First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!

Chuck1 · Dec 30, 2023

Thanks for posting that, what camera are you using?( the exposure info between frames is nice)
I wish the barcode on the bottom was: black/white/gray/yellow/red+blue
Like a color test strip repeating for the whole roll.

brbo · Dec 31, 2023

Chuck1 said:
Thanks for posting that, what camera are you using?( the exposure info between frames is nice)

Nikon F80S has the ability to imprint exposure information.

albireo · Dec 31, 2023

brbo said:
(all three scanned and processed exactly the same, individual frames could use additional small tweaks...)

These are superb. Thanks @brbo. Stunning.

Harman should post them straight on the official Phoenix website to show off what the film can do in the right hands!

Craig · Dec 31, 2023

brbo said:
Nikon F80S has the ability to imprint exposure information.

As does the F6.

brbo · Dec 31, 2023

Craig said:
As does the F6.

Yes, I didn't try to say F80s was the only one.

Mick Fagan · Dec 31, 2023

As does the MF18 Data back for the F3.....

I never knew about the F80s, in fact I don't remember ever having heard about an F80 that had a successor called F80s...

Agulliver · Jan 2, 2024

Definitely the best Phoenix images I've seen. Fantastic stuff.

Shows what Phoenix can do in good hands, under ideal circumstances. If Harman can improve it such that those kind of results are more consistently achieved, they'll be onto a surefire winner. I don't even mind the grain much.

Looks like the supplier my local shop uses is now listing Harman Phoenix so fingers crossed they'll be able to obtain some of the next batch.

koraks · Jan 2, 2024

Agulliver said:
Shows what Phoenix can do in good hands, under ideal circumstances

...as long as it's being scanned.

Agulliver · Jan 2, 2024

koraks said:
...as long as it's being scanned.

Which 99% of users will do.

I am also curious about traditional printing. Should be possible, I'd have thought but I've never tried colour printing.

koraks · Jan 2, 2024

I posted some examples earlier. The film is difficult to print and the outcome is very "Lomo". Scans that look perfectly natural come out very "creative" in print. Extreme contrast, lots of grain, funky colors. Everything you'd expect based on the curves and visual inspection of the negatives.

koraks · Jan 3, 2024

Some more examples here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/feet-of-clay-my-first-impression-of-harman-phoenix/
Specifically I included several scan vs. print comparisons.

albireo · Jan 3, 2024

koraks said:
Some more examples here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/feet-of-clay-my-first-impression-of-harman-phoenix/
Specifically I included several scan vs. print comparisons.

I know I sound like a broken record but I really like the visual impact of your scanned prints. Those four recent examples at the bottom of your blog post (just before the coating defect note) are superb.

Agulliver · Jan 3, 2024

The prints are certainly.....interesting. I like some of them for sure. But could one produce prints that have similar colour rendition to the scans with sufficient tweaking?

I'm reading out there in Facebook land that some people have been unable to get any decent scans from Phoenix, which certainly would be the case if scenes were bright and contrasty to begin with.

My negatives with lots of light blue sky look fine to my eye, but the lab scanner and my Epson say "nope". The lab scans can be more or less brought into some sort of sensible image. It has been suggested that I scan C,M and Y channels individually and combine in Photoshop....whether I shall have time for this is uncertain.

koraks · Jan 3, 2024

Agulliver said:
But could one produce prints that have similar colour rendition to the scans with sufficient tweaking?

Realistically, no. It'll take a massive effort to produce something close and frankly it would make much more sense to shoot a normal color negative film instead if brutal results are desired. There's just no point in even trying, IMO. It's a bit like buying a hacksaw and figuring out of to neatly clip your nails with it. Surely, it could be done...

I didn't find this film difficult to scan, especially on the flatbed. In fact, I didn't even really notice just how 'our there' it was initially. I may do some more high contrast scenes one day, but I don't expect any difficulties. I scan as positive (color slide) and then do the inversion and curve adjustements manually.

albireo said:
I really like the visual impact of your scanned prints

Much appreciated; it's a distinct look for sure and I admit I quite enjoyed playing with it. To be continued, one day. I think next time I'll also cut a roll in half so I don't have to do 36 frames in one go. I feel it makes more sense to me to do smaller series with it.

koraks · Jan 4, 2024

Tsubasa said:
You should specify who made those prints and how they were made.

I did; they're optical enlargements. It's mentioned in the blog, but I can imagine you didn't read all of it. The prints were enlarged onto Fuji DPII paper. Several of them involved additional burning of lighter areas, some are straight prints. No masking etc. was used. Processing was the same as any regular color print I make.

Tsubasa said:
Tweak the scan and you'll have a matching print...

Sure. I did that for one or two frames to get a feeling for what's going on. But I have very little interest in scanning beyond indexing and providing technical illustrations. If my emphasis was on digital output, I'd just shoot digital to begin with. It's a lot less fuss.

koraks · Jan 4, 2024

Tsubasa said:
I knew the prints were done optically.

So what's your question? You asked:

Tsubasa said:
You should specify who made those prints and how they were made.

But you already knew they were optically printed. What information are you looking for?

Tsubasa said:
I feel Phoenix isn't made to be optically printed but scanned.

It's certainly not optimized in any way to be optically printed onto color paper.

koraks · Jan 4, 2024

Tsubasa said:
It's not because 99,99% of the typical color film user takes the film to a shop to be developed and printed, again 99,99% this happens digitally of course.

That's part of it. Another part is that optimizing the film for optical printing appears to be beyond the capability of Harman at this point. They may be working towards that level. A third and more minor issue is that there's no color paper in current production that's actually intended for optical printing. However, the digital papers work OK for it, despite their (minor) shortcomings.

GLS · Jan 4, 2024

koraks said:
However, the digital papers work OK for it, despite their (minor) shortcomings.

Just out of interest, how do they differ from traditional RA4 papers? I assume it's because they're tweaked for the different wavelengths of the projection lasers?

koraks · Jan 4, 2024

GLS said:
Just out of interest, how do they differ from traditional RA4 papers? I assume it's because they're tweaked for the different wavelengths of the projection lasers?

Not so much the wavelength; in fact, as far as I can tell, nothing changed in that sense. Most if it is covered here, including some illustrations of curves: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...look-at-kodak-and-fuji-digital-ra4-crossover/
There's also a few links in that article, particularly to a Kodak white paper that contains more digital vs. analog RA4 curves.

koraks · Jan 4, 2024

Tsubasa said:
That is because no one is optical printing color anymore.
Harman has all the r&d department knowledge to put a "regular" c41 color film on the market, they are not simply interested in it at the moment I think.

Optical enlargement is a tiny little market niche. There are still a few labs out there that use optical minilabs, and a handful of dedicated optical 'fine arts' printers. Quantitatively, they probably constitute maybe 0.01% of the volume. Really tiny.

I don't think Harman was capable of producing a standard C41 film, and still isn't. Everything points towards this being their first step on the road. In a few years, they may get there. Or maybe they'll lose interest in the meantime. It's uncertain.

GLS · Jan 4, 2024

koraks said:
Not so much the wavelength; in fact, as far as I can tell, nothing changed in that sense. Most if it is covered here, including some illustrations of curves: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...look-at-kodak-and-fuji-digital-ra4-crossover/
There's also a few links in that article, particularly to a Kodak white paper that contains more digital vs. analog RA4 curves.

OK, thanks for the links.

koraks · Jan 4, 2024

@Tsubasa
This has all been discussed ad nauseam in the previous thread and this one. Just scroll back through the endless pages. Let's not go over all of it again.

qqphot · Jan 7, 2024

I've started putting up some high resolution scans from my first roll of Phoenix 200.

Harman Phoenix 200

Explore this photo album by eric volpe on Flickr!

flic.kr

ozphoto · Jan 7, 2024

brbo said:
(all three scanned and processed exactly the same, individual frames could use additional small tweaks...)

These shots are great! I have't read the entire thread, but did read the first few pages, with prices being discussed and comments on how this film isn't Portra-esque and not worth the money.

I've been shooting film since I was 5, and I've seen stuff come and go at one time or another. As a minilab manager, I was used to processing the original, Eastern-bloc Orwo that overseas travellers had picked up cheap, and managed to get something decent out of negs that were never made for the C-41 process.

As a shooter from the 90s onwards, I was purchasing one of the more expensive films available in Australia - Agfa in all its forms. Yup, I chose the "obscure" stuff that wasn't readily available off the shelf and cost 1/3 more than Fuji and Kodak. I loved it - the tonal range, the grain, the colour palette the variety it offered me, instead of the green or yellow box that filled the shelves of camera stores and labs alike.

Personally, I don't get the "Portra love", but that's fine, we don't all have to enjoy one particular film. I'm happy to try the new stuff that Harman and Adox are rolling out, after all it's new, not some repackaged Vision film, aero film or Fujak hybrid stuff, being pushed out as a film by a manufacturer who has pulled out of the 35mm market. Harman don't have the bankroll of Kodak, and in case we all missed it - they aren't Kodak, so naturally their film won't be Kodak-like, if we want to shoot film that matches Kodak film, easy solution: shoot Kodak film.

Grain - who cares, we're not shooting digital, and last time I checked, grain is an inherent component of film. I just bought a roll of this on the weekend - set me back $AUD28.95 - but I'm happy to spend cash on a product that is in the development phase. I guess it's kind of like supporting a Kickstarter idea, but we get to try the product we're investing in during the testing phase.

I hope Harman learn a lot from this first batch release and continue to make it, even if it means rebadging it at a slower speed (125) to let shooters get the most out of it. I grabbed some Color Mission a few months back too, although not had an opportunity to shoot it, but can't wait to run both of these through my EOS1n and enjoy the feeling of shooting "new" film.

pentaxuser · Jan 7, 2024

Does anyone know if anyone has tried to produce an RA4 print optically from this film and if so can they provide a link?

Thanks

pentaxuser

First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!

Chuck1

brbo

albireo

Craig

brbo

Mick Fagan

Agulliver

koraks

Moderator

Agulliver

koraks

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

albireo

Agulliver

koraks

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

GLS

koraks

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

GLS

koraks

Moderator

qqphot

Harman Phoenix 200

ozphoto

pentaxuser

First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency