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.
Thanks @koraks - please explain what you mean by crossover behaviour. I'm not familiar with the usage of this term in this contextIs 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:
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.
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
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.
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.
I am wondering if this film is more geared towards scanning rather than optical RA4 printing.
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.
Watch the video a bit above...
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 there is way too much interest, on film photography forums, in this mythical and seemingly insurmountable boundary between 'analogue' and 'digital'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
"Taking them to lab" does not count. I am referring to having a Frontier in your garage.
The *vast* majority of people are scanning and posting online. Next up is people digitally scanning and digitally printing.
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.
if you shift the curves into the correct order, they all line up correctly
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?