My kodachrome recipe on my x100vi annihilates that photo

>fujiworm pretends to know anything about photo
el oh el

Unless you need portability. Or fast follow-up shots. Or the ability to physically carry the necessary equipment to take more than a few shots. Or, in 2025, the ability to take a photo and process it. You take your large format camera and your kodachrome, and then pick any idiot kid with a 5 year old smartphone, and we'll see who can produce the nicest photo today.

>>4487924
>ultimate snapshitters cope

>>4487921

Very nice, show us.

>>4487927
It ain't cope if you can't produce.

thinly veiled feminist thread, do not reply

>>4487930
Outside of fast moving subjects what worthwhile pictures could a phone take that a big camera on a tripod couldn't? If we are talking about good photography almost none.
The only thing "fast" cameras are better at is taking snapshits and sports.

>>4487934
Take a picture in 2025 with large format kodachrome, process the negative, and print it. Any picture whatsoever. I'll wait.

>>4487935
No.
Take a worthwhile picture with your phone that couldn't be taken with a large format camera and print it out. I'll wait.

>>4487936
Hey retard, the point is that kodachrome vanished fifteen fucking years ago, it doesn't fucking exist anymore. A smartphone photo, ANY smartphone photo, is better than no fucking photo at all. Don't move the fucking goalposts.

>>4487941
>Saying large format is too big and inconvenient for me was not my point! It was only about a film we all know is impossible to get or develop!
Hey retard, no shit.
You can still get fresh e6 for large format and it will still mog a cellphone when making any worthwhile photograph.

>>4487942
And if the thread was about large format film in general, I wouldn't have said shit. Because it is absolutely true that large format film cameras are capable of producing work that smartphones aren't. That's not in fucking dispute. What is in dispute is that in Current Year, kodachrome is better than anything, because kodachrome is now just a song by Paul Simon. That doesnt mean that there aren't advantages to smaller formats, or smaller formats wouldn't exist, and if you think there are no advantages to smaller formats you are even dumber than you seem as someone defending kodachrome in 2025. I hope your final exam in your intro to film photography class goes well this week, kid.

>>4487944
>goalposts CHANGED
KEK. Seethe harder snapshitter.

Fucking zoomers. Kodachrome was pretty shit by the end of its life. Ektachrome and fujichrome far surpassed it in every metric INCLUDING film stability. Id reluctantly use Kodachrome in a pinch if I couldn't find Fujichrome anywhere. Fucking Kodachrome 64 was grainier than Provia 400.

>>4487931
K3k

>>4487928
>>4487922
I was just joking... I do have an x100vi though and I like it, but I'm pretty disappointed in the whole recipe thing.

Wise up tardo, they're all valid formats with different strengths/weaknesses. Most of these are aesthetic differences anyway. This Sanguinetti photo could be taken with any format, but presenting it with higher resolution gives it style like painted realism.

>angrily defending cell phone image quality
/p/ is dead.

>>4487987
Ya nobody should be arguing that. Misunderstanding of photogrfy

>>4487935
FYI, you can actually do that.
It'll just be B&W.

>>4487946
>be insufferable
>people get mad at you
>seethe

This is what these niggas do all day, sit on their computer trying to le ebin trole people trying to have a conversation.

>>4487920
Pixels are more expensive to develop than chemicals

>>4487987
Any photo is better than nophoto, that's the point

>>4488038
sometimes zero photo is better, just see the RPT

>>4488038
False.

>>4488062
Correct.

>>4488062
Fake and gay

>>4487924
>who can produce the nicest photo
>nicest
>you know, that certain "thingness" all photos have, that makes them... "nice" or not.
>argument relies on undefined subjective fluffword

Yep, there's your problem.

Only ai can do it

>>4487956
I have slides going on 45 years old on Kodachrome, and the colour show no shift or fading compared to internegatives produced of them. Took great shots of Pink Floyd in 87 on K200

File: kkkk.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4487920
the old kodachrome was basically iso 10, so most of these large format shots have like kilowatts of lights blasting the subjects.
anyway i do agree, nothing looks quite like it, even the 60s/70s 35mm koadchrome photos just have something special about them - no "preset" will ever capture that, and definitely no fuji recipe lol...

File: kkkkk.jpg (333.6 KB)

333.6 KB JPG

>>4493602
>https://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=mrg&st=gallery

Yet another Kodachrome thread where nobody realizes there is artificial light and reflectors that are contributing to muh Kodachrome look.

Dumbasses

>>4493618
literally one post above

>>4493603
you can tell how bright that was from the shadow edges

>>4487920
>How? isnt technology supposed to get better with time?

I want to call you retarded, but the basic truth is accurate. large format film can't really be beaten by digital. That would be like 200mp equivalent with insane pixel pitch and depth. a large format hasselblad image probably comes close, but idk what the fuck you would need to do with color grading.

>>4493618
Makes sense, artifical light and reflectors were only ever used to shoot kodachrome>>4493618

>>4487920

basically its technically possible to drum scan 8x10 like any aerial photo

while 16-bit color capture is like contax or phase one feature

>>4487924
> Kodachrome LF has been surpassed in term of portability and reaction speed
the point of large format is to sacrifice convenience for the sake of picture quality... so yeah I guess at the time it was released it was already surpassed by smaller formats?

> Kodachrome LF has been surpassed because it is not produced anymore
are you retarded?

> Kodachrome LF has been surpassed because look, I click the button and I have a dogshit picture on my iphone, can you do that with kodachrome LF???????
ok so you are in fact retarded

>>4487941
No. A dogshit smartphone photo is worse than no photo, and you shutting up is better than you posting.

>>4499870
Please learn how greentext works, we don't put a space after the arrow newfaggot.

>>4499881
you would prefer it with escape character then?

>>4499884
No,
>we simply type greentext
>like this, with no space after the arrow
>and no line breaks
Good luck anon. You'll be happy to know that it's even easier than how you did it. Welcome to 4chan.

>>4499870
This.

>>4499881
> Kodachrome LF has been surpassed because you're not supposed to put a space after the arrow

>>4487924
pick any idiot kid with a Polaroid camera and we'll see who can produce the nicest printed photo right now. yeah that's what I thought. guess all digital cameras were surpassed already huh.

Itt
>ill wait
>no, Ill wait
Nophoto waiters on both sides, bring my coffee waiter

>>4487920
>surpass
in what criteria, with what qualitative/qualitative standards
if we're pixel peeping, why post a 785x1024, 159 KB jpg

>>4499965
*qualitative/quantitative

>>4487920
How do you know this photo was taken with kodachrome? I can only find very little information about it.

>>4499984
it's pretty much the only thing you could use back in the early 40s to get colors that bright. the photog that shot this literally started a company to print quality

>>4499984
if you go down the rabbit hole, youll recognize kodachrome anytime. anyway -
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Douglas_Aircraft_Company_photographs_by_Alfred_T._Palmer

>>4487920

Selective dye coupling layers.

The cross-section of Kodachrome film consists of layers which are, from top-to-bottom: blue sensitive (of which the non-sensitized portions will be dyed yellow), yellow filter, blue-green sensitive (dyed magenta), blue-red sensitive (dyed cyan), acetate base, rem-jet anti-halation backing.

The blue-green and blue-red sensitive layers are primarily sensitive to green and red light, respectively, but are sensitive to blue light as well. The yellow filter layer is added to prevent blue light from penetrating to these layers during exposure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process

Kodachrome films are non-substantive. Unlike substantive transparency and negative color films, Kodachrome film does not incorporate dye couplers into the emulsion layers. The dye couplers are added during processing. This means that Kodachrome emulsion layers are thinner and less light is scattered upon exposure, meaning that the film could record an image with more sharpness than substantive films. Transparencies made with non-substantive films have an easily visible relief image on the emulsion side of the film. Kodachrome 64 and 200 can record a dynamic range of about 2.3D or 8 f-stops, as shown in the characteristic curves. Kodachrome 25 transparencies have a dynamic range of around 12 f-stops, or 3.6–3.8D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

The reason these LF shots look good in Kodachrome was because they would have looked good on any film, they were staged shots by the DOD for propaganda purposes. Doesn't detract from how good they look, every one of those pictures from WW2 was staged, there's a whole article about it somewhere

The other thing with large format is simple physics, higher resolution. More real estate, more image quality.

I actually got to shoot Kodachrome in 2010 and loved it. Marvelous stuff. I have negscans from it somewhere I will find them and post here.

File: kkkkkkkk.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4500253
one thing to note though, the modern (haha) K-14 process and adjacent kodachrome film stocks look (at least to me) like completely different stuff compared to what palmer, herzog, haas, leiter, frissell, or other color film "legends" shot. the pre-70s kodachrome just has something special about it. it doesnt even have to be shot in large format or with tons of stage lights.

one thing to note though, i have never seen a physical kodachrome slide in my life. i am basing my whole obsession on photo books and digital scans, so i might just be manipulated by some... photo manipulations.

anyway, i am very fascinated with how clean the (white) skin tones are, while the reds turn into this deep, dense, almost orange tone. and dont even start me on the kodachrome blues.

>>4500253
>>4500287
Cool info dump but how come you never seen a kodachrome slide if you literally shot kodachrome yourself

>>4487920
> no digital camera not even the state of the art 2025 cameras can surpass LF kodachrome
let me fix that for you
> no digital camera not even the state of the art 2025 cameras can surpass LF
And it's only during the last 5 years that you could come close to MF with a prosummer grade digital camera. And the color still suck hard.

>>4500304
check the tripcode anon, im not sugar

>>4487920
>tfwno lf kodachrome welder gf

>>4500253
>I have negscans from it somewhere I will find them and post here.
ummm

>>4500402
she's in bed with jody while you sit in a trench

>>4487920

If I shoot kodak gold on my om1 vs my Nikon d800 it’s a huge difference.
I don’t think the digital photo has ever once looked nicer.
Film has nicer colours at the start and even nicer with a few tweaks. It renders light and contrast differently as well.

As with everything, the shortcut wins so digital replaced film while not looking as nice. If you truely care about getting nice images over all else even in 2026 you shout film not digital.

>>4487931
incel behavior

>>4501746
who the frick is jody?

>>4501979
Judge Jody

>>4501979
it was the proto boomer version of chad in the army