided to take it for herself, she recently though bought a cheap Praktica film SLR! saying she's interested in film shooting. Well I shot film back in the day but moved away from it to Digital and yes Digital has many many advantages that which we all know. But just like Vinyl & CD are completely different technologies. So is Film and Digital photography, advantages and disadvantages in both. But should someone truly want a complete Film shooting experience then it has to be on an Old Skool Film SLR! Digital will give you the convivence and ease with less outlay on money through film simulations to achieve a film like look, but it will never be what 35mm film was and still is even today. Sure the cost of shooting film now is expensive just like listening to Vinyl records can be costly. You know, I just might give film another go and go back in time to how it was...
Its not just the look or the experience, its having all the power of digital with photos that have a similar appearance to film, without having to spend money on film, processing and spending time scanning negatives. Personally I'm not a fan of super-clean and overly sharp, artificial looking digital images as they often look like computer images and not photos, in the quest for perfection all the soul is lost.. I need some grain in most occasions as I like the texture it gives and the Fuji Across simulation especially delivers this quite well, as higher ISOs are used the amount of grain increases. I see the film simulations as 'film 2.0', not quite the same as film but they take the general asthetic and add to it through having a much higher resolution, better capture of light, and so on, without the photo looking like something created using Adobe Illustrator. I probably wouldn't have a dedicated digital camera at all, if it wasn't for the X100f and its film-inspired look, feel and images. I was never that satisfied with digital cameras until I bought one, and now I alternate between the Fuji and film, depending on my needs, limitations, or how I feel at the time..one can not replace the other, they are just different.
I think these film recipes work much better. for colour film simulation than foe black and white. Any black and white film can have many different looks depending on the developer, filter, agitation, processi g temperature, etc etc none of thesecan be si.ulated using a single recipe. This is why black and white film photography is so rewarding.
Hi Craig, as a long time Canon user, I have recently bought a new (to me) Fuji camera which, in looks reminded me of my old 35mm cameras and have been enjoying the film sims quite a bit, often playing around with the custom in camera settings to tweak them and I dont really see much difference between editing a RAW file in Lightroom, Camera RAW or whatever and editing a jpeg in camera with film sims and custom settings. TBH I dont really remember how 35mm photos and slides looked as its so long since I used film cameras, so I just look on the Fuji film sims as a bit of fun. Anyway each to their own I guess, the world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same things, as someone wiser than me once said.
Mr. Hursey channeling his inner Alex Lifeson :).
Excellent video once again.
I don't think there is a right or wrong here. I appreciate the film sims and have a few custom recipes I like. For 90% of my images documenting my daily life the camera jpgs a perfect. This means I no longer spend hours in front of a computer editing and spend way more time with my family or out photographing. I usually only edit in Lightroom if I have a really special image. With the cost of film, I will also use a Fuji simulation to "preview" a shot that I am about to take in my Hasselblad 500cm.
Being colourblind I use them as a starting point for my edits.
I fully agree to most of what you say. But as you know most people take photos to be shared on some kind of social media where they want them to look like the other photos. I like your comment about Zf, which is just a nikon verison of your fujifilm camera.
I do have a fujifilm (X-T3), was meant as a supplement to my FF Nikon, but I lack the output from my previous Olympus setup, less MP, but nicer photos than the fujifilm. Strange, and yes working on getting something done about.
Well said! Cuts through a lot of the BS floating around out there. I’ve subscribed.
Vinyl records and cameras - my 2 fave things 😊
me too :)
Yes indeedy!
I grew up shooting film. I have an XT-3 that I bought specifically for the film simulations. I like being able to try out different recipes and tweak them. The rest of this comment has nothing to do with film recipes, more to do with post processing. I find it odd that people can apply "light leaks" and "fogging" to images in post. When did that become "Art"? when I was growing up, if you had a light leak, you had to get your camera repaired.
Totally not into these film simulations either. Naming the Nikon ZF as Nikon's version of a fuji went a bit far though... to my mind, Fuji has just been trying to buy a look they never had. Nikon's past is there for all to see. Not a Nikon fanboy really... but that's neither here nor there. I do miss the stunning grain I got from certain films in certain lights but it's so hard to replicate in the real world now. Could never go back to film but I really appreciate being able to compose a shot in B&W with the simulation while taking a Raw shot and being able to process from colour in Post.
"Hi Craig, great vid, no more to be said! except if you were a new shooter today, would you know what the heck Kodachrome 64 Ecktachrome etc was! Its just nostalgia for me remembering what type of film I used. But quiite strange to want your brand new camera with great options, to take pictures that simulate tech from forty -fifty years ago! Have I said to much😱
Thanks for the explanation!
You've made a video 5 years ago about how you've stopped shooting RAW with PEN-F. In this video you say you process the RAWs yourself - did something change your view on the necessity of RAW files?
I've found myself lacking desire and time to fine-tune my pictures with Darktable, so while I still use JPEG+RAW option, only JPEGs gets printed/sent to social media.
Five years ago is a long time, but if you watch that video, I didn’t actually stop shooting raw.
@@e6Vlogs I knew I didn't fully understood that video! Thanks!
I've learnt something today, I had no idea that Cozy Powell had drummed with ELP, I only knew the original line-up
I appreciated the conversation but there's a really large embedded error here - Craig consistently refer to "simulations" and "recipes" as if they're the same thing. For the purpose of the discussion, I get it, but but for the record: The simulations, or "film sims" are the set of *Profiles* bundled with the camera. They are Fuji's attempt to simulate their old films and are chosen through a native D-pad optionn (left-arrow). Recipes are very different - they are created by YOU the user and stored into slots, then selected usually from the Q menu. You can make whatever Recipes you want and they have nothing to do with Fuji's menu of their old films. In Lightroom, the difference is the same as that between choosing Profiles and Presets - very different. Referring to Fuji's film sims as akin to user-made recipes is unfortunately a pretty big technical error that clouds this discussion.
I don’t understand why people say film is expensive compared to digital. The Fuji X100vi is £1600. You can buy a very good 35mm camera with a very good lens for £200, if b&w you can get your development equipment for £50 and colour about £150. You can buy a bulk loader for £15 and then a bulk roll of film for £100 (18x36 rolls of film) that will last you a long time. Chems will cost you about £50 start up then £100 a year max. So start up costs less than £500 that would keep the average amateur going for 6 months, the. You have £1000 for film and chems, that is about 3-4 years worth. In the meantime you will have sold the x100vi for the x100vii. Imho using film is probably the one thing that would significantly improve the intermediate digital photographer.
You can buy a good SLR and 50mm lens for £25 or less! I think I have learned more through using old film cameras, especially the ones that pre-date light meters, than I have with digital. However all the development, scanning and printing is very time expensive. Film is also not very practical when travelling abroad for example, when you have less time and more things to see and do. And then you come back to the UK with a dozen rolls of film to scan... I do like the anticipation from sending off the film to the lab though...
But what do you like to look at what you look through your Fuji digital view finder? Which JPEG image do you choose for that purpose?
Film simulations are not about emulating the film experience, they are attempting to emulate the film look. There are of course cameras that do attempt to bring the user closer to the film experience, Leica M-D, Fujifilm X-Pro3 and Pixii though. The two are very different.
Why the film look then? What’s wrong with the digital look?
@@e6Vlogs it's a look people seem to like, certain looks go in a out of trend. CCD sensor digital cameras have sky rocketed in price recently, especially small digital cameras for that 2000's look(?) or perhaps it's the film 'like' look (not really but many do say it's 'filmic'). Personally I can understand someone wanting a stylised photo out of the camera without them needing to go via software to edit it. Problem is no preset, profile or 'film simulation' can make a bad photograph good, in my experience it actuslly tends to distract from the photo itself. I like you used hipstermatic a lot for a period of time, and I expect our past selves that did use it might be able to answer your question better.
@@e6Vlogs Forget about all this marketing and social media blabla about "film look". They're just colour profiles and sometimes they can produce a nice JPEG straight out of camera. That's at least how I see it and how I use them. I always shoot raw + JPEG and then decide if I like and keep the JPEG or if I process the raw file in Capture One (where, btw, you have the same profiles, well, not really the same but very close, and can use them as a starting point for your raw processing).
Enjoy your videos. But , by your logic, anyone who loads their camera with HP5 is “settling” for Ilford’s concept of what B&W film ought to look like. We all have to start somewhere digital or analog.
One should shoot whatever way that helps to create the image one wants, but after a 40 plus year career shooting professionally, a very large part of that shooting film. I am at a loss to understanding why people who want to shoot on film for the "look and experience" but then scan the negs into digital files. If you want the film look one for me has to do the whole process analog in order for it to be the "look and experience"
In this digital age, how do you show people your analogue results with scanning? Even I was scanning my film results to sell via photo agencies15 years ago.
I can’t afford a dark room
Hi Craig, if a photographer wants that film look maybe they need to hire a Film Camera for the weekend, to get the real Film experience. I listen to Vinyl Records and also listen to Cassettes. Sorry GEN Z. There is one more thing you forgot to mention is YOU DON'T DO PRETTY, HA HA 😂 . Nice video Craig.
Experience and look are two different things. Do you listen to Vinyl in the car?
@@Answersonapostcard Never mentioned listening to vinyl the car. It's meant to be appreciated. I don't think millions of people who listen to vinyl, listen to it in the car. It's all about nostalgia, and a lot of people can relate to my comment and think about the great memories they had with Vinyl records and Cassettes. It's just a positive comment.
@@seaeagles6025I agree and nostalgia never gets old, but for me the sound of old vinyl can sound better than their CD equivalents of that era. I want the film look but taking my film SLRs, TLRs etc isn't always practical, but the Fuji fills the gap as a good inbetweener. For example I couln't take my Flexaret with me to Spain for the weekend as its too heavy and bulky, and I would burn through so much film and not get a lot of the photos that I wanted due to its much slower way of photo taking.It would slow me down too much for it to be practical.
@@Answersonapostcard 😊
I loved (and hated) Kodachrome 64, and miss it a lot.
What film stock(s) were used for the photos at 8:44? Thanks
Fuji Velvia
@@e6Vlogs I appreciate it, great use of that film
I guess I’m in the minority here. I love the film sims on my X-T5. I have even added 6 more from Fuji x weekly in my custom menu. 🤷🏼♂️
Excellent thoughts once more. „Don’t pretend to be what you are not“ is definitely true for one’s images and style.
The „never used a layer in my life“ is so liberating 👍
How about a „non photoshop photoshop course“? ( I still marvel at your iconic non-vlog-vlog ).
Trying to emulate the film experience with a digital camera is much like listening to a Emerson, Lake and Powell record pretending it is an Emerson, Lake and Palmer performance!
🤔
Thank you for your opinion on Fuji simulations. I feel they are gimmicky, much like the AI in editing software. They take away the creativity that made us want to be photographers in the first place. Just my opinion.
How are the film simulations different from having access to different film stocks back in the day? Or do you also consider those to be gimmicky?
Some photographers prefer to spend more time taking photos than moving sliders. If you like the results from the film sims then why waste time editing/processing?
@@c0ldc0ne I think there is nothing wrong with having the film simulations but many of the so-called "recipes" produce indeed a very gimmicky look that in most cases has little or nothing to do with film stock after which they are named. Actually, I've never understood why people spend 2,000€ on a camera and then make their photos look as if they had applied a simple IG filter on a photo taken with their mobile phone.
I use the film simulations and I also adjust contrast, saturation, WB etc. depending on the light or situation but I don't make all my photos look yellow or green only for pretending that they were shot on Portra film (when in reality film does not even produce these heavy colour casts).
@@jorghahn2903What you're referring to as recipes are sets of parameters provided by third party websites that are based on the various film simulations, but not created, named or endorsed by Fuji. Criticising Fuji for that is like saying that Sony's picture profiles are gimmicky because someone cranked their settings to an unnatural extreme and slapped an old skool film stock label on it.
I'm not sure why you'd want to second guess people's preferences in different color/tone/contrast responses, regardless of how much they spent on their camera. Some people just like over-saturated colours while others prefer muted tones. Some contrasty, others flat. Some natural colours, others a certain hue. I bet that most don't care what film stocks those profiles (pretend to) look like and just prefer a certain aesthetic (either downloaded as a "recipe" or dialed in manually).
@@c0ldc0ne Sorry, but you may have misinterpreted my comment. I hoped that it was clear that I was referring to recipes and not to the original film simulations. Actually, I did not mention Fujifilm (the company) at all. Also, I don’t care how others process their photos, so it was definitely not my intention to criticize anyone. I believe though that there are quite a few who care about recipes looking like film stocks... (based on what I see/read on social media). Btw, there are also recipes that can produce a very nice look (normally those that go not crazy on WB shifts).