Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Kodachrome Revisited  (Read 14029 times)
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450


WWW
« Reply #80 on: January 29, 2011, 01:13:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I think there's definitely a Kodachrome look to it no matter what. You really see it more when looking at a high res file but there is a palette to Kodachrome that is unlike any other film or digital. The greens are particularly muted too. As far as it looking any way you want it to, it can have many different looks based on all of the factors I mentioned previously. A lot of people used to shoot Kodachrome in the mountains - Galen Rowell for one - and high altitude unfiltered would give you and extra dose of blue as well. My guess is that by bringing the highlights and shadows in to line, you are going to eliminate as many of those other variables and see the film for what it really is. The only thing that really matters is if you like the images you are producing, no matter what medium you use.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #81 on: January 29, 2011, 01:21:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I think there's definitely a Kodachrome look to it no matter what.

If one has shot a lot of Kodachrome over the years, yes, there is a "look". Can you achieve it with an E-6 scan or digital capture? Yes...if you understand what the look is (if you know how to move the image). If you don't, then no...it's tough to achieve the look if you don't really "grok" it...

Kodachrome is a tough film to scan and a tough rendering to replicateĖif you don't know it.
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #82 on: January 29, 2011, 09:49:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I did get around to scanning a couple of pieces of film today. Here's a small scan from a piece of PKM Kodachrome 25 that expired in 1991, which means the film is at about three years older than that. Interesting enough, this batch came through being not nearly as blue in the shadows at other Kodachromes I've scanned, only underscoring the entire content of this thread. But even still it was about ten points blue in the shadows rather than twenty-five. Maybe the latest chemistry is better or maybe it's the old film. There was very little done to this in Photoshop aside from cleaning up some dust and a very minor overall curves adjustment and a very slight reddening of the lips. And it's very close to the film as well. The detail scan, for anyone interested, is from the original 8000 ppi scan. Yeah, it's grainier than digital and not quite as sharp, but it's got guts. This was shot right at dusk, so the sunsetty color is completely appropriate. Canon EOS1vn and a 35mm 1.4 at f/2. All in all, I spent about a minute tops in Trident and about the same for the Ps tweaks, aside from the minor dust. I almost forgot to give due to my model and girlfriend, Gee Rabe, LA's accordion diva, who was wearing no makeup aside from the lipstick.

Peter, I noticed the relative lack of film grain in your scans, even the detail view. Do you agree? 

My scans of Velvia and Provia on my Minolta 5400 scanner show more film grain, or probably grain aliasing to be more accurate.

Is the lack of grain in your scans the result of the small size of the samples you posted, or maybe scanning at 8,000 ppi avoids grain aliasing, or maybe Kodachrome has less noticeable grain than Velvia or Provia, or maybe the grain isnít as noticeable in the detail sample since there arenít any uniform areas like clear sky?   Itís not all that important.  Iím just curious.
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #83 on: January 29, 2011, 09:52:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been reading these Kodachrome threads with much more interest than understanding; however, my lack of expertise does not prevent me from contributing to the message thread because I too have shot the "last" roll of Kodachrome -- and the Tee shirt from Dwaynes is on its way to me!

My last roll of Kodachrome was shot, appropriately, in my old Konica T2.  At the same time, I (sometimes) grabbed similar shots with a Canon G9 digicam.  I had Dwaynes scan the roll on the assumption that they knew how to do it.  To my surprise, the Dwaynes scans came back on a Kodak Picture CD and I did not like them.  My next step was to scan the slides myself using a Canon FS4000 scanner using Vuescan.  I set up Vuescan for Kodachrome slides with no additional adjustments (no white balance, levels, etc.).  The other part of my plan was to process the G9 shot as a "Kodachrome" by using the Pixel Genius PhotoKit Color2 setting as"Classic Chrome".

The scans were capture sharpened with Pixel Genius Capture Sharpener 2, reduced in size and then output sharpened with Output Sharpener 2.  The G9 was converted in ACR in my relatively simple and consistent manner, tweaked as Classic Chrome, reduced in size and output sharpened.

To my eye -- and surprise -- the Dwaynes scan most resembles the real slide but is relatively low resolution, 8 bit and seems to be highly compressed.  If I were to make a print from the slide, I'd use the Vuescan version with additional post processing.  On the other hand, if I wanted a print of the scene, I'd take another hack at the G9 RAW file.

Anyway, all this means something or other, I'm sure.


Gordon, it appears to me that the VueScan scan could have used a little more hardware exposure (not merely a software adjustment), which may make your comparison a little better.   I suspect that there would still be a large difference in the scans, however.
Logged

Dean Erger
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #84 on: January 29, 2011, 11:18:08 AM »
ReplyReply

It should be possible to compare the gamuts of slide films based on profiles, preferably made with equipment that can deal with the character of both films, so a continuous spectral lightsource of a Kelvin grade that does justice to both etc. Joseph Holmes created the Ektachrome color space, a similar space should be possible for Kodachrome. In that sense one could talk of typical Kodachrome color, Ektachrome color, Velvia color if the gamuts are shifted in shape to one another or wider.

He writes here that he doesn't expect much difference in the Kodachrome gamut but that wasn't based on research it seems:

http://www.livepicturegroup.com/EktaSpace.txt

His experience with Kodachrome may have been limited too, I saw one reference to the use of Kodachrome 25 in his youth.



Where Peter described the lighting and filters on the Howtek, I was intrigued by the dichroic filters. As far as I know they usually have a stricter spectral transmission/blocking than possible with dye filters. With the halogen tungsten lightsource being more continuous + the dichroic filters it is possible that both slide film types are more similar in the scan than possible on CCFL lit CCD scanners, the last also have difficulties with IR that has to be blocked for the sensor.

A typical CCD RGB filter set spectral plot is shown in this PDF. It is the three linear Kodak CCD that is used in the Nikon 8000. The sensor is no longer produced by Kodak.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/datasheet/linear/KLI-10203LongSpec.pdf

Typical dichroic filter plots:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum205/78789-autochrome-rgb-spectrums-via-modern-dichroic-filters.html

+ as dessert the Autochrome spectral plots, the color slide film that started all this complexity.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450


WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 29, 2011, 11:27:08 AM »
ReplyReply

"Peter, I noticed the relative lack of film grain in your scans, even the detail view. Do you agree?"

I certainly notice the grain. The detail scan I posted was scanned at 8000 ppi and using a 3.3 micron scanning aperture, which generally accentuates the grain. It was Kodachrome 25, which is finer grained than either 64 or 200 and seems to be on par with Velvia 50 but with a different character. The detail scan had no sharpening at all applied to it.

"My scans of Velvia and Provia on my Minolta 5400 scanner show more film grain, or probably grain aliasing to be more accurate."

Hard to say without seeing scans of the same piece of film from the two scanner. A few years ago a friend brought his 5400 over to my studio and we did some side by side comparisons. The Minolta was surprisingly good for the price but was definitely harsher overall and lacked the smoothness in gradations that is apparent in the Howtek.

"Is the lack of grain in your scans the result of the small size of the samples you posted, or maybe scanning at 8,000 ppi avoids grain aliasing, or maybe Kodachrome has less noticeable grain than Velvia or Provia, or maybe the grain isnít as noticeable in the detail sample since there arenít any uniform areas like clear sky?   Itís not all that important.  Iím just curious."

Well, there's always more apparent grain in areas like blue sky and much less in areas of detail, so that may be affecting your perception. The blue skies are much less "pure" in Kodachrome when looking at a grain level, being made up of smaller clumps of what I'd call contaminating colors - things like purple dye clouds in between the more cyanish overall sky color. That may account for the tendency for Kodachrome skies to skew slightly toward magenta. Just surmising though. Of course, that phenomenon is apparent in any film.

After having scanned several of this latest batch of film it does appear that the later emulsions of K64 certainly seem to be slightly less grainy than film from years ago, but I have no idea whether there was any real change to the film or if the newer chemistry has anything to do with it or some combination including overall exposure. There are areas of highlight detail that appear almost grainless in comparison to the detail scan I posted earlier.

Even after seventy plus years of Kodachrome, it continues to mystify.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #86 on: January 29, 2011, 12:58:28 PM »
ReplyReply

The Minolta 5400 exists in more versions. There is a Scanhancer like grain dissolver in the 5400 while there is a more diffuse lamp in the 5400 II. The last seems to deliver more grainy appearence with B&W scans.

Actual film grain resolved (or dye clouds) is another thing, the more the scanner can resolve the smaller aliased grain becomes in the scan. That might be what you see as grain difference between the 8000 SPI Howtek and the 5400 SPI Minolta scan.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #87 on: January 29, 2011, 05:33:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Peter, you're correct.  I took another look at a Velvia scan, and not so much grain.  Here is a 100% crop, with no adjustments except to convert from 16 bit linear to sRGB.

EDIT: The scan was made using ICE and "Grain Dissolver" which is an optical device between the film and the CCD sensor to reduce the appearance of grain. It is similar to the Scanhancer that was developed for the Minolta Multi Pro.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 09:13:09 AM by dmerger » Logged

Dean Erger
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450


WWW
« Reply #88 on: January 29, 2011, 05:47:12 PM »
ReplyReply

In the old days of shooting film before scanning and in the early days of Cibachrome, we shot our film and either projected it or tried to print it, but we were quite limited in scope as to how we could alter the look compared to today. When printing you could do minor color and brightness corrections and if your were ambitious with Pan Masking Film, you could make some fairly complex masks for both contrast and color control (exposing PMF through color filters), but still, nothing like the control we have today.

So the question becomes; Why the emphasis so much on matching the film, particularly when the film was virtually never exactly where and with what we know today, most of us are going to want to make the images we had in our minds, not necessarily the ones on our film.

Hell, Steve Crouch, a photographer I knew growing up in Monterey who did a very nice book on the area titled Steinbeck Country, never ever filtered his Ektachrome, claiming that's how the great yellow god intended it to be. Having seen enough of his original images (he used to come in to the store I worked) and having looked at Steinbeck Country more recently, I have no doubt there is much more hidden in his images waiting to be discovered.

I find it interesting that so many people shooting transparencies are somehow frozen into what they see on the film whereas the black and white neg crowd would never think of making a "straight" print, and often spend hours burning, dodging and sometimes literally massaging a print in the darkroom to achieve their vision.
Logged
tgray
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #89 on: January 29, 2011, 07:03:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Please clarify: you don't get a blue cast when you use a profile by itself, or you don't get a blue cast when you use a profile along with the Kodachrome setting?

No blue cast with a profile itself.  I get more of a cast with the Kodachrome setting and no profile.  I've not tried the two in conjunction, because frankly, the profile alone is working very well for me in reproducing what I'm seeing on my light table.

When I'm talking about a blue/cyan cast, I'm talking about a horrible blue/cyan cast over everything.  It's not subtle and isn't there when you look at the slide by eye. I'm not talking about imperfections with the way Kodachrome renders colors in the scene.  It's like you took a photo through a CTB filter.  I have a slide of White Sands from my childhood.  If you saw my original scan of it from a couple months ago, you'd call it Blue Sands.  The slide on the light table doesn't look like that at all.  I've not yet rescanned that particularly slide, but newer ones that I've compared with/without a profile seem to prove to me that the profile is obviously doing a better job at reproducing what's on the slide.
Logged
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #90 on: January 29, 2011, 07:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply


I find it interesting that so many people shooting transparencies are somehow frozen into what they see on the film whereas the black and white neg crowd would never think of making a "straight" print, and often spend hours burning, dodging and sometimes literally massaging a print in the darkroom to achieve their vision.

So if I reading your thoughts correctly, all the profiling and preliminary stages of setting up to ultimately print,whether it be from a slide or any other digital camera capture, is just a means to be at a point where the creative process  takes over, and you interpret the file the way you see it in your minds eye. It is effectively your prerogative as far as what you do to achieve your end result as an artist, there is no right or wrong.
Of course it is a whole different situation when you are reproducing files according to someone elses  requirements and WYSIWYG is the name of the game.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2011, 07:55:14 PM by davidh202 » Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450


WWW
« Reply #91 on: January 29, 2011, 08:36:17 PM »
ReplyReply

David,

I think that's a pretty fair statement. When I'm scanning or doing post production/retouching for other people, I'll often give two versions - one that is as close to the film as possible and one that is how I, as a photographer, would do it. Almost without exception people prefer the new improved versions. But neither is more right than the other, just different interpretations. A lot of times people had never considered that veering away from the film might be either possible or desirable. I have way too many of my own images that have come to life in post. The potential was there in the original but now there are tools to work with. There are quite a few images I'm really glad I never tossed.
Logged
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #92 on: January 30, 2011, 12:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Gordon, it appears to me that the VueScan scan could have used a little more hardware exposure (not merely a software adjustment), which may make your comparison a little better.   I suspect that there would still be a large difference in the scans, however.

I think you are correct.  I just used the Vuescan default.  The slide is not so underexposed.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad