Kodachrome25 simulation.

<p>Anyone ever determine the best picture style and specific parameters under that style to best simulate Kodachrome25 ? I figure Velvia is a fairly easy job; just goose up the saturation and maybe a touch of sharpness and contrast in the Landscape style. Anyone concur or not concur? But (oddly enough) I've never shot Kodachrome in my 50 years of photography. Always shot the old Agfa slides with the convenient little mailer-bag, until it became an impossibility (most likely politically induced). Thanx! in advance for any responses. P.S., this post appertains to the 5D models.</p>

<p>You can download a Kodachrome picture style here<br>

http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3401&start=80</p>

<p>I don't know how accurate it is, since I've never used Kodachrome.</p>

<p>Thanks Jonathan, but I just print straight from the camera via wire or memory card slot. I aint into all the "post" stuff. Guess I'll have to wait until someone knows via in-camera settings. Thanks again.</p>

I heard Kodachrome cannot be simulated, at least not yet anyways.

<blockquote>

<p> I aint into all the "post" stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, screw this "post" stuff, it is for tyros...<br>

:-)<br>

Not to sound like an asshole but all photos - "old school" and digital alike - require postprocessing, so you might be missing something...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Guess I'll have to wait until someone knows via in-camera settings</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't mention the camera you are using but most Canon DSLRs have picture style settings so changing them may bring you close to whatever it is that you wish to accomplish. Playing with picture style settings is easier with Canon Picture Style Editor, a piece of software included free of charge with all (or at least most) Canon DSLRs. Once you like the setting, you can download it to the camera.</p>

<p>Yes, check dxooptics.com.</p>

 

<p>there are various products/approaches:</p>

<p>http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/index.aspx</p>

<p>or -- try decreasing cyan (just a bit), increasing magenta (tiny bit), and boosting contrast (and/or) lowering the low values (but maintain the highs), boost saturation</p>

<p>also, you might try searching 'film simulation' or 'kodachrome simulation' software</p>

<p>Jody, the picture styles can be uploaded into the camera, and use it the same way you can select Portrait Landscape, or standard picture styles. So you don't need to "post", if you don't want to. It happens in your camera.<br>

<br>

You'll need the EOS utility to transfer it to the camera, but it's a quick process.<br>

 <br>

Of course, all of it is pointless if it doesn't really match the real Kodachrome.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not to sound like an asshole but all photos - "old school" and digital alike - require postprocessing, so you might be missing something...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you didn't actually shoot Kodachrome. Of course negs required a skillful tech to squeeze out the best print. On the other hand, chromes were the original film developed into a finished transparency. You either nailed it or not. The lab had to simply develop it to specs. No interpretation of PP required. And viewing those chromes on a lightbox with quality loupe is still an amazing experience. They're like little jewels.</p>

<p>Some P&S have film emulation modes. For DSLRs you need to either design your own profile or buy a plugin for that purpose. I've even seen a few that added film grain and scratches for those needing a nostalgic walk down memory lane.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, chromes were the original film developed into a finished transparency. You either nailed it or not. The lab had to simply develop it to specs. No interpretation of PP required.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, yeah...pure theory, 'cuz on the third hand I'd love to have a buck for each hour I spent trying to make chromes "print-worthy" both in pre-press and in wet reversible process (ciba/ilfochrome.)</p>

Remember to remap your purples to blue, as K25 didn't render purple very well (it turned it into a blue).

<p>Thanks everyone ! Never liked neg film, always shot chromes, was tempted @ one time to try cibas (about as close to transparencies as you can get on paper), I'll check out that cinema5D lead, I'll try zyg's color tweaks, but I "don no nuttin bout remappin blues", Andrew.</p>

<p>I used to shoot exclusively Kodachrome 25 back in the days of the Nikon FE craze and know what you mean. I just found this and you can try it: http://homepage.mac.com/pbize1/Scripts/PSAK200.html.</p>

<p>There´s one possibility:<br>

look at the Sigma SD9:</p>

<p>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=34644827</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, yeah...pure theory, 'cuz on the third hand I'd love to have a buck for each hour I spent trying to make chromes "print-worthy" both in pre-press and in wet reversible process (ciba/ilfochrome.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you actually read my post you'd notice I only discussed viewing chromes with loupe on light box, not making prints or theory. Friggen heavenly view and has nothing to do with theory. That's how I viewed chromes for over 30 years. Well, once in a moon I also projected them. Prints from chromes is a whole different animal and that, my cutiepie, used to involve interpretation and serious skill at the level of squeezing water out of rocks. Sides were not designed for print making. If you mainly want prints, you'd be a fool to shoot chromes. However, scanning near the end of the film era did made chromes a realistic print medium.</p>

<p>Here's a scan of Sensia 100 from back in the day (circa 1996), and it did make a darn good print on my old Epson:<br>

Honolulu Waterfront • Canon EOS A2, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM, Sensia 100, Nikon LS-1000 Scanner<img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/downtown_images/moon_tree_cloud.jpg" alt="" width="626" height="914" /><br>

Not Kodachrome 25, but it's descendant Kodachrome 200 had some of the density and blacks so hard to duplicate in digital:<br>

Diamond Head Beach • Canon EOS 10S, EF 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM, Kodachrome 200, Nikon LS-1000 Scanner<br>

<img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/h20_images/fisherman_dia_hd.jpg" alt="" width="756" height="499" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sides were not designed for print making. If you mainly want prints, you'd be a fool to shoot chromes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, slides were the preferred method of delivery for publications (one, or even two, less steps in pre-press, among other things.) And ciba/ilfochrome prints from slides are simply beautiful!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>fool...my cutiepie</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Careful there with epithets...</p>