A Visual Comparison of the Noritsu HS-1800 and Fuji Frontier SP-3000 and Why Neither Might Matter as Much as You Think

You don't need me to tell you that certain phrases have been tossed around so much, that they have long since lost their original meaning. One such phrase is the now-cringe "film look," which by today’s standards usually refers to an underexposed, muddy digital preset slapped onto a sanitized RAW file—or a recipe of sliders pulled off the internet. All while calling it poetic, romantic, a vibe, a look—THE film look.

Echoing the film revival era of the early 2010s, when a wave of influencer (a word I hate) film wedding photographers pushed the idea that either the Noritsu or Fuji Frontier scanner determined the final look of your images—much like the corporate shills on YouTube today who tell you what film is supposed to look like based on the very digital presets they push like it’s their gift to humanity.

This line of thinking gave rise to a kind of tribalism, where your choice of scanner became a stand-in for your style, your taste, even your legitimacy as a film photographer. And from that came three camps. One believing that the final look of your scans comes equally from the scanner, the film stock, the lens, the exposure—everything working together. Another sees it as a 50/50 split: half scanner, half everything else. And then there is a fringe minority that believes it’s the person doing the scanning who has the biggest influence.

But are they all right? All wrong? A little bit of both? Well, that’s up to you, it’s art after all no? I myself fall into the "equal parts everything" camp, like a chef who relies on quality ingredients, the right tools, and just right amount of heat. The scanner, in this case, is the final blend of secret herbs and spices that harmoniously ties everything together at the very end.

What Film is Supposed to Look Like

We can't even begin to talk about film scanning until we talk about how film is suppose to look like. And what I believe film should look like is no different from what Hollywood has shown us over the decades. Take a look at masterpieces like the original Twilight Zone, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, Nacho Libre, Hail Caesar!, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and you'll see exactly what I mean. Letting the film stock, the lens, and the available light (with some modifications) do the talking.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, some influencer got ahold of a film camera with a broken light meter, took random-ass photos, and the world went apeshit calling it the definitive film look. Adding to the fire, a decade ago, Instagram accounts like Fearless Photographers and Looks Like Film pushed a made-up film aesthetic, which primarily consisted of underexposed, muddy images. Born from either one: a famous photographer who didn’t know what the fuck they were doing—or two: dug up some old, faded family photos and thought, yep, that’s what film looks like.

Which brings us to where we are today.

Because as much as I advocate for film to actually look like film, my reach is shit compared to the countless "fearless" photographers with thousands of followers pushing this insult of a "film look" to the masses. And there’s nothing I can do about it but yell "get off my lawn." And I bring all this up because—while not often—I do get clients reaching out, expecting me to photograph their wedding in what they think film is supposed to look like…. after seeing it on some random Instagram-famous photographer here, some TikTok influencer there.

Now by this point, you’re probably asking: what does any of this have to do with the Noritsu or Frontier scanner? Well.... to be honest, nothing.

Nah, I’m kidding—I’m kidding. It actually has a lot to do with it. Mainly in how irrelevant either scanner becomes if you’re copying the style of what social media pushes as the film look. But if you’re like me—and like Hollywood, for that matter—then yes, your choice of scanner is very relevant. Because either scanner will play a role in your final image.... assuming, of course, that you know how to expose film correctly in the first place.

How I Expose Film—In Real Life and for This Comparison

In 2013, standing on a windswept overlook with the Golden Gate Bridge glowing in late afternoon light and the Pacific breeze cutting through the silence, Tanja Lippert told us in the middle of her directing workshop, "Shit in, shit out"—referring to the idea that if you feed a scanner a roll of shit exposures film, don't expect unicorn poop in return. You’re getting horse shit. So before we can even begin to talk about scanners, I gotta mention how I expose film—because proper exposure plays a far more significant role in the final image than the scanner does.

Now, my approach to exposing film is the same as Hollywood’s: use available light, meter at box speed, take a reading in the shadows, process normally, and—most importantly—scan normally. And by normally, I mean the lab tech scans for neutrality in-scanner, with no additional edits or so-called "color packs" applied afterward.

In fact, as of this writing, my current lab scans each roll according to what the individual film stock is supposed to look like—per the manufacturer’s specs—not what I or the lab want it to look like. So keep that in mind as we jump into the comparison. And to keep things as neutral as possible, I simply had the lab scan the roll on two different scanners.

Comparison A

Nikon F5 + Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D + Kodak Gold 200
Exposed at box speed for the shadows — No edits
Scanned by Reformed Film Lab
Left: Noritsu — Right: Frontier

Comparison B

Nikon F5 + Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G + Kodak Gold 200
Exposed at box speed for the shadows — No edits
Scanned by Reformed Film Lab
Left: Noritsu — Right: Frontier