Kodachrome v. Astia challenge ... [Archive]

dmr

08-21-2008, 05:19

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? :)

http://i35.tinypic.com/9qkwls.jpg

http://i33.tinypic.com/27yzfk3.jpg

elude

08-21-2008, 05:22

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.

infrequent

08-21-2008, 05:24

second one is astia?

varjag

08-21-2008, 05:45

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.

craygc

08-21-2008, 05:54

I know nothin' about Kodachrome but that first one just doesnt look like the colour palette of Astia. Plus there isnt enough colour in the second to judge

Todd.Hanz

08-21-2008, 05:58

first looks like Astia, second looks like Kodachrome due to the blue cast on the white building.

andrealed

08-21-2008, 06:02

1- astia
2- kc

Spyderman

08-21-2008, 06:02

IMO the immediate results might seeam indistiguishable, but question is what the slides will look like in 10 or 20 years...

dmr

08-22-2008, 00:05

First one, bridge, river, boat: Kodachrome 64.
Second one, building facade: Astia.

Thanks, gang. :)

35mmdelux

08-22-2008, 01:43

#2 looked too clean to be K64.

B&H no longer carrying K200.

BTW Ektachrome comes pretty close in look to kodachrome..

varjag

08-22-2008, 01:57

B&H no longer carrying K200.
Sadly.. took me months to collect a quantity of K200 I need. There's nothing like it though :)

http://rangefinder.ru/glr/data/502/bergen543.jpg

http://rangefinder.ru/glr/data/502/bergen540.jpg

Pherdinand

08-22-2008, 04:40

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:)

oftheherd

08-22-2008, 05:41

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.

varjag

08-22-2008, 05:53

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'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.

dmr

08-22-2008, 08:18

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.

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! :)

varjag

08-22-2008, 13:01

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.
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! :)
Amen to that. Quite happy I gave it a try now, while it is still in production.

Gabriel M.A.

08-22-2008, 13:14

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.

Gabriel M.A.

08-22-2008, 13:15

First one, bridge, river, boat: Kodachrome 64.
Second one, building facade: Astia.

Thanks, gang. :)

:bang:

Oh, well, if that wasn't a spoiler :p

wizofz2k

08-23-2008, 07:09

Ced777

08-23-2008, 07:20

1/ Astia
2/ K64

craygc

08-23-2008, 09:11

first: k64
second: my beloved astia
:o
here are many of my examples of astia as well as other film:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/gallery/#Film-35mm-colour
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/gallery/#Medium-Format

I think these are some good examples of why I thought the first one just didnt even come close to the colour palette of Astia :D

wizofz2k

08-23-2008, 17:13

I think these are some good examples of why I thought the first one just didnt even come close to the colour palette of Astia :D

Sorry: you'll have to profile your monitor for adobergb. If you use srgb, they'll look washed out... :o

amateriat

08-23-2008, 17:42

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

Bob Michaels

08-23-2008, 18:57

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.

Bob Michaels

08-23-2008, 19:01

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.

Pherdinand

08-24-2008, 03:24

Sorry: you'll have to profile your monitor for adobergb. If you use srgb, they'll look washed out... :o

...you own a multi-thousand bucks Eizo that is able to display the full adobe rgb space???

wizofz2k

08-24-2008, 03:53

...you own a multi-thousand bucks Eizo that is able to display the full adobe rgb space???
Not full, but very very close. Much wider than srgb, anyway.

craygc

08-24-2008, 05:12

Not full, but very very close. Much wider than srgb, anyway.

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.

wizofz2k

08-24-2008, 20:36

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.

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...:o

My apologies, folks.

craygc

08-24-2008, 21:58

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

08-25-2008, 07:12

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.

And no calibration required! :)

Chris

dmr

08-25-2008, 07:46

And no calibration required! :)

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. :)