Photon Mayhem wrote:
I'm, interested if you have personal experience with that media, and how you remember it changed actual colours compared to the simulation above.

I used Kodachrome II (ASA 25, later 64), and Kodachrome 25, and both looked much like modern digital sensors, albeit with stronger reds and oranges than the default settings on most cameras. They did not have the faded blacks and yellowed whites your example show; those are more indicative of the fading from 1960-1970-era prints, though I don't recall any particular print media which looked quite like your examples.

I've never used Technicolor, and can't comment on that, other than to say your examples don't look anything like the Technicolor in the movies.

Kevin_Connery wrote:
I used Kodachrome II (ASA 25, later 64), and Kodachrome 25, and both looked much like modern digital sensors, albeit with stronger reds and oranges than the default settings on most cameras. They did not have the faded blacks and yellowed whites your example show; those are more indicative of the fading from 1960-1970-era prints, though I don't recall any particular print media which looked quite like your examples.

I've never used Technicolor, and can't comment on that, other than to say your examples don't look anything like the Technicolor in the movies.

yes... I saw that I'll need another approach for the Technicolor

I tried to replicate the (1950s) K-11 process described here:
http://www.codex99.com/photography/77.html






edit:
.. ok.. I think I got the 2-strip closer to what it should be:

Photon Mayhem wrote:
I tried to replicate the (1950s) K-11 process described here:

Rather than try to replicate the 'process', you might have better success if you examined actual Kodachrome slides. They simply don't look anything like what you're showing.

There were differences between the color palettes of the K-11, K-12 (what I'm most familiar with) and K-14 processes, but they were fairly subtle--and none had the color fading and casts in your examples.

Kevin_Connery wrote:

Rather than try to replicate the 'process', you might have better success if you examined actual Kodachrome slides. They simply don't look anything like what you're showing.

There were differences between the color palettes of the K-11, K-12 (what I'm most familiar with) and K-14 processes, but they were fairly subtle--and none had the color fading and casts in your examples.

you are correct about the colour-cast (which was in the 2-stip), I looked at some examples earlier and they were incorrect... but about the K-11.. the main thing I see so far is accentuated orange and cyan, deeper colder reds, very deep blues
like in here:


which is actually the result of the process simulation too (fixed the white-point)

Paramour Productions wrote:
Remember, Kodachrome was essentially a B&W film that had been converted to color (that's an over simplified way of stating it, but it's in essence what happened).  In this regard it's different than other color films and it's also what gives it its strong contrast, deep rich blacks and great archival ability.  You want to retain that contrast.

I hope it's no surprise to most photographers that ALL color fillm starts out with the same light-sensitive silver halide salts. That is, all color film starts out as B&W film. It's true that the Kodachrome is one of the few color films where the dye is not incorporated in the emulsion itself, but the other films have the same sliver salts the produce a B&W image to start.

What made Kodachrome unique was the dyes used. Ektachrome when process by Kodak also has good visual contrast. This was a because Kodak used a different concentration than the published E-6 formula. However, Kodachrome's dye and chemistry results in a greater D-max.

Kevin_Connery wrote:
I used Kodachrome II (ASA 25, later 64), and Kodachrome 25, and both looked much like modern digital sensors, albeit with stronger reds and oranges than the default settings on most cameras. They did not have the faded blacks and yellowed whites your example show...

I can echo this. I shot exclusively with Kodachrome Pro 25 & 64 throughout the 90s. The results (as long as one used a custom/pro lab that didn't shift them green or magenta - there were a lot of Kodachrome labs that couldn't process the film well/consistently - including Kodak labs), were absolutely close to digital, with an ever so slight warmer feel.

John

Paramour Productions wrote:
This is fun to watch.

Remember, Kodachrome was essentially a B&W film that had been converted to color (that's an over simplified way of stating it, but it's in essence what happened).  In this regard it's different than other color films and it's also what gives it its strong contrast, deep rich blacks and great archival ability.  You want to retain that contrast.

I'm glad you enjoy yourself
this was meant as strictly color toning; The additional change of contrast/lum curve should be separate (as we can't predict the source). I may have lost a few shades on the ends, but DR is more or less preserved .

edit:
added some contrast, just for kicks

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:

I hope it's no surprise to most photographers that ALL color fillm starts out with the same light-sensitive silver halide salts. That is, all color film starts out as B&W film. It's true that the Kodachrome is one of the few color films where the dye is not incorporated in the emulsion itself, but the other films have the same sliver salts the produce a B&W image to start.

What made Kodachrome unique was the dyes used. Ektachrome when process by Kodak also has good visual contrast. This was a because Kodak used a different concentration than the published E-6 formula. However, Kodachrome's dye and chemistry results in a greater D-max.

Yes, that's what I mean (as I said, I oversimplified the process, didn't think it relevant to include how the dye couplers were incorporated - or not, in this case).  But yes, it is the D-max I'm referring to (although not sure if others here will get that or not) which gave the strong blacks.

Kevin_Connery wrote:

I used Kodachrome II (ASA 25, later 64), and Kodachrome 25, and both looked much like modern digital sensors, albeit with stronger reds and oranges than the default settings on most cameras. They did not have the faded blacks and yellowed whites your example show; those are more indicative of the fading from 1960-1970-era prints, though I don't recall any particular print media which looked quite like your examples.

I've never used Technicolor, and can't comment on that, other than to say your examples don't look anything like the Technicolor in the movies.

I think a lot of people confuse the issue, because they see old faded prints of movies and think that's what things looked like back then. The travesty of the "restoration" of Gone With The Wind is a great example of how people today just don't get it.  They essentially re-edited the film because they thought a modern color palate would look better. Idiots.

There's a difference between one and three strip Technicolor and some variation between technicolor consultants. In addition the Technicolor palate was guided by Natalie Kalmus' theory of ‘color consciousness’ through the use of charts for each film, which operated like a musical score and linked colour intensity with dominant moods or emotions.http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/2/191.full not by any silly notions scientific accuracy.

Le Beck Photography wrote:
There's a difference between one and three strip Technicolor and some variation between technicolor consultants. In addition the Technicolor palate was guided by Natalie Kalmus' theory of ‘color consciousness’ through the use of charts for each film, which operated like a musical score and linked colour intensity with dominant moods or emotions.http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/2/191.full not by any silly notions scientific accuracy.

yes, there are differences, as I clarified the - 2strip.

... so.. that's how grading was done back then

still you will be constrained by a physics envelope, and since the result is recognizable media (most of the time at first glance) there are common characteristics (like how colours are reproduced) which can be simulated.

Thank you for the suggested article, but looks like it concerns the intent (with respect to a colour theory?), not the media itself.

Le Beck Photography wrote:
I think a lot of people confuse the issue, because they see old faded prints of movies and think that's what things looked like back then. The travesty of the "restoration" of Gone With The Wind is a great example of how people today just don't get it.  They essentially re-edited the film because they thought a modern color palate would look better. Idiots.

Quite true.

I saw The Wizard of Oz at an MGM theater, with a good print, and was astonished how different it was from what had been on TV; the colors were larger than life when the scenes were, and quite realistic when that was desired. The more recent DVD, from a restored film, is close to what I remember. (It's been 20+ years since that theater viewing, however, and color memory is fugitive.)

Nevertheless, comparing what was displayed on broadcast TV and using those colors as any indication of what it actually looked like when new is akin to believing all the renaissance paintings were dark and gloomy, when the reality was that time had discolored them.

(And the faded Kodachromes I've seen hadn't faded to the colors or contrast shown here; they had different characteristics entirely.)

Photon Mayhem wrote:
edit:
added some contrast, just for kicks

There are many issues with this interpretation of Kodachrome. The pre-Kodachrome II final change about 1978 had a more yellow red. After the final emulsion chemistry change, there as more magenta. But the blues were always a true blue and you have too  much green cast there.

National Geographic has always tended to "tune" better to the look, even with Ektachrome and digital images:

Kevin Connery wrote:
(And the faded Kodachromes I've seen hadn't faded to the colors or contrast shown here; they had different characteristics entirely.)

I don't think you can say they are faded, they are just designed this way.
it's just a guess, but it might have to do with producing pleasing skin-tones.

look at the ones you have, do they have warm saturated yellows?
(are they present on your Kodachromes?)

here you can see that most yellows are going into orange and some into light pink


this conversion will just take care of the colour toning,
to get a high contrast look you should tone the lum. separately

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
There are many issues with this interpretation of Kodachrome. The pre-Kodachrome II final change about 1978 had a more yellow red. After the final emulsion chemistry change, there as more magenta. But the blues were always a true blue and you have too  much green cast there.

National Geographic has always tended to "tune" better to the look, even with Ektachrome and digital images:

that is something different...  the ones I was looking at are much older:



more examples here:
http://www.codex99.com/photography/77.html

The images are from the 1950s~1960s and the process K-11 is from the 1950s.


the blues do turn quite beautiful, but there is almost no yellow.. it's quite weak, going towards orange or pink...

let me see if I can find a more appropriate image to convert to show you what I mean...

but I do like toning of the images above a lot... it would be nice to get their toning too

edit:
this is what I mean... from process the yellow gets quite weak
(this is true to the 1950's images too from what I can see)

here's some pic (from the summer), colour-converted, and then with some added contrast

Photon Mayhem wrote:

I don't think you can say they are faded, they are just designed this way.
it's just a guess, but it might have to do with producing pleasing skin-tones.

look at the ones you have, do they have warm saturated yellows?
(are they present on your Kodachromes?)

here you can see that most yellows are going into orange and some into light pink


this conversion will just take care of the colour toning,
to get a high contrast look you should tone the lum. separately

But see this is where it gets confusing when talking about emulating film to those of us old enough to have actually shot it.  You can't separate the contrast from the palate, the contrast (and in Kodachrome's case, the D-Max specifically) is part of the film.  It's part of why, once other color films had been released, you would choose to shoot it.  If you emulate a tonal palate, without taking this into consideration, then you're not emulating Kodachrome.

It would be like if asked you to recreate the look of Tri-X 400 but without so much contrast or without any grain.  If you take away the contrast curve or the grain structure then it's not Tri-X.

Paramour Productions wrote:
But see this is where it gets confusing when talking about emulating film to those of us old enough to have actually shot it.  You can't separate the contrast from the palate, the contrast (and in Kodachrome's case, the D-Max specifically) is part of the film.  It's part of why, once other color films had been released, you would choose to shoot it.  If you emulate a tonal palate, without taking this into consideration, then you're not emulating Kodachrome.

It would be like if asked you to recreate the look of Tri-X 400 but without so much contrast or without any grain.  If you take away the contrast curve or the grain structure then it's not Tri-X.

I get your point... it's just hard to assume the "source" contrast...
where I can much more easily live with (assume) a colour-calibrated image as an input

I'll look into it further and see I can "add it in"
but the strange thing is.. what even when you push it "a lot" the skin-tones don't change that much, by messing up the yellow band, the skin tends to move towards pinkish/orange ... or maybe it's a coincidence ... who knows...



time to catch some Zs (EU-coast this year)

Photon Mayhem wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
(And the faded Kodachromes I've seen hadn't faded to the colors or contrast shown here; they had different characteristics entirely.)

I don't think you can say they are faded, they are just designed this way.

it's just a guess, but it might have to do with producing pleasing skin-tones.

Are you trying to get the same look as unfaded Kodachrome? If so, you need to actually LOOK at some.

Photon Mayhem wrote:
look at the ones you have, do they have warm saturated yellows?
(are they present on your Kodachromes?)

Yes, the yellows are saturated. The neutrals, on the other hand, do not have a colorcast other than from color temperature.

Photon Mayhem wrote:
here you can see that most yellows are going into orange and some into light pink

Yes, I see that your examples has yellows going to orange, and whites going to yellow; unfaded Kodachrome doesn't, and neither does faded Kodachrome.

Photon Mayhem wrote:
this conversion will just take care of the colour toning,
to get a high contrast look you should tone the lum. separately

You appear to be under the impression that Kodachrome has a marked color cast ("colour toning"); it didn't. The reds went more red, most always maintaining the same hue, but more saturation. The same for oranges and yellows. Blues, greens, and purples tended to have less saturation, but were still slightly more saturated than "real life"--definitely more saturated than most negative films.

I can't explain the coloration of the "professional souvenir 35mm Kodachrome slide", though it might be due to the internegative effect (if it's a souvenir, it's almost certain not an original), or due to some fading. It doesn't look like the pre-1960 K-chromes I've seen, though I, too, kind of like the look. (I often do a controlled sepia overlay to get that kind of skintone myself.)

Paramour Productions wrote:
Have you played with NIK's Color Effects?  The do a pretty good job emulating Kodachrome.  Not perfect, none of them are really, but better than most I've seen (I heard Alien Skin did a decent job as well, but I don't have any direct experience with it), but there are problems with how it renders skin tones.

...and skin tones were something Kodachrome did very well, at least for caucasians. (It tended to exaggerate the yellows for Pacific Islanders and Pacific Rim asians, often making them look somewhat jaundiced.)

Kevin Connery wrote:

...and skin tones were something Kodachrome did very well, at least for caucasians. (It tended to exaggerate the yellows for Pacific Islanders and Pacific Rim asians, often making them look somewhat jaundiced.)

Agreed, I've yet to see anyone really replicate the look of Kodachrome well.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Agreed, I've yet to see anyone really replicate the look of Kodachrome well.

that is something that I noticed here, it's like the media was designed to produce healthy caucasian skin.
(but on the account of the yellows)

Kevin, there was never a colour cast on the whole image. There was a teal-cast in some bands, which usually is used in movie-production but I later removed it.
(so if there's any cast on the grays, it;s minimal)


I haven't used Nik's Kodachrome, but if you have it, do you mind converting a colour-chart to see what it does.



quote kevin: - "Are you trying to get the same look as unfaded Kodachrome? If so, you need to actually LOOK at some. "

I had the K-11 process and the 1950s as a target, and the "unfaded" are a separate thing altogether. I'll look at them and see if I can find information/more examples to see if I can do them next.



do you think this one has "original" colours?

Kodachrome 64 with the Leica M6.
http://www.alapan.com/blog/?p=1627



Leica M6 and expired Kodachrome 64.


Expired Kodachrome 64 at the Pride Parade with the Leica M6.

Paramour Productions wrote:
I'll PM you my email, send me the chart you want me to use and I'll do the conversion for you.

Those definitely Kodachrome.  It's unmistakable.  Look at the colors and contrast, the D-Max!!  (BTW, I assume when we say D-Max you know what we mean, but if you don't, just ask).  I love it to death.

As film gets really old, depending on how it's been stored, it can have all kinds of shifts.  I just gave away a TON of old film to some students at the ICP who love to experiment with the stuff, they're having a blast with it, but part of that charm is that it's unpredictable. 

I would first try to get it to look as it did, then play with the aging and shifts.  You have to nail not only the colors but the blacks.  I recently went to an exhibit of photojournalist Ruth Gruber's work.  What hadn't been shot on B&W was shot on Kodachrome.  It's like B&W that's been colorized almost.  It's that ephemeral in between quality that is hard to capture.

those almost have a teal-cast on the almost neutral asphalt...
and this is why I asked if the colours were correct

so far here's what I got... I'm still doubting the yellows,
but I think the rest looks promising (I did add contrast adjustments too)

Paramour Productions wrote:
Better!

I just sent you back the test chart.  You'll see how abysmally yellow the skin tones are, but the contrast curve, blacks and other colors are fairly accurate.  Even using pale skinned models NIK makes it two yellow.  I'll be interested to see how it is in version 4.

thanks

.. it looks like they have a contrast curve extending midtones , compressing the highlights and the shades

so if there are not much shadows or highlights like the portrait on the test, then there isn't much change in contrast. ... was that what happened on the "film" media?


besides that, they have bummped the saturation almost everywhere and sunk the blues to almost black
which will probably give over saturated skins ...


and the yellows are so... strong
are you sure you got such yellows on the actual film?

because from what I got.. it has to be somewhat weak, and slightly going to green
like this one:


see the "yellow" in the image.. and the yellow "ball" (on her hat) that goes to green...
or is that result from the "expired" film?

Pictus wrote:
Try RPP http://goo.gl/QSrZ3

using RAW as a starting point will have a linear light... so the contrast setting will be consistent...

too bad it's only for Mac
RPP: http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html


I love especially the (Duo = Technicolor 2Strip).
just beautiful




the K64 looks like it's way better than Nik's too...
(but those who have worked the film should tell if it's as good as the real Kodachrome64)

Paramour Productions wrote:
Yes I agree.  I just downloaded it now.

Edit: After reading through the manual and playing with it a bit, I'm pretty impressed with it, not just the K64 conversion but as a raw processor in general.  All raw converters should work this way, but I don't think most people would like it.

I'm thoroughly impressed tbh. Huge thanks to Pictus for the recommendation.

The quality was obvious the moment I opened a Raw file. Says it's using higher precision maths, and the smoothness on these Canon RAWs is immediately noticeable. You can really push the saturation and exposure well beyond where C1 or ACR would turn an image to digital gunk.

Shots almost feel like they're coming off a Hasselblad or Phase One. Film colours are pretty good emulations too.