First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!

[koraks]

@albireo thanks; once I get some more presentable stuff, I'll do a blog about it and include some illustrations. Most of those will be from the post in this thread, but there may be some new stuff as well. And yes, it's interesting stuff, although for me it's kind of uncharted terrain. I mostly do straight photography, and for the most part that's what I'll keep doing. But this is a nice diversion.

comparing colour rendition when varying set speed

That's where you see crossover behavior; I notice it too especially in printing. It's pretty wild.

 

[albireo]

That's where you see crossover behavior; I notice it too especially in printing. It's pretty wild.

Thanks @koraks - please explain what you mean by crossover behaviour. I'm not familiar with the usage of this term in this context Is it akin to a sort of variable band-pass filter effect in electronics? Are you seeing warping of colour channel specific frequency response as you vary set ISO?

 

[lamerko]

Santa brought me two pieces from Phoenix today

Unfortunately, the weather forecast is for a sharp deterioration in the next few days, and I'll probably put off loading the camera a bit...

 

[koraks]

Thanks @koraks - please explain what you mean by crossover behaviour. I'm not familiar with the usage of this term in this context Is it akin to a sort of variable band-pass filter effect in electronics? Are you seeing warping of colour channel specific frequency response as you vary set ISO?

I've explained it here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/sickly-colors-the-crossover-issue/
That Phoenix has crossover is not a secret; it's pretty clear from the datasheet. Look at the characteristic curves:

I've drawn in a magenta and a blue line as reference points. Suppose you expose a grey patch of a single density so that it falls at the magenta line in the curve ('low exposure'), and then another exposure of the exact same grey patch, but this time so that it lands on the blue line ('high exposure'). You'll see that the densities will shift around, and more specifically, the ratio between the color channels will vary. The densities of the low exposure will be [R,G,B] = [0.75, 0.85, 1.15]. For the high exposure they will be [1.95, 2.3, 2.4]. The base (where the curve crosses the vertical axis) is at around [0.5,0.5,0.9]. If you subtract the base (let's assume this is constant) from the example exposures, you get net densities for the low exposure patch of [0.25, 0.35, 0.25] and for the high exposure [1.45, 1.8, 1.5]. If you then take the ratio of blue to red (B:R) and green to red (G:R), you'll see the difference, as this would work out for the low exposure as [B:R, G:R] = [1.40, 1.00] and for the high exposure as [1.24, 1.03]. As you can tell, it's especially the blue channel that is shifting around, which of course shows up in the plot as well.

From here, it's a small step to imagining what happens if you photograph a greyscale that occupies not a single spot, but a range of exposures in the H/D curve. You'll see that the dark patches of the greyscale will render a different color than the lighter ones. Put differently: if you were to color balance the exposure (in a scan or print) for a neutral gray in the low values, you'd end up with a color cast in the high values, and vice versa. This also shows up if you scan several frames with different exposures at once or with the same settings and then apply the same inversion and color balancing curves to them. The colors will shift around depending on exposure. This is what you see happening in the video, although the explanation seems more intuitive/subjective while the one I give above is a bit more technical/(quasi-)quantitative. It boils down to the same thing, though.

Coincidentally I'm currently working on a blog that illustrates this for color RA4 paper which crosses over since it has become optimized for digital. However, the crossover is far, far more subtle than in this film and it's only noticeable if you look for it. In Phoenix film, it's actually challenging to color balance even a scanned image to avoid this crossover and in printing, it's virtually impossible even if you were to mask it, since the crossover is also non-linear.

It's technically speaking an atrocious film, but creatively speaking, it's a unique proposition.

 

[albireo]

I've explained it here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/sickly-colors-the-crossover-issue/
That Phoenix has crossover is not a secret; it's pretty clear from the datasheet. Look at the characteristic curves:
View attachment 356647
I've drawn in a magenta and a blue line as reference points. Suppose you expose a grey patch of a single density so that it falls at the magenta line in the curve ('low exposure'), and then another exposure of the exact same grey patch, but this time so that it lands on the blue line ('high exposure'). You'll see that the densities will shift around, and more specifically, the ratio between the color channels will vary. The densities of the low exposure will be [R,G,B] = [0.75, 0.85, 1.15]. For the high exposure they will be [1.95, 2.3, 2.4]. The base (where the curve crosses the vertical axis) is at around [0.5,0.5,0.9]. If you subtract the base (let's assume this is constant) from the example exposures, you get net densities for the low exposure patch of [0.25, 0.35, 0.25] and for the high exposure [1.45, 1.8, 1.5]. If you then take the ratio of blue to red (B:R) and green to red (G:R), you'll see the difference, as this would work out for the low exposure as [B:R, G:R] = [1.40, 1.00] and for the high exposure as [1.24, 1.03]. As you can tell, it's especially the blue channel that is shifting around, which of course shows up in the plot as well.

From here, it's a small step to imagining what happens if you photograph a greyscale that occupies not a single spot, but a range of exposures in the H/D curve. You'll see that the dark patches of the greyscale will render a different color than the lighter ones. Put differently: if you were to color balance the exposure (in a scan or print) for a neutral gray in the low values, you'd end up with a color cast in the high values, and vice versa. This also shows up if you scan several frames with different exposures at once or with the same settings and then apply the same inversion and color balancing curves to them. The colors will shift around depending on exposure. This is what you see happening in the video, although the explanation seems more intuitive/subjective while the one I give above is a bit more technical/(quasi-)quantitative. It boils down to the same thing, though.

Coincidentally I'm currently working on a blog that illustrates this for color RA4 paper which crosses over since it has become optimized for digital. However, the crossover is far, far more subtle than in this film and it's only noticeable if you look for it. In Phoenix film, it's actually challenging to color balance even a scanned image to avoid this crossover and in printing, it's virtually impossible even if you were to mask it, since the crossover is also non-linear.

It's technically speaking an atrocious film, but creatively speaking, it's a unique proposition.

Great explanation, thanks - are there particular technological limitations explaining why the slope difference is particularly noticeable in the blue channel here? Is this crossover usually a mismatch in gradient in one of the three curves or could it look like a non-linear transformation of one those curve segments in the linear portion?

 

[koraks]

are there particular technological limitations explaining why the slope difference is particularly noticeable in the blue channel here?

Only a couple of dozen, probably. Color emulsions are complex animals. Lots of aspects influence linearity and tracking between curves. Maybe @Lachlan Young could comment on particular blue/yellow-related issues.

Is this crossover usually a mismatch in gradient in one of the three curves

That's the definition of 'crossover'.

Edit: to expand a little on my brief answer: I think the main reason why the channels don't track very nicely yet is that this looks like a single, high-contrast emulsion for each color. Seems like Harman went with the most crude form of color film they could muster, probably to get the basics (sort of) right. In general, a color negative film has between 2 and 4 emulsions per color layer; 2 for blue/yellow-forming, 3 for red/cyan-forming and 3 or 4 for green/magenta-forming. As far as I know this combination of emulsions is mostly done to get good linearity over a wide exposure range. According to PE, the emulsions would generally be spaced at one stop intervals, with the fastest emulsion being the ISO speed plus one stop plus a bit, medium emulsion ISO rating plus a bit, and the slowest the ISO rating minus one stop and plus a bit. The 'plus a bit' would be used for trimming purposes. There's a post by PE on this here on Photrio where he briefly mentions this.

One of the reasons why the crossover is so noticeable is probably also due to the inherently high gamma; if you turn your steering wheel a tiny bit when going 10mph, nothing much happens; if you do the same thing when going 100mph, you'll veer off the road.

Apart from combining emulsions, there's a whole slew of measures taken to influence toe & shoulder behavior as well as average slope, inter-layer effects etc. Most of it I don't know about or have only heard about superficially. There are some good books about it, but they're kind of expensive for the most part, even today.

 

[foc]

Trying to print this film to get realistic/true to life results feels a bit like going downhill at 100mph on a landslide on a bicycle powered by a rocket engine. The margin of error is kind of small.

I am wondering if this film is more geared towards scanning rather than optical RA4 printing.

 

[brbo]

At the moment, it is what it is. A way to finance R&D towards a proper C-41 film.

If it was geared towards scanning it wouldn't need special instructions for labs to get acceptable results.

 

[Samu]

At the moment, it is what it is. A way to finance R&D towards a proper C-41 film.

If it was geared towards scanning it wouldn't need special instructions for labs to get acceptable results.

Of course this is a limited edition film, and by no means a finished product. But yes, I didn´t find a word about printing RA-4 in the fact sheets, except for minilab digital printers. For a company like Harman (Ilford). which has always been catering to darkroom hobbyists too (their B&W films, papers and chemistry, and the Cibachrome / Ilfochrome line in past), I find this disturbing. I personally don´t see much of idea shooting film just for making digital images out of it, and digital printing to RA-4 papers is out of reach of most hobbyists. Let´s hope this is only a problem with the first film they make.

 

[koraks]

I am wondering if this film is more geared towards scanning rather than optical RA4 printing.

Well, I would formulate it differently: it's not really geared towards anything but working in a basic sense, and with a scanner, more or less natural looking photos can be obtained with it with a little care. It definitely is not optimized in any way for wet printing; this is very obvious. It's also not optimized for fitting into any established scanning workflow and as @brbo mentions, and I have also experienced, it requires special attention to get natural results.

I personally don´t see much of idea shooting film just for making digital images out of it, and digital printing to RA-4 papers is out of reach of most hobbyists.

I don't quite agree. Digital RA4 printing is arguably the most accessible way of color printing, since all you have to do is upload your photos to a lab and they handle the rest for you. This of course means not being in control of the actual digital printing process itself, but in the end it's not very different from outsourcing the printing task to your desktop inkjet printer.

I don't see very good RA4 compatibility in Harman color films appearing any time soon. There are many hurdles to take before that happens. Also, there's something to be said for not really solving all the 'problems' and merely force-fitting the contrast of the film into the H/D curve of RA4, leaving all manner of crossover etc. merrily be. Its idiosyncrasies have practical value, at least for some.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm sure someone somewhere has by now but I haven't seen results posted or linked here (quite possible they were and I missed them) but has anyone tried cross processing this in E6?

 

[lamerko]

Watch the video a bit above...

 

[Roger Cole]

Watch the video a bit above...

Ok. I very rarely click on videos. It's almost a pet peeve of mine, that if I wanted video I'd watch TV. I go online to read, where I can easily skim etc. But I'll check it out when I get a chance.

 

[albireo]

For a company like Harman (Ilford). which has always been catering to darkroom hobbyists too (their B&W films, papers and chemistry, and the Cibachrome / Ilfochrome line in past), I find this disturbing. I personally don´t see much of idea shooting film just for making digital images out of it

I think that goes to show how varied the film photography user base is, nowadays. I'm the polar opposite: I don't see much point at all in shooting film only to print it in a darkroom and then put away that print in a drawer.

I'd imagine Ilford, and especially its marketing department, is well aware that customers like you and I exist, and anything in between too, and it's great that, as a company, they might be receptive and decide to support the whole spectrum of film users with a variety of products.

Also, but I think this is a separate discussion, I think there is way too much interest, on film photography forums, in this mythical and seemingly insurmountable boundary between 'analogue' and 'digital'.

 

[koraks]

I think there is way too much interest, on film photography forums, in this mythical and seemingly insurmountable boundary between 'analogue' and 'digital'.

Yup. And that's why we have this rule on the forum:

4. All photography is valid. There is no need to argue that one particular breed of photography, approach, technique, etc. is better than something else (e.g. analog/digital discussions). Discussions along these lines tend to follow the pattern of religious and political debates and generally don't end well. We, therefore, don't encourage them and will generally put a stop to them.

 

[lamerko]

Ok. I very rarely click on videos. It's almost a pet peeve of mine, that if I wanted video I'd watch TV. I go online to read, where I can easily skim etc. But I'll check it out when I get a chance.

Cross-processing is shown in the video from post #385, @3:40 min. I haven't seen this attempted anywhere else, but I'm sure plenty of people have. I'm also going to flip one of my films, but when will it be…

 

[brbo]

Ok. I very rarely click on videos. It's almost a pet peeve of mine, that if I wanted video I'd watch TV. I go online to read, where I can easily skim etc. But I'll check it out when I get a chance.

(as I share the pain of watching dudes listening to themselves on youtube)

Apparently doesn't think it's worth tagging Phoenix shots, but you'll be able to pick the E-6 cross-processed Phoenix ones easily from his flickr stream...

 

[Samu]

Well, I would formulate it differently: it's not really geared towards anything but working in a basic sense, and with a scanner, more or less natural looking photos can be obtained with it with a little care. It definitely is not optimized in any way for wet printing; this is very obvious. It's also not optimized for fitting into any established scanning workflow and as @brbo mentions, and I have also experienced, it requires special attention to get natural results.



I don't quite agree. Digital RA4 printing is arguably the most accessible way of color printing, since all you have to do is upload your photos to a lab and they handle the rest for you. This of course means not being in control of the actual digital printing process itself, but in the end it's not very different from outsourcing the printing task to your desktop inkjet printer.

I don't see very good RA4 compatibility in Harman color films appearing any time soon. There are many hurdles to take before that happens. Also, there's something to be said for not really solving all the 'problems' and merely force-fitting the contrast of the film into the H/D curve of RA4, leaving all manner of crossover etc. merrily be. Its idiosyncrasies have practical value, at least for some.

"Taking them to lab" does not count. I am referring to having a Frontier in your garage.

 

[Roger Cole]

Cross-processing is shown in the video from post #385, @3:40 min. I haven't seen this attempted anywhere else, but I'm sure plenty of people have. I'm also going to flip one of my films, but when will it be…

Thanks, that was enough to satisfy my curiosity. Like the guy in the video, one of the first thoughts I had on learning it has no orange mask was to wonder how it would cross process. Not as well as some other unmasked films, apparently, though as he illustrates you can do some things with it.

 

[koraks]

"Taking them to lab" does not count. I am referring to having a Frontier in your garage.

Why would someone want/do that. It's just expensive if you do low volumes, a lot of fuss for no added value. Of course people don't do that, because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make digital printing any less accessible. Quite the opposite. All the heavy lifting (literally) is done for you. Millions of people do it, which is also why RA4 paper is still for sale in the first place, and relatively affordable to boot!

"Doesn't count" is unnecessarily dismissive in my opinion of people who choose to print, but to outsource the actual activity. Lots of highly regarded artists have taken their photos to labs to be printed. They're not regarded any less for it.

The real issue as far as I'm concerned is that overall, there are just very few amateur photographers also in the film domain with an active interest in printing, regardless of the printing method used. There's a lot of people running around who have forgotten or never learned the magic of holding a well-made print in their hands. Personally, I find that far more worrying than a manufacturer who doesn't (yet) optimize their film for darkroom printing specifically.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree. For me the print's the thing, and I find darkroom printing to be about 70%, maybe more, of the fun in black and white. For color, I've done RA4 in the past, but it's not really as much fun as black and white. There's just less room to vary the results and still have them look somewhat "right" (if one is looking for fairly realistic color) and the paper is inconveniently fast to do much dodging, plus either total darkness or such a dim safelight it almost might as well be adds up to just not as much fun for me.

 

[Agulliver]

Even if Phoenix were optimised for optical/wet printing, the *vast* majority of the stuff is never going to be optically printed. Harman are surely on a safer route making improvements to the grain size and contrast first. Making the film usable in a wider variety of conditions.

Because the main purpose, at least for the foreseeable, that Harman are attempting is to make a C41 film that is usable. The *vast* majority of people are scanning and posting online. Next up is people digitally scanning and digitally printing.

 

[koraks]

The *vast* majority of people are scanning and posting online. Next up is people digitally scanning and digitally printing.

Certainly. And there's an enormous gap between that first and the second group. Which is a pity. 'Even' digital printing is really great.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Only a couple of dozen, probably. Color emulsions are complex animals. Lots of aspects influence linearity and tracking between curves. Maybe @Lachlan Young could comment on particular blue/yellow-related issues.


That's the definition of 'crossover'.

Edit: to expand a little on my brief answer: I think the main reason why the channels don't track very nicely yet is that this looks like a single, high-contrast emulsion for each color. Seems like Harman went with the most crude form of color film they could muster, probably to get the basics (sort of) right. In general, a color negative film has between 2 and 4 emulsions per color layer; 2 for blue/yellow-forming, 3 for red/cyan-forming and 3 or 4 for green/magenta-forming. As far as I know this combination of emulsions is mostly done to get good linearity over a wide exposure range. According to PE, the emulsions would generally be spaced at one stop intervals, with the fastest emulsion being the ISO speed plus one stop plus a bit, medium emulsion ISO rating plus a bit, and the slowest the ISO rating minus one stop and plus a bit. The 'plus a bit' would be used for trimming purposes. There's a post by PE on this here on Photrio where he briefly mentions this.

One of the reasons why the crossover is so noticeable is probably also due to the inherently high gamma; if you turn your steering wheel a tiny bit when going 10mph, nothing much happens; if you do the same thing when going 100mph, you'll veer off the road.

Apart from combining emulsions, there's a whole slew of measures taken to influence toe & shoulder behavior as well as average slope, inter-layer effects etc. Most of it I don't know about or have only heard about superficially. There are some good books about it, but they're kind of expensive for the most part, even today.

Long and short of it: once you move to the next stages of adding the mask (which corrects for colour and contrast) and the full anti-halation with Dmin CMY dyes - it'll effectively get the curves in the right order and with the right average gradient. In other words, Phoenix was designed to be masked (if you shift the curves into the correct order, they all line up correctly) - it would have very different spectral sensitisation and curve characteristics if it was intended to be unmasked (in the manner of really old Agfa materials) - and Harman have clearly not chosen to do that, instead building the foundations for masking & full C-41/ RA-4 system compatibility (not least because the reference standards they will likely be working to are effectively those for C-41 intended to be printed optically on RA-4).

 

[koraks]

if you shift the curves into the correct order, they all line up correctly

Could you illustrate this, please, or point us towards an on online accessible source that gives insight into the nature and degree of this shifting? I've rooted around a bit last week, but didn't find anything particularly useful. I'm sorry, I don't have the Shanebrook book and I'm also not going to drop several hundred $$$ on it (I'd rather spend that on film...). I'm sure the gist of this particular argument must be published somewhere since it seems fairly generic knowledge.