Dissecting PRO Neg Hi

[Doug Pardee]

PRO Neg Hi exhibits higher contrast in the form of harder shadows, with some softening of light skin tones.

From what Fujifilm has said about it, PRO Neg Hi apparently is another synthetic -- not based on an existing film emulsion. Fujifilm says that PRO Neg Hi was "designed to be used for portraiture where the lighting isn’t set perfectly, like fashion photography, in which the lighting cannot follow models movement."

Fujifilm also suggests PRO Neg Hi for street and candid photography. Personally, I'd add architectural and artworks -- especially sculpture -- where you want to emphasize line, form, and texture over color, but without the amount of desaturation and color twisting that Classic Chrome exhibits. As an extension of that, I find PRO Neg Hi useful for landscapes containing prominent structures.

I'm not planning to go into much quite so much detail on PRO Neg Hi. In My Opinion, it's not a film simulation you'd monkey around with setting-wise. If you don't like its tonality and color rendition, there are other film simulations that are probably better choices.

Here's the DPReview studio scene:


DPReview studio scene, processed to PRO Neg Hi on my X-T10.

The color-checker part of that scene, compared with X-Rite's sRGB standard values:


PRO Neg Hi patches on top of the standard sRGB values.

And compared with Provia:


PRO Neg Hi patches on top of the Provia patches.

In the tone curve patches on the bottom row, we can see the harder shadows. That carries over into the darker colors, especially noticeable in the darker blues, the foliage patch on the top row, the purple patch below it, and the darker skin tone in the top left. On the other hand, the light skin tone patch is noticeably desaturated, as are the orange and magenta patches.

If we soften the tonal curve with Shadows=-1, we get:


PRO Neg Hi Shadows -1 patches on top of the Provia patches.

Now the shadows are considerably more gentle than Provia, and the darker colors are washing out.

Let's compare PRO Neg Hi against Astia, another portrait-oriented simulation:


PRO Neg Hi patches on top of the Astia patches.

PRO Neg Hi is softer on light skin tones than Astia, but it's harder in the shadows and it's even a bit darker in the midtones. The harder shadows deepen the darker colors including dark skin tones. The darker midtones dull the blue skies (top row) somewhat compared to Astia's dazzle, but I personally think that in practice they're still pretty good -- check out the comparisons to Provia above. The bluish green and cyan patches on the right side reflect that PRO Neg Hi doesn't exhibit Astia's quirkiness in those colors.

Now to compare against the other portrait-oriented negative simulation, PRO Neg Std:


PRO Neg Hi patches on top of the PRO Neg Std patches.

The harder shadow treatment is immediately obvious. Light skin tones are virtually identical between the two, but the higher shadow contrast of PRO Neg Hi keeps the darker colors, including dark skin tones, from washing out.

Are the differences betwen PRO Neg Hi and PRO Neg Std just the tonal curve? Let's remove the tonal differences:


PRO Neg Hi patches on top of the PRO Neg Std patches, luminosity ignored (Color blend mode).

It's pretty clear that PRO Neg Hi isn't just harder in the shadows than PRO Neg Std is, it's generally more saturated.

Given that, let's see how PRO Neg Hi with Shadows=-1 compares with PRO Neg Std:


PRO Neg Hi Shadows -1 patches on top of the PRO Neg Std patches.

With Shadows -1, PRO Neg Hi renders lighter medium shadows than PRO Neg Std (Shadows=0) does, but the darkest shadows are harder. Light skin tones are nearly identical, but PRO Neg Hi has more vibrancy in the other colors, both light and dark. That would seem to back up Fujifilm's recommendation of PRO Neg Hi for fashion photography.

--
The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

 

[Walter H]

Nothing profound to add here, Doug. But I want to say I have learned A LOT from this and your CC evaluation.

Really gets me digging in to the thoughtful evaluation of which profile I might use for a particular setting and subject.

Thanks for your effort!

Walter

 

[57even]

Hi Doug, a useful evaluation and thanks!

I like it for striking character portraits.

 

[davidge]

Nothing profound to add here, Doug. But I want to say I have learned A LOT from this and your CC evaluation.

Really gets me digging in to the thoughtful evaluation of which profile I might use for a particular setting and subject.

Thanks for your effort!

Walter

+1 on that. I've found these 'dissecting' posts most useful.

 

[Lisetta]

Thanks so much for all of your analyses of the film sims. I just changed over from Provia to Pro Neg Hi and to me they seem quite similar except for the slight color differences and, most particularly, the harder shadows in Pro Neg. I was going to try experimenting with it for a while and now, after reading your 'dissection" feel very interested in the results.

You write: that Fujifilm says PRO Neg Hi would be good " for portraiture where the lighting isn’t set perfectly, like fashion photography". Also you recommend it for street and candid photography. "architectural and artworks -- especially sculpture -- where you want to emphasize line, form, and texture over color", and also forlandscapes containing prominent structures.

Sounds like a nice sim to try out for general use. Thanks again--

Lisetta

 

[Doug Pardee]

Sounds like a nice sim to try out for general use.

I suppose it depends on what "general use" is for you. I think Fujifilm is right that Provia handles the widest range of subjects well, and it's also very amenable to post-processing into a different "look." For many subjects, Provia might not be the best choice, but it's almost always a good one. PRO Neg Hi will rarely give you pictures that make people say, "ooh, pretty" -- the desaturation and increased contrast push it toward the dramatic side rather than the flashy side.

PRO Neg Hi doesn't seem to get mentioned much, but because my subjects run toward architectural and signage, it's probably my personal #1 film simulation. The photo below's a bit more "street" than my usual architecturals.


The Bourbon St. cafe. SOOC JPEG with PRO Neg Hi film simulation. (DR200 via Auto DR)

I feel like the modest increase in drama that PRO Neg Hi gives is good for static subjects, whereas the higher drama of Classic Chrome is better for dynamic subjects. In the photo below, PRO Neg Hi gives a bit of dramatic flair without the cyan twist that Classic Chrome would've applied to all that blue:


Battleship North Carolina. SOOC JPEG with PRO Neg Hi film simulation.

--

The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

 

[57even]

Sounds like a nice sim to try out for general use.

I suppose it depends on what "general use" is for you. I think Fujifilm is right that Provia handles the widest range of subjects well, and it's also very amenable to post-processing into a different "look." For many subjects, Provia might not be the best choice, but it's almost always a good one. PRO Neg Hi will rarely give you pictures that make people say, "ooh, pretty" -- the desaturation and increased contrast push it toward the dramatic side rather than the flashy side.

PRO Neg Hi doesn't seem to get mentioned much, but because my subjects run toward architectural and signage, it's probably my personal #1 film simulation. The photo below's a bit more "street" than my usual architecturals.


The Bourbon St. cafe. SOOC JPEG with PRO Neg Hi film simulation. (DR200 via Auto DR)

I feel like the modest increase in drama that PRO Neg Hi gives is good for static subjects, whereas the higher drama of Classic Chrome is better for dynamic subjects. In the photo below, PRO Neg Hi gives a bit of dramatic flair without the cyan twist that Classic Chrome would've applied to all that blue:


Battleship North Carolina. SOOC JPEG with PRO Neg Hi film simulation.

--

The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

Hey Doug, see you live in Wilmington - passed through there and spent a couple of days when working in the US through the 90's.

What a great place, real character, and some great bars. Stopped of on the way to Cape Fear and never made it any further.

Checked out the North Carolina as well. Amazing to see the conditions those guys lived in, but a mighty impressive ship and a great guided tour.

Give my regards to Wilmington and NC. Lots of good memories.

--
Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"

 

[obwohl]

Which of the fuji film simulation with which particular settings would yield the least difference in the color tables and would be therefore the "most realistic" ?

 

[Birse Boy]

thanks for taking the time with this...very interesting and useful

 

[Birse Boy]

are you able to post a link to the CC evaluation...can't find it...thanks

 

[Doug MacMillan]

Excellent evaluation! It is a clear demonstration of the differences. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

 

[pw-pix2]

I'd taken the Pro Neg Std and Hi variants to be akin to the Kodak Porta NC (normal contrast) and VC (vivid contrast) pair. Your testing seems to align with that.

 

[Doug Pardee]

are you able to post a link to the CC evaluation...can't find it...thanks

Here they all are:

• Dissecting Provia
• Dissecting Classic Chrome
• Dissecting Astia/Soft
• Dissecting Velvia
• Dissecting PRO Neg Hi
• Dissecting PRO Neg Std

 

[obwohl]

are you able to post a link to the CC evaluation...can't find it...thanks

Here they all are:

• Dissecting Provia
• Dissecting Classic Chrome
• Dissecting Astia/Soft
• Dissecting Velvia
• Dissecting PRO Neg Hi
• Dissecting PRO Neg Std

 

[Stesinou]

are you able to post a link to the CC evaluation...can't find it...thanks

Here they all are:

• Dissecting Provia
• Dissecting Classic Chrome
• Dissecting Astia/Soft
• Dissecting Velvia
• Dissecting PRO Neg Hi
• Dissecting PRO Neg Std

Dear Doug,

first of all, please allow me to express my sincere gratitude and respect for your series of "Dissecting..." articles. They are very informative especially for the guy who is just entering the digital imaging PP world from a photography (not from computer science) side.

While we are here, would you mind sharing one small tech secret with us, please?

For my photo PP, I am using darktable for Linux exclusively (I am a photographer, not a digital graphic artist, I don't have any clue how to draw and paint and in photoshop/gimp in particular).

One of my beloved features of this brilliant software product is the ability to easily apply base curves to your images, decoded from RAW files.

Namely, I especially favor the "Fujifilm X100T" base curve for my outdoor shots taken in the crazy rough Cyprus sun (which effectively kills your perception of natural colors during daytime), also "Fujifilm X100F" base curve also brings a very attractive look.

As far as I can guess, all these darkroom's base curves were developed using the same digital color magical tools which you use while "dissecting" Fuji film simulation profiles.

I did not like camera JPEG from my old LX7 and used it in a "RAW-only" mode for years. Now when I got my new X-T20, I started wondering, will it be able to deliver her camera-cooked JPEGs as good, as darktable with its base curves does, or not?

Are darktable's Fujifilm base curves a better simulation of real Velvia 100* films, than whatever Fuji X-T20 emulates? What do you think?

Thanks once again!
Regards,
Andrea

 

[Stesinou]

While exploring the subject, I had come across the article, which may (or may not) be of interest: Fujifilm’s Film Simulation Modes and What They Are Actually Doing To Your Images by Anthony Thurston, 28.July.2016

 

[Doug Pardee]

Which simulation in which particular settings would you rate "most neutral" in the sense of what our eye sees in in the picture?

None. Fujifilm has, since the film days, been in the business of producing pleasing colors rather than accurate colors. In fact, Kodak's big slogan for their film (in the later days) was "True Colors" to distinguish their renditions from Fuji's.

Specifically, Fuji's intent has been, and remains, not to capture the colors as they are, but rather to capture what color scientists call "memory color." Blue skies are rarely as blue as we remember them, grass is rarely as green as we remember it, bananas rarely as yellow, apples rarely as red, etc.

Consider this: do you white-balance your images? Why? You probably want to capture the colors as your brain perceived them, not as they were under that particular lighting.

The closest you're likely to get to a neutral is PRO Neg Std. But it's still an emulation of a Fujifilm filmstock, so it contains intentional variations.

Editorial comment:

Accurate colors only matter in a few niche photographic areas, like art conservation. Accurate colors are very hard to get with any current processes, film or digital. Most digital sensors struggle with purples and magentas. And no captured image can account for metamerism. The trichromatic (RGB) model of vision adds its own limitations, especially with broken-spectrum lighting.

Unless you absolutely need accurate colors for what you're doing, I'd recommend you not consider them a technical goal. The real world is fairly dull, and realistic photographs of it tend to be a bit underwhelming.

 

[obwohl]

Which simulation in which particular settings would you rate "most neutral" in the sense of what our eye sees in in the picture?

None. Fujifilm has, since the film days, been in the business of producing pleasing colors rather than accurate colors. In fact, Kodak's big slogan for their film (in the later days) was "True Colors" to distinguish their renditions from Fuji's.

Specifically, Fuji's intent has been, and remains, not to capture the colors as they are, but rather to capture what color scientists call "memory color." Blue skies are rarely as blue as we remember them, grass is rarely as green as we remember it, bananas rarely as yellow, apples rarely as red, etc.

Consider this: do you white-balance your images? Why? You probably want to capture the colors as your brain perceived them, not as they were under that particular lighting.

The closest you're likely to get to a neutral is PRO Neg Std. But it's still an emulation of a Fujifilm filmstock, so it contains intentional variations.

Editorial comment:

Accurate colors only matter in a few niche photographic areas, like art conservation. Accurate colors are very hard to get with any current processes, film or digital. Most digital sensors struggle with purples and magentas. And no captured image can account for metamerism. The trichromatic (RGB) model of vision adds its own limitations, especially with broken-spectrum lighting.

Unless you absolutely need accurate colors for what you're doing, I'd recommend you not consider them a technical goal. The real world is fairly dull, and realistic photographs of it tend to be a bit underwhelming.

--
Co-founder of the open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

Thank you for this elaborate answer.

Next question: Will you do an "Dissecting color chrome effect" ?

How does it actually look like and how can normal people without a GFX 50s try to get close to it?

 

[psrkn]

Which simulation in which particular settings would you rate "most neutral" in the sense of what our eye sees in in the picture?

None. Fujifilm has, since the film days, been in the business of producing pleasing colors rather than accurate colors. In fact, Kodak's big slogan for their film (in the later days) was "True Colors" to distinguish their renditions from Fuji's.

Specifically, Fuji's intent has been, and remains, not to capture the colors as they are, but rather to capture what color scientists call "memory color." Blue skies are rarely as blue as we remember them, grass is rarely as green as we remember it, bananas rarely as yellow, apples rarely as red, etc.

Consider this: do you white-balance your images? Why? You probably want to capture the colors as your brain perceived them, not as they were under that particular lighting.

The closest you're likely to get to a neutral is PRO Neg Std. But it's still an emulation of a Fujifilm filmstock, so it contains intentional variations.

Editorial comment:

Accurate colors only matter in a few niche photographic areas, like art conservation. Accurate colors are very hard to get with any current processes, film or digital. Most digital sensors struggle with purples and magentas. And no captured image can account for metamerism. The trichromatic (RGB) model of vision adds its own limitations, especially with broken-spectrum lighting.

Unless you absolutely need accurate colors for what you're doing, I'd recommend you not consider them a technical goal. The real world is fairly dull, and realistic photographs of it tend to be a bit underwhelming.

 

[N12345]

Hi,

I have been reading this thread a few times over the past few days as I am really enjoying Pro Neg Hi. To the point that I love the look even when I am not shooting with Fujifilm cameras (I shoot M43 fairly regularly). Here are a few of my attempts to replicate it in Lightroom, playing with the histogram and the HSL/Colors panel. Let me know what you think!