Kodachrome - how to replicate Kodachrome pictures in 35 mm

[Roger Cole]

Astia might be the closest. Though the palette of any E6 film isn't going to be a very close match to Kodachrome. You won't get the Kodachrome reds and you won't get the odd, sometimes pleasing and sometimes ghastly Caucasian skin tones that Kodachrome often gave either, especially with a warming filter as such skin tones tended to go cool. I have some slides of some people with ruddy complexions shot outdoors where Kodachrome really made them look better, and I also have some shot with electronic flash where they look like deathly pale ghosts.

Even so, Astia too has been discontinued, a huge pity because it was absolutely favorite E6 film. (Well and Provia 400X - they are so different and fit different needs.) You can still find some at times, and it should be fine if late production and cold stored, but it's a lot harder to find than Ektachrome (particularly the consumer Elitechrome) and apt to be more expensive when you do.

 

[cooltouch]

There's some Astia on US eBay right now. Pretty pricey though.

 

[blockend]

I'm guessing he's likely referring to images like these. Such wonderful colors.

Those shots were taken on large format sheet Kodachrome. It was available to the military, not the general public.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Those shots were taken on large format sheet Kodachrome. It was available to the military, not the general public.

Yes, I realize that but it does not mean people cannot reference them and say, "hey how do I get colors or tones like these nowadays?" Whether they can get them or not or get close is a different story...

 

[Roger Cole]

It's probably possible to get them using methods not acceptable for discussion on APUG. But exactly how and what that would entail would be a different matter even so. It would certainly take more than a pre-set plug in, or a setting on Fuji's newest camera which, from what I have seen online, just doesn't do what it claims in that regard.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It's probably possible to get them using methods not acceptable for discussion on APUG.

Not only that, señor, but it's probably possible to get those colors using PhotoShop or Lightroom.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Underexpose Provia 100F -0.6 with a mild warming filter. No pushing/pulling.

Kodachrome's palette gave an enduring, evergreen "vintage" look, albeit one that was clean and crisp with wide appeal; I used heaps of the stuff throughout the 70s, 80s and early 90s when I was bold enough to take a little green box of Fuji film for a test run. Personally I think Kodak lost its marbles to discontinue Kodachrome, as there is not a lot we can do with the remaining emulsions that have probably equal numbers of lovers and haters!

 

[blockend]

Yes, I realize that but it does not mean people cannot reference them and say, "hey how do I get colors or tones like these nowadays?" Whether they can get them or not or get close is a different story...

To get the kind of sharpness and colour saturation shown in those images, is beyond any debate regarding 35mm materials. They are professionally lit and use an extinct format of an equally dead film. If the OP is serious about getting "the Kodachrome look" I'd advise existing 5 x 4" chromes as a starting point, with medium format slides as a second choice. On the other hand there's Photoshop and sliders.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

To get the kind of sharpness and colour saturation shown in those images, is beyond any debate regarding 35mm materials. They are professionally lit and use an extinct format of an equally dead film. If the OP is serious about getting "the Kodachrome look" I'd advise existing 5 x 4" chromes as a starting point, with medium format slides as a second choice. On the other hand there's Photoshop and sliders.

I'd agree. But in the end he does NOT want that look. He wants to look of that Yalta Conference image, that I personally do not call a "Kodachrome" look, but that's just me....

 

[GarageBoy]

That Yalta Conference image looks more Agfa-ey to me - the CR200 with it's slight yellow tones is close

 

[macfred]

That Yalta Conference image looks more Agfa-ey to me - the CR200 with it's slight yellow tones is close

Even so !

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Until this thread, I'd never seen a color photo of the Yalta Conference. My first thought was that it originally was a B&W photo colorized after the fact; it does not look like Kodachrome to me.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've seen it in b&w also. Here is a book on Amazon that has the image.

http://www.amazon.com/Kodachrome-American-Invention-World-1939-1959/dp/0929445139

 

[cooltouch]

The Yalta image seems intentionally desaturated to me. Out of the box Kodachrome would have produced much punchier images. Even the shots my dad took in Korea in the early 50s had more saturation than the Yalta image.

 

[trondsi]

Kodachrome did not become obsolete. It was discontinued. Big difference. There is still no other film emulsion that has the archival characteristics of Kodachrome. In my opinion, its discontinuation has left a big hole in film photography, and in fact in photography in general, which may never be filled. I hope I will be proven wrong some day but that's the way I see things now.

So because of Kodachrome's unique characteristics, attempting to "replicate" it may not even be possible. But you can certainly get close. Current E6-based slide emulsions have a different look than Kodachrome, but if you use a well-balanced one, at least your results can be neutral. The two best that are available right now -- IMO -- are Fuji Provia 100 and Fuji Velvia 50. Velvia's grain structure certainly rivals Kodachrome's but Velvia can be rather wild in the way it saturates colors. Provia is more neutral in that respect, although its grain is more obvious. Even so, Provia's grain is still very fine, so it might be the best emulsion to use. Kodak's Elite Chrome 100 was really good stuff -- at least as good as Provia 100, I feel, but it's been discontinued for a while now. You can find quantities of it for sale on eBay still, so it's still out there. Most is probably expired by now, but if it's been kept frozen, or at least refrigerated, it should still do a good job.

So there's two possibilities for you -- three if you want to give Velvia a try. Time to start shooting and see how close this modern E6 stuff compares to the old Kodachrome photos you have.

I looked at some of my old Kodachrome, Velvia, and Provia slides under good magnification yesterday.
I disagree on Provia and grain. Provia 100f has finer (or less noisy) grain than Velvia, especially in shadows.
Provia also has finer grain than Kodachrome does, although the grain structure of Kodachrome was sharp so it may have been more visible for that reason. Provia resembles Kodachrome in the sense that they are not overly saturated, and can easily be used for both landscape and portrait. Kodachrome was warmer though, and in that sense it may resemble Velvia 100 a bit (but Velvia is so saturated that skin tones get tricky)

Kodachrome was great in good light, but not always fantastic. I would say the biggest difference between Provia and Kodachrome is that in bad/dull or washed out lighting Kodachrome would "fade to gray", and sometimes a bit muddy gray, while Provia "fades to blue". Sorry if I am using my own lingo here
I would still go with Provia 100f as the closest match in all round capabilities.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Those were the days! I've seen quite a few 5x7 early Kodachromes from Hollywood. Vibrant color that looks like they were taken yesterday. There's
nothing else like it. Those Yalta images don't look like Kodachrome at all. Maybe an odd batch or poor processing?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Kodachrome had an inherent defect which gave it it's distinctive look. One of the dye couplers was a poor match for the other nearest it. There caused a slight emphasis toward blue without effecting the other colors. (No, use of a filter would not produce the same effect.) Modern color processes now use better couplers so it would be impossible to duplicate the effect.

 

[wiltw]

I think Kodak lost its marbles to discontinue Kodachrome, as there is not a lot we can do with the remaining emulsions that have probably equal numbers of lovers and haters!

We must not forget the downsides of the Kodachrome chemistry on the environment, and the more difficult processing which limited the number of places we could get film processed (when we hoarded film).

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

We must not forget the downsides of the Kodachrome chemistry on the environment, and the more difficult processing which limited the number of places we could get film processed (when we hoarded film).

True. This was also said of the Ilfochrome Classic print process and its nasty chemicals.
Ironically we are now facing the same problem with E6! A very limited number of places to have it processed, and grumbles about the availability and treatment of chemicals. Hmm, really? Strange. Now, of all times, they are grumbling about E6 chemicals!?

 

[wiltw]

One would think that a kit might be assembled with instructions and chemicals which would neutralize the toxicity of the most harmful solutions, and if that permitted users to continue to use the darkroom chemistry with less harm to the environment, one simply makes the neutralizer a part of a kit that is always included with the offensive processing solution.

 

[CropDusterMan]

The environment is no better now than it was 10 years ago.

 

[Roger Cole]

True. This was also said of the Ilfochrome Classic print process and its nasty chemicals.
Ironically we are now facing the same problem with E6! A very limited number of places to have it processed, and grumbles about the availability and treatment of chemicals. Hmm, really? Strange. Now, of all times, they are grumbling about E6 chemicals!?

The only thing really nasty about Ilfochrome was when it was used in large quantities. The developer and fixer were just black and white print developer and fixer. The bleach was "nasty" because it was strongly acidic. I think the commercial version had a ph of 0.7 or so. I know from experience that even the amateur P30 stuff sizzled when I spilled a tiny amount on my concrete floor of the time. Just dump baking soda into your used bleach a bit at a time until it doesn't bubble any more when you do so, then it could be discarded.

I'm not minimizing the effects when large high capacity roller transport processors were used for long lengths of time with gallons of such stuff. But it was mostly just very acidic which is hardly the end of the world.

 

[Roger Cole]

And I agree, that Yalta image doesn't look remotely "Kodachromey" in fact it looks like anti-Kodachrome, as someone said more like early Agfa.

For some Kodachromes from that era that look like Kodachrome see this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...moving-picture-1940s-American-war-effort.html

 

[MattKing]

K-14 Kodachrome (the last version) wasn't substantially more damaging to the environment than the other slide processes.

Where it was different, is that it moved into the processing stage some of the steps involving dyes that were/are applied during manufacture for other films.

So the environmental concerns were distributed to more locations.

However, those environmental concerns could be and were dealt with by Kodak and the other processors.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The Kodachrome system seems to be poorly understood. Perhaps the following brief article can clear up some misconceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process

All currently available slide films contain color couplers in the emulsion. (The same principle is used for color negative films.) Briefly Kodachrome film was unique in that it was essentially a B&W film. However it did contain three filter layers each with a corresponding B&W layer associated with it. Since a dye coupler was not included in the layers they were thinner and offered better resolution. Modern slide films use a single color developing bath whereas Kodachrome used 3 developing baths one for each primary color. Each bath contained a different dye coupler. An example of a dye coupler would be 2-chloraniline which forms a cyan dye when it combines with the oxidized color developing agent. The yellow developer contained a yellow coupler and the magenta developer a magenta coupler. There are also 3 separate reversal exposures one for each color layer. (One is actually the result of a fogging developer.) All in all a very complex system. It is the complexity of the system that prevents Kodachrome from being resurrected. Modern processing equipment is not designed to handle the total number of baths and operations required. So we are left with a chicken and egg problem. No one is going to make new mechines because no one makes Kodachrome and no one would make Kodachrome because there would be no way to process it. A double whammy that would be very hard to overcome.