PictureFX Fujifilm Provia – a brand new Lut !

I’ve cheated 😦
I said I wasn’t going to make real 35mm film simulations, but I did.
It all started with a new workflow that I’ve been trying to stick to for a while.
In the past I converted SOOC jpegs to a lower resolution to use on the internet, the original jpegs were kept, the converted one and I also had the RAW files, which all starts to take up a lot of space and an unclear overview through the different jpeg versions . The intention then was to work only in RAW, convert and watermark directly the ones I needed – but then I need a good Fujifilm Lut that is equivalent to the SOOC jpeg of my camera’s – I don’t have one, and I don’t like those that can be found.

The process for making a 35mm film simulation Lut is very different than for special effects. With a special effect there is (most of the time) nothing to compare, it just has to be right and you have to like it.
With simulating 35mm film, you try to get as close as possible to the original by adjusting all kinds of settings, then applying them to an identity Lut, restarting RT, reloading, comparing, re-appliyng, and so on … and unfortunately, the Lut is always a bit different.
A very time consuming activity – so, thousands of test pictures later …
not even close 😦 .

I had to adjust my strategy.

When you upload new pictures to your computer, Jpeg and Raw, and you start your favorite picture sorting and editing program – Darktable, Digikam…, you can view the thumbnails of your pictures in the library or lighttable, the Raw’s look the same as your Jpegs . While you know that a Raw actually looks very different. So your software uses information embedded in your pictures to make them look just like the SOOC Jpegs, right?
Yes / No, not quite, but for me that’s at least closer than guessing.

So I took a few pictures with my X-T20 which was set to Provia, and a few I found on internet of the X-T3, chose the five most uniform ones, and extracted a profile (well, it was a little bit more than that) No guessing, no comparing, no getting close to, just computed (but still fine tuning afterwards)
I then converted it to Lut.

And that’s how my first Fujifilm Provia Lut was born.

But all the work got me thinking,
Should the Lut be accurate ?
Can it be accurate ?
Are those build in film simulations from Fuji itself accurate ?

With Luts you have one big advantage, you don’t have the problem like with recipes that you need a certain type of camera to use the recipe. For example, on an X100 you cannot use the recipes of an X-T4, because many of those settings are simply not there. But even with cameras that have the same sensor and engine there are sometimes problems, as Ritchie Roesch wrote in his Fuji X Weekly yesterday.

There will always be a (slight) difference with different camera types, but that’s with recipes too, and even Fuji’s own built-in film simulations are slightly different for each type of camera. And then we do not even mention the effect a lens has on colors. That is why I have decided not to assign the Lut to a specific X-Trans sensor, maybe there will be improved versions in the future, but nothing else. In the end there is only one version that is “really” correct and exact, and that is the original Provia film itself.

As far as my version is concerned: you have to decide whether you like my version or not.

To download, scroll all the way down.

Results and Comparisons :

From Photographyblog.com I downloaded a few sample Jpg and Raw files from photographer Mathieu Gasquet with his X-T3, which they have kindly made available for download – many thanks guy’s ! Some of these files were used along with my X-T20 files as a color reference to develop the new Lut. Below I have a number of development examples and comparisons with two Lut’s by Stuart Sowerby and the PictureFX Lut.

development from RAF – neutral image to PictureFX Fujifilm Provia, no other adjustments
Comparison, Left side PictureFX Provia – Right side original jpg SOOC X-T3
development from RAF – neutral image to PictureFX Fujifilm Provia, no other adjustments
Comparison, Left side PictureFX Provia – Right side original jpg SOOC X-T3
development from RAF – neutral image to PictureFX Fujifilm Provia, no other adjustments
Comparison, Left side PictureFX Provia – Right side original jpg SOOC X-T3
Comparison: Left side PictureFX Provia – Right Side Stuart Sowerby Provia X-Trans II
Comparison: Left side PictureFX Provia – Right Side Stuart Sowerby Provia X-Trans III
Original SOOC jpg Provia X-T20

Download PictureFX Fujifilm Provia (click on logo) :

Update 6/12/2020 : There was a problem with the provided internet files of the X-T3, the Jpeg’s used for comparison and to adjust the Lut settings were incorrect. It seems the files did not came from the X-T3 but where developped in Adobe Lightroom with an unknown lut or Adobe Fujifilm preset. As a result, my settings were completely wrong. The new Lut is built entirely around the parameters of the Fujifilm X-T20. Download here :

Dear downloader, it would be very nice if you let us know about your experience after using my film simulation. This can easily be done below via the “leave a reply” or you can also send a message via the menu above “about” and then on “contact”. Thank you in advance!

PictureFX© Logo Created with The Gimp 2.10
Icons made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com

Published by Marc R.

Belgium Based and Retired Photographer, IT specialist, Technician and Bushcrafter - not necessarily in that order. A few years back I got a message on my PC : "The box said 'Required Windows 11 or better'. So, I installed Linux Kubuntu 20.04 LTS" :-) - My Photography software : RawTherapee, Darktable, Digikam, Luminance HDR, Hugin, Gimp and many other. My camera Gear in 2022: Fujifilm X-H1 for architecture, landscape, ..., and Olympus E-M5 Mark II for bird and wildlife photography.

15 thoughts on “PictureFX Fujifilm Provia – a brand new Lut !

    1. To be honest, the Luts from Sowerby are still slightly better in color, but have the disadvantage that you have to adjust the exposure because they are fairly dark. If I want to use a Lut to simulate Fujifilm in a workflow, I’d rather not make any adjustments afterwards at all. The Classic Chrome will probably be the most commonly used, and it’s almost ready, and maybe a little better fine tuned than the Provia. Something for the readers to look forward to. Thanks for the comment Mark, Take care and have a nice weekend.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Dear Richard, your description is direct but vague ->
      I’ll go over the steps here, just in case I’ve missed something:
      – download ZIP file and extract in
      A – the dedicated folder for your image editing program
      B – another folder that you wil link to the program
      If your problem already starts when you extract the file – then the problem may be there (send which program you are using – are you running on Windows? – which version?)
      – preferably open a RAW picture
      – open “film simulation” – lock PNG file – activate film simulation
      I – just to see if the file might have become corrupt – I checked all the steps myself and performed: everything works fine!
      My questions are:
      – which program do you use for the movie simulation in which is compatible with HaldClut files (PNG) ?
      – if the program is RawTherapee – go over the files again
      – write additional explanation if necessary


  1. Say—what’s the link between your .png LUTs, and .cube LUTs? I’d love to try and use your LUT, but Raw Power, the app I’m using right now, only seems to accept .cube files.


  2. The picturefx fuji luts are nice, though I find the contrast in these to be a bit extreme compared to the Sowerby XTII luts, and even the XTIII luts (which have stronger contrast than the XTII luts of his). The main thing is the highlights tend to blow out. Are there a specific number of stops you increased these by over the Sowerby II luts? Or are these intended to be applied to a linear RGB image rather than one with TRC?


    1. The Provia was a first experiment to make a “real film” simulation, because I was already working with Luts in 2016.
      and because they were such a success, several others quickly followed.
      Personally, I like HDR and really strong photos – and some of my readers also asked for Luts with a little more punch.
      But not only readers asked after my Luts – the developers of G’MIC and the Free Online Film Emulator were also interested in including PictureFX Luts in their software – and that is still the case today.
      It was never my intention to match other FS creators, but rather a tool to make something look better.
      Meanwhile, the PictureFX Luts are going around the world.
      The great thing about it is that this small group of developers – Sowerby, Pat David, and many others – are doing this completely free of charge.
      So plenty of choice for everyone to use the Luts he or she prefers.


    2. I forgot one more thing…
      Your comment pointed out the differences, and you sound like someone very knowledgeable yourself,
      did you develop Luts yourself ?
      If so – may I have the link of your website to list your Luts in my “Largest lists…”
      If not – for someone like you it shouldn’t be difficult to develop your own Luts that are closer to the real thing,
      then I encourage you to start it yourself –
      developers of Luts are not many,
      someone more would be very nice !
      Thanks again for visiting Brandon,


      1. I just wanted to make sure I was using your LUTs as intended, as I’ve noticed it in some others as well. I am one of those who prefers a bit of a flatter “filmic” look and likes to avoid clipping in the highlights or crushing shadow detail.
        I certainly don’t mean to criticize. Many of your luts I enjoy, after all!
        I have and am still toying around with making luts using grossgrade and some other tools, but none that I’ve posted online. As far as accuracy to the real thing when it comes to film simulations (as in specific film emulsions, not the Fujifilm camera ones) I have considered it but it would require a lot of investment in a film camera, film and development, etc.
        Thanks for getting back to me!


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 )

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

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: