If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:38:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said: I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must be done in the camera or not at all. Agreed. That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am. My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a processor outside the camera can do it equally well. One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro. My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK Silver Efex Pro. The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros. I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results. All it needs is the right programming. ...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of their films after all. Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word on what those film prints all looked like. Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter. When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite there. I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not been able to match the job done in-camera. I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in this group yet. In that case, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding around this. The way I was reading your comments, you seemed to be saying that only the in camera processing is an accurate emulation, but now I believe you are saying that none of the 3d party software can match the camera, regardless of whether the camera's emulation is accurate or not. Now that I can understand. And if that's the case, you could post an emulated photo, along with an identical one that is not emulated. It would be best if the second photo were RAW, but I can't remember if you said that 3d party software can open Fuji's raw files. Anyway, there are probably a few people here who would take a shot at matching the camera's processing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film scanners | James[_3_] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 8th 09 08:37 AM |
Film Scanners | Stephen[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 07:56 PM |
Film scanners anyone? | Ted Gibson | Digital Photography | 15 | January 8th 08 03:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 12:25 AM |
M/F film scanners - again? | Rod | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 31st 04 04:14 PM |