Fujifilm X-Trans II film like qualities?

bowportes wrote:

Papa48 wrote:

I have an X-E2S and an X-T4 (X-Trans 2 & 4). I find the X-E2S jpegs have both more contrast and saturation. They also go faster toward clipping highlights and crushing shadows, and I have to watch that. The X-T4’s jpegs almost never display these problems (with corresponding Auto DR). I do like the X-Trans 2 images better with my TTArtisan 17, 35 and 50 lenses, which all render softer and with more flare than do my Fujicrons. When on the X-T4, their output appears more flat. As to the question of X-Trans 2 being more “film-like”, I’ve seen arguments on both sides. That’s a hard definition to nail down. My X-Trans 4 jpeg output seems generally less noisy and less contrasty. It also lacks what I would define in my X-Trans 2 images as “punch”. To me, “film-like” would mean more grain and more “tooth” - a term from film days describing edge acutance. Digital looks smoother/flatter to my eye, after thirty previous years shooting various 35mm films. So, if grainy, contrasty, punchy and having tooth is the target definition, then yes, my specific X-Trans 2 files look more film-like than do my X-Trans 4. Someone may disagree if they define film-like in a different way.

I remember well the complaints about the X-E2 and X-T1 (gen 2) not having the "film-like" character of the first generation (X-Pro1 and X-E1). In fact, i had to abandon Provia on the X-T1 -- switching to Pro-Neg Standard to try to get the subtler, more film-like tonality that i had become used to from Provia on my X-E1.

Some were pleased that the 3rd generation returned to something closer to the original X-Trans.

Apart from the waxy skin complaints about x-trans2, complaints poured in about blocked shadows and Fuji having bowed to mass market demands for a more contrasty, comercial look -- the "pop" offered by other camera manufacturers. The lament was that they had abandoned the unique, filmic tonality of the original X-Trans.

So I am bewildered by people now commending Gen2 for having had the very thing they once complained that it lacked. I've owned every generation of X-Trans and have generally seen gens 3 and 4 as having returned more toward the subtler, "filmic" tonality of the original X-trans, with X-trans2 (X-E2 and X-T1) standing apart as an effort to appeal to mass consumer tastes for high contrast and saturated colors.

That fits. Thanks. I guess it also depends on which films.
I think you’re just describing color negative film traits. There were grainier/contrasty film stocks, too. Much also depended on developers/concentrations, etc., in the case of B&W. Higher speed color transparencies were contrasty and grainy. In the final film years National Geographic was publishing more Kodachrome 200.  You could see visible grain and less dynamic range in that work. I was relieved to see digital emerge.