Printmaker Posted January 10, 2012 Share #21 Posted January 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I love - and absolutely miss - Kodachrome 64. Does anyone have any WB suggestions for the M9 that can help with this...I've always found the M9 to be far more Ektachrome in it's rendering. Ken Rockwell talks about this as well (I know that in itself will spark a debate). I would love to get as close to the Kodachrome look as possible for my colour work...I find I use my M9 very little for colour because I can never seem to get what I'm looking for...but I know that's my own limitation, so I'd welcome tips/thoughts/suggestions. This might be over-simplifying things but I feel that the Zeiss lenses yield a more Ektachrome look while the Leica lenses give more of a Kodachrome look on either the M8 or the M9. I see it in the color of the blue sky and how yellows and tans reproduce. This difference is no where as dramatic as it was using film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Hi Printmaker, Take a look here Kodachrome. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Joachim123 Posted January 10, 2012 Share #22 Posted January 10, 2012 I am sure that Kodachrome is missed by all serious photographers. They just wont admit it in the digital world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 10, 2012 Share #23 Posted January 10, 2012 It's missed, but the problem was that hardly anyone was buying it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 10, 2012 Share #24 Posted January 10, 2012 so i guess it isn't gone, it has just been transmuted into a digital sensor .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted January 10, 2012 Share #25 Posted January 10, 2012 You guys don't calibrate your raw input through custom camera profiles in Lightroom? All it takes is two shots of a Gretag McBeth card, push some LR buttons (it's automated) and all your camera's colours will match up. You can then do what you like from a common starting point, Kodachrome preset to boot! My 5DII and M9 colours are pretty much identical, makes shooting two different bodies a breeze. PS - I've always wondered what people meant by "love the colours" when talking about M9 files. "It's a raw file" I always thought, "what colours? depends on which import settings you use, which calibration profile, which process version, which preset etc etc..." Unfortunatley, that may seem to provide a solution, but it it's far from true. In many frames it's important to choose what is the most important element and to feature that often means employing post processing in PS or other tools. It's matter of how you want to present the information. I never depend on any fixed setting. The world just doesn't work that way. If it did, it would very boring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 11, 2012 Share #26 Posted January 11, 2012 that may seem to provide a solution, but it it's far from true. In many frames it's important to choose what is the most important element and to feature that often means employing post processing in PS or other tools. It's matter of how you want to present the information. I never depend on any fixed setting. The world just doesn't work that way. If it did, it would very boring. I'm not sure I understand how a calibrated camera profile limits my ability to do anything you mention above? It's just a known start point, not an end result. Can you provide an example? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 11, 2012 Share #27 Posted January 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not sure I understand how a calibrated camera profile limits my ability to do anything you mention above? It's just a known start point, not an end result. Can you provide an example? I don't think Ben was implying that a profile limits your ability to make changes in the PP. I think he was just trying to make the point that just because you made a McBeth card profile it doesn't mean you end up with the color you may want for a particular photo. It often takes more work in PP to get what you subjectively want. Maybe, a little bit obvious but, still a valid point. I do have calibrated profiles and color temp as a starting point for everything I do. I almost always change from that starting point in PP. I agree with you that a known starting point doesn't limit my ability. In fact, it makes it easier to begin. I think it was Andy that pointed that out I while back that he starts with a known color temp no matter what the time of day or the lighting. And, he calibrates profiles with a McBeth card. Then he changes from that known starting point. This has worked really well for me to get to where I want to go with a photo when I know where I'm starting from every time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 11, 2012 Share #28 Posted January 11, 2012 I don't think Ben was implying that a profile limits your ability to make changes in the PP. I think he was just trying to make the point that just because you made a McBeth card profile it doesn't mean you end up with the color you may want for a particular photo. It often takes more work in PP to get what you subjectively want. Maybe, a little bit obvious but, still a valid point. I do have calibrated profiles and color temp as a starting point for everything I do. I almost always change from that starting point in PP. I agree with you that a known starting point doesn't limit my ability. In fact, it makes it easier to begin. I think it was Andy that pointed that out I while back that he starts with a known color temp no matter what the time of day or the lighting. And, he calibrates profiles with a McBeth card. Then he changes from that known starting point. This has worked really well for me to get to where I want to go with a photo when I know where I'm starting from every time. Ah, ok. Thanks Ric. Equally I wasn't making the point that a grey card white balance and a Gretag profile is the end result. Just a known start point that is (to all intents and purposes) equal across platforms. I've always found it easier to work from a known value toward a certain aesthetic. This proves more the case the more you do it, which in itself is an efficiency gain. It's a bit like metering in the studio. You could just pop the strobe and see what you've got, adjusting to taste. But it's much easier to meter the light, set the camera and then decide for 1/3 stop brighter etc. I don't think there is any disagreement here though in the end. I think we're all saying the same thing essentially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 11, 2012 Share #29 Posted January 11, 2012 [ But heck - even the jpgs from the Digilux 2 looked "Kodachrome-y" to me - cyanish skies (as opposed to Fuji purple), brown (as opposed to pink) causcasian skin, etc. in other words, not that great.....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2012 Share #30 Posted January 11, 2012 Well, JPGs obviously have a bias that is chosen by the camera manufacturer, but I do not think that is the discussion here. Full color control demands a raw workflow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 11, 2012 Share #31 Posted January 11, 2012 well then if it is all in the conversion, then what does it mean that the sensor/in camera processor is calibrated to deliver kodachrome? jpeg only? i use capture one, no fiddling on my end, just out of the "box" its own raw conversion and it looks pretty darn good to me. a bit richer in color than lr or photoshop, but if i want it changed there are plenty of directions to go. but back to the original point -- so what does it mean "calibrated to kodacrhome"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2012 Share #32 Posted January 11, 2012 The sensor is not color calibrated at all - it delivers a B&W image. The color is imparted by the decoding of the pattern of the (Bayer) color filter over the sensor. A Jpeg - or raw conversion- intepretes those data into a color image, so the conversion algorithms determine the color information you get into your file. The only thing that is variable on the sensor are the actual color filters. You may have noticed the little pull-down menus in C1 that give you the camera type and texts like "film high contrast" those are the presets that determine the way you images will look on conversion - the boxes the images are out of so to speak. You can choose one of them or add a profile of your choice. Iirc Jamie had a "Kodachrome" profile for the M8. Jamie? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 11, 2012 Share #33 Posted January 11, 2012 The sensor is not color calibrated at all - it delivers a B&W image. The color is imparted by the decoding of the pattern of the (Bayer) color filter over the sensor. I assume that the actal spectral sensitivity must have an effect too jaapv? If its sufficiently different from other sensors (and we know of its extended IR sensitivity) then this will produce different values to those from other sensors which, I would suggest, may well result in a different set of decoded values. So it could have a different colour look to it all other things being equal Assuming this to be so, it might,well be possible to even up the colour balance (in software such as Photoshop) to resemble but not be absolutely the same as the result from another camera sensor. For a long time ago I have considered the M8 to have a differing colour balance to my Canons and it can mimic Kodachrome at times, with very little adjustment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2012 Share #34 Posted January 11, 2012 All sensors have an extended IR sensitivity as you put it and thus need an IR filter in front of them. As it happens, the M8 filter had to be made thinner and thus less effective. Nothing to do with the sensor as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 11, 2012 Share #35 Posted January 11, 2012 All sensors have an extended IR sensitivity as you put it and thus need an IR filter in front of them. As it happens, the M8 filter had to be made thinner and thus less effective. Nothing to do with the sensor as such. But their 'visible light' spectral sensitivity may vary (just as B&W films do) and I wonder if Kodak's sensors are different from others? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 11, 2012 Share #36 Posted January 11, 2012 jaapv -- i understand how to use c1 to get the colors i want, i was referring to the original question/comment of this thread and trying to tie it to where this thread has gone. if everything is variable, then what is calibrated by leica/kodak to yield kodachrome like colors? my guess is, reading through everything, that all software starts with default raw conversion process unique for every camera (reason for all those updates, new camera new update) and using the software's default yields kodachrome-like color from m9. otherwise, the software default conversion process would yield the same palate for every camera. comments here suggest otherwise, including others noting how to tweak software default so nikon and leica give you the same blue sky. and that is my point/question. of course you can make the color change to whatever you want -- even b&w tri-x. unless, of course, what is only kodachrome-like from the m9 is the jpeg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2012 Share #37 Posted January 11, 2012 The point is that there is no default conversion process. Each raw converter uses different algorithms , tied to the choice of the author of the program and many offer an additional choice of preset profiles and user-created profiles that can be set as default. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 11, 2012 Share #38 Posted January 11, 2012 Assuming that the sensor has certain sensitivity peaks and troughs throughout the visible spectrum, then overlaying this inherent (and engineered) sensitivity with coloured filters will provide base RAW data based on the light levels it records which are a result of filtered spectral sensitivity. This data can then be adjusted with a variety of settings in various RAW converters BUT the inherent spectral sensitivity must provide a background to the overall mix of colour which can certainly be adjusted but cannot precisely match that of another sensor with different spectral sensitivity, simply because the RAW data will be subtly different regardless of adjustments. Although there are almost innumerable adustments which can be made I suspect that it would be nearly impossible to deal with the detailed nuances that trying to deal with the effects of reduced and increased data in various parts of the spectrum due to the sensors different sensitivity to others. Whether Kodak deliberately adjusted the spectral sensitivity of the sensor to mimic that of Kodachrome only the scientists at Kodak know but it would not surprise me at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2012 Share #39 Posted January 11, 2012 That is undoubtedly true, Paul, but the conversion in different raw converters will produce significantly different results, enough of a variation to make comparison to a specific film very difficult if not impossible. On the other hand it is relatively easy for the user to tweak the raw converter sufficiently to create a specific color impression of the image that could then be named, with a certain artistic licence, a "Kodachrome" look (which Kodachrome btw? 25, 64,200? One of the less well-known speeds?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 11, 2012 Share #40 Posted January 11, 2012 On the other hand it is relatively easy for the user to twek the raw converter sufficiently to create a specific color impression of the iamge that could then be named, with a certain artistic licence a "Kodachrome" look (which Kodachrome btw? 25, 64,200?) And I can certainly get a far more 25/64ish Kodachrome-like colour look from my Kodak sensored Leicas than from my Canons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.