Thread 4445769

Been digging around online trying to figure out how to get that K64 look (big, punchy, saturated, picrel), but found basically nothing. Everyone either goes for K25 or just completely misses the saturation.

Not trying to do a perfect emulation or anything, I just want those insane saturated skin tones and deep blues, but every time I try, the edit falls apart. Feels like Lr/Ps just can’t push it far enough, like the digital files don’t have the room. Which makes no sense, since I’ve got a gallery full of scanned film that pulls it off.

Anyone here actually manage to get close? Or is it just a lost cause with digital?

Anyway, dumping a few Shorpy rips.

Etc etc.
You get the gist haha.

>>4445769 (OP)
There is a Youtube video from Grainydays about Kodachrome

My 2 cents is that Kodachrome is kind of fetishized but actually there is no je ne sais quoi to it. The "Kodachrome look" is just pulling down greens in saturation, pulling down blues in brightness and pushing up reds in brightness and saturation.

Don't overthink it.

>>4445769 (OP)
You want it to be grainy yellow hued and have bad colors?
why

>>4445790
>There is a Youtube video from Grainydays about Kodachrome
Which one? Youtube search only returns his Aerochrome stuff.
>>4445790
>My 2 cents...
It might be fetishized, but - have you ever seen a digital shot that just jumps at you with this sort of subtle yet in your face saturation? A lot of the shots I’ve posted are large format, often under controlled lighting or with flash, so there's naturally a different sort of contrast compared to what you'd get from 35mm. Still, once you start pushing blues and reds in digital, it falls apart fast. Long before you even get close to that "Kodachrome wall," transitions between sky and foliage, or skin and background, just turn to mush.

>>4445791
Nostalgia? I don't know. I like it.

Doesn't look much different from ektachrome tbqh
Buy some ektachrome

>>4445801
Ektachrome, even with a warming filter, doesn't really have same blues/greens/skin tones. Also I am not going back to film.

>>4445769 (OP)
git gud retard. this isn't difficult.

The easy way is shooting foveon :^)

>>4445810
Show me then. Side by side raw/edited. Your choice of original file.
I spent enough time experimenting to know that I have gotten closer than all the tutorials online, or the fuji recipes, but my edits still look far from the files posted here.

>>4445811
Unironically not a bad idea. But there should be a way to at least get close to the look with a conventional cmos sensor raw file...

First is C1 film standard / C1 defaults, rest are from one of the "kodachrome" preset packs I have
Let you all be the judge

>>4445873
Honestly not the best picture to showcase color grading. Also, there's almost no difference between them...

>>4445875
>Also, there's almost no difference between them...
Only if you have poor vision

>>4445879
You guys are blind af
>>4445875
The more I look at this, the more this honestly reminds me of X-Trans3 colors, everything so orange and green

>>4445873
>>4445886
We're not blind. The differences are so minor that it's barely possible to tell in this form.

>>4445769 (OP)
Small secret, in all likelihood those pix have already been edited analogically

>>4445896
>barely possible to tell
Again, poor vision

>>4445800
>have you ever seen a digital shot that just jumps at you with this sort of subtle yet in your face saturation?

Kodachrome slides are certainly neat but it’s a slide film with like 8 stops of dynamic range, there is zero reason it can’t be replicated digitally. There is nothing it’s doing that is beyond the modern technology. If it can be scanned and displayed digitally, it for sure can be captured and developed entirely digitally too.

Kodachrome is lost. It's impossible to emulate. Every emulation looks off in some way. 25 or 64, doesn't matter. I've looked at tons of kodachrome shots, good and bad, and tons of emulations or tutorials or whatever online and it's at best a vague semblence.

>>4445913
>If it can be scanned and displayed digitally, it for sure can be captured and developed entirely digitally too.
God I wish this were true.

>>4445917
The reason the digital emulations look bad is because most film emulations in the photography world are absolute dogshit. They are just throwing s-curves on Adobe Standard Lightroom profiles and calling it film.

All of the actual color scientists and geniuses are now in the video domain which is why you have things like Filmbox and Dehancer for video which replicate Vision3 to an actually indiscernible. You’d have to get those guys to try and replicate it, not some guy selling Lightroom presets on a squarespace site.

>>4445921
And part of the reason it’s hard is those guys basically shoot 1 trillion test charts to get to that point, but we obviously can’t do that with Kodachrome. But Kodachrome isnt magic, if our cheap devices can display it, it can be captured and edited digitally.

>>4445921
yeah, dehancer has a decent K64 "experimental" lut, with some pre work in Lr and post work in Ps you can get something that is serviceable = not saying it looks anything like ops pictures but at least theres a difference lol

>>4445950
that looks like absolute shite mate

>>4445953
cheers, elaborate

>>4445953
Your not wrong it does look like shit but in that same charming way as kodachrome 64 look.

I would say mission accomplished. It's not exact but it's enough that it reminds me of kodachrome.

>>4445950
That's not that bad. If you got rid of the midtone orange haze, I'd say it's almost there - color wise. The pop is probably a large format thing... How does it look on other pictures?

>>4446221
Don't forget the lens quality is a factor too.

>>4446272
An insignificant one in this case.

>>4446221
you be the judge. heres some random gfx files from dpreview, classic chrome on the left, koda process on the right (with less orange tint)

>>4446342
These all look the same to me

>>4446343
haha youre so funny anon

>>4446342
Keep an eye on this dpreview contributor, I have a feeling we'd recognize his dog

>>4445950
>>4446342
I finally understand why the people here say sony looks like shrek. Because in their minds the yellow washed out blurry look is "reality" so when pictures have accurate colors everyone looks like shrek to their diseased schizo brains.

>>4446363
what the fuck are you talking about you schizo
there is nothing real about kodachrome anymore. sony still looks like shit though

>>4446342
looks more like gold 200 lmao

>>4446374
this film emulation thing is funny, you move one slider and youve got a different film stock on your hands lol

>>4446344
I'm not blind. The differences are so minor that it's barely possible to tell in this form.

>>4446393
>The differences are so minor
>completely different color grading, added noise, blurry as shit on the right
you are legally blind or just plain subtarded

>>4446396
Honestly not the best picture to showcase color grading.

>>4446397
bruh what even is your point
are you triggered that we didnt say your dog is nice or what

>>4446409
My point is the photos look the same

>>4446410
if that really is your point, then you are actually color blind and need to get your fucking eyes checked

>>4445950
Way to much red/orange instead of yellow/gold.

>>4446411
seems like a lot of us here need that

>>4446343
Calibrate your screen, anon.

there is a grainydays video where he emulates infrared aerochrome by shooting pictures with full spectrum digital camera, then displays them with an ipad and shoots it with ektachrome.

you could probably emulate kodachrome pretty close doing the same thing if you tinkered around with developing the digital files.

>>4446442
How would that help though? The issue isn't getting infrared reds on film, the issue is digital files not having enough (apparent) leeway to edit in a way that resembles kodachrome.

>>4446444
im no color scientist, but im guessing that if the "look" of kodachrome can be meaningfully transferred through our 8 bit srgb displays, I dont see how those colors couldnt be replicated with cameras capturing 14 bit colors with 15 stops of dynamic range.

for example, go look at the last roll of kodachrome ever developed by steve mccurry. those pictures are great, but to me there isnt really any color magic happening, they could essentially have been entirely digital to my eyes, probably because he shot pictures that were well within the exposure latitude of the stock, unlike some of these pictures ITT in which really push the latitude to its limits while still being pleasant. Im sure once those pictures were digitized they were also manipulated further, as well as some of the ones in this thread.

color is a constant moving target. from the moment the picture was taken to the time it was displayed, the information captured was transferred through countless processes each with a million different factors especially with analog relying so much on film storage, chemical development temps, etc. i think it also helps that these are just well exposed photos with good lighting. you can search countless online repositories of scanned kodachrome slides online and most of the are worthless blown out snapshits.

>>4445886
>green grass
>blue sky
>brown and white corgi
you retards genuinely argue about the most asinine shit
pick one and take fucking photos

>>4448200
Are you color blind? Bottom left looks good the rest look like someone smeared that dog's feces on the lens.

>>4445886
>>4445873
>2 photos
>35 edits
>not one of them looks even close to kodachrome

>>4448204
why do you expect zoophile dog owners to take good pics be realistic

>>4448200
>you retards genuinely argue about the most asinine shit
trvke.

>>4448204
Never said they looked like Kodachrome, just that they were from some common Kodachrome presets
Sorry for providing an example and trying to contribute to the board
I should just only ever complain and never post photos like you do

>>4448210
Since you can't read, the point of my post is that is funny and joyous to laugh at you for wasting so much time and achieving so little.

>>4448211
How much time do you think I waste making a collage like that?
The point of your post is that you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to the board so all you can do is whine and complain

>>4448206
I fact checked this because it sounds impossible and found out apparently corgis are four-six inches

>>4448212
>here's a collage of 35 of the same photo
>boo hoo your not aloud to make fun of me for posting objectively hilarious autism content
I throw peanuts at niggas like you

>>4448215
Did you forget to attach your own example again?

>>4448219
shit man you're right here's what it would look like

>>4448224
That doesn't look very Kodachrome to me

>>4448226
that's because I used a lightroom preset

>>4448227
You should find a better one then

>>4448224
This was shot on an mfdb i can tell by the tonality. And all i did was look up dog weiner last. Is this the secret of gear? Is this how you activate the primary tonality cortex? Dog dicks? I couldnt see it before but after looking up how big a corgi’s weiner was I can. Now I’m looking at doghairs posts i can spot the sinar every time. Holy shit.

I wonder if this has implications for annie leibovitzes career

>>4448233
What a good and useful contribution to the thread

Maybe one day you'll get a camera and can join with the rest of us in actually taking pictures

>>4448224
you know it's an ancient stock photo when they're using a single bare-diffused light

>>4448234
Ong that one was someone else

>>4448233
No wonder all the gearfags just take pictures of their dog

>>4448214
>Whenever I see a larger than average corgi there is a real chance I have been dickmogged
what the fuck

>>4448284
They max out at 6 inches anon, if you're less than 7 inches you're far below average for a white male

>>4448233
Bro, now that you mention dog dicks, I can see the tonality too. What the fuck?

>>4445950
>>4446342
i have been experimenting with the look for so long i completely lost the plot by now

>>4446447
youve got the same theory i had, but...
lets say you have some foliage and sky behind it, you take a shot with some dof... so now you have a yellow/green/azure/blue transiton - theres no way you can push the greens to one side of the spectrum and the blues towards the kodachrome-like deep blue-purple without completely fucking up the transition.
youre pushing the tones in different "directions" and... well thats above me, i try to mask it with copious amounts of grain but theres things where it just wont work.

>digicucks seething at film
lmaoing @ lives

>>4448364
yeah well its not like i can shoot kodachrome anyway so

>thread filled with analog photos taken in full sunlight
>somehow shadows on people are not harsh
either manipulated or were carefully shot,

>>4448366
Film has a non-linear response because shadow sliders didn't exist and this is related to why people call older cameras like the d200 and 5d "filmic". They also had a less linear response baked into the raws.

>>4448355
These look the same

How about stop living in the past

>>4448371
funny man haha

>>4445913
>>4446444
>>4446447
>If it can be scanned and displayed digitally, it for sure can be captured and developed entirely digitally too.
>digital files not having enough (apparent) leeway to edit in a way that resembles kodachrome
>if the "look" of kodachrome can be meaningfully transferred through our 8 bit srgb displays, I dont see how those colors couldnt be replicated with cameras capturing 14 bit colors with 15 stops of dynamic range
this reasoning doesn't work because the spectral response of the film filter layers, film dyes, and bayer filters are all different
ideally the film filter layers and dyes would be exactly complementary to each other but that's just not chemically possible (with current knowledge)
the mismatch in spectral bands is what gives different color films different characters
digital camera bayer filters don't have to match anything else, but they also use different materials than film filter & dye layers so the spectral curves will be different
on top of this human eyes don't neatly break the visible spectrum into RGB channels, so we may perceive a color where only one or neither format will be able to capture it, or will capture it but in different ways
that all said though with a bit of care and color science you'll probably never notice a difference just by looking at the results (image/signal processing might but we're not talking science/astrophotography here)
for example, the
>>4448355
the problem is you're trying to do this just with sliders, but you really need an actual 3D table LUT which essentially makes each output color a function of all three original channels
you'd typically make it via >>4445924

>>4445924
>Kodachrome isnt magic,
literally it is.

>>4448399
Based colour science anon explaining it to the rest of the plebs

>>4448366
>https://www.shorpy.com/Large_Format_Kodachromes
A lot of them are 4x5s and I guess that those were shot under very controlled circumstances. But even the more casual ones look great.

>>4448399
there was very little slider action in these two >>4448355 they are basically straight out of dehancer. and dehancer uses their own sort of 3d luts, so i should have been all set?

First of all, these samples are not of Kodachrome 64, which is the most modern version of the film.

Second, no scan or simulation can match the look of any generation of it.

>>4448399
Explain spectral bands and spectral curves for the folks at home.

>Second, no scan or simulation can match the look of any generation of it.
i will spend endless night trying anyway.
send me your raw files, i need more shots to experiment on and i am bored of dpreview samples
also anyone wants to join in on the fun?

>>4449028
>>4448500
meant to quote you here.
anyway, heres a 1:1 crop, what do you think about the grain?

>>4445769 (OP)
Remember this as a filter from Nik Color Efex Pro, seems to be in DxO FilmPack now.
https://www.dxo.com/dxo-filmpack/features/

>>4449053
yeah, dxo filmpack doesnt really do it for me.

>>4449028
>>4449031
>>4449037
gonna be honest with you m8, you are not even getting closer to gold 200

It's a wild goose chase; only filmfags would be able to tell the difference, and not a lot of them. Do what pleases you visually and be done with it.

>>4449037
>>4449028
This is not at all what kodachrome looked like

Don't pull the entire image into warm tones. Use any hsl tool where you can treat greens, blues, reds, yellows independent from one another

>>4449088
i am not even trying to get close to superia

>>4449115
yeah, that is the idea, in the end, but the process itself is fun, ive learnt a couple things

>>4449117
hsl tools dont give you enough granularity. the color transitions will fight you every step of the way...

>>4449129
>hsl tools dont give you enough granularity. the color transitions will fight you every step of the way...
what do you mean? Depends on which tool you use. There are tools (e.g. photoshop) that give you an infinity amount of granularity

Also, don't fetishize it. There is no Je ne sais quoi to Kodachrome. Just decrease saturation of greens and bump reds and you're halfway there. Kodachrome isn't that special desu.

>>4449132
There is, literally, scientifically, and provably, a "something indescribable" (using french for a concept that is easily communicated in English should be punishable by death) to Kodachrome.

Mostly because it is actually describable. There, you not only used french for a concept that English already covers (and in fewer words at that), but you were wrong.

Slide film does, in fact, record colors outside of digital color spaces. These are real colors. We can see them. Computers have trouble. You also have to look at real life film and real life darkroom prints to every say you've seen this because it's doubtful your computer screen is physically capable of reproducing them.

To fully understand the K64 look you've got to hold K64 slides in your hand up against a clear sky or LED light table. It is something that can't be digitized. The scanned files, or perhaps the viewing screens, never have the same wow factor. There is a certain lifelike reflectivity that digital can't do.

>>4449141
digital screens max out at under 300ppi and its still made of squares

film crams (depending on film stock, skill, and lens quality) 12-24mp into a 35mm rectangle so yeah, looking at a slide as shot is fine detail at levels screenbrains aren't used to seeing

this is why people who shoot film just to get scans off some ancient digital 10 bit ccd POS and throw the negatives in a box are fucking retarded and people who think ancient CCD POS cameras (aka handheld scanners) are "filmlike" are triple retarded
>CCD scanners and CCD scanners produce similar images WAOW

>>4449139
>>4449141
this, but I wouldn't say that is a special property of kodachrome, you get the same with viewing a painting IRL than viewing it on a screen

>>4449148
It's a special property of physical media

It's also the real reason to prefer high resolution and medium format cameras - greater color range and hiding digital artefacts like pixels and aliasing. Taking a photo of my cat on a HR FF = a photo of my cat. The same on an effective 10mp digishit like a fuji or canon rebel = my cat looks like a cartoon with complex fur structured reduced to fat shiny lines.

>>4449139
1. it's not french, it's an english phrase. Maybe they didn't teach you in school in Bombay, India
2. You're fetishizing it again. Pull the greens and push the reds, it's not that deep bro.
3. the pics you showed look like you moved the entire curve tool. It looks absolutely dogshit

>>4449174
>"Je ne sais quoi" isn't french -you, a dumb fucking thirdie
>"Measurable facts are made up fetishizing" - you, a dumb fucking thirdie
>"Everyone who calls me stupid is the same guy" -you, a dumb fucking thirdie
lmao
note said measurable facts also say you literally can not see the kodachrome advantage on your shitty thinkpad screen and anyone who worships mere SCANS is a retard.

>>4449185
>you literally can not see the kodachrome advantage
Sounds like a Kodachrome disadvantage

>>4449206
Its a huge advantage. it means poor people can go their entire lives without ever seeing what the big deal is. things like this are what sets photography as art apart from your instagram page.

also see: dye transfer prints

>>4449207
Neat, care to share some of the Kodachrome shots you've taken for your art portfolio?

>>4449210
I was born too late. Go ask a rothschild they still have kodachrome and personal processing facilities.

>>4449213
>Yes, I am a giant simp for technology I've never even used
Classic /p/

>>4449174
>american education

>>4449215
I've seen it in person however and it really does capture colors digital cameras literally can not see

>>4449280
It also looks like shit a lot of the time irl too

>>4449298
skill issue

>>4449117
took the warm tones into consideration, spent some more time on it, embraced my inner Ken. what do you think

>>4449726
took a lot of experimentation to get rid of the "spectral" halo mess in color transitions but this works on almost any image i throw at it

>>4449727
more random dpreview photos

>>4449729
even sony files can be saved

Is Kodachrome just the precursor for "orange and teal"

>>4449745
Well, technically, any film is.

>>4445769 (OP)
Don't listen to the copers, anon, K64 is goated and the world lost a bit of wonder when k*dak killed it. What strikes me is that I've never seen a kodachrome shot with totally blown out highlights. Idk if everyone who shot it was just an exposure god or what, but it's like both the shadows and the highlights just gracefully roll off into blacks and whites, only reaching them exactly where they need to. I know what you mean by subtle yet in your face saturation as well. Overall an amazing look, and I unironically think the cultural spirit of our time would be a lot more optimistic and ambitious if we were still capturing our memories on kodachrome.
But pro image, aerocolor and vision 3 are also pretty good for that, and I think if you use a combination of those 3 to just take photos of interesting moments in your life, important events, your kids, etc., you'll be thanking yourself when you're 70.

>>4449729
these all look like shit ngl

>>4449921
cheers, elaborate

>>4449955
the colors are all fucked up

>>4449962
that is the point? also theres noone else contributing edits here so i am shooting blind.

>>4449978
No one here appreciates someone trying to contribute positively to the board
That's why all the good posters leave

>>4449997
well then thank fuck i have nowhere else to go

>>4448503
I have no idea if this will help or just make things more confusing
in picrel, A = human eye sensitivity, B = some madeup film's sensitivity (slide film with RGB dyes to not get into negative inversion etc), C = transmittance of the dyes in that film once it's been developed, D = LEDs in a film scanner
skipping the scanner sensor for this under the assumption it's tuned to the LEDs
I marked out a few points on B, sources of light in an imaginary scene
point 1 is about pure red in human vision, but the film doesn't pick it up very well (see in B), resulting in comparatively little red dye in the developed film, which unfortunately doesn't line up well with the red LED in the scanner either
unfortunately the film's red dye also lines up with the green LED, meaning IRL pure reds look brown at the end of this whole process
point 2 is kind of ideal case, basically pure blue and the film picks it up well and reproduces it well once developed, and the blue LED also aligns well
point 3 is heading into near-infrared, but the film is pretty sensitive there (who the fuck designed this), even though its red dye well overlaps both red and green in human vision; end result in NIR light leaves a strong red cast, which the scanner picks up well
but again due to the red dye getting picked up by the green LED, the result is green-brown
all of the above is 100% made up and unrealistic to illustrate worst possible case
like I said most of the time you're really not going to notice
(just ignore the little hump in human red sensitivity at the blue end of the spectrum that contributes to how we see purples)
>>4449139
digital color spaces can represent whatever you want, they're just a relative mapping to other color spaces
you could edit your photos in the "Ektachrome color space" from your pic if you wanted, and if your software and chosen display device supported it

>>4450004
Same, lots of other places to actually read and learn and view images
Nothing beats here for the shitpositng
I still try to contribute too, it's an honest cause

Quick attempt (color only, no grain), not quite there but closer to K64 than the original I'd guess. Just played with HSL and calibration in LR. There's some issues with color bleed at parts but again it was just a quick lazy attempt at it.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/2340689509/pentax-k-1-ii-sample-gallery/5759668707

>>4450067
On second thought the yellows are still too green and the greens too saturated, scrap this

>>4450067
>>4450074
>I don't take photos so I have to use DPReview samples
lol

>>4450075
Why would I provide you with my RAWs and metadata? Let's use what's available to all.

>>4450007
A possible solution is striving to get a "neutral" image, then splitting it in channels corresponding to each K64 channel sensitivity and then rebuilding it based on how they'd show up developed. But it'd have to be done on a scene-by-scene basis because there's differences in how sensors react to different illuminants that can't be fully accounted with just white balance. OPF sensors seem promising in this regard.

>>4450082
>OPF sensors
neat, never heard of those
though what that tech does is almost eliminate channel crosstalk (ironically a big part of the "film look")
that just means it more accurately/idealistically captures the filtered light intensity at each site, so it still relies on the same filters the current silicon sensors do
ideally you want to capture the light with as much spectral resolution as possible, but we've kind of settled on RGB for over a hundred years, just different size/placement/shape of those "bins" over the visible spectrum

>>4450103
>though what that tech does is almost eliminate channel crosstalk (ironically a big part of the "film look")
It seems to eliminate the "wrong" part of crosstalk, the part that's basically noise.

>>4450105
yeah I guess that's a way to put it
it basically eliminates light & charge bleed between pixels, but doesn't do anything about transmittance overlap in the materials used for the filter (the stuff you can see on these types of graphs >>4450007)

Gonna upgrade my C1 today, I'll see how well the "match look" gets
Didn't realize you can use multiple images together as a reference for the matching

>>4445803
There’s your problem.
You want to end up with the results of having used film, but don’t want to do the work of just using film. Instead you’ll do 10x the work and spend 100x as much time to try to make your digishits look like they came from film. Your goal is inherently dishonest, and your results will be dishonest images.

Ridley Scott spent a million fucking dollars hiring engineers and physicists for a year to duplicate the look of Kodachrome, and what they found is that like going to the moon, it would be easier to just buy Kodak and restart the Kodachrome process and make film, than it would be to try to duplicate all the fucking nuances that make Kodachrome look like it does. The complexity of how different wavelengths of light enter, bounce around in, and excite different parts of the chemistry is not possible to fully replicate without a fucking astronomically expensive undertaking.

Just take your digishit, dump your yellows, oversaturate your blues & greens, apply a blur to approximate whatever shitty lens you would have used back then, put way too much crappy grain effect on it, and make all your pictures with 2025 cars, clothes and tattooed plebs look like every teenage girls fakeass instatrash, like you’re some sadfuck bastard who wishes you were in another era bc you can’t get along in this one, but has no clue how to go about it, even though fucking loads of film cameras are dirt cheap and perfectly fine film is plentiful and higher quality than it’s ever been.

>>4451093
There will come a day someday soon, when film is finally gone and nobody is in a position to develop it. It's probably not a stretch to say it'll happen within our life times.
What will people do when they want that older look when the film is all gone, the stores no longer dev it, and your rodinal is empty?

>>4451097
Well then you sadfuck losers are just going to have to shoot crystal clear flat boring images with the overpriced digital cameras you decided to buy and accept the consequences of your actions, instead of buying that shit and then coming on here and bitching about how your fucking images don’t even look as good as a fuckin 1960s point & shoot.

Nigga this is a you problem, not a me problem.

>>4451103
Chill the fuck out you spastic, I was looking to stoke some sort of thought for a problem that is inevitable

>>4451103
problem broseph

film looks like shit. it's just worse than digital. throw a preset and fake grain on and now digital looks like film. there you go. maybe 13 hipsters will actually like your photo but no one else will.

>>4450067
>>4450074
i quite like the tone of the wooden thing in the foreground you got. the rest is meh.

>>4450067
>CINEFAG POSTED PHOTO?
>nope stolen from dpreview
jfc

>>4450080
nobody asked for either. You don't take photos

>>4451045
Used the sample from >>4450067
1st is C1 defaults
2-7 are from using match look from the shorpy samples posted itt
8th is match look from the 6 samples referenced together
None quite hit, but definitely something I'll be exploring in the future, nice to have this capability with 1 click

Unrelated, but the new face retouching is insane, love it

>>4451218
Hold up, something funky's going on with PS contact sheets and the color
Picrel should be C1 default and that doesn't look like #1 to me at all

>>4451218
i mean this is cool and all i guess but which one is the REAL colour? as in what my eyes would see.

>>4451221
Here we go. For whatever reason PS was opening these JPG's through Camera RAW and applying some more adjustments.
>>4451222
Hard to say, every camera and lens will capture a little different. Everyone's eyes are a little different. Top left >>4451221 would be opening the RAW in C1 with C1 defaults and no adjustments. It would also look different opened in a different RAW program too though.

>>4451218
Yeah, these are way overcooked lol

>>4451139
Funny, that greenish tone is why I condemned my own edit in a following post

>>4451218
Number 5 is the closest match imo. It's a great image for this kind of thing because save for skin tones, it has the whole palette that Kodachrome enhances the most.

>>4451228
It was better with PS adjustments, 5 was close.

>>4445769 (OP)
Here, cunts.

>>4451307
Really? I think the first set looks terrible
#8 on >>4451228 looks kino

another, I think these look much better
left c1 film standard and defaults
right match looked from >>4445771 plus >>4445776
then some added contrast

>>4451325
Time to download C1 then.
#1 is just a bad example, but #2 and #3 have a certain Portra vibe. Not really kodachrome, but still very solid for what I imagine is essentially a one-click solution.

>>4451340
Yeah, going forward I'm gonna have to have albums of references

>>4451318
It may look kino to you, but it's not Kodachrome.
>>4451325
3 and 4 are nice, 1 I don't like and 2 turned the wood too magenta. Good looking but nothing like Kodachrome.
#3 was the closest and is still not there, greens should be more muted and again browns shouldn't be magenta. The reds on #4 are a nice approximation.

I swear half the elusive Kodachrome look is due to people not realizing the photos they're gushing over have artificial light being used. Y'all ain't ever gunna mimic the look of a multi-light photo by sliding sliders around.

These all used strobes/continuous lighting.
>>4445771
>>4445772
>>4445774
>>4445800
>>4445815

>>4451377
yeah, were not blind

>>4451379
seems like most people are everytime this is brought up

>>4451377
>Kodachrome was only ever shot with artificial lighting
>No one ever took shots on Kodachrome with natural lighting and you will never see examples of this ever

>>4451325
I have no idea what I have done. Definitely not Kodachrome, but it is something(?)

>>4451586
Congrats, you reached Aerocolor
>>4451430
I mean yeah, but every example ITT was taken with some artificial light, plus being at least medium format

>>4451626
Yeah, I need to stop, this is not going the way I wanted it to go.

>https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7595010911/leica-q3-43-sample-gallery/9356983318

>>4451430
Jeez you're (you) retarded

>>4445769 (OP)
>The images you see here have been adjusted by the Webmaster for color and contrast.

Do you have one not adjusted?

>>4445812
I think I might settle here, I didn't try doing film grains yet, let me know what you think

>>4452784
>>4452785
>>4453162
Kodachrome has rich blues. You may like your result but it's far from Kodachrome.

>>4452784
this is gold 200
>>4452785
this is nothing. Maybe ektar pushed 3 stops + chocolate filter if we're being generous
>>4453162
Ultramax

Sorry. None of them is Kodachrome.

I don't understand why this thread still exists. Kodachrome isn't complicated to imitate. Skill issue losers.

>>4453269
>Kodachrome isn't complicated to imitate
surely you will have no problem posting an unedited raw and your easy to attain post-result then, right? it's not complicated after all.

>>4453269
>I don't understand why this thread still exists. Kodachrome isn't complicated to imitate. Skill issue losers.
You should share your examples then and bring the thread to an end

>>4453273>>4453271
literally just pull saturation of greens and push saturation of reds. That's it. You're overthinking it because you have an autistic hyperfixation

>>4453275
Should be easy to share some examples then, did you forget to attach yours?

>>4453275
Try it on this one https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/2340689509/pentax-k-1-ii-sample-gallery/5759668707

>>4453275
sure, i'm willing to trust you and give you the benefit of the doubt, so let's see your example. surely, if its truly as easy as you say, it should be no problem at all to show us someting. doesn't have to be a nice picture or anything.

>>4453277
Your first mistake is the split toning. Kodachrome has no color shifts at all in highlights or shadow. Every time you even touch the curve tool, you're doing it wrong. Most of the pics in this thread shift so extremely purple or yellow, there is no other conclusion than you being retarded.

Also stop answering twice. We all know there is no second person on this board interested in this topic. It's only your autistic hyperfixation.

Or just give up. Use the VSCO Kodachrome filter. They spend more money on actual Kodachrome film to research it than your yearly wage at Wendys. And surprise surprise - the editing is super light. Because Kodachrome was an incredibly natural and boring looking film.

>>4453280
I already gave him a typical scene where Kodachrome would shine the most (sunlight, blue sky, red objects), let's see what he does. I got closer to Kodachrome than in the original with a few simple adjustments but still far from it.

>>4453281
>VSCO Kodachrome
It sucks, Fuji tier https://vsco.co/vsco/journal/introducing-kc25

>>4453281
Did you forget to attach your examples again?
Really that hard to believe there's two people asking for an example?

>>4445791
take your worthless m43 digital sharpened rocks and leaves garbage pics and gtfo boomer

>>4448210
>>4448212
you speak like a woman

>>4454284
sick burn

>>4445769 (OP)
Make an AI that looks at tons of ektachrome pictures and makes a preset for it. I don't see why this would not be possible.

>>4454320
Thats what the match look does like here >>4451325

>>4454320
This is called dehancer and it has been around for years.

>>4454333
Is it based? I've heard that word thrown around, but never knew exactly what it was.

>>4453265
>>4453269
Here's another, can you get what you want from here with brightness, levels, and wb?

>>4445769 (OP)
>Been digging around online trying to figure out how to get that K64 look
YOU CANNOT GET IT.
It will never happen again.
>but I can buy film rolls
To photograph a monochrome world? You guys are delusional!

>>4454400
post the raw

>>4454404
Here's a smaller tiff
pasteboard dot co/t93P1hw78SGw.tiff

I'm guessing shorpy guy doing something like this?

My latest attempts

>>4454415
check the histogram on (most of) the shorpy files. theres no crushing and temp/tonal shifts happening

>>4454415
doesnt work

>>4454417
>>4454424
no idea what you were trying with these honestly

>>4454428
I read the slides were projected with 5000K, so my method turned out looking like that. If you want whiter white after you scan it or whatever, you'd have to white balance the scan.

>>4454451
It was just a random snapshot from 2014, it wasn't perfectly exposed or really well thought out at the time. What it is though is a sunny California day, so, if you process it like you would a slide scan, I think it turns out similarly to what is seen here >>4445775

Here, I did what I think the slider step is already.

My method might be losing very dim areas, if that's what you are calling crushing, so I'd have to look into dim grains a little more for that.

>>4454549
This looks pretty decent

>>4454549
Its something, def not kodachrome though.
Also why is the grain so green lol, even the fake dust...

Anyway, its a small jpeg crop so ignore the shitty grain.

>>4454561
Try noise reduction on it, idk what to tell you.

I based my method mostly on these curves from the Kodak datasheet and other Kodak papers, along with some other publicly available stuff. Without seeing some slides myself, I have none, unedited scans, or knowing Kodak trade secrets, there's not too much more that I could improve.

I've spent like a week on this, not all day, every day, so, let me know how much $$$$ it's worth to you.

>>4454572
i dont feel my grain is a problem, i dont understand yours though. thats what the green comment was about.

>>4454415
It's not a mere WB shift, you need to be able to decouple your color adjustments. Punchy reds, muted greens, solid blues yet not nearly as punchy as the reds.

>>4454601
Those things happened before the sliders

>>4454549
This looks nothing at all like the kodachrome images posted itt
>>4454561
This is quite a bit closer, though not quite right still.
It seems to me that the main characteristic of kodachrome is that it nudges skin tones closer together and toward orange/"tanned" while still keeping the subtle gradations. I'm not sure how it accomplishes that but I assume the other characteristics derive from the special attention to skin tones.

>>4454612
I disagree, I think it's similar to this >>4446221

Here's another

>>4454614
Here's one with some light skins, but it's indoors. If you find an outdoor one good for testing, pls post

Here's one more, I think she turned out similarly to this >>4445772, as opposed to the swimming pool girls

I'm curious where people are getting their references for Kodachrome. Something like >>4450067 doesn't come close to me at all.
>>4454561 Seems too green-blue, but contrast isn't bad, and the others are way too heavy-handed on lifting the blacks

Picrel are some example k25 + k64 scans from a few different sources. Obvious differences in color cast, but you can still see some commonality.These samples are much more in-line with the kind of hues and contrast I'd expect from the kodachrome slides I've seen irl.

>>4454614
wtf is this slop and how could anyone possibly draw any conclusions from it?
>>4454618
yeah you did alright on the lighter parts of skin but the shadows are all weird and green. I don't think editing jpeg stock images (which are already heavily processed for specific looks) is any good for this sort of experimenting as you'll be getting the combination of whatever editing was done already with your own.
>>4454630
>way too heavy-handed on lifting the blacks
That's the instagram "film look" that zoomers who never used film like so much.

>>4454630
Yeah, its a semantic issue. Everyones talking about different Kodachrome.
I am trying to get closer the 1940/50s ones, the ones op posted, even though they might be edited...

>>4454618
This one is on the right path, tone wise. The grain and the crushing doesnt really work for me though.

Anyway-
>https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3690824164/fujifilm-x-e5-production-sample-gallery/5538313260
>https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3690824164/fujifilm-x-e5-production-sample-gallery/1460141150

>>4454723
>https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1220132460/fujifilm-x100vi-review-sample-gallery/7471182982
>https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7800416640/fujifilm-x-t50-preview-sample-gallery/5204194439
>https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0825233037/sony-a1-ii-sample-gallery/0942237194
I dont even know anymore

>>4454727
I totally fucked up the last set.

>>4454666
>kc_style_grain.jpg
You're getting too excited about grain to the detriment of the colors, which is what people actually like kodachrome for. The best examples like >>4445776 have no visible grain whatsoever since they're large format.

Even less?

Since theres no going back (well, forward, at least for me and my skillset), here are some Kodachrome-inspired LUTs cooked up from the "process" I used for some of the images in this thread. Theyre in .cube format, you should know what to do with them - best used on a raw file at 5600K - I think. Theyre not one-click magic and have their load of issues, but as a base... maybe yall can nudge me in the right direction. Instapresetgraphers would charge big bucks for these, I am sure.
>https://files.catbox.moe/e3zlmr.zip

>>4454823
>maybe yall can nudge me in the right direction.
You’ve already did more than 90% of all board readers ever will.

>>4454752
Why this boat thing becomes like top left instead of bottom right?

>>4454969
different kodachrome
different goals

>>4454894
i have no idea what you are trying to achieve anymore.

i found this facebook page recently, theyve got loads of 35mm slides from all sorts of eras there. some look very different to whats in this thread. some look like some of the edits here. you be the judges,
>facebook dot com slash Vintagekodachromeslides (fuck the antispam filter)

>>4455010
not too bad, but look at all the clipping

>>4454986
found another one
>https://www.theslidesproject.com/galleries
wants an email to register but theres some great looking ones.

>>4455138
I didn't want her to be not orange enough for you

>>4455744
>( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

>>4455761
Not bad, I like the skin tones, post raw.

>>4455769
https://www.etsy.com/listing/4346028723/kodachrome-k64-style-film-emulation

>>4456252
really nigga

>>4456252
it's the files from >>4454823, is it not?

>>4445769 (OP)
I asked ai to make a shorpy style Kodachrome portrait, to my normie eyes it’s good enough, it’s all joever lads.

>>4456544
Similar to homochrome, but clearly, the sky is not reddened

>>4456252

Just another inaccurate simulation.

tl;dr on this thread?

If one thing is for certain, its that none of you know what Kodachrome actually looks like.

>>4457309
Can you show us some examples?
Do none of the Kodachrome pictures in the thread look like Kodachrome?

>>4457307
op asks about "K25" and "K64" while uploading pictures of a totally different kodachrome process
anons fight over purple skies and desaturated yellows
Sirish uploads someones LUTs to etsy and asks for $8

>>4457323
Thanks

>>4457312

This can only be achieved by viewing the slide directly with a high quality loupe on a lighttable.

>>4457337
Another one who missed the point entirely.
I have never seen a 1960s Kodachrome slide irl, and I most likely never will. I dont care about those.
I like the ways the digital scans posted here look, and thats the look I wish to achieve.

>>4457337
So no, you cannot show anyone here any examples of Kodachrome, and in fact no one can ever see an example online?

>>4457351
in a metaphorical sense, no, not really. what your eyes see directly from the film and what your eyes see off of a digital representation are not the same thing. sure most normal people might just say "it looks close enough and that's good" and that's fine, but you never really "see" something until you've seen it physically.

LMAO-ing @ Sonyggers

>>4457323
>>4457306

Christians lie all the time

>>4457353
So the Kodachrome is just in our heads all along

>>4457430
Like the rest of the world, please refer to the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

>>4457351

The answer is NO.

>>4457428
what

>>4457492
Literally projecting.

>>4457526
He fundamentally misunderstands Christian philosophy. In his view, Christians lie as often as they open their mouths, but what is really happening is that Christian’s always tell the truth, because as long as a Christian believes what they’re saying, they’re being true to their heart, and speaking *their* truth, their personal truth, and no one can judge that but themselves and Jesus. OP doesn’t understand this because he is not a Christian, he is a filthy materialist who believes in universal truth, with all its difficult nuance and provability, what a headache. To him, the Christian is simply telling themselves whatever they have to to justify yet another in a whole ideology of non-factual, unrealistic, intellectual dishonesty indistinguishable from delusions and wishful thinking. Since he is not in the Christian’s head, but is his own being well outside it, he concludes that if the only place your truth is true is in your own head, then to everyone else everywhere else, it is not the truth, it is a lie. Hope this helps.

>>4457759
new age bullshit like this is why there are pedo priests and churches full of fags

jesus really should have been more clear with the rationalism and been extra clear that he wasn’t revoking leviticus, only stoning as punishment. last time i spoke to him he shrugged and said bullets counted as stones but cutting a rope to send someone falling into an active volcano was fair game.

last post before i abandon this thread/idea
i have gone completely schizo after i stumbled upon a guy on flickr whos shooting these expired slide films and gets these absolutely crazy saturated grainy shots
inspired me a bit with the whole kodachrome saturation thing, anyway - this is based on one of the homochrome luts posted earlier, its definitely a bit too much, but i see a resemblance to some of the koda slides op posted

What do you think about this?

>>4460983
you have literally just desaturated the original photo

>>4461021
Wrong. Surely you can just increase the saturation and get the original photo again?

>>4461023
yeah, thats why i said it

>>4461025
Are you... trying to cover up any differences?

>>4461026
Anyways, if I do what you say, it does turn out pretty similar, with the biggest differences being that the catcher's glove color is different and, you know, bonds's uniform gets a color too

I don't know what camera was used or anything, just a search engine baseball picture for me, it seems digital but I have no idea, maybe you can give more info on that

>>4461026
what are you talking about, theres no "new" color info covered up

>>4461028
>https://brad.photoshelter.com/image/I00009g2EyHh9sUs
no idea

>>4461030
It says this is the photographer in 2001, canon eos 1d?

>>4461029
If it's already film, I don't know what to tell you, if it's digital, then boosting the saturation again looks like a new digital

>>4461036
>https://www.instagram.com/p/DLio12lhVFR/
pushed provia - looks very similiar to the barry bonds photo. so modern, almost digital, a neverending cycle...

>>4445812
You won't get that look from digital you retard, because you won't get same dynamics curves for channels. Digital loses details in bright areas in a different way than film. And additionaly each film color layer reacts with different curve.

>>4461061
underexpose when shooting, correct in post, then use luminance curves to fake the bright "film sheen". youre a retard for not trying hard enough.
but yeah, shit breaks down fast once you start to think about color layers.

>>4461068
etc.

>>4461070
oh my god that looks like shit. lmfao

>>4461070
>https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1330372094/fujifilm-x-a3-samples/6402170375
>>4461071
care to elaborate? your comment is not really helping much

>>4461061
None of that means you can't get the loom with digital

>>4461061
>you can't do that with digital!
>this does not exist

>>4461068
>>4461070
complete trash

>>4461072
no!

>>4445921
Dehancer is available for still images as well, and I imagine it will use the exact same processing it uses for video.
Does that really produce perfectly accurate-to-film results? (I'm downloading the trial right now)

>>4448399
>the spectral response of the film filter layers, film dyes, and bayer filters are all different
With digital images you can manipulate all of that in post, and the exposure latitude of modern digital sensors is so wide that they can encode everything that film would capture and more, it's rather an issue of finding out what to manipulate and how to manipulate it to match a specific film stock.
This is only about color though, and the film look also comes from other features such as halation and grain.
>>4449139
>slide film records colors outside of digital color spaces
Might want to read a book or at least understand what a color space is and what the graph you posted represents, or you'll look like a clueless idiot again.
>>4449144
>digital screens max out at 300ppi
My 5 year old phone display has a density of 443ppi

>>4449727
This looks over the top but also good all things considered.
The other ones just look over the top, way too much contrast and red.
I'd move the black point higher (to make the blacks become greyer) and the white point lower, and then lower contrast for starters.

>>4451093
>that's your problem, you want to change the look of your digital images to something you like better
>you are, thus, dishonest
Huh.
>>4451228
Does any of these look like Kodachrome to you?

>>4461119
2B and 4B look the closest to the Kodachrome slides I have and most scans I've looked at
2B having the purple hue, 4B being neutral
The is a more saturated Kodachrome look, that others don't really hit, but maybe 1B or 4A would get there if made a bit less warm

>>4461071
>>4461081
seeing it now on a proper screen, the >>4461070
is really too cooked lol, welp.

>>4461070
Like this? You could increase the color saturation to whatever level you wanted

>>4461210
That's much better

>>4461210
yeah, thats definitely better than the one i posted. serves me right for editing on a shitty laptop screen

>>4461210
i took >>4445775 as an inspiration for >>4461070, something about the uniformly oversaturated skin tones looked just right on the shitty screen, but yeah, i cant get it looking right on a good screen, its either too much or its just looking "normal".

>>4461219
You can even increase the exposure to where you like!

I didn't even try to use a selective color adjustment and color matching method, as it's been said, so many variables like location, season, filters, but I can try to see if I got a good match after

>>4461225
i think i can see a tiny portion of the sky clipping there, but that could just be me

>>4449834
I was wondering why it feels like it belongs to a specific time period. A strange feeling that image can give.

>>4463702
spent some time going through some high res slide scans, to get the texture/detail loss right.

>>4463713
lumix lx3

>>4463713
>detail loss
this isn't correct though, film has infinitely more detail than digital

>>4463997
yes if you scan with a 2025 mfdb not if you scan with ewaste garbage like hasselblad flextights

>>4463997
>>4464000
if film has infinitely more detail then digital, how can we tell using digital scanning?

>>4464022
film does in a single shot what takes digital 4 shots to accomplish

>>4464034
until you actually need to do anything with the film, then its nothing but extra steps

>>4464034
so, you're saying film has a three stop advantage over digital?
is that why film speeds max out at like 3200?

>>4451314
>There is no yellow at all
Then what the fuck is this?
>>4445769 (OP)

I made this edit from ir raw, cap1.; always thought it had the look.

>>4464043
>digislugs can only think about their noise based dr measurements

>>4463997
yeah man get an electron microscope and show me the individual halides
>>4464074
i guess theres no yellow there, its all orange
>>4464131
???

>>4463997
this is a 4x5 scan, theres not that much detail
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Douglas_Aircraft_Company_photographs_by_Alfred_T._Palmer
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:North_American_Aviation_photographs_by_Alfred_T._Palmer
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fort_Knox_photographs_by_Alfred_T._Palmer

>>4464266
Not everyone shoots with perfect lenses and most scans are not done on a gfx100

>>4464266
There's not even much detail on the film's borders, the scanner/camera was either soft or missed focus.
>>4464268
I wouldn't use a fujislug camera for max detail, just saying.

>>4464272
tell that to the guys at library of congress lol

>>4464273
Well the truth is someone fucked up bad at some stage)
Properly handled 4x5 can hold hundreds of megapixels. This part suggests there was some kind of unintended movement)

>>4464266
Here is a crop from an 8x10 negative I took.
The crop is around 1/3rd the size of a 35mm negative. Theres roughly 180x more film area on the entire image. Scanned on a shitty epson flatbed. I think I took it at f22 or f32. Foma100 and pyrocat MC.

Big film is crazy.

>>4464277
>suggests there was some kind of unintended movement
or, you know, just glare from the scanner light source which isn't uniformly collimated?
probably because it was scanned on a flatbed, you can also see the internal reflection flares around the code notches

>>4464316
Sounds like you're closer to the truth. In any case the scan is subpar.

>>4445769 (OP)
>>4445775
>>4445776
>>4445800
>that dynamic range
when will digiSHIT catch up?

>>4464335
sorry didn't mean to come off so rude >>4464316

bump limit eh? well lets send it off then. i am quite satisfied with whatver this is

>>4464306
this is cool, but most of the 35mm slide scans i saw max around 24mpx with the detail/grain similiar to what i posted before in >>4463713

>>4465493
or this