Classic Chrome for Those Who Don’t Have It (X-Trans I)

49754363747_b71301fb45_c

49754000566_ffe37bb351_c

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.

49753450868_f4c322f9fe_c

49754263037_33542aaae5_c

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.

49754475727_cd90169b55_c

Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std

49754464362_868fbb8925_c

Classic Chrome

49753511813_ed885faaca_c

Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std

49754034711_da1ba99ac9_c

Classic Chrome

49754019866_0aa035fcab_c

Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std

49754338607_f77f61d90b_c

Classic Chrome

49753451343_c4893cd69b_c

Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std

49754263302_0732805aea_c

Classic Chrome

49753450358_757d3013ef_c

Faux Classic Chrome using PRO Neg. Std

49754301772_a19aa21da2_c

Classic Chrome

23 comments

  1. louisleung · April 10

    Thank you. This is very helpful

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ritchie Roesch · April 10

      You are welcome!

      Like

      • Yohan · April 10

        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.

        Like

      • Ritchie Roesch · April 10

        Oh, no. I didn’t realize that.

        Like

  2. Octavio Lepe · April 10

    This is incredible! I can’t wait to test this out on my “new” X100 OG.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mariano Giusti · April 10

    I find the blue and red tonalities very different

    Like

    • Ritchie Roesch · April 10

      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.

      Like

  4. Marc Beebe · April 10

    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.

    Liked by 1 person

    • hpchavaz · April 10

      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.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ritchie Roesch · April 10

      That would be interesting. I might try that in the coming days.

      Like

  5. hpchavaz · April 10

    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

    Like

    • Ritchie Roesch · April 10

      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.

      Like

      • hpchavaz · April 11

        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

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ritchie Roesch · April 13

        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.

        Like

  6. alexander · April 13

    I have Classic Chrome with my x100f but I don’t use it because of its crazy blue shift. I always use ProNegs.

    Like

  7. Johan · April 26

    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!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ritchie Roesch · April 26

      You are welcome! I appreciate the feedback! Pro Neg Std is sometimes underrated, it’s a great film simulation.

      Like

  8. Johan · May 11

    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).

    Like

  9. Alonso Henríquez · June 1

    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 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ritchie Roesch · June 2

      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.

      Like

  10. Alonso Henríquez · June 2

    Thank you! I only have the doubt with the parameters of highlight tone, noise reduction and sharpness. Best regards 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s