Freakscene
Obscure member
I like it. It looks like the past.Some flickr samples:
Flickr Search — “Harman Phoenix 200”
www.flickr.com
New C41 Film
- Thread starter splitimageview
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 52
- Views 6K
lukx
Well-known
wlewisiii
Veteran
The 400 is not Ultramax. The datasheets are different. 200 is Gold and their data sheets are identical as a result. The 400 is made by Kodak but it has been made to a different specification made by Fuji. That said, it's still typically Kodak in its colors (ugh) and I'll buy the MiJ Xtra that is showing up more frequently again instead.
Digital for color, Ilford for black & white.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Looking through those Flickr samples reminds me why I don't shoot C41 film; it's impossible to know how much of the final result is down to the scanning software.
Contrast and compare:
Untitled by Alex Doran, on Flickr
vs:
Harman Phoenix 200 test roll by Hamish_Gill, on Flickr
I could only embed a couple of shots, but Alex Doran's photos look lovely: grainy, sure - but rich, accurate colour.
Hamish GIll's, on the other hand, look like the sort of cheap, nasty shots my mum would get back from Truprint with her cheap Boots-branded film in the 80s.
If I had only seen Hamish's results, I wouldn't want to waste money on this stuff. Alex's are much more appealing to me, and I'm sure that's all down to the way it's scanned.
And then there's whatever the hell this is...
F3_P200_23112329e by Mark Dalzell, on Flickr
Contrast and compare:
Untitled by Alex Doran, on Flickr
vs:
Harman Phoenix 200 test roll by Hamish_Gill, on Flickr
I could only embed a couple of shots, but Alex Doran's photos look lovely: grainy, sure - but rich, accurate colour.
Hamish GIll's, on the other hand, look like the sort of cheap, nasty shots my mum would get back from Truprint with her cheap Boots-branded film in the 80s.
If I had only seen Hamish's results, I wouldn't want to waste money on this stuff. Alex's are much more appealing to me, and I'm sure that's all down to the way it's scanned.
And then there's whatever the hell this is...
F3_P200_23112329e by Mark Dalzell, on Flickr
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Part of the difference in results comes down to the film not having a traditional orange mask layer, so that labs who use a default C41 scanning profile get “creative” results. Those who camera-scan and properly balance the scans get better results. I’m assuming when more labs get a proper color profile we‘ll see more consistent results. That said, I‘ll probably not waste my money on this film, it looks like some Lomography color film in terms of golfball-sized grain, but with halations worse than Cinestill 800.
das
Well-known
The Kodak-produced Fuji 200 is just so "eh," but to its credit it is certainly not as mediocre as the true cheap consumer films of the 1990s. The Kodak-produced Fuji 400 imho is better, more versatile, and much easier to scan and correct. I think that OG X-Tra was the best mid-range, cheap film ever for versatility + quality.
Regarding C41 color correction, what I really miss are the old Kodak Pakon / Fuji Frontier lab machines whose built-in software automatically corrected most films for scans and prints better than 95% of people today can manually do in Negative Lab Pro / Lightroom. It is a little frustrating to scroll through social media to see how many people fail to properly color-correct their shots, whether on purpose for "artistic effect," because their labs did not do a good job correcting their scans, or the photogs themselves just could not do it in Lightroom. To be fair, for many of these kids, they never have really seen or experienced what the higher-end professional labs in the past could get out of film because most of that infrastructure is long gone.
I find color correcting individual frames a massive pain and time-suck. Some films, like the Kodak-produced Fuji 400, actually can come out of NLP almost all the way there. The current 200 can be a nightmare. Portra / Pro Image / Ektar are very difficult to home-correct and I am never quite happy with the results, no matter how much time I spend on them. That's what I gravitate to C41 films that require the least amount of effort in post.
Regarding C41 color correction, what I really miss are the old Kodak Pakon / Fuji Frontier lab machines whose built-in software automatically corrected most films for scans and prints better than 95% of people today can manually do in Negative Lab Pro / Lightroom. It is a little frustrating to scroll through social media to see how many people fail to properly color-correct their shots, whether on purpose for "artistic effect," because their labs did not do a good job correcting their scans, or the photogs themselves just could not do it in Lightroom. To be fair, for many of these kids, they never have really seen or experienced what the higher-end professional labs in the past could get out of film because most of that infrastructure is long gone.
I find color correcting individual frames a massive pain and time-suck. Some films, like the Kodak-produced Fuji 400, actually can come out of NLP almost all the way there. The current 200 can be a nightmare. Portra / Pro Image / Ektar are very difficult to home-correct and I am never quite happy with the results, no matter how much time I spend on them. That's what I gravitate to C41 films that require the least amount of effort in post.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Exactly, and I suspect that may be the point. The results I'm seeing look very much like what I get with the "Retro" color preset on my Instax Mini Evo, right down to the softness. Perhaps the thought is that, for many, nostalgia is what's driving the return to film. This film gives it in spades; those who don't like it will still have plenty of other options. Choice is a good thing!
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Lots of chromatic aberrations in that last shot.Looking through those Flickr samples reminds me why I don't shoot C41 film; it's impossible to know how much of the final result is down to the scanning software.
Contrast and compare:
Untitled by Alex Doran, on Flickr
vs:
Harman Phoenix 200 test roll by Hamish_Gill, on Flickr
I could only embed a couple of shots, but Alex Doran's photos look lovely: grainy, sure - but rich, accurate colour.
Hamish GIll's, on the other hand, look like the sort of cheap, nasty shots my mum would get back from Truprint with her cheap Boots-branded film in the 80s.
If I had only seen Hamish's results, I wouldn't want to waste money on this stuff. Alex's are much more appealing to me, and I'm sure that's all down to the way it's scanned.
And then there's whatever the hell this is...
F3_P200_23112329e by Mark Dalzell, on Flickr
The first looks great, albeit grainy - not that you can tell much at small image size where re sampling could make it look much worse than reality.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
wlewisiii
Veteran
I have two rolls coming and I have printed out Harman's scanning instructions (from the Phoenix website) to give to my lab when I take them in. Might rescan them at home too.
Based on what I've read so far, I'll probably shoot it in my F4 so I get matrix metering & I'll rate it at EI125 to try and tame the highlights.
Based on what I've read so far, I'll probably shoot it in my F4 so I get matrix metering & I'll rate it at EI125 to try and tame the highlights.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Reading deeper, I won’t be buying this. It’s like Rollei Digibase CN200 - it lacks the orange mask and can’t be printed on RA-4 paper. That’s an out for me. If I’m going to use film I want the possibility of an all-analogue process.
wlewisiii
Veteran
Hadn't seen anything about that. Where did you see it, if you don't mind my asking?
EDIT: From the Harmon data sheet for Phoenix 200:
It doesn't really matter to me, I am purely hybrid at this point.
Meanwhile, in between the fluffy bits, there's some good info in this video:
EDIT: From the Harmon data sheet for Phoenix 200:
It doesn't really matter to me, I am purely hybrid at this point.
Meanwhile, in between the fluffy bits, there's some good info in this video:
Last edited by a moderator:
Freakscene
Obscure member
10:57 onwards. The negatives clearly lack the orange mask. Most minilabs work by scan and print from digital these days, so maybe that’s what they mean, or onto direct media, or with a modified filter pack. But it won’t work on regular RA-4 paper at home under an enlarger without the orange mask.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I just noticed it is "limited edition" film and a stepping stone to more color film development:
Scanning parameters and the six-page technical datasheet (PDFs) with scanning suggestions:
And, as Marty said, no "orange mask" (from the TDS above):
Scanning parameters and the six-page technical datasheet (PDFs) with scanning suggestions:
And, as Marty said, no "orange mask" (from the TDS above):
Freakscene
Obscure member
It’s pretty clear they have made one batch as a fundraiser towards the next with further development. Adox is doing the same thing with their Color Mission. It is now in its second version and sells out almost instantly when Fotoimpex releases it to the market.
Last edited:
lukx
Well-known
Thanks for clearing this up, I certainly do not want to spread false information, there is enough hearsay about these things. I haven't seen much of the Fuji 400, it's priced almost at Portra levels, not sure why I'd ever but it. Though, availability seems to have become the most decisive quality in color films recently...
Last edited:
wlewisiii
Veteran
Huh, a 1/3 less than that price here. Portra & Ektar are viciously expensive. A little lower than that for the MiJ Xtra but still not as cheap as it was back when it was sold in three packs in the checkouts at the grocery store and I bought it and Reala exclusively. My son was adopted from Vietnam and Kodak handles Asian skin tones ... poorly shall we simply say.
hap
Well-known
I'm going to contact The Darkroom ...and ask them to confirm their support for Phoenix.
wlewisiii
Veteran
Overexposed it based on some reading I'd done. Seems to have been a mistake. There's not enough latitude and the highlights are easily blown. Probably better to treat it like slide film rather than negative film in that regard. Still, here's some of what I got from roll one:
Nikon F4, 28-105/3.5-4.5 zoom-nikkor, developed and scanned at the local lab.
Nikon F4, 28-105/3.5-4.5 zoom-nikkor, developed and scanned at the local lab.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
William: when you down-rated the ISO in-camera, did you then instruct the lab to alter development accordingly? If not, then it wasn’t pull-processing, it was merely over-exposing.
Similar threads
