Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
Roger, thank you. I'll shut up!

K.S., Roger, in surveys, most people pick garish color over muted color as long as the color is accurate. And so a red can be a red, not an orange, but the customer inevitably selects bright red rather than red. If you look at a Munsell or CIE chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIELAB. You will find that people expect high saturation and brightness. See the enhanced color photo compared to the original on the CIE page.

And I prefer the right side of the photograph in the Wiki article, or at least I do assuming that sky is accurate. I like the bright blue sky of the left side, but I've seen skies that appear that blue plenty of times. I don't like the garish neon green of the plants on the left. Plants just don't look like that, at least outside of cartoons. When I go visit family back in east TN I always marvel at the much more vibrant shades of green in the grass and trees (during times of year they are green of course) as opposed to here in Georgia, but even they are not THAT green.

Isn't there an inherent conflict between saturation and color accuracy at some point, where to make the color more saturated it has to be more purely one wavelength, whereas the original was more mixed?

In any event, when I started photogtraphy Kodachrome was known for its saturation, compared to the E4 and early E6 films, and especially compared to, ugh, Kodacolor II consumer C41. We used Vericolor II type S, later III, when we wanted saturated prints. I liked the more saturated look of Kodachrome then, but somehow the race was on and I thought it got kind of carried away later.

OTOH, I did shoot a fair amount of Agfa Ultra 50 so I'm hardly one to talk. But that was for very specific subjects that worked with high saturation, like I agree Velvia does, not for general use (and talk about garish Caucasian skin tones, ugh! But it was great for bright cars, some sports in bright enough light etc.) I much prefer today's Ektar 100 though: not quite as saturated but very saturated, an extra stop of speed, much sharper, and decent flesh tones if people wander into those shots.

I always liked Kodachrome but didn't shoot much of it because I could process E6 myself, and also because 64 is pretty slow never mind 25. When they came out with 200 I tried it but found it quite grainy. Besides, it was such an icon it would always be available and I could always shoot it later. Sigh. I did shoot quite a few rolls I could find in 2010. I had one left over I just didn't have time to shoot. I'm not even sure where it is now, not that it would be worth $250 to me to process.