Why on earth should any of us think we have a right to care that Ilford is subsidizing the creation of a color film out of sales of other films? Just where do people think the money for a new product comes from? It is corporate death to stand still.
Did someone from Harman such as Simon Galley say this or say something so close that it could not be any question that it referred to cross subsidisation?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Why on earth should any of us think we have a right to care that Ilford is subsidizing the creation of a color film out of sales of other films?
Ilford was directed to stop making color film by the UK if I remember correctly.
Ilford was directed to stop making color film by the UK if I remember correctly.
I think you may be referring to the UK Monopolies Commission back in 1966.
That makes sense; so it wasn't a case of Ilford being 'directed to stop making color film', but rather a poorly designed anti-monopoly policy that backfired.
Now would be a good time to fix past mistakes.
... I expect it will go down well with the folk who enjoy "effects" films and will help fill the coffers for more R&D towards a 'normal' C41 film.
@thinkbrown : You said you developed Phoenix in ECN-2. Am I right to assume that that's to reduce contrast?
Honestly it's primarily a convenience thing. I started mixing ecn2 from scratch when I started bulk rolling vision 3 films. I didn't want to maintain two sets of color chemistry and realized I prefer the look of c41 film cross processed in ecn2 a hell of a lot more than ecn2 film in c41. So now everything goes through ecn2.
I have noticed that a number of the more "experimental" color films (Phoenix, NC500/400) tend to look better to my eye cross processed ecn2 compared to the standard process photos I've seen online.
You don't get bulk rolls of vision 3 easily anymore unfortunately. I've still got a couple in the freezer.
Looks great. Honestly, I think they look about the same as the C-41 photos I've seen online.As far as the NC500 goes, I'm pretty happy with the results
That's not accurate. The Vision3 films that happen to be ECN2 films are low-saturation films. This is not inherently linked to fact that they are made to be developed in ECN2 developer, though. It would be technically possible to create a high-saturation ECN2 film, but Kodak doesn't feel there's a market for it (and they're quite likely right).My understanding is that ECN-2 gives muted colors.
If it's any consolation, this possibility ceased 15 years ago or so when the last C41 bulk rolls disappeared from the market. There has been a bit of a revival lately with Kodak's Vision3 motion picture stock, but Kodak has put a stop to that because it ate too much into their still film business.Just my luck that I'd get into film photography right at the time when bulk rolling color film becomes impossible.
On the topic of Vision3, ECN2, Kodak's sales strategies etc. there are several threads that you can refer to. Let's keep this one here focused on Harman Phoenix. On that subject - if you want to control contrast and saturation of Phoenix, the most feasible route is to give sufficient exposure so that important shadow detail is recorded, scan the negatives in such a way that the entire tonal range is captured and then adjust contrast and color to taste digitally. Whether you develop in C41 or ECN2 really doesn't matter if you follow that route.
I don't doubt he got good results that way, but it wasn't due to the reduced development. It's really down to making a proper scan that encompasses the entire dynamic range of the negative and then color balancing that to taste. This will work fine with regularly processed Phoenix provided you have sufficient control over the scanning process.The YouTuber Shaka1277 seemed to get good results (i.e. controlled contrast) by rating it at ISO 125 and doing a -1 Pull in C-41. He gave an explanation for why pull processing lowers contrast and it made sense to me.
I don't doubt he got good results that way, but it wasn't due to the reduced development. It's really down to making a proper scan that encompasses the entire dynamic range of the negative and then color balancing that to taste. This will work fine with regularly processed Phoenix provided you have sufficient control over the scanning process.
It does shoulder off, but it can still capture a decent range. The main challenge is the very high gamma, which makes it seem (when optically printing or scanning in an inopportune way) that its dynamic range is more limited than it is in reality. Scanned properly, it has a reasonable dynamic range. Not as much as regular CN film, but adequate for many regular scenes. It will be a bit more finicky in terms of proper exposure to optimize its output. For regular pictorial use, it's a more challenging film than normal CN films. But personally I don't see why people would want to use this for regular pictorial use as there are way better alternatives for that; Phoenix' unique nature lends itself to highly specific, artistic uses.Phoenix has pretty limited dynamic range though
But personally I don't see why people would want to use this for regular pictorial use as there are way better alternatives for that; Phoenix' unique nature lends itself to highly specific, artistic uses.
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?