Foveon looks like Kodachrome.

I was just looking at some old Kodachrome photos online today. In fact, word is that yesterday (Thursday) the last Kodachrome lab stopped processing the rolls.

If you look at some old Kodachrome photos, you will quickly realize that they look like photos coming out of Foveon cameras.

If fact, back in the "old" days when Kodak used to make DSLRs with Canon and Nikon mounts, they could and should have BOUGHT Foveon. I have always thought that would have been a good fit.

Look at Kodak now. A once venerable institution frittering about on the fringes of an industry that it once defined and dominated.

photocine said:

If you look at some old Kodachrome photos, you will quickly realize that they look like photos coming out of Foveon cameras.

Click to expand...

which one looks to you like Kodachrome ?

this one ?



or this one ?



here is the file out of Foveon camera :

http://rapidshare.com/files/440081756/SDIM1100.X3F

--

true or not, but the OP may have just been influenced by the widely-circulated comment in Popular Photography's review of the DP2 that the reviewer was reminded of Kodachrome.

Interesting! Downloaded the file but without tweaking it, I couldn't get it to correspond to either of the shots. My memories of Kodachrome lead me to believe that the colour represention of the bottom one is the closest to the now dead(?) film. Bright, larger than life. Look forward to hearing further comments.

simonbb said:

Interesting!

Click to expand...

that meant as a sarcasm ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm )

--

Maybe Pop Photo picked that up from somewhere else. At least I know someone mentioned this in the early days:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=4087457

Corkcampbell said:

true or not, but the OP may have just been influenced by the widely-circulated comment in Popular Photography's review of the DP2 that the reviewer was reminded of Kodachrome.

Click to expand...

--
Laurence
laurence at appledore-farm dot com

La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Louis Pasteur

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

Momma don't take my Foveon away.

Eggs act, Lee!

guzzibreva1 said:

Momma don't take my Foveon away.

Click to expand...

--
Laurence
laurence at appledore-farm dot com

La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Louis Pasteur

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

I shot my last 6 rolls of Kodachrome in October during a vacation to Michigan's Upper Peninsula. I used Kodachrome for over 4 decades and, in my opinion, nothing in transparency film or digital imaging will replace Kodachrome. I have been in and out of digital using Canon, Pentax, Olympus and Fuji. Most of my digital experience has been with Pentax. While the Pentax images are quite good (RAW only) they did not replace Kodachrome. However, I have always gone back to Kodachrome using my Pentax LX and Leica M3. However, from what I have seen, images created by the Foveon processor come the closest to Kodachrome. Enough that I am seriously considering a DP2S to determine whether I want to switch over from Pentax (I have used Pentax SLRs since 1983 and have over 10 K mount lenses) to Sigma.

While I enjoy using my Pentax 1st D at 6.1 megapixels it needs a 2X factor to match film quality. If the DP2S would provide the film type image quality (close to Kodachrome) I would strongly consider switching to Sigma (SD15 or the SD1). Amongst the DSLR manufacturers only Sigma makes a DSLR without unnecessary frills (scene modes, etc). The photographer becomes a much larger part of creating the image than with other DSLRs. The 1stD was a very good basic DSLR but the latest offerings from Pentax fall more into the Nikon/ Canon category with unnecessary features..............at least in my opinion.
--
JRB

Kodachrome was a breakthrough when it hit the market. It made a wonderful choice for such things as National Geographic because it kept well in adverse conditions. Kodachrome was also quite archival - and it's colors did not fade over time if stored properly.

The "Kodachrome look" came from the fact that the colors were bright - even if they weren't always true. An even more saturated film Velvia cut significantly into Kodachrome's market. The final killer was the king of over saturated (or in this case the ability to produce over saturated) images - digital.

The downside of Kodachrome was it's processing was not very environmentally friendly - much less so than E-6 processing. The second issue- it was slow (ISO 64). The third issue is the lack of dynamic range which was suffered by all transparency films. But in the studio - no big deal.

Boy, but people loved it. "The nice bright colors...." as the song goes - real or not. But it seems that "my Kodachrome has been taken away."

As far as the future of Kodak - they are a somewhat unique company. They will do things no other company will touch. They designed a film in 1960 that could be flown in space. They have built CCD image sensors with requirements no one else would touch. For that they are paid well and that paid R&D has enhanced their commercial side. They are a large imaging company - not just a photography company.

I have friends working for the AF that when a new image sensor is required - Kodak is the first place they go. Many times it is the only place they go. I expect if Kodak thought buying Foveon was a good move they would have done it. There are two companies that I think have the potential of springing on us a new "true color" sensor - Kodak being one.

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Jim Beverlin said:

images created by the Foveon processor

Click to expand...

you know that there is no such thing as "Foveon processor"... there several iterations of sensors, surrounding electronics, firmware revisions and various raw converters (and postprocessing options)... so get yourself Photoshop and AlienSkin Exposure plugin (or some other plugins along that line) and enjoy Kodachrome out of any decent raw file, be it from Sigma cameras or Pentax cameras...

from Pentax Kx :





from Wiki :



--

Truman Prevatt said:

They designed a film in 1960 that could be flown in space.

Click to expand...

actually such films existed before (albeit may be created by Kodak)... here is from 1959 :

http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Cameras.htm#Luna3

--

euuuhhh - do you call that green in the background the same as in the pictures of the OP ?

jef

exdeejjjaaaa said:

Jim Beverlin said:

images created by the Foveon processor

Click to expand...

you know that there is no such thing as "Foveon processor"... there several iterations of sensors, surrounding electronics, firmware revisions and various raw converters (and postprocessing options)... so get yourself Photoshop and AlienSkin Exposure plugin (or some other plugins along that line) and enjoy Kodachrome out of any decent raw file, be it from Sigma cameras or Pentax cameras...

from Pentax Kx :

Click to expand...

no text

Kodachrome: THE reason I came to Sigma-Foveon.

RIP: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/12/31/3104507.htm
--
Regards,

Vitée

Capture all the light and colour!



http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries

JefDeC said:

euuuhhh - do you call that green in the background the same as in the pictures of the OP ?

Click to expand...

I am sorry - do you mind to clarify the question ? which specific pictures of the OP you are referring to ?

those 2 above were imitations of Kodachrome from 35-62 and 62-74

if you need Kodachrome 64 (after 74) here it is :



--

Truman Prevatt said:

As far as the future of Kodak - they are a somewhat unique company. They will do things no other company will touch. They designed a film in 1960 that could be flown in space. They have built CCD image sensors with requirements no one else would touch. For that they are paid well and that paid R&D has enhanced their commercial side. They are a large imaging company - not just a photography company.

Click to expand...

Eastman Kodak is one of the worse performers in the stock market if you look at the trend for the last 10 years (which coincides nicely with the rise of digital photography). It has lost the BULK of its capitalization.

So yes, I have no hesitation with calling the boneheads that ran the company as incompetent fools.

Buying Foveon may not have saved them, but it would have been a wise move all things considered.

No, not at all. Sincerely meant. I've watched the forum with interest for a while 'cos I do find that some shots taken with Foveon display that film like and colour quality. Just occasionally I see it in Bayer cameras too but very rarely. I enjoy the discussions that are on here about the topic. I have come to the conclusion though that discussions re resolution figures, metameric failure etc miss the point of the Foveon. There's a quality to the pictures that the figures don't give. We need some new way of measuring Foveon. Just my two pennies worth!

Look at the picture below:

1 and 2 are background crops of the OP, 3 and 4 the crops of the pictures in your first reply and 5 a crop of the 'Kodachrome 64 (after 74)'

What I mean is that 1,2 and 5 are tints of green
3 and 4 are more brownish than green.

So I'm confused when you write:

exdeejjjaaaa said:

get yourself Photoshop and AlienSkin Exposure plugin (or some other plugins along that line) and enjoy Kodachrome out of any decent raw file,

Click to expand...

Then show pictures 3 and 4 when one can see immediatly that the color is not same.
That's all.
Best regards ... jef

exdeejjjaaaa said:

JefDeC said:

euuuhhh - do you call that green in the background the same as in the pictures of the OP ?

Click to expand...

I am sorry - do you mind to clarify the question ? which specific pictures of the OP you are referring to ?

those 2 above were imitations of Kodachrome from 35-62 and 62-74

if you need Kodachrome 64 (after 74) here it is :



--

Click to expand...

Beats me why people get all excited about Kodachrome. It was hardly natural looking. Perhaps it is my imagination but it seems to me that historically tastes have varied between Europe and the US - with the US prefering the bold, btight, saturated look and Europe a more restrained, realistic look.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml