How do I emulate the LF Kodachrome look?

Well its obvious that I was born a century too late. I found this http://www.shorpy.com/taxonomy/term/17?page=8
and I'm frankly enamoured by the color palette and the "muted richness" that the photographer got on his Kodachrome transparencies. How would I emulate this look using current materials? I'm thinking medium or large format with a polarizing filter is a start.
Thanks!

Well, you can still shoot 'chromes. I shoot fuji velvia, provia, 64T, and astia in medium format, and velvia and 64T in larger formats. No big deal. There are plenty of slide films available in many formats on the fuji side, I don't know about the availability of the kodak stuff.

Do you want to delve into medium format or large format? Or have you considered simply shooting slide film in 35mm size first to get an idea? Perhaps you've done that already?

By the way, at a glance, the work in the link looks doable by a good print film as well, e.g. fuji pro s. You can slightly over- or under- expose to control saturation quite well, it's flexible stuff as are most good print films. There are plenty of other print film options as well. Quite a few people migrated from slides to print film for reasons of scannability and exposure latitude, but the traditional slide route is still alive, kicking, and taking prisoners!

athanasius80 said:

Well its obvious that I was born a century too late. I found this http://www.shorpy.com/taxonomy/term/17?page=8
and I'm frankly enamoured by the color palette and the "muted richness" that the photographer got on his Kodachrome transparencies. How would I emulate this look using current materials? I'm thinking medium or large format with a polarizing filter is a start.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

It ain't just the Kodachromes (I have some quarter-plates shot by my late father in law). It's also the scanning -- or rather, separation negative making. I hate to plug digi but you can fake almost anything in Photoshop, especially with the 'Selective Color' control plus 'Color/Saturation' and 'Brightness/Contrast'. Try starting out with Maco Scanfilm, though it's grainier and probably less sharp than original Kodachrome. Otherwise start out with MF Portra.

I feel the same way about Autochromes -- the same controls plus 'Add Noise'.

Cheers,

Roger

Thanks for the advice so far. I've shot 35mm E-6 before. Its fun, but in this case I'm trying to deliberately mimic the look and feel of 1940s materials. I was born a century too late. While P-shop is wonderfully addicting, if anyone had a trick with using a modern color film, I'd love to hear it.

Keep the info comin!

Roger Hicks said:

I hate to plug digi but you can fake almost anything in Photoshop,

Click to expand...

Or maybe you can almost fake anything in Photoshop, but never get it quite there.

Remember those plugins for Tri-X and such? I suppose they must still be available. It seems easy enough--put in the spectral sensitivity curve and the characteristic curve, and you should be able to imitate various conventional film looks starting from a digital color original, but analogue materials are complex and react in different ways under different conditions, and the imitation never looks quite like the real thing.

Fake the LF Kodachrome look from the 1940s? Well I'm sure you could get into the ballpark, or you could get something along the lines of a Technicolor look if you wanted that, but it still will look like a different thing.

There really is nothing like that color palette in any modern film, but you could try something fairly neutral like EPN or Astia in large format and a light warming filter, and that would be a step in the right direction.

David's response (and experience) is much more detailed that I could offer.

Looking at the pics in the link you posted - of course - no surprise- what "pops" are the reds.

Those and the yellows are what once made K-chrome the "definition" of color.

I've only shot the stuff in 35mm (64) and have sworn off it because it's like a drug.....

But I've also enjoyed the "old" Velvia 50 - even though it's more into blues and greens it "gives' nice reds and I'm looking to try the new version soon (in smaller format).

I'd seriously suggest you give slow speed Velvia a try; espescially since you can get it in the format you need.

Just keep in mind that the very photos you've linked to can never be recreated. Cities have moved on - the downtown railyards are gone....

You should also note that the prints are inkjet prints and you're looking at these images on a monitor. im sure if you choot large format slides and scan them you can easily recreate that look.

RE: that cities have moved on... I know, but I'm happily in denial. Thanks for the advice so far, I'll start some experimentation soon. Keep the ideas rolling!

David A. Goldfarb said:

Or maybe you can almost fake anything in Photoshop, but never get it quite there.

Click to expand...

Dear David,

I won't argue with that. All I meant was that unless you are looking at original LF Kodachromes -- which very few people have ever seen -- it is more than just LF Kodachrome that we are talking about: different camera/lens combinations with higher flare factors, different origination techniques, different photomechanical printing presses (far more choices than today's all-but-universal offset litho), different inks, different papers, different master printers, different views about what constitutes 'good' photomechanical repro. No-one can reproduce all of these variables, Indeed, most of us can no longer reproduce ANY of them.

What, after all, are the main variables? Differentiation of colours (e.g. subtle reds, unsubtle greens); saturation of different colours; colour casts [edited in -- thanks Juan]; contrast; texture (of the repro and the paper); reflectivity... You can fake an awful lot of this, surprisingly convincingly, in an ink-jet print if you play around with the image for long enough. It's easier from some starting points than others, which is why I'd recommend ScanFilm or Portra 400NC, but ultimately, you can create a reasonably convincing fake that way -- certes, a more convincing fake than could be created any other way, without access to a process camera, gravure press, etc.

There are three more factors at work, too. One is the nature of a fake. In the worlds of antiques and fine art, perfect fakes -- ones that will fool an expert who knows all that there is to know about a subject -- are rare. Good fakes, that will fool the vast majority of people, including many dealers and museum curators, are notoriously more common.

The second is all the other sensory and intellectual clues that accompany an old book: even the smell, the texture of the paper, the foxing/yellowing of the pages, quite apart from subject matter.

The third is seeing what we want to see. There is no difference so subtle as to be invisible -- and this includes differences that do not, in fact, exist, but which we think we can see. The finest illustration of this that I know came from the days when Ilford made papers for other people. One magazine did a head-to-head test of an Ilford-branded paper, and the same paper in a different box. To quote Mike Gristwood, late of Ilford, "We were delighted to be narrowly beaten by our own paper."

Cheers,

Roger

My camera club had a presentation by one of the members on nature photography. He showed a large number of slides, then flipped quickly past one that was dramatically different. The audience made him go back to the slide he had passed, and then marveled at the color. He said that all the slides he had been showing were Fuji - that the one that attracted the attention was an old Kodak slide.

What attracted everyone's attention was the different rendering of color between the two films - the Kodak was noticeably more yellow.

I think what folks are seeing is this gross difference in color, rather than the more subtle differences Roger and David are discussing. I'm trying some of the new Kodak NC (as opposed to VC) negative film to see how it does on the yellows and reds. You might give that a try.
juan

Another thing to consider is that more than 60 years ago there was a lot less air pollution between the photographer and those subjects. It would be difficult to duplicate the look exactly today even if identical large format Kodachrome was available for exposure using the same cameras and lenses.

Sal Santamaura said:

Another thing to consider is that more than 60 years ago there was a lot less air pollution between the photographer and those subjects. It would be difficult to duplicate the look exactly today even if identical large format Kodachrome was available for exposure using the same cameras and lenses.

Click to expand...

Actually, in the Northeast US cities - such as Boston where the pictures were taken - there is a lot LESS air pollution now than there was 60 years ago.

For one thing - little, if any, coal is burned now for heat or electricity in these cities. Also, they now have primarily post-industrial economies with large service sectors so there are few if any factories and mills spewing out smoke. Automobiles now use unleaded gasoline - they used leaded gas back then etc.

I'm not quite 60, but I can remember the air of my childhood being filled with smoke from steam locomotives, coal fireplaces, and factories. Automobile engines didn't have positive crankcase ventilation of any sort - the crankcase emissions were vented directly into the air through a hose between the engine and firewall. I can remember one hill in the city where I grew up always being blue. When visiting there now, the air is clear and the blue haze is gone.
juan

mcfactor said:

You should also note that the prints are inkjet prints and you're looking at these images on a monitor. im sure if you choot large format slides and scan them you can easily recreate that look.

Click to expand...

No, they are scans of the 4x5 Kodachrome slides (Shorpy actually gets most of their images from the Library of Congress). You can buy inkjet prints of the images, but what Chris linked to is not an inkjet print.

I'd try using one of the older Kodak slide films, like EPR or EPN, they are probably the closest you can get these days. It's a fairly neutral colour palette, and not over saturated like the Fuji films.

It's been a while since I've looked at original LF Kodachromes, but I do have some Cibachrome contact prints of a few of them.

Those are pretty interesting images. I would second the suggestion of using EPN or EPR. I would also suggest experimenting with having the lab reduce development, or "pull" it, maybe a 1/2 or 1 stop pull, to lower the contrast. Athough I think photoshop may be your best friend in this. You could also go so far as to shoot with a speed graphic and a vintage lens. If you find some railyards that look like that I'd love to see them!

erikg said:

Those are pretty interesting images. I would second the suggestion of using EPN or EPR. I would also suggest experimenting with having the lab reduce development, or "pull" it, maybe a 1/2 or 1 stop pull, to lower the contrast. Athough I think photoshop may be your best friend in this. You could also go so far as to shoot with a speed graphic and a vintage lens. If you find some railyards that look like that I'd love to see them!

Click to expand...

Try Buffalo, NY.

It was once a major industrial center and had an extensive railyard system. And it has been a declining city for so long that no one has redeveloped the marshalling yards.

BTW: I stand corrected regarding the RR shots - as the text says - they are from 1940's Chicago - which is (was) the epitome of a RR city.

But I'll easily include upper Midwest cities with my comments regarding air pollution then and now from my earlier post.

I have to thank you for this link. My father has been supporting me for some time now, and will continue to do so while I am in school and I don't often have money to provide much more than a, "Thanks Dad." Having just sold a camera on ebay to buy some photo stuff it occurred to me that he is a certifiable train nut, with a large portion of his basement occupied by a model railroad. This will be absolutely perfect. Thanks again for the link!

Crazy as it may sound, LF Polaroid color materials might give you a look. I just shot some Type 79 through a prewar Speed (first time shooting Polaroid color film) and I was surprised and delighted by the smooth, subtle and grainless look. It might work for you.

Jon

athanasius80 said:

I'm frankly enamoured by the color palette and the "muted richness" that the photographer got on his Kodachrome transparencies. How would I emulate this look using current materials?

Click to expand...

'Old Style Film Look'

I'd second the comments of many other on the forum, you 'could' do it in post, but you'll spend a long time and still won't hit the mark. Film is film, and images 'worked on' on a computer are just that. And they look it.

E-6 and K-14 are completely different animals; different look, different color palette, different grain structure, etc. I used to shoot a LOT of K-14 when I lived in SF and had a deal with the New Lab-those WERE the days. They have not run K-14 in years.

If you're looking for something 'close' (you'll never really hit it dead on) you could consider doing some research via the magazine 'American Cinematographer', they dissect films, talk with the DPs, grips and Cinematographers as to how they got a 'look'. Quite often it involves time at the lab working on the film stock as it's in the chemistry. I remember reading about a film produced a while ago that covered five decades. For the period of the 50's/60's they used two techniques to achieve the look they were after. 1) They used old Cooke lenses, either not coated or single coated and prone to a bit of flare and 2) they used the same film stock as for the rest of the film (Kodak t-1074?) but they ran the 'period film' in different chemistry. Even a major motion picture with a HUGE budget could not get Kodak to make the film they wanted. C'est La Vie!

Anyhow- use old lenses, try some out of date film stock (just make sure you can get more if you like the look) and experiment. Polaroid's a great tool but it's still not K-14.

Good Luck

Robb Scharetg
www.scharetgpictures.com

athanasius80 said:

Well its obvious that I was born a century too late. I found this http://www.shorpy.com/taxonomy/term/17?page=8
and I'm frankly enamoured by the color palette and the "muted richness" that the photographer got on his Kodachrome transparencies. How would I emulate this look using current materials? I'm thinking medium or large format with a polarizing filter is a start.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

In terms of more modern materials, give Fuji Astia a try, its color pallette is very near Kodachrome. Of course, nothing is like it, but Astia comes close, especially in 120 and I have yet to try it in 4x5. I still have a few rolls of PKR120 that I was saving for when I got my 'major' MF camera, I was just slightly too late. BTW, B&H had a sale on short dated PKR 35mm, good deal.

Here is my two cents:

Notice how everything looks shiny and "opaque" on these transperencies. It happens because of low latitude of, not just Kodachrome, but many aincient films. Low latitude in this case doesn't just mean high contrast, which is a gross simplification of the look.
The slope of the curve in midtones is actually not that different from any other photographs. Where it differs is shadows and highlights.

If you take a look at Library of Congress you will find a lot of old airforce photos, where you can clearly observe the "shiny" effect on the plane's hull.

Imagine a gradient in an image from black to white, with a linear distribution of tones. Well that's how modern films look like.
These old emulsions stretch the mid part and compress the ends, so compared to a linear gradient you have a flat distribution all the way to the highlights, then a sudden boom into white, which you can observe in clouds on old photos.
Same goes with shadows, it keeps flat to a certain point down the gradient, then has a boom into black. That's why shadows appear so strong on these photos.
That's why on those old chromes highlights look a little bit "shrunken", or a normally broader highlight will kind of shrink into a smaller one, making it look a little more shiny than it is. Same happens with shadows.

So what does all this mean?
The trick is to reduce the latitude of your image without changing the slope of the curve, or in other words, keep a soft mid-tone contrast, but snip the edges. But one thing is doing it to a fully developed image, and another thing is having a film that responds to light in such a way.
For one thing, after such an action in photoshop you get a histogram full of holes, and the image falls apart, you can see all kinds of artefacts, and it just looks terrible.
It could work better if you had a REAL 16-bit span of information, but there is no telling that your scan actually holds that many gradations.

It would never look right, but at least that's the direction where to go.

Another thing to do is slightly reduce the contrast of the red channel, because Kodachrome always had a little more red in shadows.

But I'm suggesting this for fun, emulating such an old material would be a genuine scientific experiment, and not something you can do in photoshop from any digital file.
I pitty those who buy plugins that promise to emulate Kodachrome and some other films, because they are either ripped-off or simply don't have the perceptive treshold low enough to even tell the difference , so such a method is good enough.

A more practical advice from me would be to use Ektachrome 64, because it's the oldest living emulsion, and is actually older than the current incarnation of Kodachrome. It's from 1976 and Kodak claims it is unchanged since them (except for the base).
It will give you a nice flashback look into 70's. It isn't Kodachrome, but
it looks vintage, and is probably the best starting point in emulating Kodachrome because you already have something old to start with.
Astia might get closer in terms of saturation and tone scale, but it looks totally modern, and has too much latitude to emulate something like that.
Those old chromes from 40's are BRUTAL in crushing shadows, but in such a way that it doesn't affect the overall midtone contrast, no way you could do something like that with Astia.

Craig said:

I'd try using one of the older Kodak slide films, like EPR or EPN, they are probably the closest you can get these days. It's a fairly neutral colour palette, and not over saturated like the Fuji films.

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't see you already mentioned EPR