Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Chasing Kodachrome
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
Apr 8, 2021 07:45:21   #
User ID
 
billnikon wrote:
Every camera manufacture has their own color pallet. .....................
Yes, they are all different, but shooting in RAW, I can make them all look the same, sort of.
............................

Same here, what’s different can become pretty much the same. Using both brands of SLRs, both brands of m43, and Sony, it’s not just raw that can bury the difference. My own jpg approach has a similar effect to raw. All my jpg settings produce sooc low contrast and low saturation results to somewhat extend whatever DR jpg is able to record.

This does help increase shadow and highlight data but it means *every* jpg needs PP just to be “presentable”, similar to dealing with a raw file. So, since every file must be “seasoned to taste”, and my taste is pretty consistent, there’s no real difference marking camera or lens brands ... not ignoring that the camera and lens brands are all mix-and-match due to adapters and also 3rd party SLR lenses.

But this rumor of “early digital” colors led me to borrow a low mileage D200 for a few days, and to shoot jpgs at its default settings. I discovered nothing. The pix look OK but I had no frame of reference due to never using any other cameras at default settings.

There was nothing wrong with the default jpgs from the D200, but nothing intriguing either. Therefore I didn’t set any of my own cameras back to default for comparison. I just returned the D200.

Even though I could’ve owned a mint D200 for pocket money, I encountered no reason to add a big clunky SLR of very limited capability to my flock. If I had been distinctly struck by a magic color palette I could’ve kept it and worked within its limits.

I’m similarly intrigued by the tales of Sigma Merrill color, but nobody has one to lend me, and they’re not pocket money cheap.

Apr 8, 2021 07:50:50   #
yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey
 
Looking forward to your series QD. I still love the colors SOOC from my D3S, and the files are so easy to work with.

Apr 8, 2021 09:42:28   #
cameraf4 Loc: Delaware
 
quixdraw wrote:
There are all sorts of ideas and profiles and methods that turn up in a search with an eye toward post processing. Some even suggest retrieving profiles from an actual Kodachrome slide, beyond my skill set. My interest is duplicating the look largely SOOC, possibly with minimal tweaks. Thanks for your suggestion!


If trying to duplicate Kodachrome SOOC, I suggest using Nikon's Picture Controls. When I first got my D700 back in 2010, I tried all the PCs in the camera and compared the results with what I was seeing from the different slide films I had used. It was all very subjective but I felt that I could very closely approximate the looks of Kodachrome 64, Agfachrome 100, Fujichrome Provia 100, Ektachrome 100, even Sakurachrome 100 and Scotch (3M) 100 and Scotch 1000. Just make the adjustments to Nikon's menu of Picture Controls and save the adjustments when you get the look you want.

 
 
Apr 8, 2021 09:50:13   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
quixdraw wrote:
Back in December I bought a Nikon D2x - got a great deal from Pixelstan77. Basically, he listed it for sale and I bought it because the weather was bad and I was bored. It usually takes me a month to six weeks to work through camera and manual, something I much enjoy, and good value for my recreation / camera dollar. As I started to use the camera, I was taken with the color rendition, different from my other Digital cameras, and almost familiar. A big camera, only DX, and somewhat limited compared to newer ones, but the color! Spring ahead (pun intended) to mid March. I found an inexpensive, well cared for D3 with a relatively low shutter count. As you have seen, I've been using that a lot, with new and old Nikon lenses. The color from the D3, even better, and the camera wonderfully easy to use with AI and AIS Nikon lenses, possibly even easier than my Df. My best and oldest friend, an excellent photographer with years of experience similar to mine, returned from an extended business trip and we got a chance to talk cameras. After the conversation, I sent him a dozen or so shots from the two cameras. His note back was that they resembled Kodachrome. He is a sophisticated post processor, and commented that it is difficult to get that look in post. Post is not something I do very much, a search online found all sorts of ideas on doing just that. Doesn't sound easy. At any rate, based on what I learned from the two old Ds, I'm continuing to use both of them, but am adjusting a couple of my newer digital Nikons to produce similar results. Early days, but fun and promising.
Back in December I bought a Nikon D2x - got a grea... (show quote)


During the film era I was more a fan of Black and White film for my serious photography but I did shoot color. For color I was a fan of Kodachrome 25, 64, and Vericolor II and III (160). I hated Ektachrome with its strong green cast. The slower Kodacolor films were OK sometimes, but the fast stuff was horrible like fast Ektachrome.

I really never thought of trying to emulate specific film looks from my digital photography. But from time to time I do see images by others or rarely one of mine that looks like a type of film. Or even the look of old National Geographic Magazines. I shoot RAW and probably could work out some film looks to my images if I wanted to. Though too me that would be an interesting experiment to watch someone else do.

Yes, I am certain different brands and models of cameras and different lenses give different color renditions to both film and digital. I have been using Pentax since 1977. I have many different models of Pentax lenses, from Super Takumar to smc Pentax DFA lenses. The coatings and optical constructions produce different RAW output. I would imagine in I did shoot jpg it would be even more noticeable. I actually sort of like the images I get from the old Asahi Takumar lenses. They seem to have more saturation and contrast and sharpness. The early K-mount lenses are a bit mediocre in many cases. The later AF / AE lenses seem really nice but require a bit more file tweaking in Ps. Actually I find more differences between my three main Pentax camera bodies, the K-20 and the K-5 are similar and to my liking, but I am not fond of the color from the newest, K-3. I have an old Pentax K-100 that I had converted to Infrared use, and it has a CCD sensor. Too bad I never shot normal color with it to see if it looks like Kodachrome.

By-the-way Fujifilm cameras have built in film emulation and a non-Bayer array. Never tried the film emulation in my Fuji X100T. I wonder if it includes Kodak emulations? I'll have to look.

Apr 8, 2021 09:58:52   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
billnikon wrote:
Every camera manufacture has their own color pallet. For instance, my older Minolta lenses created a definite look, as do my Nikon lenses. Then there is the color cast of my Sony lenses.
Yes, they are all different, but shooting in RAW, I can make them all look the same, sort of.
Personally, I like all three. I am sure Canon also produces it's own unique color signature.


I am sure you are right about the manufacturers, and possibly about raw and processing, but the latter does not interest me. Background on why I dislike all but minor post processing. For the last few years of my business career I was shifted to a very computer and software oriented position. I became quite good at it, but disliked it right up to retirement. I don't need to do it anymore.

Apr 8, 2021 10:03:36   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
camerapapi wrote:
It was the so called first Nikon color generation that produced colors similar to those of Kodachrome. Cameras like the D100, D200 and the D2X just to mention some of them had those colors. When I bought my D300 and after using a D2H for a while I could immediately see that colors have changed. I believe at the time Nikon began to use Color Control. I never thought those colors were as good as those of the cameras of previous generation.

I have no experience with the D3 or the D700 and I know not only that both are excellent tools but also the colors are fantastic. Both of those cameras were used by portrait and wedding photographers.
It was the so called first Nikon color generation ... (show quote)


I am certainly enjoying both the D2x and the D3, and many have said they regretted selling or trading their D3, and some still happily use them. Never had a D700, do have a Df, and that will probably be the first of the more modern cameras on the project, since it has the same sensor as the D4. We'll see!

Apr 8, 2021 10:07:16   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
whfowle wrote:
Looking forward to your pics. My favorite film in the 60's and 70's was Kodachrome 25. Never liked Ektachrome because of the blue/green tint.


Agree on Ektachrome, but for a while it was the need for speed, ASA, that drove usage. Kodachrome was very slow, first I used 25, then 64. If I recall correctly Ektachrome was 160 in the same time frame- not sure of that!

 
 
Apr 8, 2021 10:14:43   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
rmalarz wrote:
quixdraw, I'm been playing with both the Kodachrome look as well as the dye transfer process to get that look, as well. So far, lots of experiments but nothing I'd use on a regular basis. I'm looking forward to seeing your photographs when you get your approach dialed in.
--Bob


We'll see how it goes via camera adjustment. If I do anything Darkroom / chemistry related, it will be black and white, and film most likely. Hopefully I'll slide into a gradual continuous improvement cycle.

Apr 8, 2021 10:16:07   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
nervous2 wrote:
I too will be eager to see some pics.


Planning on an initial progress post by the end of the week.

Apr 8, 2021 10:21:05   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
ELNikkor wrote:
I shot a lot of Kodachrome while it was available and avoided Ektachrome for the most part because of it's blueness/blandness by comparison. UNTIL the Ektachrome Plus came out in 1988. I bought quite a few bulk rolls of EPP 100 and rolled/processed my own. It was like having a faster, more neutral, less contrasty, with cleaner, (no occasional magenta cast in the flesh-tones) colors than Kodachrome (sorry, K-diehards!), that I could process & mount cheaper; same day I shot it. I wish EPP was the emulsion Kodak brought back, rather than the current Ektachrome. (Still no fading after 30 years in the basement.)
I shot a lot of Kodachrome while it was available ... (show quote)


I don't recall using Plus. I did use some Ektachrome along with Kodachrome up through the '70's, but Slides were expensive, so mostly I shot and processed black and white film. Haven't used any slide film in those cameras for years, mostly Tri X and XP 2.

Apr 8, 2021 10:28:05   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
User ID wrote:
Same here, what’s different can become pretty much the same. Using both brands of SLRs, both brands of m43, and Sony, it’s not just raw that can bury the difference. My own jpg approach has a similar effect to raw. All my jpg settings produce sooc low contrast and low saturation results to somewhat extend whatever DR jpg is able to record.

This does help increase shadow and highlight data but it means *every* jpg needs PP just to be “presentable”, similar to dealing with a raw file. So, since every file must be “seasoned to taste”, and my taste is pretty consistent, there’s no real difference marking camera or lens brands ... not ignoring that the camera and lens brands are all mix-and-match due to adapters and also 3rd party SLR lenses.

But this rumor of “early digital” colors led me to borrow a low mileage D200 for a few days, and to shoot jpgs at its default settings. I discovered nothing. The pix look OK but I had no frame of reference due to never using any other cameras at default settings.

There was nothing wrong with the default jpgs from the D200, but nothing intriguing either. Therefore I didn’t set any of my own cameras back to default for comparison. I just returned the D200.

Even though I could’ve owned a mint D200 for pocket money, I encountered no reason to add a big clunky SLR of very limited capability to my flock. If I had been distinctly struck by a magic color palette I could’ve kept it and worked within its limits.

I’m similarly intrigued by the tales of Sigma Merrill color, but nobody has one to lend me, and they’re not pocket money cheap.
Same here, what’s different can become pretty much... (show quote)


The only ones I have experience with are the two discussed, and I do see a difference. And, yes, they are boat anchors compared to my others The Sigma is intriguing, i've been impressed with samples I've seen. Per the major photo media, they are working on a new sensor and up for a resurgence. I am certain they will be quite expensive.

 
 
Apr 8, 2021 10:31:01   #
Photomac
 
How close does Fuji film simulation in their cameras come to the real Kodachrome, or for that matter, Color Effex Pro??

Apr 8, 2021 10:31:45   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
yssirk123 wrote:
Looking forward to your series QD. I still love the colors SOOC from my D3S, and the files are so easy to work with.


Thank you, will see what I can do. Agree on the colors, and also with your second point. Wasn't sure, but I also felt that the files were very responsive to the simplest adjustments, pleased to hear your confirmation of that.

Apr 8, 2021 10:45:55   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
lamiaceae wrote:
During the film era I was more a fan of Black and White film for my serious photography but I did shoot color. For color I was a fan of Kodachrome 25, 64, and Vericolor II and III (160). I hated Ektachrome with its strong green cast. The slower Kodacolor films were OK sometimes, but the fast stuff was horrible like fast Ektachrome.

I really never thought of trying to emulate specific film looks from my digital photography. But from time to time I do see images by others or rarely one of mine that looks like a type of film. Or even the look of old National Geographic Magazines. I shoot RAW and probably could work out some film looks to my images if I wanted to. Though too me that would be an interesting experiment to watch someone else do.

Yes, I am certain different brands and models of cameras and different lenses give different color renditions to both film and digital. I have been using Pentax since 1977. I have many different models of Pentax lenses, from Super Takumar to smc Pentax DFA lenses. The coatings and optical constructions produce different RAW output. I would imagine in I did shoot jpg it would be even more noticeable. I actually sort of like the images I get from the old Asahi Takumar lenses. They seem to have more saturation and contrast and sharpness. The early K-mount lenses are a bit mediocre in many cases. The later AF / AE lenses seem really nice but require a bit more file tweaking in Ps. Actually I find more differences between my three main Pentax camera bodies, the K-20 and the K-5 are similar and to my liking, but I am not fond of the color from the newest, K-3. I have an old Pentax K-100 that I had converted to Infrared use, and it has a CCD sensor. Too bad I never shot normal color with it to see if it looks like Kodachrome.

By-the-way Fujifilm cameras have built in film emulation and a non-Bayer array. Never tried the film emulation in my Fuji X100T. I wonder if it includes Kodak emulations? I'll have to look.
During the film era I was more a fan of Black and ... (show quote)


Actually, till a few years before I settled down, got married and had a family, I could afford black and white which I processed and printed myself, very rarely color. In any case, I had neither projector or screen, just an illuminated hand viewer. When I could afford all the slide film and processing I cared to use, along with the paraphernalia to view them, almost like eating too much rich food does to appetite, it damped down my interest in photography for a while. Because of reasons previously stated, I shoot JPEG, and ex cropping and an occasional tiny, fast tweak or two, SOOC. For that reason, adjusting camera settings before is much more appealing to me than adjusting images after. It may work, if nothing else, i will be improving control in camera and enhancing all my images moving forward. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Apr 8, 2021 10:51:34   #
quixdraw Loc: American Free States -- Montana
 
cameraf4 wrote:
If trying to duplicate Kodachrome SOOC, I suggest using Nikon's Picture Controls. When I first got my D700 back in 2010, I tried all the PCs in the camera and compared the results with what I was seeing from the different slide films I had used. It was all very subjective but I felt that I could very closely approximate the looks of Kodachrome 64, Agfachrome 100, Fujichrome Provia 100, Ektachrome 100, even Sakurachrome 100 and Scotch (3M) 100 and Scotch 1000. Just make the adjustments to Nikon's menu of Picture Controls and save the adjustments when you get the look you want.
If trying to duplicate Kodachrome SOOC, I suggest ... (show quote)


Back in the day, I can recall deliberately using films for effect - Kodackrome, Ektachrome, Agfachrome and Fujichrome all rendered color and skin tones differently. Actually a useful phenomenon. I am pursuing the route you suggest via camera controls, metering, and the older Nikon lenses. All but one of the primes I've tried have contributed. If nothing else a learning experience!

Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.