/p/ - Photography » Thread #3020274

[31 / 11 / ?]

284KiB, 2048x1450, kODACHROME.jpg

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 00:46:53 No.3020274 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3020287 >>3020336 >>3020460 >>3020910 >>3020967

Why is Kodachrome so perfect, bros?

How does it have that "realistic" look while boasting, at the same time, funky and plain wrong colors? How the fuck did they achieve that?

Why is it so 3D?

You all knew that film was something else when the jews at VSCO didnt even attempt to call any of their garbage presets "Kodachrome".

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5FE3D82D-A11C-41D9-BC69-D496B6B8 (...).gif, 258KiB, 750x1260

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 00:59:00 No.3020287 Report

Quoted By: >>3021270

>>3020274
Alchemy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 03:09:48 No.3020336 Report

Quoted By: >>3020341 >>3020364 >>3020387 >>3020462

>>3020274
It has that 'realistic look' despite being so wrong because you weren't alive and actually think shit looks like that back then. The world, as documented in color, from the 40s-70s was largely documented using Kodachrome. It's the only way you've seen the workd from that time in history. It contradicts what you know the world to look like, but at the same time it's the only way you've seen that time since you weren't alive then.

Kodachrome is known for lots of things, accurate colors was never one of them. It was also a pretty mediocre film when compared to some of Kodak's later Ektachrome offerings. I shot a few roll of Kodachrome 25 as well as Kodachrome 64 and was unimpressed. At a time it was the best color film available, but by the 90s there were much better alternatives.

Another thing to keep in mind is tons of images you see from that time period were shot with medium and large format cameras. Part of the reason for that '3d look'.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 03:21:11 No.3020341 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020336
This makes sense

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bg0063_1a34668v_enlarge.jpg, 121KiB, 725x962

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 05:03:50 No.3020364 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020336
This the easiest way to explain it. Kodachrome is remembered for its distinctive look combined with nostalgic boomer waxing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 06:28:29 No.3020387 Report

Quoted By: >>3020462

>>3020336
Also, because of the short dynamic range, Kodachrome was often underexposed to preserve highlights which led to darker shadows and more dramatic looking lightning.

The colors are not accurate, but it often does make skin tones look better.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20160731-DSC00745.jpg, 236KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 11:37:02 No.3020460 Report

Quoted By: >>3020912 >>3020999 >>3021051 >>3021271

>>3020274
>garbage presets "Kodachrome"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20161204-DSC05867.jpg, 283KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 11:48:08 No.3020462 Report

Quoted By: >>3020999 >>3021231

This guy(s) gets it
>>3020387
>>3020336

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20161028-DSC04941.jpg, 348KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Sun 12 Feb 2017 11:56:33 No.3020465 Report

Quoted By: >>3020940 >>3020999 >>3021231

>Why is it so 3D?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 03:39:23 No.3020864 Report

Quoted By: >>3020865

kodachrome had a dye processs that was much different than all the films. this made the colors highly saturated. it wasnt accurate but gave the photos an intense technicholor look. also like mentioned the pictures in the last century were shot with large medium format cameras that have a 8k 4k image. the process is too costly and not profitable anyomore

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 03:44:07 No.3020865 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020864
>8k 4k image

lol wut

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 05:48:54 No.3020910 Report

Quoted By: >>3020984 >>3021000 >>3021227 >>3022829

>>3020274
>it was made for white ppl
>reeeeee
>racist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d16LNHIEJzs

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 05:53:33 No.3020912 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020460
lol what the fuck.
looks ok but not even close

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 06:42:41 No.3020940 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020465
Medium format
E
D
I
U
M

F
O
R
M
A
T

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 08:32:13 No.3020967 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020274
Is there a 3rd party preset that copies Kodachrome in lightroom?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 09:05:56 No.3020984 Report

Quoted By: >>3020985

>>3020910
wow =/
im light skinned but not "white" so should i be mad?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 09:06:27 No.3020985 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020984
ur fine, Pedro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 09:53:42 No.3020999 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020460
Film reds are incredibly difficult to replicate on digital. Especially on Canon where the red is often blown out.

Those reds look too dark and muted. Kodachrome reds were brighter, and more saturated.

>>3020462
>>3020465
These two are impossible on Kodachrome 64.
The first has too much shadow detail.
The second is five full stops out of the film's capability.

>Why is it so 3D?
Lens microcontrast.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 09:55:47 No.3021000 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020910
Kodachrome skintones look nice on brown and red people too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 12:59:22 No.3021051 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020460

I think that looks like a nice picture. However like said before, it doesn't have the poppy red that Kodachrome usually has.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bg0013_1a33894v_enlarge.jpg, 113KiB, 725x503

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 18:32:52 No.3021227 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020910
>Vox
ree

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 18:40:18 No.3021231 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020462
>>3020465
>A7II
Wew.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20170205-IMG_8534.jpg, 265KiB, 2048x1152

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 19:32:35 No.3021264 Report

Quoted By: >>3021274

I admit that MF is part of the effect.
I can't find any interesting photo with crushed shadows in daylight, so have this one.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20170205-IMG_8534-2.jpg, 247KiB, 2048x1152

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 19:38:08 No.3021266 Report

Quoted By:

Here's the sooc picture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 19:43:35 No.3021270 Report

Quoted By: >>3021334

>>3020287
Will it be possible to do this at home some day?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 19:45:22 No.3021271 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020460
Nah

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 19:51:39 No.3021274 Report

Quoted By:

>>3021264
Too much magenta

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 21:18:57 No.3021334 Report

Quoted By:

>>3021270
You could do it at home right now, but it would require your garage to be a darkroom.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 06.jpg, 481KiB, 900x1103

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 21:45:40 No.3021346 Report

Quoted By: >>3021353

4x5 Kodachromes

https://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/4x5-kodachromes/

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1465079879688.jpg, 33KiB, 500x372

Anonymous Mon 13 Feb 2017 21:51:06 No.3021353 Report

Quoted By:

>>3021346

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Feb 2017 00:42:24 No.3022829 Report

Quoted By:

>>3020910
Although it's a clickbait title it's not really wrong. Early color film did not favor dark skin at all.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches