First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!

[AnselMortensen]

I just got a text from Freestyle, they have 120 Phoenix in stock.

 

[BrianShaw]

Harman is wasting no time, theirs or ours, in rolling this out! Kudos; Bravo.

 

[JParker]

Harman technology has also published an own video on their youtube channel:

 

[mshchem]

Or you can buy Kodak Gold 200, leave it in the trunk (boot) of your car at the airport for a month.

 

[Molli]

A really good write up at https://www.35mmc.com (I saw mention of this website and Emulsive recently) for those who like to read rather than watch:

Harman Phoenix - Now Available in 120 - My First few Rolls

Harman Photo have today announced the release of their Phoenix colour film in 120 format - here are my first few rolls

www.35mmc.com

Alexander Doran (author) does all of his own processing and talks about pushing, pulling, C41 and ECN-2. I really enjoyed reading about Harman Phoenix 200 from someone who's clearly put it through it's paces and knows it well and how to get the best from it.

 

[koraks]

talks about pushing, pulling, C41 and ECN-2

Unfortunately, much of what he says is inaccurate, or only makes sense in the context of his specific scanning routines. I.e. like most reviews, this one compounds characteristics of the film and processing with digitization.

 

[Disconnekt]

He also has it in video format for anybody that wants to watch:

 

[foc]

Has anyone completed Harman's Phoenix survey?

https://www.harmanphoto.co.uk/feedback/

Like it or loathe it, maybe it's time to let Harman know how you feel.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Unfortunately, much of what he says is inaccurate, or only makes sense in the context of his specific scanning routines. I.e. like most reviews, this one compounds characteristics of the film and processing with digitization.

He has a LOT of practical experience and is reporting (factually) the results of his different tests.

 

[loccdor]

He has a LOT of practical experience and is reporting (factually) the results of his different tests.

He mentions that it's a film that looks good on overcast days, unlike any other color film he's tried. But this is a trait all narrow-latitude high-contrast films have in common, and not unique to Phoenix. It's true of most slide films, and also Ektar. I would expect someone who's putting out reviews of film products to have some basic knowledge of brightness ranges as it's one of the most important characteristics when choosing any particular film. That said, a person can certainly learn something from his trials.

 

[Molli]

Unfortunately, much of what he says is inaccurate, or only makes sense in the context of his specific scanning routines. I.e. like most reviews, this one compounds characteristics of the film and processing with digitization.

Fair enough, I can't argue with your first assertion as I don't know one way or the other and I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and would like to know which parts, specifically, are inaccurate simply for the sake of having factual information. I'm always happy to learn.
Reading Mr. Doran's experience with various developing variations of Harman Phoenix 200 is still useful to me in terms off showing this films potential.
As to his specific scanning routines, given the majority use of scanning C41 rather than printing, that would seem to be the case any time we speak of or show colour film results these days.
As a black and white film user and darkroom printer, I find the lack of a definitive baseline rather frustrating, but can't honestly say that digital interventions render people's results any more useless or useful than showing a print made at Grade 2 with a condenser enlarger on Ilford Art 300 using a Kodak TMax 4x5 negative exposed to southern Australian sunlight mid-winter and developed to a CI of .55. Yes, meaningful charts can be made integrating all of that information but, really, all I care about are the possibilities.

All that to say, more often than not, we're all compounding a film's characteristics with its subsequent manipulation; whether it be in a darkroom or on a computer.

 

[Molli]

Th

He mentions that it's a film that looks good on overcast days, unlike any other color film he's tried. But this is a trait all narrow-latitude high-contrast films have in common, and not unique to Phoenix. It's true of most slide films, and also Ektar. I would expect someone who's putting out reviews of film products to have some basic knowledge of brightness ranges as it's one of the most important characteristics when choosing any particular film. That said, a person can certainly learn something from his trials.

Thank you for both of your observations, much appreciated.

 

[koraks]

As to his specific scanning routines, given the majority use of scanning C41 rather than printing, that would seem to be the case any time we speak of or show colour film results these days.

But that's quite unfortunate, since the parameters of "scanning" are exceedingly variable. This makes his findings idiosyncratic - which I don't have problems with per se, but what makes it unfortunate is the way his findings are presented as being the result of the film as such, or the way it's processed. They are really the result of a larger imaging chain, with a considerable part remaining a black box with uncontrolled parameters.

I don't feel like nitpicking all the issue with the article, but to name two: his findings with regards to pulling this film don't align with mine (I also tried this and reported on it), and a temark about ECN2 processing generally reducing grain is equally contestable. In both cases, variations (or lack thereof) in gamma of the negatives is lost in the (automatic) corrections that happen in digitization and post processing.

reporting (factually) the results of his different tests.

I think he doesn't do a particularly good job at distinguishing between factual outcomes and interpretation. The report is methodologically very problematic indeed. It's common for people with lots of experience (i.e. having done something many times) to still make systematic errors they're not aware of. Their unawareness is in fact the main reason why they keep making the same mistakes.

 

[Molli]

But that's quite unfortunate, since the parameters of "scanning" are exceedingly variable. This makes his findings idiosyncratic - which I don't have problems with per se, but what makes it unfortunate is the way his findings are presented as being the result of the film as such, or the way it's processed. They are really the result of a larger imaging chain, with a considerable part remaining a black box with uncontrolled parameters.

Thank you for your clarification. I'm still left wondering - short of posting things like densitometer readings, etc. how one can convey one's personal experiences with a film without it being considered opaque and/or compromised in terms of results. I don't think the reviewer at 35mmc was presenting his results as a chemist or even a mere small town film labrat (and I say this as someone who has shuddered her way through a fair few, "This is my first darkroom print and this is how you should do it" YouTube videos!)

I do understand not wanting to get into the minutiæ on this, however, and will likely remain quite happy to continue making use of what's useful and discard what's not overly relevant or helpful in this particular scenario.

So, again, thank you for your insights, Koraks. If it wasn't already readily apparent, I'm rather clueless when it comes to colour film (and probably nowhere as knowledgeable as I should be of film in general) and very much appreciate the free education you and others on Photrio provide.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Now I feel foolish and shallow - with my few rolls of Phoenix I just ran wild in a couple of favourite places, and my 'review' was more or less 'Whahay! What fun! - until I tore the film...' (and I didn't make a youtube vid of that).

My local camera shop hasn't listed the 120 yet. I'll wait for them to have it. But which camera to use...?

 

[Molli]

Now I feel foolish and shallow - with my few rolls of Phoenix I just ran wild in a couple of favourite places, and my 'review' was more or less 'Whahay! What fun! - until I tore the film...' (and I didn't make a youtube vid of that)

I feel better now. Ta!

I was very recently made grateful for the introduction of a new colour film from one of my favourite film and darkroom paper suppliers because, had Harman not done this, I'd not have spent an evening down at the beach photographing the colourful beach boxes and boat sheds there which are now splintered wrecks being dragged out to sea.

Those cute and colourful beach boxes no longer exist anywhere in my world except on Harman Phoenix 200.
Hold on to your negatives and prints @Dustin McAmera at the end of the day, they're all that matters (you know, except for the people and places themselves, of course!)

 

[loccdor]

My local camera shop hasn't listed the 120 yet. I'll wait for them to have it. But which camera to use...?

I'd go with a 6x9 with a nice but not razor-sharp lens as I haven't seen it to be a film with great resolving power and the larger negative will help with that.

 

[koraks]

I'm still left wondering - short of posting things like densitometer readings, etc. how one can convey one's personal experiences with a film without it being considered opaque and/or compromised in terms of results.

Well, what works for me, is to compare in a more transparent manner. A powerful way to do this is to take two bits of film and scan them in exactly the same way. With a flatbed scanner this is easy, with a digital camera 'scannin' setup it's also straightforward to do. With a dedicated film scanner it's often a bite more involved, since you have to be very careful to select a scanning mode (and software that allows this) that yields the exact same result (in terms of adjustment curves etc) regardless of the negative that's being fed to the machine.

In this particular instance, he could have shown the same frame of the same scene processed in different ways and perhaps on different types of film in a direct side by side comparison. This would show the real differences between e.g. regular and pull processing, or between C41 and ECN2 development of the same film. It would also show how extremely "far out there" Phoenix is if you compare it directly with a regular C41 film (let's say Gold or so).

This kind of comparison allows for much more firm conclusions that aren't as easily biased by a factor that's not being controlled. As a result, the outcome is more meaningful than most of the assessments we generally see, which are assessments of negatives scanned and color balanced (often at least in part by automatic software intervention) to look "natural", "nice" or whatever other (subjective) criterion that was applied either by the operator, or by the maker of the scanning software.

 

[pentaxuser]

Based on what all the video presenters had to say it seems to me that the improvements ín the 120 film v 35mm boil down to any such improvement as might be expected from a bigger format

None were able to state or demonstrate that this 120 was in fact any different from the 1st iteration in 35mm. The first presenter from the "Deep South" seems to indicate he saw other improvements and this was seemingly confirmed (or was ít?) by the Harman rep to whom he had spoken but it was all so vague as to be impossible to be sure

Not that there is anything wrong in it being too vague to be sure if there were such differences in the 120 as I don't think there are other than what I mentioned in my first paragraph

Harman's video was in fact probably the least informative but to be fair that was not its primary aim or so it seemed to me

I wonder if someone will make an informative video on an optical enlargement and RA4 printing for either the 35mm or 120?

I suppose Greg Davis might have done in the past but he hasn't got a darkroom in his new house as far as I know


pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

I'd go with a 6x9 with a nice but not razor-sharp lens as I haven't seen it to be a film with great resolving power and the larger negative will help with that.

Hmm yes that's an idea. I could try it in my Zeiss-Ikon 515/2 which is 6x9 with a vintage but reasonable lens. I mean....I've shot Ektar on it so why not Phoenix? If my camera shop has any in next week I shall probably get a roll for fun.

 

[koraks]

optical enlargement and RA4 printing for either the 35mm or 120?

It's interesting to print this film; extremely low contrast scenes pop right off of the paper. Scenes with normal, let alone high contrast are no fun to print optically from this film unless you're looking for a "binary" effect with pitch black shadows and paper white highlights, with garish colors in between.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Well, what works for me, is to compare in a more transparent manner. A powerful way to do this is to take two bits of film and scan them in exactly the same way. With a flatbed scanner this is easy, with a digital camera 'scannin' setup it's also straightforward to do. With a dedicated film scanner it's often a bite more involved, since you have to be very careful to select a scanning mode (and software that allows this) that yields the exact same result (in terms of adjustment curves etc) regardless of the negative that's being fed to the machine.

In this particular instance, he could have shown the same frame of the same scene processed in different ways and perhaps on different types of film in a direct side by side comparison. This would show the real differences between e.g. regular and pull processing, or between C41 and ECN2 development of the same film. It would also show how extremely "far out there" Phoenix is if you compare it directly with a regular C41 film (let's say Gold or so).

This kind of comparison allows for much more firm conclusions that aren't as easily biased by a factor that's not being controlled. As a result, the outcome is more meaningful than most of the assessments we generally see, which are assessments of negatives scanned and color balanced (often at least in part by automatic software intervention) to look "natural", "nice" or whatever other (subjective) criterion that was applied either by the operator, or by the maker of the scanning software.

This is, of course, a far more rigorous way of comparing two films, or the same film with different exposure/processing settings. If one was to do this, then I suspect one would come to the conclusion referred to by another poster: "Phoenix sucks"!

But Phoenix is a colour negative film: I don't think many people stop at the colour negative stage and admire their handiwork. Surely most people either scan and digitally print each negative, or a few enthusiasts actually make a photographic colour print in the darkroom. In both cases, there is some level of post-processing. So the real evaluation should be comparing the final result of the whole imaging process from start to finish, not just the colour negative stage.

Different films, or exposure/processing conditions, require different post-processing, optimised for that film. If one did this using a standard colour chart and grey step wedge in the frame, I suspect that the well-established colour negative films like Gold 200 or Portra would still give more accurate colour and tonal rendition than Phoenix, but perhaps the results for the two cases would be closer?

I think this is why many people like using Phoenix, because, with a little (or a lot) of post-processing, it can give interesting/artistic results which are "not too inaccurate" from a technical perspective. Of course they also want to support this enterprise by Harman.

 

[koraks]

I suspect one would come to the conclusion referred to by another poster: "Phoenix sucks"!

That's not what I'm getting at, though. For me, the normatieve assessment isn't so relevant, since everyone feels differently. What I find problematic in many online tests/assessments is that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the material really does, and what that would mean for me (or you, or anyone who comes across the test).

When I saw the first test results from Phoenix online, I had a certain expectation from it based on what people showed. Reality turned out to be totally different for me. Part of this mismatch was due to all the tests I saw before lacked any form of transparency. I was looking at the final outcome of a bunch of people's own, preferred workflow. I learned more about their preferences than I did about the film. For me, that renders a test virtually unusable.

The same happens with other materials, like Portra. There's something like the "Portra look" which appears to be a fairly low-contrast, desaturated look with colors tending towards yellow. In reality, Portra isn't anything like that - at least, not in my experience or the experience of others who also optically print from their negatives. The a"Portra look" seems to be something that emerged in the hybrid world and appears to be more of an aesthetic ideal than something that's inherent to the film as such. With Phoenix, something similar seems to be happening.

I find it problematic that most tests I see online are conducted by people who don't even realize the limitations of what they're doing. They draw all manner of conclusions about what "film X does", while in reality, it's often only 20% of the film that does it with the remaining 80% bring done by a person behind their keyboard, and as a result, what someone else gets from the same material will be wildly different. And yet, "Phoenix looks so and so". Well, I've made the exact same Phoenix frame look saturated and punchy like nothing else on the planet, and subdued and neutral but maybe a little grainy as if it were, well, Portra 800 or so. So which is the "real" Phoenix? And what conclusion would be really supported if only one of both renditions would be shown, with some suggestive allegations attached to it?

Anyway, I'll stop now. I've never made it a secret that I feel there's something odd going on with online film tests. I feel a bit like a stuck record at this point, and surely there's no fun in that for anyone.

So to each their own. Test in whatever way you see fit, and believe whatever you want or choose to believe.

 

[ChrisGalway]

That's not what I'm getting at, though. For me, the normatieve assessment isn't so relevant, since everyone feels differently. What I find problematic in many online tests/assessments is that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the material really does, and what that would mean for me (or you, or anyone who comes across the test).

When I saw the first test results from Phoenix online, I had a certain expectation from it based on what people showed. Reality turned out to be totally different for me. Part of this mismatch was due to all the tests I saw before lacked any form of transparency. I was looking at the final outcome of a bunch of people's own, preferred workflow. I learned more about their preferences than I did about the film. For me, that renders a test virtually unusable.

The same happens with other materials, like Portra. There's something like the "Portra look" which appears to be a fairly low-contrast, desaturated look with colors tending towards yellow. In reality, Portra isn't anything like that - at least, not in my experience or the experience of others who also optically print from their negatives. The a"Portra look" seems to be something that emerged in the hybrid world and appears to be more of an aesthetic ideal than something that's inherent to the film as such. With Phoenix, something similar seems to be happening.

I find it problematic that most tests I see online are conducted by people who don't even realize the limitations of what they're doing. They draw all manner of conclusions about what "film X does", while in reality, it's often only 20% of the film that does it with the remaining 80% bring done by a person behind their keyboard, and as a result, what someone else gets from the same material will be wildly different. And yet, "Phoenix looks so and so". Well, I've made the exact same Phoenix frame look saturated and punchy like nothing else on the planet, and subdued and neutral but maybe a little grainy as if it were, well, Portra 800 or so. So which is the "real" Phoenix? And what conclusion would be really supported if only one of both renditions would be shown, with some suggestive allegations attached to it?

Anyway, I'll stop now. I've never made it a secret that I feel there's something odd going on with online film tests. I feel a bit like a stuck record at this point, and surely there's no fun in that for anyone.

So to each their own. Test in whatever way you see fit, and believe whatever you want or choose to believe.

You're right, and I agree.

Perhaps as background I should mention that in college (a very long time ago) I studied photographic technology on a 3-year course, and I swear we must have exposed, processed and measured many thousands of step wedge film strips (B&W and colour using a calibrated custom sensitometer for exposure) and plotted thousands of H&D curves in properly planned tests and experiments. This experience left its mark.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's interesting to print this film; extremely low contrast scenes pop right off of the paper. Scenes with normal, let alone high contrast are no fun to print optically from this film unless you're looking for a "binary" effect with pitch black shadows and paper white highlights, with garish colors in between.

Thanks for that reply, koraks. With no Greg Davis to make a video maybe you could do so on your attempts to print this film

Yes it will demonstrate the difficulty as you have already said above and in previous threads but it may give those of use who only do optical printing an idea of just how difficult this film is

pentaxuser