what do you think of fuji's in camera acros ?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
4:03 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,286
the first word that pops into my mind is dirty.
keep in mind i have not changed my post processing routine...crop, just a little fiddling with levels and a tiny touch of unsharp mask.
part of the problem is that i'm also using the new to me 23/2 lens which may not be as sharp as my 23/1.4 lens. too many variables at one time?
a short note on the lens...it feels wonderful on camera and in my hands...if the xt20 doesn't work out i'l be happy with the xe2 and the 23 on it.
 
I really like the in camera acros film sim, yellow filter weak grain effect. And you are right, the 23 f2 isnt as sharp as the 1.4, especially close up. Im using them on my xpro2. I prefer my 35 and 56. I dont use the 23 much. My wife prefers that focal length when she uses the camera.
 
I don't have a camera with Acros simulation so I can't judge it firsthand. My observation of photos I've seen posted on the 'Net in various websites pretty much echos the "dirty" description. Pictures posted that I've seen (and that can still recall) have been grainy, gritty and overly contrasty. Now I have to add that I never used Acros back in my film shooting days so maybe that's the way it looked when it came in rolls instead of software.

Or it might just be the trend today--high contrast and simulated grain. Some people seem to try and emulate film digitally without ever having used film very much...if at all.
 
Acros is probably my least favourite film so I don't quite understand which of its features people are trying to emulate.

Cheers,

R.
 
i don't think that i ever used the acros film...no memory of it at the moment.
this may be a losing proposition for me as i quite like the look of digital...
 
Roger Hicks said:
Acros is probably my least favourite film so I don't quite understand which of its features people are trying to emulate.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

...from my reading about the in camera simulation, it sounded very nice...the right hit of grain, good contrast ooc...i may be romanticizing the memory of the look of grain.
 
back alley said:
...from my reading about the in camera simulation, it sounded very nice...the right hit of grain, good contrast ooc...i may be romanticizing the memory of the look of grain.
Click to expand...
It had very little grain. With PRECISELY the right exposure and development (not easy) the tonality could be exquisite. But grain... Nah, pretty good for a film that struggled to reach ISO 100 in most developers. And of course contrast is a function of time and temperature as well as curve shape. In my view, you're right, you've romanticized that particular memory.

Cheers,

R.
 
I tried it for a while, and soon realised that it is what it is -- a digital simulation. It has the same look as all digital b&w simulations wrt to tonality.

The color films are good though.

back alley said:
the first word that pops into my mind is dirty.
keep in mind i have not changed my post processing routine...crop, just a little fiddling with levels and a tiny touch of unsharp mask.
part of the problem is that i'm also using the new to me 23/2 lens which may not be as sharp as my 23/1.4 lens. too many variables at one time?
a short note on the lens...it feels wonderful on camera and in my hands...if the xt20 doesn't work out i'l be happy with the xe2 and the 23 on it.
Click to expand...
 
It's margarine not butter.
As margarine goes it's not bad.
Turn down the grain and looks a bit like scanned acros.
It's a film simulation not film itself. Folks should not expect same as film results.
Personally I like it as the in camera jpeg pair to a raw to pp laster (preview or quick for email).
 
back alley said:
the first word that pops into my mind is dirty.
keep in mind i have not changed my post processing routine...crop, just a little fiddling with levels and a tiny touch of unsharp mask.
part of the problem is that i'm also using the new to me 23/2 lens which may not be as sharp as my 23/1.4 lens. too many variables at one time?
a short note on the lens...it feels wonderful on camera and in my hands...if the xt20 doesn't work out i'l be happy with the xe2 and the 23 on it.
Click to expand...

Not sure where the idea of "dirty" comes from, unless you are shooting at *very* high ISO? Do you have a sample?

The in camera ACROS does not perform traditional noise reduction. Instead it substitutes grain in place of noise. If you crank up the ISO you get more grain in the image. But you have to shoot very high before I'd call it dirty. Because of this you should not use the other Grain control with ACROS.

This is ISO 3200 and is still clean IMO.

25590576782_bf890e736e_b.jpg


At ISO 10,000 or so then you will get a bit of grain to it.

I really like the ACROS emulation. It leaves lots of headroom for highlights and has nice tonality IMO.

Shawn
 
Dogman said:
I don't have a camera with Acros simulation so I can't judge it firsthand. My observation of photos I've seen posted on the 'Net in various websites pretty much echos the "dirty" description. Pictures posted that I've seen (and that can still recall) have been grainy, gritty and overly contrasty.
Click to expand...

How many of them where straight out of the camera JPEGs though? Overly contrasty is not how I'd describe ACROS in camera at default settings. You can alter that with the cameras shadow and highlight control and of course do it in post too.

Shooting RAW and using LRs ACROS is also not the same as using the in camera JPEG engine.

Shawn
 
I have used it just to try out on a few images I made recently with my X Pro 2. I still feel that even in decent lighting conditions, the control of shadow detail with raw files makes those more sensible to me.
I was inspired though, by all of the recent hype and picked up a roll of Acros Friday. I will try it out soon...but I won't be using the X Pro 2! :)

And Shawn, Just seeing your post- very nice!

David
 
I like the monochrome version and TBH the difference between monochome and acros is very minute but to me where acros really shine is once you increase the ISO where it also tries to simulate high ISO grain.

not the prettiest photo I've ever taken but if you click on the photo it will take you to the full size image and see the simulated grain at ISO 1600
Fuji X-T2 + XF 50mm f2 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
 
taemo said:
I like the monochrome version and TBH the difference between monochome and acros is very minute but to me where acros really shine is once you increase the ISO where it also tries to simulate high ISO grain.

not the prettiest photo I've ever taken but if you click on the photo it will take you to the full size image and see the simulated grain at ISO 1600
Fuji X-T2 + XF 50mm f2 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
Click to expand...

won't open...
 
I think it's great. I love it! I don't know why you would call it "dirty" unless you mean "sexy", which it is. ;)

Keep in mind that, unlike the film, digital Acros has many variations in camera. It is affected by the settings for grain, sharpness, highlights, shadows and ISO. So you have 5 variables affecting Acros, each with multiple settings. It also has a way of making high ISO photos look good, better than I expected.

Photos I see online are too often over-sharpened or have had their shadows crushed into blackness. But this is the result of the photographers' settings/tastes, not the Acros simulation itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top