Kodachrome v. Astia challenge ...

dmr

dmr

Registered Abuser
Local time
4:05 AM
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
4,649
Location
Somewhere in Middle America
View My Gallery
I posted this over on Kodachrome Project. Let's see how the folks here compare ...

I've been searching for a replacement, for if and when the unmentionable demise occurs, and one I've been trying out is Astia 100.

No, it ain't Kodachrome.

However, I've grown to like its look.

Let's see here how many can tell which of the following was shot with what film. One was shot with Kodachrome 64, the other with Astia 100. Both were scanned on the same scanner, same basic workflow.

Anybody care to guess? 🙂

9qkwls.jpg


27yzfk3.jpg
 
I'd say the second one is Kodachrome, look at that sky...
But on a scan, you can't really tell, that's what's incredible about these kind of film.
 
Last edited:
First one looks like Kodachrome when you over-correct the magenta (that slide into green), so the second one gotta be Astia 🙂

But seriously, I've seen far better scans from you here. Neither of the frames looks like Astia and Kodachrome in real life, at least not like the ones I have.
 
first looks like Astia, second looks like Kodachrome due to the blue cast on the white building.
 
I prefer E100GX (or SW in the old version) against KC64.
KC turns out to be just too contrasty.
Maybe in a dark room with a real good projector it looks better?

I did not check in 20 years, though...🙂

In addition..Kodachroime doesn't come in medium format🙂
 
I thought it difficult to tell myself. With slides, exposure is so important and difficult to control. The washed out sky in the first could be K64, due to exposing for the water and boat. The second didn't really look like K64, but again, exposure for one part of a scene may change another, or just not the exposure you wanted when you took the shot. Well, guesses were made and the truth exposed, so my thoughts aren't of importance anyway I guess.
 
Pherdinand said:
I prefer E100GX (or SW in the old version) against KC64.
KC turns out to be just too contrasty.
Maybe in a dark room with a real good projector it looks better?
Click to expand...

I'm actually quite fond with Astia for portraits, best skin tones I ever seen. Problem is, I don't do portraits very often 🙂

Some would say Kodachrome have truer colors, but I think it's not the case at all, and Kodak technical publication on K-14 films seems to confirm that. The colors are truly remarkable though and like nothing else. I find it great match to my type of shooting, only wish I tried it earlier.
 
varjag said:
Some would say Kodachrome have truer colors, but I think it's not the case at all, and Kodak technical publication on K-14 films seems to confirm that.
Click to expand...

A retired Photo Engineer<tm> on "another network" has stated that the spectral response of Kodachrome is a bit different from the familiar C41 type films.

Still, Kodachrome gives a look which has quite a following! 🙂
 
dmr said:
A retired Photo Engineer<tm> on "another network" has stated that the spectral response of Kodachrome is a bit different from the familiar C41 type films.
Click to expand...
It is different than E6 films too: much more "bumpy" spectral curve, with very prominent primary colors and subdued secondary parts. Also, HD curves suggest that it is prone to magenta-red shifts in deep shadows as oppsed to blue of E6.

Still, Kodachrome gives a look which has quite a following! 🙂
Click to expand...
Amen to that. Quite happy I gave it a try now, while it is still in production.
 
I'm going to assume that the Astia and Kodachrome were scanned and processed exactly the same way.

With that assumption, I'd say the first one is Kodachrome, and the second is expired Astia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom