Cobalt provided me with a beta profile for FUJIFILM, and I must say it's the closest to Fuji's own profiles that I've come across and I find it better than Adobe's.
You might wonder why use a custom film simulation when Fuji already includes them in their cameras. There are two reasons: Firstly, all film simulations are included in the package, including Nostalgic Neg, Bleach Bypass, and Classic Neg, which are only available on newer Fuji cameras. Secondly, these profiles can be used with any camera from any brand.
Here's a sample using the Classic Neg film simulation: The .RAF file was edited using the Classic Neg Cobalt profile, while the .jpg image was straight out of the camera using Fuji's Classic Neg.
Overall, it's a significant improvement compared to the previous Fuji Cobalt profiles.
RoamingScott wrote:
Does it emulate the LR version of the Fuji profile (not accurate) or the SooC version (accurate)?
I've always preferred to convert RAFs in Fuji X RAW Studio vs LR because of this (or simply just shoot RAW+JPEG).
edit: just saw where you compared to SooC. neat!
I think they are basing on Fuji's SooC profile but Cobalt Image has a whole suite of their own different film simulations and emulations so maybe they are just taking it as an inspiration.
RoamingScott wrote:
Does it emulate the LR version of the Fuji profile (not accurate) or the SooC version (accurate)?
I've always preferred to convert RAFs in Fuji X RAW Studio vs LR because of this (or simply just shoot RAW+JPEG).
edit: just saw where you compared to SooC. neat!
I share the same sentiment. I have a strong preference for Fuji's own film simulations over the profiles created by Adobe. That's why I also shoot RAW+JPEG. However, with the Cobalt profiles, which I find to be much closer to Fuji's film simulations, I can now shoot in RAW only and convert selected images.
Acros is my favourite among the Fuji profiles. It doesn't just give you a desaturated colour picture; to me it's one of the reasons why I stay with the Fuji system.
Have you had time to try the new Cobalt Acros profile? Is it an improvement compared to Acros in Lightroom or Capture One?
Termite wrote:
Acros is my favourite among the Fuji profiles. It doesn't just give you a desaturated colour picture; to me it's one of the reasons why I stay with the Fuji system.
Have you had time to try the new Cobalt Acros profile? Is it an improvement compared to Acros in Lightroom or Capture One?
I tested the Cobalt Acros 'red filter' with images and enjoyed the outcome. I'll share a comparison of the Adobe Acros profile and Fuji Acros.
p.1 #11 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
Termite wrote:
Acros is my favourite among the Fuji profiles. It doesn't just give you a desaturated colour picture; to me it's one of the reasons why I stay with the Fuji system.
Have you had time to try the new Cobalt Acros profile? Is it an improvement compared to Acros in Lightroom or Capture One?
Here is a comparison between Adobe, Cobalt and Fuji Acros (yellow):
Same post-processing for all files.
RAF file using Adobe Acros (yellow) vs Fuji JPEG Acros (yellow)
RAF file using Cobalt Acros (yellow) vs Fuji JPEG Acros (yellow)
p.1 #12 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
If you were so inclined, Fred, a neat test would be the Fuji SooC vs a raw from a non Fuji camera with the Fuji style applied (the real value of Cobalt).
p.1 #13 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
Thank you, Fred!
May 15, 2023 at 12:27 AM
f_128 Offline • [X]
p.1 #14 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
i very much doubt this profiles can get substantially closer to fuji in camera color rendering compared to what c1 or adobe is already offering because a profile alone can’t simulate a full color processing pipeline ! fuji may also use some adaptive adjustments which can’t be replicated anyway. different raw convert use different methods to calculate white balance giving slightly different results, also the color targets used and the profiling software itself impacts the color rendering too.
a better approach im my view is to look for differences and use the onboard tools to make small adjustments to mach the in camera color rendering. in my own tests with a a gfx100s under controlled conditions (studio flash) the rendering of adobe and c1 was rather close to in camera jpegs but this does not say much if the rendering is also similar under different lightning conditions.
p.1 #15 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
I'm the creator of the Fuji emulation Cobalt profiles.
Personally, I always appreciate skepticism, because it leads us to question our work and stimulates us to improve.
In the latest release of the Fuji emulation we have put our utmost effort to be as faithful as possible to the originals.
Fuji's internal development pipelines are unknown and are certainly different from the DNG standard, however our target is the final colorimetry of the output.
To capture as much information as possible we used our new 999 patch target.
I can only post a few examples:
Original Astia:
Cobalt Astia:
Original Velvia:
Cobalt Velvia:
Original Nostalgic Neg:
Cobalt Nostalgic Neg:
I just applied the profile, no other changes. Not even the WB.
Just one click.
p.1 #16 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
Hey @Raamiel,
What camera did you use for the samples you shared?
I've noticed that the only adjustment I need to make to match the Fuji profiles with the Cobalt Fuji profiles is to slightly decrease the 'saturation' (not vibrance). This is on the X-Pro3.
p.1 #17 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
Hello Fred
For these samples I used the GFX100, which is the camera the profiles are based on.
We have chosen the GFX100 as a reference because it is the flagship of the Fuji system. In X line the base color is slightly less saturated.
This explains the need to reduce saturation when you want match X-Pro3 Jpg.
May 15, 2023 at 06:04 PM
f_128 Offline • [X]
p.1 #18 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
hi raamiel,
the samples you posted display a similar or even little higher level of differences I have seen in my test comparing the in camera results with c1 and adobe. green tones are rather off for example but sRGB is probably not the best color space for this kind of evaluation anyway.
a far more objective comparison would give the use of a software like patchtool and a CC which allows to compare and measure delta e differences but I have no hope you would publish such results.
fujfilm does obvious something special which is not replicable with a .dcp or .icc based software so if you like the look you need to use your camera as everything else is just a approximation
p.1 #19 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
Raamiel wrote:
Hello Fred
For these samples I used the GFX100, which is the camera the profiles are based on.
We have chosen the GFX100 as a reference because it is the flagship of the Fuji system. In X line the base color is slightly less saturated.
This explains the need to reduce saturation when you want match X-Pro3 Jpg.
Understood. So, if we were to use the Cobalt Fuji profiles with other cameras such as Leica M bodies or Sony, for instance, would the necessary degree of desaturation also differ?
p.1 #20 · New Cobalt profiles for Fuji (version 4)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Understood. So, if we were to use the Cobalt Fuji profiles with other cameras such as Leica M bodies or Sony, for instance, would the necessary degree of desaturation also differ?
No Fred, if you want the output of an older one you will need that; if not you are emulating the Gfx100/s with any camera model.
