One of these two pictures is Classic Chrome and one is PRO Neg. Std. Can you guess which is which?
Classic Chrome is probably the most popular film simulation created by Fujifilm. It is the most common starting point for my film simulation recipes. It was introduced by Fujifilm beginning with the X-Trans II sensor, so those who have X-Trans I cameras or older Bayer sensor cameras don’t have it as an option. The X100, X100S, X-E1 and X-Pro1 all lack Classic Chrome.
I’ve been asked many times how to replicate Classic Chrome for cameras that don’t have it. I figured it out! And it’s not what you might expect. It’s not the advice that I have been giving out over the years, which was based on Astia. I figured that Astia with the contrast turned up and color turned down would be close, but I was wrong. It’s difficult to get the contrast correct when using Astia, and with Color set to -2 it’s still much too vibrant. Turns out PRO Neg. Std is the film simulation required to mimic Classic Chrome. Shocked? I was. It was literally the last color film simulation that I tried.
One of these two pictures is Classic Chrome and one is PRO Neg. Std. Can you guess which is which?
My experiments were conducted on my Fujifilm X-T1. Using Classic Chrome, I set Color, Highlight, Shadow and Sharpness at 0, Dynamic Range to DR100, Noise Reduction to -2, and White Balance to Auto with Red and Blue both set to 0. Then I tried to replicate that look using one of the other film simulations. I figured out how to get pretty darn close using the PRO Neg. Std film simulation.
There are some differences between actual Classic Chrome and these settings. This faux Classic Chrome is actually slightly more yellow. If there was a way to shift the white balance by fractions this could be made more accurate, as the actual shift should be closer to +0.3 Red and -0.6 Blue, but that’s not possible. You could set the white balance shift to 0 Red and 0 Blue if you prefer less yellow, and I think that’s a legitimate option, as I debated between that and this, but ultimately I went with the warmer white balance shift. There’s also slightly deeper shadows and more saturation with these settings than real Classic Chrome. I think +0.7 Shadow and Color would be more accurate, but +1 is as close as I could get. I found that setting Shadow and Color to 0 produced results that were further away from Classic Chrome, but that’s something you could consider. These settings are not perfect, but for those who don’t have Classic Chrome as an option, in my opinion this is as close as you’re going to get, which is actually pretty close.
PRO Neg. Std
Dynamic Range: DR200
Highlight: +1
Shadow: +1
Color: +1
Sharpness: 0
Noise Reduction: -2
White Balance: Auto, 0 Red & -1 Blue
What about the pictures above? The top one is the faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std and the bottom one is actual Classic Chrome. Did you guess correctly?
Below are example photographs, all straight-out-of-camera JPEGs from my Fujifilm X-T1, that compare faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std with Classic Chrome.
Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std
Classic Chrome
Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std
Classic Chrome
Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std
Classic Chrome
Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std
Classic Chrome
Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std
Classic Chrome
Thank you. This is very helpful
You are welcome!
Thanks for this one Ritchie! I discovered your website a few weeks ago and it’s a goldmine 🙂
Unfortunately, the original X100 doesn’t have the Pro Neg simulations.
Oh, no. I didn’t realize that.
This is incredible! I can’t wait to test this out on my “new” X100 OG.
Let me know what you think!
I find the blue and red tonalities very different
Unfortunately I couldn’t make it exact. There’s no way to fully replicate Classic Chrome. To me, Red is what’s most off, but not by a huge margin.
It would be interesting to see the various film simulations in comparison to the same image shot as “normal” (default settings as close to real-world representation as possible) so the “film effect” was more evident.
Defining “normal” as default settings is possible but I am not sure that wanting to defining it as “as close to real-world” is an option.
That would be interesting. I might try that in the coming days.
Hi Ritchie,
I looks like the X-T1 has a X-Trans-II sensor. The X-trans I been the one of the X-Pro1.
One différence is the inclusion of phase-detect AF sites in the X-Trans-II, but that doe not matter here.
I do not remember if the is an anther difference, maybe it depth.
Henri-Pierre
I used to own an X-E1 (two, in fact), but I don’t currently have one. It would be interesting to compare the two sensors side-by-side.
I just looked at some data from RAF files.
1/ File size
X-PRO1: 24,9 Mo (26 146 368 octets)
XT-1 : : 31,8 Mo (33 383 424 octets)
2/ Using Jeffrey’s Image Metadata Viewer (http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi)
RAF : Bits Per Sample
X-PRO1: 12
XT-1: 14
I wonder what the practical real world difference that makes. I think there is a difference in output between X-Trans I & II (with some people preferring one and some the other). I don’t know how significant the variation is.
I have Classic Chrome with my x100f but I don’t use it because of its crazy blue shift. I always use ProNegs.
Very nice! Actually I have used Pro Neg Std in this way for quite some time already. I even think I like this more than real CC on the X-T1.
Thanks for all the hard work you do on those film simulation recipes!
You are welcome! I appreciate the feedback! Pro Neg Std is sometimes underrated, it’s a great film simulation.
Interesting how in some of the photos, I prefer the actual CC and in some the Pro Neg Std. The main difference is in the reds indeed. In practice, those are the colour film simulations I use most in my cameras anyway (X-Trans II and III).
Hello Ritchie, First of all I congratulate you on your work, it is truly admirable. I would be very grateful if you could share the recipe closest to Classic Chrome for my original X100 since unfortunately it does not have the Pro Neg simulations. A hug from Chile 🙂 and sorry for my ugly English 🙁
Maybe use Astia with Color set to -2, WB Shift +1R & -1B, and Shadow set to -1. It’ll get you close, but won’t be exact.
Thank you! I only have the doubt with the parameters of highlight tone, noise reduction and sharpness. Best regards 🙂
Feel free to customize it to your tastes.
Hi Ritchie ! Many thanks YOU GENIUS of COLOUR! Cannot believe my eyes. BTW, do you have Settings for other negative films? Many thanks for your FANTASTIC WORK!
Thanks so much! Take a look here:
https://fujixweekly.com/2020/08/03/film-simulation-recipe-compatibility-bayer-x-trans-i-ii/
Forgot to mention : I still have my x100S. Thanks!
I do hope to make some X-Trans I recipes soon. There’s definitely a need.
Hello Ritchie, so I’m very interested in trying fuji cameras mainly because the film simulations recipes (I’m a Canon user), and I’m considering buying used XE1 (since I’m planning to use full manual lens, and just use it as photo camera, dont really care bout the specs, plus I’m still a student so the budget is rather limited XD) , but seeing that many of your film recipes that I want to replicate starting with Classic Chrome which the XE1 doesnt have….
In the post above we can “bypass” the classic chrome look by alternating the settings just like any other recipes on X-Trans 1 sensor, but my question is, can we later use this custom “classic chrome recipe” as starting point and then working on another recipe?
Lets say I want to use your Portra 160 (X-Trans II) recipe which starts with Classic Chrome, so how do I bypass this using X-Trans 1 sensor? (referring to the question above) After I save the “classic chrome recipe on X-Trans 1” as a custom film simulation, Can I use the “classic chrome recipe on X-Trans 1” later as the starting point to work on the Portra 160 recipe
I’m sorry if this is a silly question, I really dont know anything bout the Fuji ecosystem hehe and please mind my english if it isnt not so clear
Looking forward and Hoping that u will respond this comment, since it will help me a lot in my research, thank you in advance, Ritchie, have a great day!!
You can… and you can’t. You can get close-ish to Classic Chrome, but not exact. It’s a good enough facsimile for those without it. The X-E2 has Classic Chrome, and a similar pricetag to the X-E1. I paid I believe it was $400 for an X-T1 and it was pretty much brand new. If you shop around you can probably find a good deal on a camera with Classic Chrome.
Thanks for the reply Ritchie!
Do you personally think that its worth it for me to buy the xe2 over xe1 for 120 dollars more just for the classic chrome
Since once again I really dont need the extra features (such as improved AF) coz I’ll be using a full manual lens anyway, just wanted to play around with Fuji colors and film recipes
If you really want Classic Chrome then it’s worth it. If it’s not all that important to you, the X-E1 is still a good choice and you’ll save some cash. The X-E1 was my first Fujifilm camera.
I think I’m gonna stick with XE–1, thank you so much Ritchie for your responses! anyway just wanna make sure, XE-1 have 7 custom settings right? while the X-M1 only have 1 custom setting?
Yes! C1-C7 on X-E1. The X-M1 doesn’t have C1-C7.
Hi Ritchie, newbie to photography here. Just got a XE-1 handed down to me by a relative so this post helps so much. Just wondering if i could use layer another film simulation (ie kodakcolor) on top of the faux CC i’ll be applying first?
Thanks so much for the help!
You mean like a double-exposure? I’ve done that before, but not on X-Trans I. I assume that it’s possible on your camera (I know that you can on newer cameras), but I’m not 100% certain on the X-E1.
Dude I love this blog. Since I got my x100s has been so helpful
I appreciate your kindness!