Kodachrome v. Astia challenge ...

The only Ektachrome that, to me, comes closest to Kodachrome spectrally is E200. But then, there's the difference in grain...

I once did a portrait session shooting Astia (only time I shot the film), and I loved the results. Really, really good skin tones. But most of the color I've shot in recent years is neg (since 1998, when I got my first dedicated film scanner...).

(My Kodak Ektagraphic projector still sees occasional use, but that's because of the crazy amount of slide film I did shoot from around 1975 till '98.)


- Barrett
 
No valid conclusions possible

No valid conclusions possible

I simply don't believe there is any valid comparison after a chrome is scanned, converted to a JPG and posted on line. There are just too many variables along the way. The only valid comparison is laying them both down on the same light table.
 
Compare them in 120

Compare them in 120

Oh wait, there's not much of a comparison is there.

My standard color film is 120 Astia. For me it is in a different league than any 35mm chrome ever made.
 
wizofz2k said:
Not full, but very very close. Much wider than srgb, anyway.
Click to expand...

But in the end a monitor is merely calibrated, not profiled for a particular colour space. This is independent on whether or not the monitor is capable of displaying the full gamut of of particular colour space. The only issue would be if the photos were in AdobeRBG rather than sRGB when they were uploaded so non ICC aware browsers didnt screw up the colours too much.
 
craygc said:
This is independent on whether or not the monitor is capable of displaying the full gamut of of particular colour space. The only issue would be if the photos were in AdobeRBG rather than sRGB when they were uploaded so non ICC aware browsers didnt screw up the colours too much.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Being the lazy bugger I am, I profiled my whole workflow from scanner to printer to adobergb. But for some weird reason, one of the post-processing steps omits the colour profile exif info from the final output. :bang:
With the result that while in my system I see the final results OK, folks setup for sRGB see them as washed out! And because the exif bit is missing, their ICC-aware browsers can't do a thing to fix the problem!

I've got an extra step setup now with exiftools to re-insert the colour profile info into the final output and that fixes the problem, but I have yet to correct all images out there...:eek:

My apologies, folks.
 
My main issue is that I run my system as a gamma 1.8 display (wonder what Im using :D). I just convert to sRGB before posting. However, regardless of all of that, I still find your images "look" like Astia from a colour palette perspective, something I personally felt was obvious to me in the first image displayed in this thread.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
And no calibration required! :)
Click to expand...

Upstairs in the AV closet next to the big conference room we actually have a working carousel-type Ektagraphic projector. I was able to find a bulb for it a couple years ago and get it working again. I've used it a couple of times just to see what some slides look like when projected.

This sits next to an old blue Bell And Howell 16mm film projector. :)
 
Not trying to be egotistical, but I knew immediately which was the Kodachrome. When you shoot 'em, you know 'em. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom