I love the Fuji recipe… I like it far better than real Kodachrome. It gives you the color pop without losing all the dynamic range of the xtrans sensor. But, it doesn’t give me the same feeling as real Kodachrome… the shadows and highlights falloff differently and the grain isn’t right. I also think the color profile is a little too exaggerated. when I get to the office, I will post an image with the most downloaded Fuji recipe and my own for comparison.
OK... Here we go. These are straight out of camera (Fuji GFX 50R). The Fuji Recipe is the McCurry Kodachrome based on Cl***ic Chrome. It's the most "liked" emulation of Kodachrome, but they are all pretty close in profile to my eye. My version takes the original Fuji Raw and applies my Kodachrome Profile and then spits out a jpg. So, it's straight out of camera as well for all intents and purposes... Fuji Kodachrome: Ryan Kodachrome: A few things to notice: 1. Mine is a bit cooler in tone... I used Nat Geo for all of my example images because there was very little if any aging to the colors themselves. I found them to be surprisingly cooler than most Kodachrome prints that I have physically.... and that have been exposed to UV for decades. 2. Note the shadow and highlight falloff (look at the wheel well) on mine is a bit more gradual... The fuji feels more like manipulated digital than film to me. Like an Instagram filter or something... trying a bit too hard both with contrast and popping color. 3. Grain. Fuji uses some sort of random generation on the grain and I don't like it. In monochrome, it can work... but I don't think it works at all in color. Mine feels more natural, because it sort of is... It's based off 200 iso Kodachrome and I think it just works better. A few things to keep in mind: 1. I am not an expert. Not even close. I've never shot real Kodachrome in my life.... and much prefer Portra... 2. This is all very subjective. 3. Kodachome 64 has VERY little grain... and that's where mine has the biggest advantage I think. So take the grain away from both of these and I don't think the differences are all that obvious. I like grain though.
I'm sorry but someone had to say it~ … Kodachrome They give us those nice bright colors Give us the greens of summers Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah I got a Nikon camera I love to take a photograph So mama, don't take my Kodachrome away! You camera nerds amaze me with how you can manipulate images, for many years I have struggled with some of the better made manual cameras and film,after decades I decided that a simple digital point and shoot camera far exceeds anything I could do on my own. HRP
Here's an example of how I got here. First shot is of a friend's kid in Hawaii... I shot it using a Leica M11 and a 35mm Lux. I just took it back to the flat raw and applied my Kodachrome profile and grain. Next shot is from McCurry's last roll of Kodachrome. My lens is far sharper than McCurry's, but everything else is as close as I can get it... I think colors and grain are pretty darned close. I need to take a ****load of shots featuring cars and then compare them to real Kodachrome shots of the same subject in like lighting conditions. Once I have done that enough, I will finalize my code, put it in the camera, and then presto - digital Kodachrome only camera.
Interesting thread. What a rabbit hole you're exploring! I've shot loads of Kodachrome 64, in fact most of the older slides (1970s-early 90s) I have. Always found it a bit tricky to use depending on the lighting but when it worked the results were great. Over the past few years I've been digitizing many of my own slides and to be honest I'm not nearly as concerned about color accuracy. Many of those slides were taken by my dad, dating from about the same time frames as the Cobbs photos. And my prime objective is to preserve those [historical] images for easy viewing. I sometimes do some color tweaking in Photoshop, mainly to correct major degradation that can occur over time in the slides themselves, mostly stemming from improper storage. As far as cleaning slides, here's what I've done: Rinse them in a solution of VERY mild dish soap - a few drops in maybe a cup of room-temp water. Rinse again in clear room-temp water. I use bottled distilled water. Finally, I have a Kodak product called "Photoflo" which is a rinse that allows streak and spot-free drying of film. The issue here is that slides are generally in cardboard mounts, so I will carefully remove the slide itself from the mount before all this. I handle the slide itself with a small clamp along the edges or tweezers. I have plastic snap-together slide mounts to re-mount the slide. Most of the time though, if there's any major cleaning to do I'll retouch in Photoshop. It's way easier. Bottom line for me, as I said, is preserving the slide images. Most of the relatives and friends who've gotten copies of them aren't all that concerned about perfect color. When it comes to older photos, it could well be considered normal for the color to be a bit out of whack - part of the charm of older photos!
Don't worry man, I've got ya covered! Projection screen is in the background so no need to find a white garage wall.... The projector on the right is for medium-format (120/aka 2-1/4" square) slides. It's a genuine 1950s survivor that belonged to my dad and it still works.
Isn't it amazing @TerrytheK that only us older geezer's have such fine vintage projectors as these! @Moriarity wishes he had one of these! I still have all of the stuff that you have displayed, its great to participate in show and tell! Thanks from Dennis.
It would take me all day to pull out all of my **** to prove my complete lack of self control when it comes to vintage camera gear, but I'll give ya a taste: The photo of the Harley is perfect Kodachrome colors and exposure... Your dad wasn't ****ing around man...
My interpretation of what "Carl Zeiss" really looked like ! Those in the know, know he really didn't look like this, you would be surprised at how many people I have fooled with this piece of artwork ! You definitely have a great addiction and a great collection of fine photographic gear! Thanks from Dennis.
Cool!I have breakfast sometimes on Saturday with Jim Davis an original member of the Krankers of Berdoo with Ron Aguirre(X-Sonic). He used to own a Camera Shop in San Bernardino and he's been selling off his camera collection. Been selling off a lot off cameras like you have.
I shot Kodachrome for a few years in my Nikon FE. Scanned all of the slides to digital over a decade ago and not sure I even still have the originals.
Be fun watchin those in the rear view mirror blow out on the freeway ... I can picture the rice burners spinning out and crashing
Excellent work Ryan, and there is no need to apologize for falling down a rabbit hole. I came across this video a while back and was fascinated by the information presented. Is it relevant to what you are doing, perhaps, or perhaps not. But for those of us who are fans of a certain era and the engineering that was behind the scenes during that era, I found it absolutely fascinating.
Rabbit hole indeed . . . but I am dealing with it! Impressive nitpicking detail . . . you have an incurable illness (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Funny how we seem to run in circles sometimes. Lotsa folks thought digital was supposed to be the end of film. But now digital is imitating film? Huh. Who knew? So far, I've been able to manage my own obsession with vintage photo gear. Most of what I've kept is stuff that I actually use from time to time. Quite a while ago I sold this absolute piece of jewelry, a Zeiss-Ikon medium format: Used 120 film, rectangular 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" negatives. Sat around for I don't know how many years and I ran maybe a couple rolls of film through it. Yeah, I miss it at times but hopefully someone now is enjoying it in a way I never did. I do salute you guys and your collections of veteran Kodachrome-friendly equipment. Here's to keeping the Kodachrome legacy alive and well for future generations!
I had to stay up half the damn night waiting for my kids to get back from the Billie Eilish show… so I figured screw it, may as well pull an all-nighter. I’m cooked, but it feels strangely good. Anyway, here it is... my first true out-of-camera “Kodachrome” frame using the medium-format sensor hacked for an X-Pan aspect ratio and a vintage 80mm cinema lens. The goal was a 1960s cinematic vibe built on Kodachrome color and grain. The one thing I didn't think about was... Well, the X-Pan aspect ratio really requires a BIG monitor to fully appreciate. I'm wondering what a print will look like... gonna have to be huge I think.
Damn, you're making me jealous, pretty neat stuff you've got! I got rid of all my cool old stuff a couple of moves ago, except for the mid-40's darkroom equipment that I haven't used for 40 years.
I posted this somewhere else, but… here’s how you get real grain. Took the photo with my M7 using portra 400. Scanned that in, flattened the color profile, and then used my Kodachrome profile on that. Enlarged, it looks like a painting.
Over the years I tried to make digital look like Kodachrome. I was never really happy with the results. Some of your come pretty close. I buy old slides whenever I can find them just to look at the old Kodachrome ones.
I have a ridiculous amount of hours in this. Ironically, I much prefer Portra… especially when shooting a car.
Hello, Kodachrome, like all color film surfaces has similar two sided negatives or color slides. It is good, but not in the same range as a good clear Ektachrome color slide. IMHO. I have worked with both and the color is much more clear on the Ektachrome slide. But, they both need to have each slide cleaned prior to making a print or two. So, prior to each one inserted in the slide holder of the enlarger, it needs cleaning. No liquids as they alter the image. No cloth of any type as it may do the same damage to the “touchy” surfaces. The only thing necessary is pure air. Not from an airbrush paint motor, but clean air from the oddball looking device. The airbrush motor is powerful, but may have moisture inside and could get it on the film. Just point and squeeze at the dust motes... The "Rocket Shape Air Blower Dust Cleaner Remover" is a common name for such a device. With the advent of digital cameras, it still attracts dust, so the tool can be used for those devices, too. But the gentle, but powerful puff of air coming out of the black bulb through the little hole in the red tube goes right to the dust devils in the camera or on the negative/color slide. Jnaki All of my slides were stored in enclosed air tight cases until they are/were called upon for photo work or taken to the editors for perusal on articles. But, prior to the presentation, they were given the once over from the odd rocket shaped air blower. Note: Even digital camera folks need to maintain some maintenance as the lens goes in and out, the SD card/battery slot gets opened a lot. So, it does create a time when “intruders” can come in and sit for days or years on different surfaces. If one sees digital "blems" on the photos provided, then the outside of the lens is the first place. But, cleaning the inside also helps keep the dust motes out… YRMV
The Jalopy Journal
