I really appreciate your videos and find them both entertaining and informative. Here for whatever you'll keep making. The comparison was interesting. I feel like I can appreciate how "correct" the digital image looks, the film version always seems to have weird warm casts going on when looking at them side by side. Ironically, though, in the end I seem to always prefer the film version. It gets all too cheesy getting into why that is, but perhaps it's that hopeless romantic longing for life being more like a movie and less like cold, hard Reality. Oops, I did it anyway! I relate to the comment about "some people needing that film cost". I clearly need the pressure. On digital, which I use for work, the pressure is already there, it being work and all. But photos destined for myself need exactly that pressure. /ends rambling reflections causes by your video. Thank you.
yeah, it's funny how things that are "incorrect" look good when they're on film. but if you had the same photo and knew it was digital you'd say "what's with that weird color in the highlights/shadows/whatever." I can imagine if you shoot professionally it's nice to have a little distance between what you shoot for work vs for fun. (of course, there's also fuji/leica for that depending on how much money you like to burn.) I end up in the weird spot of shooting digital when I need the flexibility and film when I don't.
I have been looking for this comparison for so long! The mamiya 7 is my all time favorite film camera and I just purchased a GFX. Sadly, I dont have the mamiya anymore. Is there any way to download any of these? I would love to see them on my computer to compare!
Awesome video , thanks a lot for making this video ! GFX 50S and GFX 100 are the way to go to replicate film on digital, 100S requires more editing to match film. There is top tier film preset that actually match real film : the archetype process. You can find free version of their preset (200$ otherwise) it gives you an idea. Basically to match film, you first need the lens, it’s the key! I personally love using Canon FD lenses on GFX 50S and 100. They have film colors. Canon 85mm 1.2 L FD is incredible (67mm f/0.9 on Gfx) . I tried FL 58mm f/1.2 (46mm f/0.9 on gfx ) but sadly it doesn’t cover the sensor fully at f/1.2 (vignetting in corners) although if stopped down to f/2 and f/4 or more , you get rid of black corners and it’s very sharp with film feel. Another interesting thing about film colors. It’s all down to scanning . Different lab have different preset and there is a HUGE difference in colors between Frontier scanner (SP 3000) and Noritsu. Frontier scanner gives you cold greens colors (just as your shots on gfx 100 with green trees) and noritsu gives you warmer image with yellow trees like on your Mamiya 7. So basically you can shoot same film but scanned on frontier and noritsu you get 2 extremely different images
I usually use a yellow or orange filter with black and white film for landscapes and a yellow-green filter for portraits. For landscapes in color, I often use the polarizing filter sometimes in conjunction with the graduated neutral density filter.
Cheers. Weirdly, I see this very consistently and I can’t make up my mind whether the cyan skies of most films or the kind of purple skies of digital are more realistic. But I tend to hue shift digital skies to get them more film-like.
@@atomikpi I see - from what I see around online I hear the "leica" got more "realistic" colors to what people see when taking the shot. then something hit me questioning when was it ever the goal to capture the most correct color in the first place? That its either a matter of taste and the mood that the photographer want to capture or people use digital but still try to replicate film color to have that old look as well maybe.
yeah agreed. I do end up preferring the film colors here and found them hard to match. if I didn't have the film image as a reference, would've been harder. (likewise with presets - film doesn't behave exactly the same in every situation.)
To match film you need : 1) vintage lens (from 1960-1980 best) 2) overexpose and use 400% dynamic range 3) -2 highlights 4) usually go for Warmer look , so 5900K-6200K or Red +2 Blue -4 for example 5) download The Archetype Process preset they match at 99-100% film if you don’t want use JPG with film simulation in camera
@@Pentax67 Maybe, but I would categorize the Mamiya 7 lenses as modern, introduced in 1995 and in production to 2014. The glass is not vintage and compares well (even favorable) to most modern glass. Will try your process with my GFX 50S. :)
This is easily the best comparison video I've seen! Really appreciate your attention to detail. For what it's worth, if I'm shooting digital I tend to go classic chrome, bump sat a touch, and swing both green and blue towards teal a touch in post. With a very mild pro mist 1/8 filter on the lens it gets pretty close. Personally i think you need a touch of diffusion filtering to soften and spread highlights a bit in digital which to my eye happens on film with older glass already
thank you! appreciate the kind words. FWIW I'm actually shooting a follow up where I: - use a few different films - use a pro mist in a few examples - use nostalgic neg sim (lower contrast, higher saturation, nice and warm) I really like the 1/8 black pro mist or cinebloom 10% on super modern optics. add that little special something / slight imperfection. I previously had only tried the 1/4, which is too much for me.
fantastic video. great effort and i think you managed to emulate the film look really well. i think anyone will have a hard time telling the differences if you say the photos from GFX is film. sure enough, film has stronger character, but the edited gfx files is definitely about 90-95% of the film look already
nice video. It is on my wishlist to one day a gfx to use with the lens from the hasselblad because, as seen here, you can get really good material. I am not so good with color grading to bring film look, I mean, it takes too long still, so I am mainly shooting with film because, even with some edits, the base it's there already, but digital you can experiment more at a somewhat lower cost. Now, which lens do you use to scan your negatives? is a gfx lens or is it an adapted lens?
Yeah adapted lenses are great on the GFX, but it will definitely show any imperfections. I've enjoyed shooting the Pentax 105/2.4 on it with a focal reducer - soft contrast but beautiful vintage look and sharper than you might expect. Scanned with the GF 120/4 macro at f/11, should be really sharp scans except for any imperfect alignment on my part (but I take crops from where I focused on the negative, so a non-issue for the comparisons).
@@atomikpi oh my god you have focal reducer for Smc 105mm 2.4? Wow man !!! I can’t find these anymore so I just mount my SMC 105mm 2.4 on adapter so I just get 83mm f/1.9. With focal reducer you are like 58mm 1.4?
@@Pentax67 Yeah agreed the lens is a huge part of the look! The focal reducer is a great combo. I"m using NLP with the Frontier presets, so makes sense it's more a Fronter/Fuji scanner look. When I've gotten scans from Noritsu+Frontier side-by-side, I've had a very hard time picking between the warmer Frontier look and more "vivid" (idk) Noritsu look.
cheers! i have a second round coming (in a few months, I am horribly lazy) with 400h and fp4 - and on the digital side with fuji's nostalgic negative preset and a cinebloom diffusion filter.
Great video. You could have used something like the Archtype Film Profiles to get much closer to the actual film look, but It's still a nice comparison.
would've been a good idea to show comparisons with some film presets I have on my computer (mastin labs etc.), but honestly I find so much difference from scanner to scanner that they'll only really target one look (e.g. Frontier, Nortisu, Epson, whatever). another commenter also suggested trying out film recipes for Fujifilm, which is also a good idea.
I had a Mamiya 7 some years ago and now shoot the GFX 50S. In many ways the GFX system is comparable to the M7. The sensor is of course smaller and resolution is similar with a good scan. The 50R and the GF 50/3.5 would roughly give you the same angle of view, same weight same dimensions. The GF lenses however many bit too slow and sometimes huge.
Yeah, I considered using the 50/3.5 (have it), but thought it was "unfair" to compare a compact lens with a full size (though of course the GFX is a bit larger). both great cameras, similar resolution on B&W at least.
that's a good test but anyone sees this video has to consider that sharpness of the film is depended by 2 significant parameters . 1st is the kind of film you use .eg portra 160 is a soft film while portra 400 is sharp film ... 2nd the scanner plays another very significant role to the final result in order to get the best from the film as a medium ... My conclusion is that mamiya's 7 lenses are from the best medium format lenses out there and if coupled with the analog digitization accessories , i believe it is difficult to be surpassed by a digital sensor overall .... i am not mentioning the aesthetic/ artistic result that is in favour of the film almost any time ... digital gets better but it will always has some flaws in contrary to the film because film is analog while the digital works with "gaps" while translating light .
Hi! Fair comment, thanks for being polite. Yes, I tended to prefer the film results here. I’ve gotten some black and white results in the past that were really sharp, but in this case didn’t quite measure up to digital (even with a good imo scanning setup). (And I do think t max 100 and portra 160 are very sharp if you check the MTF on their spec sheets.) I’d love to see a similar result with a drum scanner but don’t want to spend the time and money on drum scans. I’m going to give this another shot in the future, perhaps the results will be different. If nothing else, I find it super cool to see the difference in color side-by-side and realize that “film like” digital colors still tend to be a bit different. And both options are more than sharp enough to print large.
you can now adapt mamiya 7 lens to GFX and compare Again
requires a pretty expensive adapter, so I'm not going to do it. but I'd like to see the comparison.
@@atomikpi what a pity， mate
Thanks man,
Just showed me I should stick with my Film camera.
glad you found it useful!
I really appreciate your videos and find them both entertaining and informative. Here for whatever you'll keep making. The comparison was interesting. I feel like I can appreciate how "correct" the digital image looks, the film version always seems to have weird warm casts going on when looking at them side by side. Ironically, though, in the end I seem to always prefer the film version. It gets all too cheesy getting into why that is, but perhaps it's that hopeless romantic longing for life being more like a movie and less like cold, hard Reality. Oops, I did it anyway! I relate to the comment about "some people needing that film cost". I clearly need the pressure. On digital, which I use for work, the pressure is already there, it being work and all. But photos destined for myself need exactly that pressure. /ends rambling reflections causes by your video. Thank you.
yeah, it's funny how things that are "incorrect" look good when they're on film. but if you had the same photo and knew it was digital you'd say "what's with that weird color in the highlights/shadows/whatever."
I can imagine if you shoot professionally it's nice to have a little distance between what you shoot for work vs for fun. (of course, there's also fuji/leica for that depending on how much money you like to burn.) I end up in the weird spot of shooting digital when I need the flexibility and film when I don't.
I have been looking for this comparison for so long! The mamiya 7 is my all time favorite film camera and I just purchased a GFX. Sadly, I dont have the mamiya anymore. Is there any way to download any of these? I would love to see them on my computer to compare!
hi! thanks for the message here/on IG. hopefully this link works for you: drive.google.com/file/d/1RTj2ryJ17_lCfbiyrwmPrzJfnhfjutXY/view?usp=sharing
Awesome video , thanks a lot for making this video !
GFX 50S and GFX 100 are the way to go to replicate film on digital, 100S requires more editing to match film.
There is top tier film preset that actually match real film : the archetype process. You can find free version of their preset (200$ otherwise) it gives you an idea.
Basically to match film, you first need the lens, it’s the key! I personally love using Canon FD lenses on GFX 50S and 100. They have film colors. Canon 85mm 1.2 L FD is incredible (67mm f/0.9 on Gfx) . I tried FL 58mm f/1.2 (46mm f/0.9 on gfx ) but sadly it doesn’t cover the sensor fully at f/1.2 (vignetting in corners) although if stopped down to f/2 and f/4 or more , you get rid of black corners and it’s very sharp with film feel.
Another interesting thing about film colors. It’s all down to scanning . Different lab have different preset and there is a HUGE difference in colors between Frontier scanner (SP 3000) and Noritsu. Frontier scanner gives you cold greens colors (just as your shots on gfx 100 with green trees) and noritsu gives you warmer image with yellow trees like on your Mamiya 7. So basically you can shoot same film but scanned on frontier and noritsu you get 2 extremely different images
GFX100 and 100S share the exact same sensor...100S doesn't require anything more
I usually use a yellow or orange filter with black and white film for landscapes and a yellow-green filter for portraits. For landscapes in color, I often use the polarizing filter sometimes in conjunction with the graduated neutral density filter.
very interesting video - it was most interesting to see the differences in the color of the sky.
Cheers. Weirdly, I see this very consistently and I can’t make up my mind whether the cyan skies of most films or the kind of purple skies of digital are more realistic. But I tend to hue shift digital skies to get them more film-like.
@@atomikpi I see - from what I see around online I hear the "leica" got more "realistic" colors to what people see when taking the shot.
then something hit me questioning when was it ever the goal to capture the most correct color in the first place? That its either a matter of taste and the mood that the photographer want to capture or people use digital but still try to replicate film color to have that old look as well maybe.
awersome video!!! Nice edit on the digital files, i personally gave up on making my digital images look like film, i have a hard time with colors
yeah agreed. I do end up preferring the film colors here and found them hard to match. if I didn't have the film image as a reference, would've been harder. (likewise with presets - film doesn't behave exactly the same in every situation.)
To match film you need :
1) vintage lens (from 1960-1980 best)
2) overexpose and use 400% dynamic range
3) -2 highlights
4) usually go for Warmer look , so 5900K-6200K or Red +2 Blue -4 for example
5) download The Archetype Process preset they match at 99-100% film if you don’t want use JPG with film simulation in camera
@@Pentax67 Maybe, but I would categorize the Mamiya 7 lenses as modern, introduced in 1995 and in production to 2014. The glass is not vintage and compares well (even favorable) to most modern glass. Will try your process with my GFX 50S. :)
Mamiya 7 is better in every way.
This is easily the best comparison video I've seen! Really appreciate your attention to detail.
For what it's worth, if I'm shooting digital I tend to go classic chrome, bump sat a touch, and swing both green and blue towards teal a touch in post. With a very mild pro mist 1/8 filter on the lens it gets pretty close.
Personally i think you need a touch of diffusion filtering to soften and spread highlights a bit in digital which to my eye happens on film with older glass already
thank you! appreciate the kind words.
FWIW I'm actually shooting a follow up where I:
- use a few different films
- use a pro mist in a few examples
- use nostalgic neg sim (lower contrast, higher saturation, nice and warm)
I really like the 1/8 black pro mist or cinebloom 10% on super modern optics. add that little special something / slight imperfection. I previously had only tried the 1/4, which is too much for me.
Love the video. Great content (the most important criteria) but also the video and audio are of a high standard.
Thank you! I am really bugged by unclear audio so try to make it easily audible.
You should try classic chrome and nostalgic negative next time for the comparasion!
love classic chrome as well, was my favorite before nostalgic neg came out
@@atomikpi nostalgic negative is amazing
Good real world comparison. Thanks!
Thanks for watching!
fantastic video. great effort and i think you managed to emulate the film look really well. i think anyone will have a hard time telling the differences if you say the photos from GFX is film. sure enough, film has stronger character, but the edited gfx files is definitely about 90-95% of the film look already
Have you tried your mamiya 7 lenses on the GFX?
I'd like to and might in the future. Unfortunately, it requires a pretty expensive electronic adapter ($400 ish).
@@atomikpi that's near 1k in Australia. a bit too much without knowing how sharp they will be.
Mamiya 7 👍
Dope video man!
Thank you!
照片非常棒，色调处理的很高级。要是能增加一点现场拍摄时候的花絮肯定会更棒的！加油，朋友！
你好！ 感谢收看！ 我也想在现场拍摄更多。 抱歉电脑翻译不好。
@@atomikpi 我看明白了😂加油
nice video. It is on my wishlist to one day a gfx to use with the lens from the hasselblad because, as seen here, you can get really good material. I am not so good with color grading to bring film look, I mean, it takes too long still, so I am mainly shooting with film because, even with some edits, the base it's there already, but digital you can experiment more at a somewhat lower cost.
Now, which lens do you use to scan your negatives? is a gfx lens or is it an adapted lens?
Yeah adapted lenses are great on the GFX, but it will definitely show any imperfections. I've enjoyed shooting the Pentax 105/2.4 on it with a focal reducer - soft contrast but beautiful vintage look and sharper than you might expect.
Scanned with the GF 120/4 macro at f/11, should be really sharp scans except for any imperfect alignment on my part (but I take crops from where I focused on the negative, so a non-issue for the comparisons).
@@atomikpi oh my god you have focal reducer for Smc 105mm 2.4? Wow man !!! I can’t find these anymore so I just mount my SMC 105mm 2.4 on adapter so I just get 83mm f/1.9. With focal reducer you are like 58mm 1.4?
@@Pentax67 Yeah agreed the lens is a huge part of the look! The focal reducer is a great combo.
I"m using NLP with the Frontier presets, so makes sense it's more a Fronter/Fuji scanner look. When I've gotten scans from Noritsu+Frontier side-by-side, I've had a very hard time picking between the warmer Frontier look and more "vivid" (idk) Noritsu look.
@@atomikpi put a mirror on your copy stand base and use image to align
@@ironmonkey1512 I've heard this and am convinced I'm just dumb for not getting it. have a link/video?
I have the urge to draw a thunderbolt on your forehead :D.
Awesome contents! I did something similar on my channel but definitely not as detailed as your version.
i'll check it out :)
Crockett is a cool little weird place. I am located in El Cerrito. I have shot around their a little.
agreed. i've shot most of the better-known areas in the bay, so at this point I pretty much throw a dart at a map and hope for the best.
Not looking at the camera.
Hold that lense with the gfx… I was thinking it will break😢
it's a heavy one! there's no tripod mount on it, so assume the gfx is able to hold it without issue.
This is exactly what I’ve been looking for! Thank you!!
cheers! i have a second round coming (in a few months, I am horribly lazy) with 400h and fp4 - and on the digital side with fuji's nostalgic negative preset and a cinebloom diffusion filter.
Beautiful, thank you
thanks for watching!
Great video. You could have used something like the Archtype Film Profiles to get much closer to the actual film look, but It's still a nice comparison.
would've been a good idea to show comparisons with some film presets I have on my computer (mastin labs etc.), but honestly I find so much difference from scanner to scanner that they'll only really target one look (e.g. Frontier, Nortisu, Epson, whatever). another commenter also suggested trying out film recipes for Fujifilm, which is also a good idea.
I had a Mamiya 7 some years ago and now shoot the GFX 50S. In many ways the GFX system is comparable to the M7. The sensor is of course smaller and resolution is similar with a good scan. The 50R and the GF 50/3.5 would roughly give you the same angle of view, same weight same dimensions. The GF lenses however many bit too slow and sometimes huge.
Yeah, I considered using the 50/3.5 (have it), but thought it was "unfair" to compare a compact lens with a full size (though of course the GFX is a bit larger). both great cameras, similar resolution on B&W at least.
Yup, there's not absolute correct test. The GF45 is terrific and a good choice. :)
that's a good test but anyone sees this video has to consider that sharpness of the film is depended by 2 significant parameters . 1st is the kind of film you use .eg portra 160 is a soft film while portra 400 is sharp film ... 2nd the scanner plays another very significant role to the final result in order to get the best from the film as a medium ...
My conclusion is that mamiya's 7 lenses are from the best medium format lenses out there and if coupled with the analog digitization accessories , i believe it is difficult to be surpassed by a digital sensor overall .... i am not mentioning the aesthetic/ artistic result that is in favour of the film almost any time ... digital gets better but it will always has some flaws in contrary to the film because film is analog while the digital works with "gaps" while translating light .
Hi! Fair comment, thanks for being polite. Yes, I tended to prefer the film results here. I’ve gotten some black and white results in the past that were really sharp, but in this case didn’t quite measure up to digital (even with a good imo scanning setup). (And I do think t max 100 and portra 160 are very sharp if you check the MTF on their spec sheets.) I’d love to see a similar result with a drum scanner but don’t want to spend the time and money on drum scans.
I’m going to give this another shot in the future, perhaps the results will be different. If nothing else, I find it super cool to see the difference in color side-by-side and realize that “film like” digital colors still tend to be a bit different. And both options are more than sharp enough to print large.
C&H in good ol' Crockett, California. Iconic location.
such a pretty spot, time to go back hah