- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,196
- Format
- Multi Format
I have to respectfully disagree. While I do not have your sophisticated testing methods, I do have my eyes, and have used many rolls of both Kodak Pro Image 100 and Lomo CN 100. In my opinion, they are not the same films.
The price seems realistic given the work that's gone into it. It became clear last week that those of us who deduced this would be something to fill the big gap in the market (affordable, amateur C41 film akin to Fuji C200 or Kodak Color Plus) were wrong. We've known since last week that this was an ISO 200 experimental film that wasn't going to be offered at some bargain price.
Well, for starters, it has color. I'd love to see your examples of NC500
I wish Harman Phoenix Colour Film the very best of luck.
For what it is worth, here is a comparison.
Harman Phoenix Vs Kodak Gold Vs Lomography CN100
This may be the issue, my understanding is that the normal C-41 settings aren't optimal due to the lack of a mask. Harman's data sheet includes suggested scanner settings for this reason, do you know if the scanner settings were adjusted?
Has anybody tried wet printing this stuff already? All I can find in the internet are from people scanning their films.
Well, let's hope that of the few left here who print optically someone will try
I'm not trying to be rude, I just didn't like NC500. It can look kinda good with heavy editing, but I simply don't like itI love the "you first" attitude and I'm now eagerly awaiting monochromatic examples from the rolls you shot...
Please don't forget that InovisCoat needed about a whole decade to get to their best CN emulsion. And that despite of having the original Agfa production machinery and a significant part of (but not all of) the former Agfa emulsion know-how.
So that Harman managed to create the Phoenix film in such a short time span is indeed really impressive, and deserves a lot of appreciation and respect.
Well, let's hope that of the few left here who print optically someone will try
pentaxuser
You can largely compensate for the lack of orange mask with filter pack. You should indeed be able to make it print somewhat more normally by sandwiching it with a piece of unexposed but developed regular C41 film.
...the marketing was into the fringes.
Maybe I’m old school, but when did it become the norm to release your R&D ‘failures’ for profit to fund future R&D? In my mind, a respected company such as Harman has taken a hit for putting out such an inferior product. Even Adox, while claiming Color Mission was a step to a final product, released a very polished step, that could actually stand on its own, albeit slightly grainy.
I’ve always placed Harman up there in the top tier with Kodak and Fuji. Would they have put out something before it was perfected, even with claims of “Isn’t this cool?”, “Isn’t this funky?” or “Temper your expectations and have fun!”. No. So no thank you, I can buy a roll of far superior Gold or Fuji for less than the price of Phoenix.
Will it succeed? Beats me.
Someone will discover what Phoenix 200 is really good for and produce stunning work that won't be repeatable when the current batch runs out. What a unique opportunity!
Those with long memories will recall the grainy, gritty, muted, low resolution but gorgeous photographs from Sheila Metzner via the Atelier Fresson process.
Also remember GAF 500 colour slide film from the 1970s: grainy, contrasty, slightly off colours, but capable of beauty in its own way.
Congratulations to Harman for offering this non-mainstream, non general purpose film.
Harman has annual revenues of only about 20 million pounds. Just how deep into any new product do you think they can go before they need see some revenue out of it? Even as Kodak limps along, their revenue is 50 times that.
This! We already have good color films. There's plenty of room for funky and unusual.What's the point of having yet another color emulsion that duplicates the "Professional" standards of Kodak and Fuji?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?