A "New Kodachrome", why didn't they? ...

[nsouto]

and that of course should be superia 400, not sensia 400....
<groan>

[StorminMatt]

Like I said: pick a new roll of Astia, expose it bang on 100 ISO (ignore all the old advice to over/under expose it), and check the results.
To me, the latest emulsions are right up there with the best Kodachrome could produce. And it scans with even smaller grain than K64!

Last February, I actually gave Astia a try. Given what people say about Astia looking like Kodachrome, I felt quite positive about it and bought three rolls (feeling quite sure I would like it). Unfortunately, I just didn't like the way it looked. It looked completely like a Fuji film, and looked nothing like Kodachrome. So I ended up throwing the other two rolls in the trash. After all, it's not like there is going to be a situation where I would actually RATHER shoot Astia than Kodachrome or E100G. I just look at this whole experience as one of those situations where you take a risk and lose. So for me, there will be no more experimentation with Astia.

[Mark Antony]

Matt
I'm not sure Astia is like Kodachrome, and while a films colour palette is a matter of choice I find Astia probaly the most neutral of positive films.
Different people like certain films for different reasons, in fact I use different films with varying types of light and with certain subjects.
Astia for me is quite accurate:

Of course YMMV as they say, and rather than chuck those films spread the love and donate them to a student- thats what I do with stock I can't get on with.
Mark

[StorminMatt]

I'm not sure Astia is like Kodachrome, and while a films colour palette is a matter of choice I find Astia probaly the most neutral of positive films.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of Astia vs Kodachrome. But one thing I found is that Astia has the same problem as other Fuji film: it overemphasizes subtle colors in comparison to the way it reproduces bolder colors. This is a quality I NEVER liked about Fuji.

Of course YMMV as they say, and rather than chuck those films spread the love and donate them to a student- thats what I do with stock I can't get on with.
Mark

I certainly wouldn't have minded giving those rolls of Astia to someone who could have used them rather than simply chucking them in the trash like I did. But I didn't know anyone who would want them. And I really didn't want to deal with having to find someone who wanted them or having to deal with shipping the rolls to someone.

[Wolfeye]

Now that I'm coming to terms with K-14 being nearly gone, I would certainly give a fair trial to an E-6 substitute which successfully replicated Kodachrome as near as humanly possible.

If it really were that good, I wouldn't object to them calling it "Kodachrome-E", or whatever they like....but I don't think it will happen.

And I can't see even Kodak being misguided enough to label anything digital with the brand "Kodachrome" (but anything is possible ).

Given the digital nature of this very forum, and how often someone posts a SCAN of Kodachrome which is greeted with hails of how "There ain't nothin' like THAT in digital!", why can't a digital Kodachrome be made? If you sample enough Kodachrome slides, and run the spectral characteristics through a computer, you can come up with a pretty good algorithm to mimic the look, at least in a purely digital medium such as the web.

Several digital cameras (Fuji comes to mind) have a "chrome" setting which mimics the look of chrome film.

Personally, if Kodak made a Kodachrome-mimicing camera and marketed it as such, and that helped keep Big Yellow in the black and making film, I'd be the first one in line to buy it.

[PhotoJim]

You can probably make a Photoshop plug-in that would make digital images look like scanned Kodachrome, but you can't make an image that looks like projected Kodachrome.

[wogster]

Given the digital nature of this very forum, and how often someone posts a SCAN of Kodachrome which is greeted with hails of how "There ain't nothin' like THAT in digital!", why can't a digital Kodachrome be made? If you sample enough Kodachrome slides, and run the spectral characteristics through a computer, you can come up with a pretty good algorithm to mimic the look, at least in a purely digital medium such as the web.

Several digital cameras (Fuji comes to mind) have a "chrome" setting which mimics the look of chrome film.

Personally, if Kodak made a Kodachrome-mimicing camera and marketed it as such, and that helped keep Big Yellow in the black and making film, I'd be the first one in line to buy it.

You would never get the colour response quite right. I tried for a while to emulate B&W film with digital and was never happy with the results, so currently use a hybrid process, which looks better to me. In B&W you only have one colour to deal with, with colour film it gets only harder, because everything moves in 9 directions at once. Bumping the blue response means that the red and green responses also change, then you need to emulate the way the couplers and dye layers work, so it's not 3 ways, but 3 times 3, or 9.

It would be easier to make another slide film look like Kodachrome, because your using similar technology. Even this would not be easy, you would need the film sensitivity layers to be identical, then play with the dye layers and couplers to tune the representation.

Makes me wonder if anyone has tried processing Kodachrome in E6 chemistries to see what happens. Would the result look like E6 or Kodachrome or like a bad acid trip?

[Aurum]

IIRC you would just end up with a blank roll.
Kodachrome does not contain couplers in the film itself, it is in effect B&W multilayer film.
E6 contains couplers in the gelatin, (as does C41) so the colour developer solution acts on those and generates the colour.

Basically, from what I understand, using E6 chems would not generate dye clouds in Kodachrome, so when you finally bleached the film to remove the remaining silver, you would have no dye, and now no silver remaining. therefore no image at all, a blank roll