I wasn’t sure if I should publish this Film Simulation Recipe, but then I thought, why not? Initially, the intention was simply to see how the Nostalgic Neg. film simulation looks with Dynamic Range set to DR100, and how the X-T5 images look at ISO 125, which is the base-ISO of X-Trans V cameras. I didn’t model these settings after any specific film aesthetic; instead, I borrowed the GAF 500 Film Simulation Recipe‘s white balance (modified just a little after a couple test shots), and was also inspired by Kodak Portra 400 and Reggie’s Portra recipes. I wasn’t sure what to expect from this, but I ended up really liking it!
So what does this Film Simulation Recipe most closely resemble? Unintentionally, I think it has some similarities to Kodak Vericolor film. What’s Kodak Vericolor? Originally introduced in 1971 as an ISO 100 professional color negative film, Kodak made two version of Vericolor: NPS (also known as S-Type) for short exposures (Daylight balanced) and NPL (also known as L-Type) for long exposures (Tungsten balanced). Just a few years later Kodak improved the emulsions and in 1974 introduced Vericolor II NPS and NPL, which was also ISO 100. In 1983 Kodak improved the emulsion once again and introduced Vericolor III, which was ISO 160 for NPS and ISO 100 for NPL; however, the NPL version was later spun off as Ektacolor Pro Gold 100T and later Portra 100T, while Vericolor III NPS was renamed Vericolor III 160. Later (sometime in the late-1980’s, although I couldn’t pinpoint a specific year), Kodak introduced a new high-ISO version called Vericolor III 400. Vericolor III 160 and 400 were replaced by Portra 160 and 400 in 1998. This recipe by chance shares a resemblance to Vericolor III 160 or perhaps Vericolor II NPS, but I think it is more warm, and perhaps more like if an 81A Color Correction Filter was used in conjunction with the film, a common technique in the film era, and maybe a CPL filter, too.
This Kodak Vericolor Warm Film Simulation Recipe is only compatible with (as of this writing) the Fujifilm X-T5, X-H2, and X-H2S. I assume that the GFX100S and GFX50S II can also use this recipe, but that it will render slightly different—I don’t have either of those cameras to test it to know for certain. Unless Fujifilm gives X-Trans IV cameras the Nostalgic Neg. film simulation, which I doubt they will do, this recipe is only for X-Trans V cameras, and maybe the latest GFX, too; however, consider the Kodak Portra 160, Kodak Portra 400, and Reggie’s Portra as alternatives for those with X-Trans IV models. This Kodak Vericolor Warm recipe is especially well-suited for daylight photography, but can also be used during “blue hour” and overcast situations.
Film Simulation: Nostalgic Neg.
Grain Effect: Weak, Small
Color Chrome Effect: Strong
Color Chrome FX Blue: Strong
White Balance: 3000K, +8 Red & -9 Blue
Dynamic Range: DR100
Highlight: -2
Shadow: -1
Color: +2
Sharpness: -2
High ISO NR: -4
Clarity: -2
ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400
Exposure Compensation: 0 to +2/3 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs using this “Kodak Vericolor Warm” Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-T5:
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Fujifilm X-T5 in black: Amazon B&H
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver: Amazon B&H
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 250 more on the Fuji X Weekly — Film Recipes App!
Help Fuji X Weekly
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
$2.00
I gotta go back and read the article, but I really like the look of this one! You might make me go out and buy an X-T5. 😉
Okay, I did get a chance to read the article. I really do like these articles particularly when you dive into the history of different film stocks. I also checked out the X-Trans IV recipes mentioned and they are nice, but there is a warmth to this one that those don’t quite have (though Reggie’s Portra comes closer). So I suppose I will have to order an X-T5 next year!
The Nostalgic Neg. film sim has a warmth in the shadows that none of the other film sims have. Eterna comes somewhat close, Classic Chrome is next up, but none are as pronounced as Nostalgic Neg.
😀
Fascinating story about the films made by Kodak, indeed it has that sort of yellowish with warm appearance of a vintage Kodak film plus some correction filters. “Tractor pipe” is very nice, the machine looks as old as the light in the sky that looks of that color from old memories, photographies about to fade. Thank you, Ritchie : )
You are very welcome! 😀 😀 😀
So, we can assume that slowly, Nostalgic Negative will replace Classic Chrome as a base for all Kodak emulsions (for this sensor, of course)? Can this be the new Portra 160? Was the new Portra 160 inferior to Vericolor III 160? If your simulation resembles that film emulsion, then I think is better that the actual Portra 160…
Nostalgic Neg. does well for replicating *prints* from vintage Kodak emulsions (into the 1980’s and maybe early ’90’s even, and prior). Classic Chrome does well for mimicking Kodak slides and modern negative films, particularly scans. I don’t think Nostalgic Neg. is a replacement for Classic Chrome, although there are some similarities between them (Nostalgic Neg. is kind of like a cross between Classic Chrome and Eterna, but more similar to Eterna). There is some crossover potential, but I see them as different and with specific applications. I hope that makes sense.
As far as which was better: Vericolor III or Portra? That’s a bit subjective. Vericolor had a very narrow exposure latitude (almost like slide film), while Portra had a much wider exposure latitude and could handle some underexposure and a lot of overexposure. But I’ve heard some say that Vericolor III, when exposed correctly, was preferred for its colors. Overall, though, the two were pretty similar in rendering. Vericolor was just before my time, and I never shot with it personally.
Thank you very much for the clarifications, especially for what Classic Chrome stands for. For me, film is pretty much about those “prints” on Fujicolor Crystal Paper or Kodak Royal if I correctly remember the name of the paper… Everything else is tied to the digital era. Well, we continued shooting Fujifilm Fujicolor C20, Kodak Gold 200 and Kodacolor 200, had them developed in those machines that looked like vending machines and printed on those photographic papers. Huge satisfaction! Now those machines are no longer around and film is expensive. Even for a DiY black and white lab… and the old film cameras keep failing. I got a plastic gear crumbling in my Minolta SR-T 101 that disabled the mirror actuation. I can find my own solutions but these times are not favorable anymore for expensive hobbies…
Regarding Vericolor, I find your “Trioliet” picture the best “ID Card” for its color palette. Try printing it on a photo paper… Also, there are some pictures on the “Summer of 1960” that can benefit from printing on a Kodak photo paper and then asking a Kodak specialist to help you identify the negative film that was used 😉 That would be awesome!
If you are after a look that resembles prints from classic Kodak stocks, Nostalgic Neg. is the film sim for you!
That would be a fun experiment, but I don’t know if the lab specialist would appreciate it… 🤣 😀
From my experience, all that is printed survives almost all the time, digital is the most vulnerable. We can go to a lab and print on photographic paper for a price. As I said, I don’t enjoy photography only for social media. I put photos on my wall. And not only printed on a modern laser printer or offset… I understand the role of those basic simulations, but at the end, I am the one who decides which one is transformed in a real photo. That is the only transition from film photography to digital photography I am willing to fight for. And for which I am willing to let film photography go. Thank you for your work and thank Fujifilm for the platform that makes this possible.
Yeah, I have digital photos practically lost to time. Like the pictures from when my two oldest children were young—they’re somewhere, but I couldn’t tell you what hard drive or flash drive or whatever. I think we need more prints in general, because they are a little more “real” and typically last longer. Great reminder!