They said on twitter that they'll be getting more sometime next month
First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!
-
A
- Thread starter Vetus
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Film holders for Omega Chromega B Enlarger; For 35, 6x6 and slides
- Started by waynecrider
-
For Sale Whole plate film
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
Free Beseler Polycontrast Filters
- Started by mgb74
-
For Sale 2 x Antique dark room lights
- Started by Manual Camera
Forum statistics
They said on twitter that they'll be getting more sometime next month
Admittedly, they've come a long way. And they managed to help rekindle the fire of instant photography.
MattKing
Moderator
And they didn't have an already in place and relatively well functioning distribution system in place.
Today's Polaroids are demonstrably better than Impossible-era First Flush.
I've noticed some people get far better results with this new film than others. I accidentally came across this YouTube video this morning, Hamish Gill of 35mmc magazine has also made some good images.
Ian
Ian
MattKing
Moderator
I think the scanning process has a lot to do with it. Those who use DSLR scanning seem to get pretty good results.
Interesting… thanks!
To put it very bluntly and undiplomatically: some people are more competent in digital post processing than others. This is really the main determinant that I see. It's very little to do with equipment etc.
Last edited:
Quite nice
I wonder how this new film behaves with longer exposure times? Could be it color shifts to Portra. I'm looking forward to giving this a try. The beauty of analog.
I forget which, but one of the Youtube videos that went up very soon after Phoenix was revealed did try exposures up to one second, and found reciprocity failure to be similar to Kodak films and no wild colour shifts. I haven't seen anything longer, though am considering some myself as there's a pub in town with some great Christmas lights that are begging for film.
Indeed, and they have come far. The current Polaroid film may not be as good as we had 30 years ago, but it's decent enough. They also achieved something of a miracle given where they started. And were poo-pooed along the way.
You could add at the taking stage as well.
I've noticed the same thing with just about every film out there on YouTube.
It isn't just YouTube, it's everywhere, on the internet, and includes physical prints, darkroom or digital.
Ian
Who knew it's people taking photos, not cameras?
I'm keeping a curious eye out on this - don't shoot negs, but applaud the effort and the quirky result, will be interesting to see it maturing over time. And I feel that any progress towards C-41 film could inspire a step towards E-6 which I'm totally into.
And I dig the fact that it's clearly marketed as an experimental (risky, i.e. for non-critical adventures) film, this openness feels a bit like fresh air.
I'm keeping a curious eye out on this - don't shoot negs, but applaud the effort and the quirky result, will be interesting to see it maturing over time. And I feel that any progress towards C-41 film could inspire a step towards E-6 which I'm totally into.
And I dig the fact that it's clearly marketed as an experimental (risky, i.e. for non-critical adventures) film, this openness feels a bit like fresh air.
No surprise for anyone, but when it comes to 'testing' film, the human factor is somehow consistently overlooked, ignored or erased from the equation.
Looking for objectivity in a subjective medium? Sure, we (photographers with the right equipment) can make curves and graphs to provide some objective data, but taking YOUR film outside with YOUR camera to locations YOU like an think would benefit the film at a time of YOUR choosing, then processed YOUR way - yeah, completely overlooked.
But those that do so - top film channels on YT right there.
But those that do so - top film channels on YT right there.
I will echo what others have stated: to have gone from the drawing board to production in 12 months is remarkable.
That being said this particular product does not appeal to me, not least because I do not shoot 35mm. I wish Ilford/Harman all the best though.
That being said this particular product does not appeal to me, not least because I do not shoot 35mm. I wish Ilford/Harman all the best though.
Having digitized a fair amount of negatives using different scanners and different cameras, I’d say that the competence required to achieve good results varies greatly depending on equipment.
Sorry, but to me, this statement doesn't make sense. I think we must have a different understanding of the term 'competence'. I refer to it as the human ability to perform a task. As such, it's unrelated to hardware used, although the end result and the application of competence is moderated by equipment.
Or, to put it very simply and bluntly: "a fool with a tool is still a fool".
Someone with decent competence in photo editing can take a 20-year old, battered and abused flatbed scanner and produce a very acceptable result from it, whereas someone with lesser abilities can be handed a top of the line Nikon LS scanner or Flextight and will produce results that are mediocre and highly variable at best.
Of course the competent person with great tools will be capable of producing great results, and a competent person with crappy results will produce lesser results. But the opposite is never true.
Anyway, all this is so obvious that I don't feel it's very sensible to try and debate it. Feel free if you want to diverge in your argumentation, but I'm going to leave it at the observation that the majority of "film tests" I see online confound personal choices and abilities with characteristics of the materials in such a way that not much in the way of decent conclusions is possible.
Interesting that in the interview with “Harman scientists”, liked earlier, the stated the measured ISO rating of 124.5 (or so) and then said 200 was chosen because testers suggested it was a better starting point. Seems to defy the objective implementation of the ISO standard and also defies the notion that subjective human response was ignored. It seems, though, that it might have been a more realistic scenario had they said that “marketing” made then do it.
(And, yes, I know that subjectivity has always been part of the underlying “data” in the ISO standard.)
True, but the above has nothing specifically to do with the fact that such 'tests' are online or that they rely on digitalisation as one of the necessary steps.
The world is full of absolutely useless film 'tests' done in the darkroom, with the tester using decrepit equipment, old uncalibrated densitometers, unknown amounts of measurement and operator error and enlarger and paper-specific confounders of all sorts.
It's just that such darkroom 'tests' don't usually include a digitalisation step, so we get to see fewer of them online.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |