M9 Kodachrome examples anyone?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

When it came out, people were saying that the sensor and software were developed with the colour palette of Kodachrome in mind. I never saw it myself (what I have in mind as Kodachrome).

 

People often say it's not important what gear was used etc but the final image is what's important so if Oliviersm wants to pursue that look, why shouldn't he? Ernst Haas and Saul Leiter pursued a certain look, as did/does Salgado, Ralph Gibson etc. In fact I suppose we all do either consciously or not, whether it's grainy high contrast black and white or low contrast colour with the palette of Portra or Fuji Pro 400H etc.

Pete

I can appreciate people to pursue a style of his own vision. To pursue a style of someone else or something else? I beg your pardon?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[a.noctilux]

Thanks Olivier, this was from Bali, Ubud region.

In projected big screen ( well only 2m wide! ), when first viewed the slide freshly received from lab, we were disappointed comparing to the great real landscape,

"muted colors" (greens much less vivid).

 

So let's use our digital (M or not ...) cameras to produce what we want now and not "imitations" of good old days film's looks.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by a.noctilux

[a.noctilux]

Further with M9,

K25 style, with almost no PP

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Menorca stone colors are very tricky with shades of "skin tones" 😇

not bad as "K25 imitation M9 file" (2010)

Edited May 30, 2020 by a.noctilux

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, oliviersm said:

Because learning whether from books, research or the experience of others is something that interests me. Odd that you seem to think I am not enjoying my M9. I'd ask you the same question, "Why spend time providing contextually irrelevant answers. Why?", but I'm not interested in that answer to be honest.

I personally appreciate the responses from Archiver, Adan and Otto. If you don't then perhaps this thread is not for you and you should follow your own advice.

Feel free to appreciate whatever. I am feeling free to express myself.

[a.noctilux]

M9 merits ...

pink is very difficult to obtain on Kodachrome, here M9 is "better" in this aspect

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M9 at 400 ISO, not Kodachrome "look",

but M9's own hues of pinks 😉

 

[oliviersm]

3 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

So let's use our digital (M or not ...) cameras to produce what we want now and not "imitations" of good old days film's looks.

Right on. I appreciate the response you and the others in the thread have given me, also on kodachrome 👍 . It's given me a bit of an insight into why so many persons associate M9 with the film. 

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, tom.w.bn said:

Ok. Maybe that fueled the CCD vs. CMOS debate?  I mainly ignore these debates because I personally think that the raw converter has such a big influence on the output. When I open M9 files with Lightroom, Capture One or DXO I get Adobe colours or Phase One colours or DXO colours. They all have their own interpretation of colours and look different for the same file.

Always remember that the Leica CCD sensors were Kodak-made. Almost unique among "35mm-sized" digital cameras.

And that while colors can be shifted in post-processing, the exact color transmission and densities of a sensor's Bayer filters will impose their own color rendering on an image, which cannot usually be perfectly reproduced by post-processing.

I say that as someone who has spent hours trying to match colors from Canon sensors - even shot with Leica lenses - to M8/9/10 colors. The best I can achieve is "kinda-sorta." Once the filters have separated the colors differentially, putting them back together is an exercise in putting toothpaste back in its tube.

When some people say they like Leica CCD images, I think it is not so much that it is CCD, but that the color palette was engineered by the same people who "balanced" Kodak films. It is not as though Bayer-array dyes are an off-the-shelf material that all sensor makers use identically.

See also the curves plotted for Kodachrome's spectral-dye-density and spectral-sensitivity. These represent "creative choices" made long before an image is taken.

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/e55-2009_06.pdf

I believe one of the reasons Leica always struggled with higher ISOs with the CCD cameras is that Kodak used denser, purer color dyes, that improved saturation, color distinctions and color clarity, but blocked more light per channel (had a stronger "filter factor" - like a 29 Wratten red compared to a 25 or 23A Wratten red)

Compared to existing "35mm-like" competition at the time of the M8/M9, the Kodak/Leica CCD sensors had particular characteristics that were - different. Just as Fuji Velvia has a different palette than Kodachrome, Ektachrome or Agfachrome, (in the case of the latter, even when run through identical chemicals).

But were shared with Kodachrome, perhaps not surprisingly.

1) the stronger "Kodak-color" dyes.

2) the basic sensor architecture was derived from larger MF-back sensors. It did not have an AA "blurring" filter - relatively unique at the time - and thus had better resolution (at the cost of occasional aliasing and moirés). Leica removed another glass layer by incorporating the IR-blocking filter into the cover glass, and making the whole thing thinner to produce less refraction (but creating the "purple-tuxedo" IR color problems using the M8 without external IR-cut filters).

3) generally higher contrast and "punch," although that was probably from Leica's own profile and in-camera image math (tone curve), as farmed out to Jenoptik (formerly know as Zeiss Jena).

[tom.w.bn]

Just for fun I looked through my archive of M9 and M240 images, searching for mainly green images. There are some images where I thought that I found a typicel M9 example. I couldn't clearly guess the camera for the majority of images though. There are probably people out there who can. At least there were some threads back in the days were people complaint about the colour of M240 compared to M9.

 

[tom.w.bn]

@adanThanks for the information

vor 4 Stunden schrieb adan:

.......

I believe one of the reasons Leica always struggled with higher ISOs with the CCD cameras is that Kodak used denser, purer color dyes, that improved saturation, color distinctions and color clarity, but blocked more light per channel (had a stronger "filter factor" - like a 29 Wratten red compared to a 25 or 23A Wratten red)

......

When I remember right, all CCD camera sensors struggled with high iso..... and with the demand for live view capability. Here CMOS sensors are clearly better and the reason why nobody uses CCD sensors anymore. And there are CMOS sensors without AA-Filter too.

 

 

[oliviersm]

13 minutes ago, tom.w.bn said:

Just for fun I looked through my archive of M9 and M240 images, searching for mainly green images. There are some images where I thought that I found a typicel M9 example. I couldn't clearly guess the camera for the majority of images though. There are probably people out there who can. At least there were some threads back in the days were people complaint about the colour of M240 compared to M9.

 

Yes, I've seen a few of those also. I don't think I would be able to spot on the majority of photos. The only times I would is if I edit a portrait (dng) adjust white balance to slightly cooler (generally 18%grey) and then increase the contrast +20 in lightroom. The magenta response in the lips of most persons is very strong. As a photographer who was shooting almost exclusively portraits at the time, it was so noticeable and it sort of threw me off in my workflow.

Now (4+ years later), I've come to embrace the colour response of the M9 and as I was waiting for the Leica store to open to go and purchase my M10-P, I spent a lot of time shooting with my M9 again, in a sense to re-explore the camera. It's part of the reason this thread started. It was only a few weeks ago (after owning the camera for 4 years) that I started reading about kodachrome and the M9's relationship to the film. In the end though, what still remains true to me is, digital is digital and analog is analog and they both have a very strong place in my photography. 

[oliviersm]

4 hours ago, adan said:

Always remember that the Leica CCD sensors were Kodak-made. Almost unique among "35mm-sized" digital cameras.

See also the curves plotted for Kodachrome's spectral-dye-density and spectral-sensitivity. These represent "creative choices" made long before an image is taken.

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/e55-2009_06.pdf

 

Wow your knowledge on the topic is very extensive. You know it's exactly these "creative choices" made before the image is taken that I really enjoy when a company makes them. It's bold by both kodak and leica (at least in my eyes). Canon makes similar ones (much warmer skin tones methinks), sony makes others (very much colder skin tones) - however it's only when I first shot the M9 that this became so apparent to me. 

[otto.f]

23 hours ago, oliviersm said:

It seems like the one I am quite interested in is the 64 I think. Specifically the high contrast ones with the saturated response to reds and blues. This is not by the 25, no?

Indeed

[Ko.Fe.]

Way too much of the blue cast. I prefer Kodak Gold funky colors.

[Einst_Stein]

It's unlikely Kodak's sensor based color pallet would be the same as the Old Kodachrome. They have very different constraints. Even on different films, Kodak did not use the same color pallet.  Saying Leica M9 uses the color pallet same or similar to Kodachrome is simply a hearsay.

My first 35mm full frame DSLR is Kodak's DCS Pro SLR/c, it was stolen and replaced by Leica M9, they have very different color rendering. 

On the other side, compare Fujifilm's digital camera, even they claim they support some kind of Fujifilm (Velvia?) film emulation, I'm yet to see a picture that really reminds me the true Velvia. If you do, show me! 

[roydonian]

Einst_Stein wrote: "Why?...

Let M9 be M9, not a Kodachrome or Velvia imitator. "

Most of the M9 pics I took during a group photo outing to a disused London cemetery a couple of years ago were posted on the group website in emulations of several century-old monochrome processes. These seemed to suit the subject.

Over the last couple of years I've also been experimenting with emulations of the 1907 Lumiere Autochrome process. Why? Because I agree with John Wood's statement in his 1994 book 'The Art of the Autochrome' that the system was  "to a great many eyes, the most beautiful of photographic processes."

Photoshop and similar software gives me the option of producing the best digital images that my M-D can generate, or the charms of some of the processes from yesteryear.

 

 

 

[ianman]

2 hours ago, roydonian said:

Over the last couple of years I've also been experimenting with emulations of the 1907 Lumiere Autochrome process. Why? Because I agree with John Wood's statement in his 1994 book 'The Art of the Autochrome' that the system was  "to a great many eyes, the most beautiful of photographic processes."

Oh that sounds interesting. I'm a big fan of the Autochrome. Can we see your emulations anywhere online? Sorry if I've missed them here.

I wouldn't mind seeing the old cemetery photos either, they are one of my favourite subjects.

[Geoff Marshall]

On 5/30/2020 at 10:06 AM, a.noctilux said:

Hello Olivier,

as decades old Kodachrome user, (as Adan wrote, so many "Kodachrome looks") that my intention to "imitate the look", thing that I intended for years,

is no more valid.

Even when I'm pleased to have (even now) some slide projections on Pradovit, I'm (almost) upset when I have those Kodachrome II/X/25/64/200 "scanned at best"

on computer screen.

May it be the "flat look" or "less/more contrast" or "color cast", or what else ?

 

That said, I'm happy that I used those Kodachrome for long, and now I scan them with pleasure but those "Kodachrome looks" can't be duplicate anymore with any means.

some opinions, here ...

...

lastly this post

 

In my way, the "situation" can be good/bad/no more/etc.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

😉

Arnaud

I also used Kodachrome in the past and wish they could bring it back, the look of the images when projected was pure magic and if I wanted something to put on display a Cibachrome print of the slide had a special look. 

[farnz]

On 5/30/2020 at 9:05 AM, oliviersm said:

My thoughts on velvia - wow that was a difficult film for me to shoot. I saw all these fantastically saturated colours and I was just nuking one roll at a time. It took a while for me to get consistent exposures - and whilst I am not able to get those incredibly saturated colours I've seen others get, I am getting some exposures, which I enjoy.

I shot Fuji Velvia on medium format for 15+ years and the trick to getting the saturated colours was to deliberately under expose but develop at box speed.  So, for (the original) Velvia ISO 50 I would set my Weston light meter to ISO 40 but develop at ISO 50.  The other 'trick' is fairly common and is to use a decent polarising filter to further saturate the colours.  Since Velvia is a transparency film it really important to accurately expose each frame and preserve the highlights because there's no interneg to come to the rescue.

I was a dedicated landscape photographer and I would never use Velvia for shooting portraits because the skin tones would look pretty awful.  On the odd occasions I was shooting portraits or colour street photography I'd usually use Provia.

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M