Fujifilm has a new marketing page about the various film simulations in their camera. When a company goes to the trouble of trying to explain how something unique to their product works, one holds out hope that it reveals something useful to your photography.
Unfortunately, that's not the case here. The page seems to be marketing blather with lots of self back-patting. Read the actual words and nothing is revealed. For instance, "a wide variety of looks, while maintaining an overall consistency." What does that mean? Those are two discordant notions—wide variety and overall consistency—so if you're going to bring them up together you need to describe how that works.
Another phrase that is all trumped up marketing: "film simulations inherit the vision of the future we strived for in the analog era." Wow, I had a hard time putting myself into the same time frame as whoever wrote that time traveling jargon. If I parse it as written it says "in the past we had a vision we did not fulfill, but now we have the same vision [inherited]." Was this vision ever fulfilled? ;~)
Then there's this: "two types of film simulation" and "each film simulation is designed using PROVIA as a base standard." Which is it? One type or two two? Apparently the AI Fujifilm used in creating this page doesn't know. What Fujifilm appears to be saying is that they provide two sets of simulations, one that can be used for most subjects and is more natural in rendering, the other which uses exaggeration or a specific individual deviant trait for a more creative rendering. "Neither type claims to be the right answer." Oh, you mean that we might need further types, Fujifilm? Stop me before the AI garbage speak chokes me completely.
Or maybe this: "Color Chrome Effect...[maintains] vibrancy by...controlling the brightness." If we go back to basic color theory, we know that color comprises of hue, saturation, and lightness. What they actually seem to do is put more contrast into some hues. That doesn't "maintain vibrancy," it tends to visually increase saturation. And why is this "Chrome"?
And don't get me started on their example for Color Chrome FX Blue—why is this "Chrome" named differently than the previous one, by the way?—as their example takes the usual Fujifilm cyanish sky and makes it old Fujifilm slide film magenta. Neither are "natural to the naked eye." Moreover, the copy editor managed to miss this one: "a photo taken outdoors on a sunny day should look blue." Really?
This new article joins other Fujifilm articles that make claims that aren't exactly correct (e.g. "X-Trans controls moire..." or "replicates a highly random arrangement of silver particles" [X-Trans is not random]).
Bottom line: Fujifilm's marketing team once again gets an A for effort but an F for information and accuracy.
