WHICH FILM IS CLOSEST TO LEICA M'S COLOR PALLETS

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just curious, which film is closet to Leica M's color pallets?

Kodachrome  is long gone, and its color was not stable during its last lifetime, apparently due to the processing.  Comparing my very old K25, I think it might be the closest in terms of faithful skin tone, dark black, light white, and pleasing red, green, and blue.

Among Fujifilms, to me its color negative N-standard has the most faithful skin tone, dark black, and light white, but red, green, blue are lack of vividity. Along this line, the next is N-High, then ASRIA, then Provia, and Velvia. But none reminds me Leica's magic. 

Yes, I understand, asking a digital camera to mimic a film or vice versa might be chasing the rainbow, 

[250swb]

Not sure why you are asking on the film forum, the film is the colour palette not the camera.

If you mean what film mimics a Leica digital camera, none do, that is why people use film.

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

I recall when the M9 came out some reviewers thought the OOC images from the Kodak sensor had a Kodachrome similarity. I still miss Kodachrome...

[frame-it]

6 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

none reminds me Leica's magic. 

which Leica M ? m9,m240, m10, m11 all have different base colors probably because of how the engineers programmed the cameras software.

 

[Einst_Stein]

5 hours ago, frame-it said:

which Leica M ? m9,m240, m10, m11 all have different base colors probably because of how the engineers programmed the cameras software.

 

None, I mean any.

[Einst_Stein]

9 hours ago, 250swb said:

Not sure why you are asking on the film forum, the film is the colour palette not the camera.

If you mean what film mimics a Leica digital camera, none do, that is why people use film.

I apologize, could you recommend which forum to ask ,  please?

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It rather depends on what colour you are seeing from your digital Leica, that will be different for a given post program you are using, each demosaicing algorithm is different when processing the  output from the image sensor overlaid with the colour filter array. It will also differ in the jpeg output from the camera depending on the parameters you have set for contrast etc in the menu and WB.

If you are looking at colour negative film that will be scanned then another set of algorithms comes into play, and different scanners give different outputs, if you look at "wet" printing colour filters again are used. Unless you start to use colour checkers in shots and profile the whole process you are in for a rough ride.

Allegedly the early algorithms and colour filters were intended/designed to approximate Kodachrome but of course the Japanese tended to favour the Fuji palette, colour preference and perception varies between groups.

I would look at say Flickr Groups for various films and get a "feel" for what you want the output to look like, anyone's opinion, including or especially mine, is personal to their perception.

Good luck.

 

[dpitt]

Digital can never be the same as film.

Even if you get the colors all the same as a film, then the light responsiveness is completely different. On film it is very hard to over expose, so you expose for the shadows mostly. A digital sensor is limited on the other side. It is easy to blow out highlights and shadows can be recovered more easily.

And even if you get that right, recent sensors start to get a much higher dynamic range compared to film. I probably forget other technical differences now, but bottom line is that both systems have their pro's and cons because of how they work.

I am not sure why you would want to emulate a digital sensor with film? All over the world engineers have been trying to do it the other way around. It is impossible, just like it is impossible to print out the image you see on screen or projection to look exactly the same on paper.

[BernardC]

I took a Cibachrome workshop in uni where the instructor asked us to name different types of colours. We hesitantly answered with suggestions like saturated, pastel, warm, cool, and so on. Once he'd heard our answers he told us that "there are three types of colours: European, American, and Japanese."

He was referring to the big 3 at the time: Agfa, Kodak, Fuji, but also to alternatives that were occasionally available from Konika, Scotch/Ferrania, and unnamed others.

He pointed-out some of the differences, so we could be aware of them while printing our own chromes. Agfa had much warmer skin tones, to the point where makeup was optional in many situations. Kodak had the most "technically correct" and bland palette, although Ektachrome seemed to always end-up too blue. Fuji had very distinctive greens and yellows.

Colour styles aren't as easy to distinguish in the digital era. On one hand, you have many more manufacturers in the game, but you also have more leeway in processing. You could argue that Leica, and to a greater extent Arri, continue the Agfa tradition where skin tones will "pop" even if the rest of your shot is neutral. That doesn't help us, given that European colour films are NLA.

You could also argue that the M9 (and S2, S-006) are similar to Kodachrome, but I think that's more about contrast/saturation than colour. You really have to ask yourself what characteristics you like in Leica colours, and find a film that emphasizes those.

One other thing I learned in that Ciba workshop is that a large percentage of men are partially colour blind. Women, to a large extent, have a better ability to distinguish between similar colours. Then as now, many high-end colourists are women, because they are better at it. My spouse worked in a photo lab for years, and I turn to her for advice on my prints (she doesn't ask me about colour in her prints...).

[250swb]

10 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I apologize, could you recommend which forum to ask ,  please?

If you want a digital camera that looks most like film you couldn’t do better than a 12 to 16 megapixel m43 camera. Any higher resolution and it looks too digital, and both Panasonic and Olympus have extremely good colour, but particularly Olympus. Additionally both can use the fantastic Panasonic Leica lenses so you can post on the forum. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by 250swb

[adan]

On 10/18/2023 at 12:41 PM, Einst_Stein said:

Just curious, which film is closet to Leica M's color pallets?

Back when it came out (1992-ish), I identified Velvia 50 v.1 as Fuji's attempt to make all lenses look the same as "Leica lenses on Kodachrome underexposed 1/2 stop" (for a given value of "like").

Cool/cyan shadows, lots of saturation/contrast, fine grain, "enhanced" resolution (for an E6 film).

I consider Kodak Ektar 100 as the "Velvia" of color neg films, for its similar characteristics - to the extent that we ever see the "native" color of neg films, since they always have to be "post-processed" (scanned/printed) to get a positive final image.

Remember that Leica themselves went with "Kodak color science" for their digital cameras - while it lasted (Kodak CCD sensors M8/M9).

[adan]

17 hours ago, BernardC said:

Once he'd heard our answers he told us that "there are three types of colours: European, American, and Japanese."

A Fuji advertisement from the 1970s:

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!

[Steve Ricoh]

On 10/19/2023 at 5:50 PM, 250swb said:

If you want a digital camera that looks most like film you couldn’t do better than a 12 to 16 megapixel m43 camera. Any higher resolution and it looks too digital, and both Panasonic and Olympus have extremely good colour, but particularly Olympus. Additionally both can use the fantastic Panasonic Leica lenses so you can post on the forum. 

I have an eleven year old EM5 Mk1 having a 16MP sensor. The complaint I have with it is that the output looks too digital for my liking, but that’s probably because it is digital.

A while ago I picked up an Agfa ePhoto 780 having a 780kB pixel sensor. The output looks less digital, but I’m having problems reading the SmartMedia cards, which is a shame. LoFi is the ‘new black’, which I like very much if they work. The Nintendo camera is a cracker, but they’re like hens’ teeth, rare as buggery.

BTW, I’ve noticed a significant increase in the asking price for LoFi cameras. 

[Einst_Stein]

I feel most modern Kodak films are more digital like, the most obvious is digital scanned Ektar 100. Kodak movie film 50 too though I think it is a tradition film. 
 

This film question came to me from a friend who asked how to set up his digital camera (by choosing film emulation) to look like my Leica.

[frame-it]

10 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I feel most modern Kodak films are more digital like, the most obvious is digital scanned Ektar 100. Kodak movie film 50 too though I think it is a tradition film. 

really? please post a few sample pics!!!

i want to see how ektar 100 looks digital [unless its started off bad shot with uneven exposure that's been scanned and processed heavily in LR or C1]

[sblitz]

I think you will find that Leica digital most reflects Kodachrome. As proof take your digital picture and apply a Kodachrome look through whatever you use (Lightroom, CaptureOne, etc). You will see the least change to Kodachrome 25 vs any other. Up to you whether that's a good thing or not, but that is what it is. Now, whether Leica tweeks the software for camera sold in Asia to a different look, I do not know. I buy the camera in NYC.

[kivis]

I'll jump in. Kodak Portra 400 for color and Ilford XP-2 400 for B/W.