RAW & film simulation

MarcoE

Leading Member
Messages
989
Reaction score
330
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Correct.
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
 
Last edited:
I shoot RAW + JPEG. I just upgraded my X-E3 firmware and downloaded the Fuji X Raw Converter that allows you to tether your camera and use it simulations to convert raw files saved on your computer. It is much faster tahnusung othe raw converters and you have other adjustments (sharpening, white and black levels, etc.) available. It doe a great job!
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
That is false mostly. Although the film sims are made by Adobe both Fuji and Adobe work on them together so they are as close as possible as to what Fuji uses on the JPG side.

Simplest way to tell is set up a test subject and shoot it with both RAW & JPG recording and change the Film sims for each shot. Then import into LR and assign the same film sim to the RAW as was used on the JPG and compare.

I think you will find them very close if not the same.
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
That is false mostly. Although the film sims are made by Adobe both Fuji and Adobe work on them together so they are as close as possible as to what Fuji uses on the JPG side.
Simplest way to tell is set up a test subject and shoot it with both RAW & JPG recording and change the Film sims for each shot. Then import into LR and assign the same film sim to the RAW as was used on the JPG and compare.

I think you will find them very close if not the same.
I believe the significant difference between the two is the Acros profile in LR doesn't have the grain the in-camera profile offers.
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
That is false mostly. Although the film sims are made by Adobe both Fuji and Adobe work on them together so they are as close as possible as to what Fuji uses on the JPG side.
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Simplest way to tell is set up a test subject and shoot it with both RAW & JPG recording and change the Film sims for each shot. Then import into LR and assign the same film sim to the RAW as was used on the JPG and compare.

I think you will find them very close if not the same.
 
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Here.


I also read it someplace else but can't find it now.

It actually might of been on DPReview.
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
That is false mostly. Although the film sims are made by Adobe both Fuji and Adobe work on them together so they are as close as possible as to what Fuji uses on the JPG side.

Simplest way to tell is set up a test subject and shoot it with both RAW & JPG recording and change the Film sims for each shot. Then import into LR and assign the same film sim to the RAW as was used on the JPG and compare.

I think you will find them very close if not the same.
In any case, if you are just going to adopt the LR/Adobe sim you might as well use the camera jpg. Of course, that is not the case but once you change anything from WB to sat to colour it is no longer the film sim.

Vic
 
  • Like
Reactions: JNR
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Here.

http://www.johncaz.net/home/rejoice-lightroom-supports-fuji-x

I also read it someplace else but can't find it now.

It actually might of been on DPReview.
"And then we got a rumor that Adobe was working together with Fuji for better RAF support including full support for the Fuji color profiles."

Like I said, I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard.
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
That is false mostly. Although the film sims are made by Adobe both Fuji and Adobe work on them together so they are as close as possible as to what Fuji uses on the JPG side.

Simplest way to tell is set up a test subject and shoot it with both RAW & JPG recording and change the Film sims for each shot. Then import into LR and assign the same film sim to the RAW as was used on the JPG and compare.

I think you will find them very close if not the same.
Agree with the above about testing.

Just sharing images from a recent experiment I had done with PP in LR :


I was not exactly comparing the in-camera with LR rendering but I was curious to understand what these film simulations do. Part of it does get reflected in the histogram, and part in the image itself.

I liked Astia-soft a lot.

it's very difficult to get a similar quality JPG like LR from in-camera RAW conversion. One is the lack of perspective correction in in-camera processing. Secondly, XE2 has a limited +/- 2 range for all parameters, unlike other Fuji models.
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
That is false mostly. Although the film sims are made by Adobe both Fuji and Adobe work on them together so they are as close as possible as to what Fuji uses on the JPG side.

Simplest way to tell is set up a test subject and shoot it with both RAW & JPG recording and change the Film sims for each shot. Then import into LR and assign the same film sim to the RAW as was used on the JPG and compare.

I think you will find them very close if not the same.
I believe the significant difference between the two is the Acros profile in LR doesn't have the grain the in-camera profile offers.
 
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Here.

http://www.johncaz.net/home/rejoice-lightroom-supports-fuji-x

I also read it someplace else but can't find it now.

It actually might of been on DPReview.
"And then we got a rumor that Adobe was working together with Fuji for better RAF support including full support for the Fuji color profiles."

Like I said, I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Aside from that I think it was Doug Pardee who posted a series of detailed comparisons of LR profiles vs ooc JPEG
 
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Here.

http://www.johncaz.net/home/rejoice-lightroom-supports-fuji-x

I also read it someplace else but can't find it now.

It actually might of been on DPReview.
"And then we got a rumor that Adobe was working together with Fuji for better RAF support including full support for the Fuji color profiles."

Like I said, I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard.
Through the years I've seen discussions of this, with other brands, where folks I believed had some valid insight have suggested manufacturers work with Adobe to some degree for their desmosaicing and camera profiles. So I assume Fuji has an interest too in having Adobe accommodate their user base.

I have seen no documentation that Fuji absolutely does not share with Adobe in this regard.
 
From what i understand : shooting in RAW only shows the selected film simulation on screen when capturing images. Transferring files into f.e. Lightroom shows RAW data where you are able to select any type of Fuji film simulation like Across or Velvia etc...

Correct ?
Not exactly.

If you don't use a JPEG generated by the camera then you forgo access to Fuji's film simulations. They're proprietary and Fuji does not share them. In a raw converter like Lightroom what you're selecting when you apply a profile like Velvia or Acros is Adobe's simulation of the Fuji film simulation.

How faithful/acceptable Adobe's simulations of the simulations are remains a topic for discussion and opinion.
That is false mostly. Although the film sims are made by Adobe both Fuji and Adobe work on them together so they are as close as possible as to what Fuji uses on the JPG side.

Simplest way to tell is set up a test subject and shoot it with both RAW & JPG recording and change the Film sims for each shot. Then import into LR and assign the same film sim to the RAW as was used on the JPG and compare.

I think you will find them very close if not the same.
Nope, it's not. You never get exactly the same with LR. The diferences are subtle, but they are there. If the differences matter to in practical use is a different story. Here is a good video about this.

 
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Here.

http://www.johncaz.net/home/rejoice-lightroom-supports-fuji-x

I also read it someplace else but can't find it now.

It actually might of been on DPReview.
"And then we got a rumor that Adobe was working together with Fuji for better RAF support including full support for the Fuji color profiles."

Like I said, I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, but an inability to find evidence after an active search indicates a likelihood. Is my house on fire? Let me check. Hmmmmm? I find no evidence my house is on fire. It's likely my house is not on fire.
Aside from that I think it was Doug Pardee who posted a series of detailed comparisons of LR profiles vs ooc JPEG
 
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Here.

http://www.johncaz.net/home/rejoice-lightroom-supports-fuji-x

I also read it someplace else but can't find it now.

It actually might of been on DPReview.
"And then we got a rumor that Adobe was working together with Fuji for better RAF support including full support for the Fuji color profiles."

Like I said, I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, but an inability to find evidence after an active search indicates a likelihood. Is my house on fire? Let me check. Hmmmmm? I find no evidence my house is on fire. It's likely my house is not on fire.
A screen grab from the X-H1 catalog available on Fuji's website:



4121c7d035564979990d81ab60f300a2.jpg.png

Under the Lightroom listing "Film Simulation effects can be also applied to your images in the software." Straight from the horses mouth.
Aside from that I think it was Doug Pardee who posted a series of detailed comparisons of LR profiles vs ooc JPEG
 
I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard -- please provide it.
Here.

http://www.johncaz.net/home/rejoice-lightroom-supports-fuji-x

I also read it someplace else but can't find it now.

It actually might of been on DPReview.
"And then we got a rumor that Adobe was working together with Fuji for better RAF support including full support for the Fuji color profiles."

Like I said, I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, but an inability to find evidence after an active search indicates a likelihood. Is my house on fire? Let me check. Hmmmmm? I find no evidence my house is on fire. It's likely my house is not on fire.
A screen grab from the X-H1 catalog available on Fuji's website:

4121c7d035564979990d81ab60f300a2.jpg.png

Under the Lightroom listing "Film Simulation effects can be also applied to your images in the software." Straight from the horses mouth.
Like I said, I have seen no documentation that Fuji assists Adobe in that regard.
Aside from that I think it was Doug Pardee who posted a series of detailed comparisons of LR profiles vs ooc JPEG
 
I'm trying to understand why anyone would care whether it is an official film sim or not.

AFAICT, the Capture One simulations are very close to a match to the JPEG output. I don't care it is exact or not, official or best guess. It's Raw. It's flexible. For me - no matter the sim upon which it is based - the image requires significant work to get the right look for my needs. Usually, that means lifting shadows, fixing color balance (but not much - camera does a nice job in this area), pulling out a bit more detail, sometimes fixing NR (can go either way with Xtrans III depending on the situation), local adjustments.

No matter what sim you use, keep in mind that a quality converter is many magnitudes more precise than what the camera processes into the various steps (graduations). You only want to devote so much processor to that JPEG output, otherwise you are sacrificing camera performance. As it should be, IMHO. Actual computers and raw conversion software - almost unlimited by comparison - allowing for precision.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top