Hey Gang,
I spent lunchtime playing around in Lightroom again, thought I'd share this shot that I was working on. It was taken nearly 5 years ago on the BNSF Aurora Sub in IL.
Flickr Link
One of the things I was most excited about in Lightroom was the ability to download presets to give certain looks. Probably the "look" I most wanted to duplicate was that of Kodachrome (may it rest in peace). Unfortunately, all of the free pre-sets I found don't duplicate what I remember Kodachrome (specifically K-64 since that's what I shot the most of) looking like.
However, at the end of the Kodachrome run, I was shooting digital alongside my final Kodachrome exposures, so I had a base to compare results. Based on those results, I've been working on my own Kodachrome emulation pre-sets.
The results have been mixed. I can apply the preset to certain pictures and my jaw will hit the floor because I'd swear there was a Kodachrome slide in front of me.
And then there are times when I apply the preset and I run away scared because what shows up in front of me doesn't even remotely look like the worst films ever, let alone Kodachrome.
I've thought about picking up AlienSkin Exposure and trying it out for free for 30 days. Unfortunately, I'm scared that I'd really like it and end up wanting to buy it (and it ain't cheap). For now, I'll keep trying to dial in my own presets. When it works, it's not too bad, and free!
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
Chris:
You keep tinkering, and posting the results here.
Pretty Cool Stuff. always enjoyable!
Too Kodachome-ish (everything is too pink-red). Of course, I never liked the warm colors of Kodachrome; Provia 100 and Velvia 50 were my favorite slide films.
However, I do like the zoom squash.
Chris:I gotta say you are one talented photographer and always look at your photos...but I have no idea what you just wrote. It is way over my head.
Can you kinda explain what you mean by "Kodachromish"? Now, I have some slides from back in the 70s that have a great "warm" color. I have always attributed that to the softness of the light...perhaps early or late in the day. But, I have noticed some of my shots (unfortunately one entire box of slides of NKP765 circa 1980 have a blueish tint). What in the world caused that? BTW, that is really a great shot. I agree with zardoz about the effect of the squashed image. What was the telephoto used on this? You did a great job of taking very unforgiving conditions and making the photo very interesting.
Ed
Ed,
Every film has a color palette -- a way that it responds to the colors of the world. Hue, luminance and saturation vary from film to film. A film like Velvia (with uber-saturated colors and a slight shift towards red in yellows) works great for landscapes, but isn't the most flattering for portrait photography. A film like Kodak Portra which was made for accurate skin tones will do much better for portraiture but will probably disappoint as a general use landscape film.
Even Kodachrome's different emulsions varied from one another. K-25 was slightly cooler than K-64 was, for example. On the whole, though, Kodachrome featured punchy colors, especially reds and yellows. Another feature was that Kodachrome had warmer shadows than other slide films, which tend to go very blue in shadows. It's all a look that I very much loved and wish I had shot more of. I was easily swayed to Provia in the 90s and early 2000s. Now that I have a more clearly defined set of preferences I greatly prefer the K-25 and K-64 palette over Provia, even if the latter is more accurate and just as punchy. I won't even start on my opinion of Velveeta...I mean Velvia...sorry Jim
On top of all of this, individual rolls can have color casts based on how they were processed. Do you remember who processed your NKP 765 shots? I know I've heard of a lab (possibly in NJ?) that got a notorious reputation in the 80s and especially in the 90s for poor K-14 processing. I can't remember the name, though.
In theory, making my digital shots look like Kodachrome should just be a matter of dialing in a set of hue/saturation/luminance parameters and editing the contrast a bit (which I may have pushed too far here...slide film is contrasty, but probably not this contrasty). The practice of it...well...like I said, it's still a work in progress.
Well, I like the picture, anyhow. You are free of course to try shooting all kinds of ways. Take a good look. You never thought you'd be seeing widecab diesels in Kodakcrome, eh?
I swapped out the photo with one that has the proper 2:3 ratio, and eased up on the contrast a little bit.
Interesting exposition and discussion - thanks for sharing the photo and the technology.
MP173/ Ed - Is that box of slides (of NKP 765 circa 1980 ) with the "blueish tint" Kodachrome - or Ektachrome ? As best as I can recall, I used Ektachrome - which tended to have a bluish tint - because it had an ASA rating of 160 (and some was rated 400), whereas the Kodachrome was only 25 or 64. To stop motion and/ or get details of dark/ black locomotives in shadows, I usually opted for the faster speeds of the Ektachrome.
This blog - about 2/3 of the way down - also indicates that Ektachrome 64 was introduced in 1977, and also produced a bluish tint: http://www.grahamharrison.com/blog/09/2011/ektachrome-days-2/ See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ektachrome
I just know some younger folks are going to wonder what the heck it is that we're writing about here . . .
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.