4 ms·

There are Kodachrome presets off the shelf for Lightroom. I did a double-blind test a couple of years back with a few friends who shoot film only and no one cou

by gw99 4y ago

There are Kodachrome presets off the shelf for Lightroom. I did a double-blind test a couple of years back with a few friends who shoot film only and no one could reliably tell the difference. It's another audiophile thing. Incidentally I still shoot film myself occasionally, Ilford B&W on an old Praktica w/ Zeiss lens. It's slow, painful, I screw up 1/4 of the shots and occasionally destroy a whole roll while developing it. But it's fun. When it's no longer fun, out comes the Z50...

etrautmann 4y ago
I thought the argument was that it fails more gracefully in high dynamic range saturating situations?
- gw99 4y ago
  It depends how you interpret it. There is some dynamic range compression on over-exposure which can save you if you blow something out. If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. I prefer the crutch of 12 bit RAW and Lightroom which usually gets me out of the same sticky situation :)
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. Quite the opposite. Reversal ("slide", "chrome") films like Kodachrome are more forgiving of underexposure, while negative films are more forgiving of overexposure. Back in the heyday of chromes, it was common to slightly underexpose them to get more color saturation.
    - gw99 4y ago
      Good point - got my point the wrong way round.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 4y ago
> I did a double-blind test a couple of years back with a few friends who shoot film only and no one could reliably tell the difference. Wait: how could you possibly do a double-blind test? They'd surely notice the difference between a slide projector and a computer monitor. A digital scan of a Kodachrome slide is not the same as a Kodachrome slide projected with a good projector. The dynamic range from a projector is far greater than any standard monitor is capable of. The digital projectors used in theatres are getting pretty close. A standard desktop monitor? No way.
- gw99 4y ago
  Yeah all over that one. We used these guys to make some slides for us https://www.digitalslides.co.uk/ https://www.digitalslides.co.uk/ ... They were loaded into an old Rollei slide projector.

by gw99 4y ago

etrautmann 4y ago

I thought the argument was that it fails more gracefully in high dynamic range saturating situations?

gw99 4y ago
It depends how you interpret it. There is some dynamic range compression on over-exposure which can save you if you blow something out. If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. I prefer the crutch of 12 bit RAW and Lightroom which usually gets me out of the same sticky situation :)
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > If you underexpose Kodachrome you are screwed. Quite the opposite. Reversal ("slide", "chrome") films like Kodachrome are more forgiving of underexposure, while negative films are more forgiving of overexposure. Back in the heyday of chromes, it was common to slightly underexpose them to get more color saturation.
  - gw99 4y ago
    Good point - got my point the wrong way round.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Turing_Machine 4y ago

> I did a double-blind test a couple of years back with a few friends who shoot film only and no one could reliably tell the difference. Wait: how could you possibly do a double-blind test? They'd surely notice the difference between a slide projector and a computer monitor. A digital scan of a Kodachrome slide is not the same as a Kodachrome slide projected with a good projector. The dynamic range from a projector is far greater than any standard monitor is capable of. The digital projectors used in theatres are getting pretty close. A standard desktop monitor? No way.

gw99 4y ago
Yeah all over that one. We used these guys to make some slides for us https://www.digitalslides.co.uk/ https://www.digitalslides.co.uk/ ... They were loaded into an old Rollei slide projector.