In the late 90's someone (I can't remember if it was Kodak, maybe someone here can) designed a small Kodachrome processor. I don't think it was successful, obviously.
If you are taking your images through the computer anyway you can profile your way into a Kodachrome look if you have the know how. I have been thinking of doing similar things myself since I am able to, but I rarely shoot color so I haven't invested any time into it.
Someone must know what the chemical dyes are. For the yellow I would suspect one of the hexavalent chromium compounds and yes, chrome VI compounds are very toxic and can be absorbed through the skin. Bob G.Originally Posted by Mike1234
^^^ That's what I was told many years ago but I've been searching and can't find a shred of information about that. I was wrong. Happens all the time these days.
All natural images are analog. But the retina converts them to digital on their way to the brain.
Those of us interested in details of the Kodachrome process should try contacting 'Photo Engineer' over at APUG.
I haven't shot much kodakchrome myself, but I would think E100G with a light warming filter might be your best bet in 4X5 to match it. It has a bit more punch in saturated colors than Astia, but the neutrals and skin tones remain excellent.
Thanks for the suggestion. OK I may try that. I've used E100VG and the color palette is far too saturated. K-25 colors were exceptionally bright but not saturated. If I had to describe them in common language I would say they are somewhat pastel. Bob G.
All natural images are analog. But the retina converts them to digital on their way to the brain.
Mark: That wasn't my original intent when starting this thread but I might do that out of curiosity. My profession is Industrial Hygiene in which I deal predominantly with chemical safety. So naturally the chemistry of photographic materials holds my interest. Cheers. Bob G.
All natural images are analog. But the retina converts them to digital on their way to the brain.
In transparency material that's also available in LF sheet films, Astia 100F is closer to Kodachrome than anything else. By that I mean K64, which had a more accurate palette and a longer tonal range into the shadows than any other transparency film I've used. Astia has much better grain structure, slightly less accutance. If you're doing a hybrid workflow, punchier color isn't even an issue, just find a curve/saturation level and degree of sharpening you like and make it part of your workflow.
Ektar 100 in 120 seems very close in color palette to Kodachrome 25. The earlier ISO 25 version was originally intended to replace it. The ISO 100 version has much better lattitude and dynamic range though, and even though more narrow than some print films, it still creams transparency films in lattitude. Very Kodak-y in signature.
Ivan: I've shot a lot of Ektar 100 and Ektar 25 and yes I agree there is a strong similarity to Kodachrome 64. And I still have a lot of both left in my freezer. But Kodachrome 25 was so much different than the 64 and although I never used any of the Kodachrome 200 from the photos I've seen that emulsion was significantly different than the 64 also. I may try Astia again in 4x5 as you are the second to recommend it. I admit trying several rolls of it two years ago but perhaps the light was not ideal for making it show its true colors. Cheers. Bob G.
All natural images are analog. But the retina converts them to digital on their way to the brain.
I use 4X5 Astia as a substitute for Kodachrome 35 mm. There are some similarities in the color but the grain structure is not the same. The great acutance (qualitativly the sharpness of the transition from a grain to an adjacent region, see SPIE p. 958) of Kodachrome really can't be matched simply due to the way the film was produced. I don't know of any substitute from a grain consideration. A moderate power conformal microscope will show the significant grain structure difference between Kodachrome and Fuji Astia films.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Nate: Yes it's the color palette I perceived to be the best aspect of the old K-25 and you are the third to recommend Astia for a current comparative film. So I'm ordering some in 4x5 sheets to try. And of course I had noticed years back that the grain of K-25 was different from any other 35mm film I had used. The few 8x10-inch prints I had made from my slides in those days were exceptionally sharp and relatively grain free. Thanks. Bob G.
All natural images are analog. But the retina converts them to digital on their way to the brain.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks