.

.

.

#9 done, 11 to go! See you soon!

Digital or Film? Fuji Acros Digital on a XPro-2 compared to Fuji Acros 100 Film on Hasselblad 6×6… who will be the winner?

Few weeks ago I did a non scientific comparison between black and white digital and film, using my beloved Fuji XPro-2 and a Pentax 67 with Ilford FP4.

The article got a lot of interest and was also published on Fuji X Passion magazine.

I decided to improve the test and use Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 film, instead of Ilford FP4 and Hasselblad instead of Pentax. The use of actual Acros film instead of Ilford is obvious and needed for a less casual comparison. Hasselblad instead of Pentax is because I suspected some lack of sharpness was caused by the lenses, and since I have used Hasselblad all my life and I’m sure were the best analogue medium format camera and optics, I simply wanted to eliminate every variable related to the lens.

As I said before:

• I know that, scanning the negative, part of the process is still digital so is not perfect
• I do not intend to give all the answers
• I did this just for fun and to understand myself a little better

How did it go this time and who won? Not easy questions!

Technical premise, the Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 film was developed in Ilfotec HC 1+47 for 8 minutes at 20C, after a 3 minutes prewash in water, and followed by a stop bath and 4 minutes fixing in Ilford Hypam 1+4.
In the image captions there are the specific data for each image.

I started in a snowy day, with absolute flat light and no real highlights in the scenes. The opposite of what I did in the previous test. It was not really a choice, but it was snowing and I wanted to do it anyway… yes, I would rather be in Florida than in the Italian Alps… and not just for the weather!

Fuji Acros 100 – Hasselblad 500 C/M with 80mm f 2.8 – Exposed at 1/60 f 8

First image, a fountain with the church in the background. When I arrived I looked around and thought “1/60 f8” then I took my Minolta Spotmeter and measured the light, exactly 1/60 f8.
I was with Gian Cerato, a dear friend and colleague and asked him what he imagined was the exposure and he told me “1/125 f5.6” and we laughed about the simplicity of film photography. No matter if the best quality is on digital or film, film have the simplicity on its side, once you set the ISO with the film choice there are just shutter speed and aperture that can be set with the old rule 1/ISO at f16 for a sunny day… the table found on every film box!

Please, note the stupidity of Italian bureaucracy that put a bar code for the water service on the fountain… an old fountain with a stupid and ugly white placard very visible from the best point of view. I avoid further comments to not get in jail…

As soon as I took the picture with film, I got my XPro-2 and kept the same settings. Last time I noticed that I always had very underexposed images, even in RAW, if I used the setting from the meter, so I decided to use the Fuji 200 ISO as if it was a 100 ISO to give that stop of overexposure needed in my previous experiment.
Now the image came out one stop overexposed, so I had to trash the jpg and use the RAW and correct one stop… All started to sound strange…

Fuji XPro2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/60 f8 ISO200 – In camera conversion ACROS simulation

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/60 f8 – RAW transformed in CaptureOne 11

CaptureOne 11 has not the Acros simulation… so no comparison here, but I learned a lesson: something was going on in the camera.  The base ISO did not seem to be constant and I was sure the ISO were set to 200 and not Auto.

So in another location I was more careful on checking the histogram and evaluate the exposure.

Fujifilm Acros 100 with Hasselblad 500C/M and 80mm f2.8 – Exposed at 1/60 f11

As usual the exposure was perfect with film. With digital I corrected a stop for the difference in ISO and came out almost perfectly exposed.

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – Exposed at 1/125 f11 ISO 200 – Acros simulation, in camera jpg

The tonal rendition is really perfect, the differences between the film and digital simulation are very minimum and can depend more on the developer used than on the film and simulation parameters.

I was positively surprised. Fuji really did an awesome job with the ACROS simulation.

We can see very similar results in the other pictures following. And still the XPro-2 set at 200 ISO continued to act properly as 200 ISO!

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 11.5 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f14 ISO 200 – Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 8.5 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f9 ISO 200 – Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 f8 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f8 ISO 200 – Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 1/60 f8.5 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1/125 f9 ISO 200 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

For now all is good… exposure perfect using the same setting for film and digital just correcting for the ISO difference.

So I decided to take some pictures inside to test the sharpness and some higher contrast subject.

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 20sec. f8 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 22sec. f8 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

As usual the film excels in the highlights but this time, with the Zeiss 80mm and Acros instead of FP4 the sharpness is the same as you can see in the 100% enlargement.

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 20sec. f8 Fuji Acros 100 – 100% enlargement

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 22sec. f8 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation – 100% enlargement

You can read the book covers in both images, and the 100% scan of the film with the Imacon 848 is actually 7400px wide vs. the 6000px of the Xpro-2

At this point I will be curious to test a medium format digital camera (Fujifilm? Pentax? PhaseOne?) against a 4×5″ film.

In my mind I was sure a medium format film was superior to a 24MP aps-c camera regarding linear resolution. I was wrong.

On the next picture I went very high contrast, and again I noticed underexposure on the Fuji XPro-2. The details in the highlight disappear and the shadow become dark, closed. Using the RAW the highlights can be recovered and the dark tones opened up, but the JPG is kind of dark and high contrast compared to the film.

Hasellblad 500 c/m, 80mm f.28 – 2 sec f8 Fuji Acros 100

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 35mm f1.4 – 1sec f9 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

I had the confirmation that the sensor sensibility was acting strange.

I reread the manual and found nothing useful but… the Dynamic Range settings. I was on Auto, not on a fixed setting. I will have to do some test with also the highlights compensation turned off. Basically I discovered I did not spend the right time to know the camera and test it. RTFM repeated to myself as a mantra… in this case the XPro-2 F manual not mine “Photography: The f Manual“!!

I turned the Dynamic Range to ISO100 and did some other tests, this time in a sunny day and using the Hasselblad 903 SWC, to have a situation similar to the pictures I took in the previous comparison with the Pentax 67 and the 45mm.

Hasselblad 903 SWC – 1/125 f8.5 – Fujifilm Acros 100

Fuji XPro-2 with 16mm f2.8 – 1/250 f9 – Jpg from camera with ACROS film simulation

Still in the digital version we have problems with the highlights and the shadows are a little dark, basically a lot of contrast, but now the medium grey area are exposed correctly. This happens also with the RAW. So I suppose that the Dynamic Range settings changes the ISO sensibility of the sensor, lowering it when there are high contrasts in the scene to try to preserve the highlights.

But, no matter what is done, the highlights always get burned, it’s a problem of the sensor saturation. Film is much more tolerant, and I have to say I love this tolerance.

Now with less contrast in the scene… all is perfect again.

Fujifilm XPro-2 with 14mm f2.8 – 1/250 f11 Jpg from camera ACROS simulation

Hasselblad 903 SWC – 1/125 f11 – Fujifilm Acros 100

If you want to see more pictures let me know and I will do a second part of this article and show the other pictures.

But this is enough for my non scientific conclusion.

• Medium format Acros film on Hasselblad has basically the same resolution of the XPro-2.
• The Fuji lenses are absolutely superb, at the level of Zeiss/Hasselblad!
• Digital sensors sucks in the highlights, even underexposing and recovering the shadows form the RAW file, still there is a sensor saturation that cuts and blows up the sun and similar highlights.
• The tones can be the same in digital and film, is a matter of settings.
• Fujifilm did an impressive job creating the ACROS film simulation.
• All the settings in the digital cameras are a pain in the neck (I wanted to be polite lol)

As personal consideration, I really love both results.
Film for me is simple and I dream of a digital camera without settings except for the ISO/aperture/shutter speed. Nothing more, no display, menus, dynamic range etc. Just a RAW on a memory card and nothing more. But I dream… I know!

I also noticed that, even doing a comparison, when I take the film camera in my hands I already know what I want to photograph, the almost exact point of view and camera settings, with digital I tend to find the picture in the viewfinder and at the end I take always more than one picture. I do not like the digital attitude and I cannot keep the film attitude with a digital camera in my hands. This is my problem, nobody forces me to not use the digital as a film camera!

As soon as I had the Hasselblad in my hands I felt at home for two reasons.
First of all the cameras were so simple, well designed and all similar so was easy to get used to them. With digital I spent the same years than I spent shooting film, but each brand and model is different, with different controls, different menus and too many things to remember. After the first reading of the Hasselblad manual I never opened it again, with digital I need the manual in the bag because every time there is something I do not remember, and yes, supposedly, I can setup the camera and use it as an analogue camera… but then I do not know why but something changes, can be a button pushed in the bag or while I take the camera out, but I had the image proportion changed, the level disappeared, the usual exposure compensation or the diopters correction. At least the ISO are easy on the XPro-2! I know many people hate that ISO dial, I love it!

The second reason is that I love the square format, I’m ok with a rectangular like the 4×5″ or 6x7cm, it is not too much rectangular, but the square is my preferred format. The 3:2 proportion of the 135 full frame or the Aps-C, it is too rectangular for me. It does not reflect my vision.
So, as soon as I took the Hasselblad, I felt connected again, the camera was just a natural extension of my eyes.

I would love to try some medium format digital, to compare it with a 4×5 film and to see if a less rectangular sensor will make me feel again more connected with the camera.

After this comparisons and using again my old working tools I decided how I want the digital camera of my dreams:

• Square format
• No LCD
• Only RAW files produced
• Nothing more than ISO/Aperture/Shutter settings
• In the viewfinder simply exposure data, a grid, the level and the histogram
• Diopter correction and compensation dials, if present, with a lock on them!
• No other settings, I want a sensor that will always have the ISO I choose and always responds in the same way
• A battery lasting at least 3 years!!!

Again, I know I’m dreaming… but dreams are free so why not?!

After this test I’m sure I will continue to use both digital and film. Film photography gives me the pleasure of the mental process, digital the easy “development”.

My next step, as soon as I will have the time, will be to test deeply the Fuji XPro-2 to understand the sensor limits and the effects of the settings also on the RAW format. I imagined that the RAW was not influenced by the various settings, it was my mistake.

All this said, I still love the XPro-2… just, as I said in a previous article… please let me deactivate all the buttons and the &#@%^#* compensation dial via firmware!!! Please Fuji… listen to me… that compensation dial is a pain!!!

I was impressed by this picture:

© Swiss National Museum

The picture in itself is just a good documentary photograph but what I noticed is the dynamic range (or latitude of exposure as we called it before we were trendy…).

We can easily see details in the dark areas inside the gallery and we can see the details in the panorama toward the arches.

Some burning was made in the darkroom and the effect is visible, but all the details were in the original plate.

This was for sure a large format plate made before the industrialization by Kodak, so there was no need to save on the quantity of silver in the emulsion.

You can see the same latitude of exposure in almost all the old professional pictures well exposed and developed. If you are in Italy there are some good places to watch the impressive quality and dynamic range of old films the Alinari Archive is one of the best and has a lot of publications.

The rule in film was to expose for the shadows and develop for the lights, exactly the opposite of what we do with digital cameras.

The response curve of the film had a very wide shoulder where the highlights, ~3 stops more than the medium gray, were compressed but still available to bring them out with some burning in the print.

As we can see in the photograph of the example, where there is a very bright sun lighting the scene and the mountains, sometime the dynamic range was more than we can have now with the most modern digital cameras.

In digital cameras the curve is linear, it means that we have correct exposure with the right separation until we reach the point of saturation where everything is cut out. There is some good area to play with the shadows and bring out the dark areas.

But the point is that looking at this picture I do not need more. Let me explain, 99% of photographers now days, in a similar situation, will do an HDR to bring out all the details of the gallery, almost if it was illuminated, but I do not need the details. There are enough details in the picture to show that the gallery was dig in nude rock without any concrete refinement.
The sense of black darkness is exactly what we feel entering a gallery with opening that let the sun illuminate part of it and create a strong contrast.

The widest area of the image is pretty black, falling in what Ansel Adams defined as Zone 0 and I, and that is perfect for that picture.
With digital and HDR we tend to flatten everything and limit the darks and highlights to a small or no part of the picture.

Some years ago I took the pictures you can see below, I suppose with a Canon 1DS mkIII. I particularly like this picture and I submitted it to some contests, every time I heard complains for lack of details in the shadows… but is exactly how I like the image, the sun was strong, my eyes were adapting at the sun and I did not perceived every detail in the shadows but just enough to feel it.  I made a version with all perfectly visible HDR style… I simply did not liked it because was not the feeling of that morning.

The fun part of this details everywhere mania is that while most modern pictures are judged positively by the absence of Zones 0 and I, people is going crazy for film B&W simulation in their cameras!

Fujifilm has developed the film simulation modes in its cameras. People love the ACROS, a simulation of the B&W film made by Fuji. I have to admit is a great setting to use. I see why a lot of photographers are in love for it and I think the reason is very simple: the file will be a jpg with limited option for manipulating and the curve used to create it is more similar to film than the linear curve of a digital sensor. If you use the ACROS simulation you will have all the zones, included the 0 and I.
With RAW we are always tempted to bring out a lot of details also when we do not need them.

I see contests where the winners use so much Photoshop to make the image surreal and then I listens to the stupor of people watching photographs made more than hundred years ago and I see the success of film simulation modes.

One of the greatest revolution made by Fuji with the X series was to bring us back to the basics of photography. Fuji did it with a camera design that let us use in an easy way aperture, shutter speed, ISO and nothing else, and they did it again with the film simulation modes in the camera.

Don’t get me wrong, I love HDR and all the possibilities of digital cameras, but sometime I think we have to look back at pictures taken more than hundred years ago and rediscover photography forgetting all the extra tools we now have available. A great way to do that is to put the ACROS mode on your Fuji X and have fun with that.