Nor with me. I just can't imagine Harman settling for producing ANY product that is only somewhat less than dreadful. Harman is not a large company with deep pockets. Phoenix was an exercise in seeing what they could do with what they had and getting it to pay for itself - a first step on a long journey to at least one excellent color film, if not a complete lineup, as with the Deltas. Even if they have to run it through the coater twice, is it really that expensive, since they would be making use of time when the coater is sitting idle?
First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!
-
A
- Thread starter Vetus
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale NEW UNUSED FIDELITY 13x18cm boxed, 4 pieces.
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF 4x5 to 13x18cm POLAROID 54 adapter
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale Filter Set for Elmar 5cm f/3.5
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Sold Fujichrome Velvia 50 120 - 20 Rolls
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
Forum statistics
Nor with me. I just can't imagine Harman settling for producing ANY product that is only somewhat less than dreadful. Harman is not a large company with deep pockets. Phoenix was an exercise in seeing what they could do with what they had and getting it to pay for itself - a first step on a long journey to at least one excellent color film, if not a complete lineup, as with the Deltas. Even if they have to run it through the coater twice, is it really that expensive, since they would be making use of time when the coater is sitting idle?
Well, Harman have stated that they intend each newly released batch to be slightly improved, towards the aim of producing CN film that is comparable to non-gimmick films. No doubt along the way there will be films which capture the imagination of a minority of users. Many of us who bought Phoenix did so "site unseen" to support the project, and then tried it out....discovering that it's great for certain conditions and subjects and not for others. Which is fair enough and it performs exactly as Harman say it does.
The increase in film sales is being driven by amateur CN film such as Kodak Gold and Ultramax. So it is entirely logical that Harman are ultimately hoping to produce something that fulfils the same role, even if it ends up looking different....in the way that Fuji Superia looks different to Kodak Ultramax.
It is unclear exactly how many colour films Harman will be able to offer at any one time. They've talked about 200, 400 and maybe 800 ISO CN films once they're much closer to "perfecting" their CN film. Whether they would keep some of the films that turned out "gimmicky" or the original Phoenix also in production is anyone's guess. There might be a market in producing "special edition original Phoenix" in five years time when we've hopefully got something much closer to a conventional CN film to buy from them.
Did they actually say that? So this new February batch should be different to the first one?
The director (VP?) of marketing says about as much some time after 19:40 in this video:
He talks of an iterative process, where learned lessons are applied to each new batch. The R&D engineers that are interviewed are clearly jazzed up to keep it going. They are a couple of young guys 8-10 years out of grad school who've heard stories from 50-year guys who created the newer B&W emulsions and realize that 40 years from now they will be the ones telling the stories about creating the first color films.
We've all seen this video when it was published.
Still, I don't remember hearing them say EVERY batch will have new features incorporated so that every single new batch will be an improvement. It would seem not very smart to not produce a new batch if the features in the roadmap are not ready yet but the market would gladly pay for the product as it currently is (assuming that the price covers all the production and distribution costs).
But if every batch is different (not just the usual batch-to-batch variation), anyone shooting the latest batch could say what the improvements are?
Still, I don't remember hearing them say EVERY batch will have new features incorporated so that every single new batch will be an improvement. It would seem not very smart to not produce a new batch if the features in the roadmap are not ready yet but the market would gladly pay for the product as it currently is (assuming that the price covers all the production and distribution costs).
But if every batch is different (not just the usual batch-to-batch variation), anyone shooting the latest batch could say what the improvements are?
Last edited:
At the launch Harman went to some trouble to create a buzz, so I think if they make a significant change in the product from one batch to the next, they will say something about it; probably an Instagram announcement; 'now with more blue and better shadows' or something.
My local shop has had Phoenix in stock continuously since the launch. If *this* lot-number of film is different from *that* lot-number, maybe they should shelve them separately? Or just not bring the new stuff out until the old lot has sold through? I think I just invented the SKU...
My local shop has had Phoenix in stock continuously since the launch. If *this* lot-number of film is different from *that* lot-number, maybe they should shelve them separately? Or just not bring the new stuff out until the old lot has sold through? I think I just invented the SKU...
The intention is to keep improving it. Whether every batch is sufficiently different to merit a different name, or a "New and improved" sticker is debatable. Did Kodak rename Gold every time they improved and changed it? Is Whiskas cat food the same as you'd have got 60 years ago? Does the last Ford Fiesta contain any parts interchangeable with the first?
I do suspect that when there is a truly significant improvement, they'll tell us.
I do suspect that when there is a truly significant improvement, they'll tell us.
MattKing
Moderator
A "batch" is probably akin to a "coating", while a "version" or "update" would be something else.
Any iterative changes that affect the experience of the end user - as compared to production efficiencies - would be likely to be advertised.
Don't discount how much time and effort will have to be devoted to things like internal production efficiencies. Harman needs to both make a good film and make a good film in a way that allows them to market it profitably.
I can't see any reason to doubt that their ultimate aim is to profitably produce a colour negative C41 film (or films) that isn't a gimmick, and which can be compared in quality to other mainstream consumer grade C41 films.
Phoenix isn't exactly cheap and it certainly isn't a mainstream "normal" film at this point. But it's worth bearing in mind that some of the retail price will be recouping R&D costs needed to get where they are now. And to fund ongoing R&D. Harman is a very small company compared to even today's Kodak. They've been profitable with their B&W lines, and consistently so, but quite small profits.
As @MattKing says above, while there may be improvements behind the scenes even in the film released this month to retailers.....it would be natural for Harman to announce any change that affects the end users.....because that will create a buzz again, likely resulting in more film sales.
I really don't think their intention is to continue making "wacky" colour films for the Lomography market. Though Phoenix certainly can look fantastic in certain circumstances, it's not a general purpose film. And their end goal is a general purpose film. Though in a few years time, I can see them doing a special commemorative run of "Original Phoenix".
Phoenix isn't exactly cheap and it certainly isn't a mainstream "normal" film at this point. But it's worth bearing in mind that some of the retail price will be recouping R&D costs needed to get where they are now. And to fund ongoing R&D. Harman is a very small company compared to even today's Kodak. They've been profitable with their B&W lines, and consistently so, but quite small profits.
As @MattKing says above, while there may be improvements behind the scenes even in the film released this month to retailers.....it would be natural for Harman to announce any change that affects the end users.....because that will create a buzz again, likely resulting in more film sales.
I really don't think their intention is to continue making "wacky" colour films for the Lomography market. Though Phoenix certainly can look fantastic in certain circumstances, it's not a general purpose film. And their end goal is a general purpose film. Though in a few years time, I can see them doing a special commemorative run of "Original Phoenix".
I wonder what percentage of the current market for the Phoenix film is made up of those who do not wish to see a path to "conventional" looking film compared to those who bought the original only in the form of an act of faith in Harman in order to help it fund improvements? It's that which may be important to Harman as a business, isn't it?
If it's the latter, i.e those who want a conventional film then Harman ends up competing with Kodak, doesn't it? So in what terms does Harman believe it will then compete. Yes even at the final iteration there may be minor differences between it and the Kodak Gold, Ultra and consumer Fuji C41 but will those really matter to the average consumer of C41 colour neg film and in that case can Harman rely on its loyal customers who favour Harman because they prefer whatever difference in the film they see if there is no real difference in price
Of course this assumes that it wasn't Harman's intention from the start to produce a range of "consumer" C41 at a lower price So I wonder where a price difference or not as the case may be in Harman's favour comes into it in terms of what it thinks is crucial?
I'd have thought a price differential in its favour as seems to be the case with most b&w films in its range has to be important
pentaxuser
MattKing
Moderator
An availability differential may be equally important.
Their decision to used tied distributors in certain parts of the world means that there are areas that find it relatively more easy to obtain Ilford/Kentmere branded films than Kodak or Fuji films. If it is easier to find Harman film in those areas, and the Harman brand is a recognizable one, than that would be a real advantage.
Indeed, my local shop has found it quite easy to get a supply of Phoenix alongside their usual Ilford products, whereas supplies of Kodak C41 film are still sporadic. Once Harman are able to reliably produce something that effectively competes with the offerings from Kodak, the mere fact that it should be consistently available in territories where Kodak isn't, will be a selling point.
Overall it's just going to be good to have another choice. Be that for aesthetic, creative, availability or brand loyalty reasons. We know that currently Kodak and Fuji cannot keep up with demand for amateur C41 film, and have not been able to for some years pre-dating the pandemic. Another player in the game is probably good for everyone.
No problem with your sentiments in you last para which I have not included for that very reason. However in the one above, is there any reason why Kodak won't be able to effect as good a distribution network as Kodak's. I assume in all of this that we can discount that Kodak never will be able to match demand with supply so the competition on C41 , assuming its Harman's "avowed intent " to supply a C41 colour that matches Kodak's quality and has the edge on price?
pentaxuser
@pentaxuser With demand for C41 film, particularly amateur film, still increasing.....and with Kodak still struggling to match demand....and with Fuji apparently only vaguely still in the game.....there's definitely room for another player in the game. People might choose Harman over Kodak for any number of reasons, as indeed they might choose Kodak over Harman.
Kodak are hampered by the Alaris deal, to some extent. Harman have a distribution network which is better in some parts of the world. Kodak probably can't do anything about that. If demand continues to increase it is entirely possible that Kodak cannot meet global supply of C41 films.
Harman haven't said anything about undercutting Kodak film on price, though you can bet they'd like to. But what they have avowed to do is work towards C41 film that is comparable to that which Kodak offers, at least to amateurs.
Kodak are hampered by the Alaris deal, to some extent. Harman have a distribution network which is better in some parts of the world. Kodak probably can't do anything about that. If demand continues to increase it is entirely possible that Kodak cannot meet global supply of C41 films.
Harman haven't said anything about undercutting Kodak film on price, though you can bet they'd like to. But what they have avowed to do is work towards C41 film that is comparable to that which Kodak offers, at least to amateurs.
MattKing
Moderator
Kodak film is sold through a much larger number of outlets, spread throughout the world, than Harman/Ilford products. The Alaris structure was designed to mimic that structure, after the model previously offered by Eastman Kodak.
But that means that the availability is diluted, when it comes to enthusiasts like those who might frequent Photrio.
But that means that the availability is diluted, when it comes to enthusiasts like those who might frequent Photrio.
I can only speculate, but I think Harman probably ate everyone else's lunch when they introduced Kentmere in 120. It's competitive with Foma & Kodak's offerings in terms of both price and performance. If they can pull off the same thing with C-41 they'll have a huge winner on their hands.
The Alaris setup works in some ways and not others. EK cannot choose distribution partners that might be better in some areas than Alaris are. I live almost literally down the road from the KA offices in Hemel Hempstead. 20 minute drive. But the local shop can't get hold of much Kodak film, because they have to go through a "middle man" distributor. However that very same distributor has reliable supplies of Ilford B&W films and of Phoenix.
No doubt that the Alaris global coverage works well in other ways.
Harman must have eaten into Foma's sales a bit with the 120 Kentmere. I am sure they'd like to ultimately offer a "conventional" colour film cheaper than Kodak but it remains to be seen whether that's possible. The goal they have talked about is the "conventional" film.
No doubt that the Alaris global coverage works well in other ways.
Harman must have eaten into Foma's sales a bit with the 120 Kentmere. I am sure they'd like to ultimately offer a "conventional" colour film cheaper than Kodak but it remains to be seen whether that's possible. The goal they have talked about is the "conventional" film.
This doesn't say anything about how well or poorly the "Alaris setup" works. It's a given that the output Kodak C41 film is insufficient to fulfill market demand, so regardless who does the distribution, someone will be without film. Moreover, your argument implicitly assumes that your personal experiences with one randomly selected local shop is somehow indicative of how effective a distribution agreement is. But for whom, under which conditions, and what are the requirements of the various stakeholders on that agreement? Fact of the matter is that none of us knows how effective or efficient the Alaris setup is, and arguably, even Kodak and Alaris themselves would have trouble figuring out because the comparison with an alternative setup would always be hypothetical. So, speculation based on assumptions involving incomplete data intrepreted in doubtful ways.
MattKing
Moderator
Of course - it is discussion about product availability on Photrio!
It remains interesting, however, to see what assumptions people are bringing to that speculation.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, a lot of the participants here are bringing to bear assumptions based on past market realities. It seems likely that much of the market going ahead won't reside with us, it will reside with younger people who don't share those "old time" assumptions.
Well, I don't pretend to know what Harman or Kodak think or mean to do. If I could run a film company I'd be doing it. Instead, I have been shooting some of the film, or trying to. A selection of my second roll (and part of a third) is at Flickr; developing and scans by Harman Lab. I've uploaded eighteen, I think, from one-and-a-half rolls. Nothing wonderful; but pictures from Phoenix being up is the ostensible topic of the thread, not corporate strategy, so here you go:
www.flickr.com
I used a Pentax P30, which sets the film speed by DX code (so I rated the film at ISO 200, exept where I used manual exposure). I used a 28-80mm zoom (f/3.5-4.5), which meant it got too dark a bit early. Anyhow, I'm a little disappointed with the day, but it was worthwhile if I put a value on learning a few things.
First, rating Phoenix at ISO 200 was a failure for me. Second, that zoom lens is a pain in the arse sometimes: it's a bit dark to focus, and why would they design it to zoom by itself under its own weight? I need to get this camera at least one prime lens with a reasonably wide aperture (done that now; just a 50mm f/2). Third (I learnt this with my first roll) I didn't bother getting prints with this; particularly if the shadows are going to be thick, the photos fare much better on a nice back-lit screen.
I have been out again with my fourth roll of Phoenix, going back to my Exa. That didn't go well; the film tore part-way through. I'm still investigating that. I think either there's something in how the camera holds the cassette, so it squeezes the slot, or maybe I just had a duff cassette. Anyhow, I think there's enough of the film exposed that I'll send it to be developed.
Harman Phoenix: 2nd & 3rd rolls, Pentax P30
I took my dad's Pentax P30 to Hebden Bridge to shoot some more Phoenix. Not the best lot of photos I ever took. I'm going to put some of the blame on the camera, which doesn't let you set the film speed yourself; the DX code set it at ISO 200 for me. I could have used manual exposure more. As it...
www.flickr.com
I used a Pentax P30, which sets the film speed by DX code (so I rated the film at ISO 200, exept where I used manual exposure). I used a 28-80mm zoom (f/3.5-4.5), which meant it got too dark a bit early. Anyhow, I'm a little disappointed with the day, but it was worthwhile if I put a value on learning a few things.
First, rating Phoenix at ISO 200 was a failure for me. Second, that zoom lens is a pain in the arse sometimes: it's a bit dark to focus, and why would they design it to zoom by itself under its own weight? I need to get this camera at least one prime lens with a reasonably wide aperture (done that now; just a 50mm f/2). Third (I learnt this with my first roll) I didn't bother getting prints with this; particularly if the shadows are going to be thick, the photos fare much better on a nice back-lit screen.
I have been out again with my fourth roll of Phoenix, going back to my Exa. That didn't go well; the film tore part-way through. I'm still investigating that. I think either there's something in how the camera holds the cassette, so it squeezes the slot, or maybe I just had a duff cassette. Anyhow, I think there's enough of the film exposed that I'll send it to be developed.
For those who are having a lab do their scans for them, are you finding them acceptable or in need of further tweaking? I've never had anyone do scans for me before, but asked for them this time so I'd at least have a baseline from which to work - I don't do colour and can't say I've put much effort into perfecting a hybrid work flow.
At any rate, my lab scans are unusable. I made the mistake of downloading them to my phone and having a quick peek at them on that. Not good.
When I got home and laid the negatives out on the light table, I couldn't blame the lab at all - that's some unique and twisty colour going on there.
Long story longer. How do your negatives look? People have mentioned different colour palettes depending on which C-41 Kit or lab they've used, but I've not seen a 'raw' snapshot of anyone's negatives - I just know that mine looked as though they'd gone nuclear!
So, with all that said, allow me to embarrass myself with my test roll and my own scans and colour corrections. Easy enough to see that I didn't put as much effort into it as I should have, but even so, I was happy with my results, particularly after the shock of the lab scans.
Flowers, boat sheds and street murals for the most part:
Negatives on the light table:
Lab Scans via Screen Shot:
My Scans via Screen Shot:
At any rate, my lab scans are unusable. I made the mistake of downloading them to my phone and having a quick peek at them on that. Not good.
When I got home and laid the negatives out on the light table, I couldn't blame the lab at all - that's some unique and twisty colour going on there.
Long story longer. How do your negatives look? People have mentioned different colour palettes depending on which C-41 Kit or lab they've used, but I've not seen a 'raw' snapshot of anyone's negatives - I just know that mine looked as though they'd gone nuclear!
So, with all that said, allow me to embarrass myself with my test roll and my own scans and colour corrections. Easy enough to see that I didn't put as much effort into it as I should have, but even so, I was happy with my results, particularly after the shock of the lab scans.
Flowers, boat sheds and street murals for the most part:
Negatives on the light table:
Lab Scans via Screen Shot:
My Scans via Screen Shot:
Individual Frames:
Not anything like that. There's something seriously weird going on with your film. For some reason there's a massive amount of magenta in your film; even the dmin has become tinted magenta. It's more cyan when processed properly.
This is a smartphone shot on a dodgy LED panel, but the bluish tint of the base and the colors otherwise are fairly true to life:
That's unsurprising. Firstly, something went wrong with your film, that much is clear. But even if it hadn't, lab scanners are often struggling with unmasked, very high-contrast negative film. You could try and ask your lab to scan them as slides instead of color negative and then do the inversion yourself. That'll give a much better result. A bit like what you ended up doing...
Your final, color-balanced contact sheets shows that even with a totally messed up roll of film you can get something pretty decent if you tweak it just right.
Very pretty!
Thank you, Koraks. I was under the impression that the base was actually more magenta than blue, but yes, I think mine are a tad extreme! I was really surprised to get anything out of the negatives at all. My results had the advantage of a) being attended to on an individual basis and, b) knowledge of the neutral/mid grey area in most of the photos.
They definitely applied a generic "correction" across the entire roll - that last frame was a mural on the wall two doors up from their shop - all the grey they could ever need for sampling.
I even photographed a Kodak Data Guide for reference.
Oh well, while I know all of you proper photographers can/could/would do better - I like them and I'm happy to support Harman even in my tiny way.
They definitely applied a generic "correction" across the entire roll - that last frame was a mural on the wall two doors up from their shop - all the grey they could ever need for sampling.
I even photographed a Kodak Data Guide for reference. Oh well, while I know all of you proper photographers can/could/would do better - I like them and I'm happy to support Harman even in my tiny way.
You're right, actually, but not quite as magenta as your sample. Unless your light box is very green and the digital snapshot corrected heavily for it. What kind of light box is it? Is it an old-fashioned fluorescent type, not balanced for DK50? In which case this might be a big part of the contact sheet looking so odd.
| 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:  |