[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_5985.jpg (883 KB, 1502x1179)
883 KB JPG
We know that original Kodachrome isnt coming back due to the toxic chemicals used in developing rolls, but why arent Kodak or any other film manufacturer creating a new film stock that looks like Kodachrome? Is it really impossible to create other film stocks than these hazy yellow tinted pissy stocks available now?

Ektar is way too red, Portra and Gold too yellow, Ektachrome too blue and so forth.

Deep black shadows, punchy reds and yellows, good contrast, perfect blues, lots of black in all colors. No weird general color tint.

If a Kodachrome copy was launched it would be a fucking goldmine $$ for Kodak or whomever launched it.
>>
>>4503466
Who cares
you fix it in post anyways.
>>
https://nikonpc.com/

here
>>
File: 3ee0f25e48a6c10d-photo.jpg (189 KB, 1080x1246)
189 KB JPG
>>4503466
I agree. Just bring back the OG.
>>
Buncha zoomers in this thread not realizing Kodachrome was absolute ass compared to modern e6
>>
this shit again?
>>4487920
>>
File: IMAG0264.jpg (4.54 MB, 5728x3824)
4.54 MB JPG
>>
>>4504004
In terms of what? Speed/ISO and dynamic range? Yeah but Kodachrome still looks ten times better because its colors are superior.
>>
File: ekta.jpg (2.28 MB, 4858x2964)
2.28 MB JPG
>>4504411
ektachrome can look close enough, and honestly - it wouldnt matter nowadays, everyone edits their photos...
>>
File: films.jpg (2.3 MB, 2000x1292)
2.3 MB JPG
>>4504411
two are ektachrome, two are kodachrome, good luck.
shot around 1980, so it should be E6, but i am definitely not ready to talk about the differences between "old" and "new" ektachrome, so, take this experiment with a grain of salt
>>
>>4504413
Top left is Kodachrome and so is bottom right.
>>
>>4504415
youve got one right
>>
>>4504459
It's hard to say without clouds being in each photo, having those in a photo makes it easier to identify.
>>
>>4504460
theres two images with clouds and you got one of them wrong though?
>>
>>4504470
Yeah, it's too small of a sample size.
>>
>>4503475
I can't tell if they're actually good or not
>>
File: 21.jpg (3.56 MB, 2000x2288)
3.56 MB JPG
>>4504587
your penis is too small of a sample size lol

anyway, this probably will be trickier, good luck?
>>
File: 000055990008 (1).jpg (2.85 MB, 4311x2433)
2.85 MB JPG
>>4504413
Easy. The two on the left are Ektachrome, the two in the right are kodackrome. Easy.

t. Ektachrome chad
>>
>>4504712
you are correct, not bad
>>
File: kc.jpg (899 KB, 1901x1267)
899 KB JPG
>>4503470
>>
File: test5.jpg (761 KB, 1901x1267)
761 KB JPG
>>4504748
Here's one you can level and saturate to your own taste
>>
>>4504748
>>4504749
what? we are not talking about emulation here
post raw if you want to start though



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.