Fujifilm X-Trans II film like qualities?

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.

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.

Sjak wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

X Trans1 is better than the X-trans2 which has much heavier shadows, even in Raw,

Why are heavier shadows worse than lighter shadows?

A judgment of those who worked with film in the past. For one, Ansel  Adams was a progenitor with his Zone System.

For me it's not about coming close to film as much as just having appealing tonality and color, and for me X-Trans 1 in particular hits the mark. Even as a raw shooter, where I know some folks say you can make raws look like anything you want - I argue it's still nice to have a great starting point and not have to push and pull a raw into shape unless you have to.

Only film really looks like film.

If you want the film look use film.

EOS GUY wrote:

Only film really looks like film.

If you want the film look use film.

Exactly! Something like a Fuji GA 645, or a Fujica ST, are Fuji-bodies that give a great film look

Sjak wrote:

EOS GUY wrote:

Only film really looks like film.

If you want the film look use film.

Exactly! Something like a Fuji GA 645, or a Fujica ST, are Fuji-bodies that give a great film look

I'd go so far as to say all film cameras give a great film look

Seriously, imho there is a huge difference between all the fuji film sims and real film. The digital version is much too clean and sharp to look like film, at least sooc. Not that one is better than the other, digital is just very different from film even with vintage lenses. My experience at least.

I'd like to see a comparison with the same subject in similar conditions. A fuji sooc shot and, I don't know, an ektachrome slide developed properly... Maybe someone has done that?

Ulrik Christiansen wrote:

I'd like to see a comparison with the same subject in similar conditions. A fuji sooc shot and, I don't know, an ektachrome slide developed properly... Maybe someone has done that?

I tried a comparison a few (10?) years ago. Even with a 5mp digital camera, I found the digital images better. Haven't looked back, since then.

Sigma SD15 DSLR with 85mm F1.4 lens

Sigma SA 7n camera with Ektar 100 film installed, using same 85mm F1.4 lens

The entire scanned Ektar 100 film image from the test.

PS also see this comparison:

X-E1 vs B&W Film: Tom Schum: Galleries: Digital Photography Review : Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Tom Schum wrote:

Ulrik Christiansen wrote:

I'd like to see a comparison with the same subject in similar conditions. A fuji sooc shot and, I don't know, an ektachrome slide developed properly... Maybe someone has done that?

I tried a comparison a few (10?) years ago. Even with a 5mp digital camera, I found the digital images better. Haven't looked back, since then.

Sigma SD15 DSLR with 85mm F1.4 lens

Sigma SA 7n camera with Ektar 100 film installed, using same 85mm F1.4 lens

The entire scanned Ektar 100 film image from the test.

PS also see this comparison:

X-E1 vs B&W Film: Tom Schum: Galleries: Digital Photography Review : Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I did the same kind of comparisons with high res scans of negatives and slides vs an early 6MP digital SLR and it was easy to see the superior resolution of the DSLR. Maybe drum scans would have competed with the DSLR images but they were always prohibitively expensive for the amateur user. Of course it's not just about resolution - tonality and the "look" of film are certainly things some people yearn for, and that partly explains the appeal of film emulation plugins etc and Fuji's JPEG film sims.

Absolutely.

Get a film camera for a different aesthetic and experience not for better IQ

For example street photographers - you could get a ricoh gr 1s (did I get the name right, it's what Moriyama used) and load it with TRI-X or hp 5 ultra and really get that gritty look without having to use presets (though you have to learn to develop)

That said a ricoh gr digital iv also gives that look

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.

If you want “film-like” then get some older manual focus lenses like the Takumars or Zeiss lenses and shoot on whatever Fuji body suits your fancy.

I have all four sensors in various Fuji bodies and IMO the best sensor for B&W is the Xtrans3 (in the XH1). The XTrans1 was also a very nice B&W sensor. The nicest colors seem to come out of the XTrans2, but at 16mp I find I don’t use my XT1s all that much, preferring the XPro3.

Great diverse answers very useful