First roll of Harman Phoenix photos up!

[koraks]

Their scanner isn't properly calibrated

How do you calibrate a scanner for color negative work?
I do agree that their color balancing job is pretty atrocious.

I think there could develop a bit of keen competition within Euro film firms which will hopefully drive innovation.

There's still a massive overcapacity for film coating worldwide. New entrants only add to this capacity unless they're 'fabless' (in semiconductor parlance), at which point their innovative potential is also virtually absent given how closely the product and the manufacturing process are intertwined when it comes to color film.

Innovation requires investments. The question is how much revenues there are in this market and if redistributing them will actually spur innovation in a useful sense. Kodak has nothing to innovate to, practically speaking, in terms of improving color C41. Whatever significant improvement there is to be had will be too costly to finance. Harman and other new entrants do have a clear target (i.e. compete with Kodak & Fuji quality), but this can only be done if we take away revenue from Kodak (& Fuji) and reallocate it to these new players. They'll then use these revenues to catch up on what's already out there.

This 'driving innovation' you speak of will for the most part turn out to be unproductive and from a user's perspective mostly destruction of capital.

I don't say this because I believe Harman is doing something wrong, or that people shouldn't be happy about it. I'm no judge there. But I do want to caution against rote application of overly simplistic market dynamics dogma.

Harman cannot come to the same level in only some years (if at all). Patience and endurance are needed. And the more we support them, the better the chances are for their success in the long term.

This 'success' will consist ultimately of virtual replication of something we've already had for decades.
The subtle differences may be worthwhile. I don't know.
I'm hesitant in rejoicing at this point from a market/technology perspective. So far, this looks like a giant leap for Harman, but a small step for mankind.

 

[FotoD]

My unsolicited advice to anyone using Phoenix 200 would be:

- Use it for *low contrast* subjects. It will make dull scenes pop. Cloudy days, blue hour, evenly lit studio shots etc.
- Forget contrasty scenes. (Unless it's night photography and you like empty blacks and halation.)
- Expose it at ISO 125.
- Scan it yourself, or pick a lab that actually knows how to scan Harman Phoenix.
- Have fun with it, and experiment.

I see a lot of creative potential in Phoenix 200, if you use it the 'right' ways. And I see some unhappy users that will treat it like any other color negative film.

And I'm looking forward to the 'Bring back Phoenix v1' thread on Photrio when the next version is released in a year or so.

 

[George Mann]

No, if you compare Lomo CN 100 under identical test conditions with Kodak ProImage 100, you will see..........no differences.

That's interesting. I have seen more pronounced reds from ProImage in the past.

 

[George Mann]

How do you calibrate a scanner for color negative work?
I do agree that their color balancing job is pretty atrocious.

The lab-grade scanners that I am familiar with have live on-the-fly manual calibration built in to their software.

 

[Henning Serger]

That's interesting. I have seen more pronounced reds from ProImage in the past.

We've done here with several photrio members a lot of tests of rebranded films in the recent past, and the results in comparison of Lomo CN 100 and ProImage have been very clear. The only (tiny, negligible) differences have been in batch-to-batch differences. And you can be ensured that if a batch is not completely up to the specs (and that happens), it will be taken for rebrand shipments.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[koraks]

The lab-grade scanners that I am familiar with have live on-the-fly manual calibration built in to their software.

Which ones are those, and how does that work? How would one calibrate one of those scanners to scan e.g. Phoenix, or maybe any of the Cinestill films for that matter?

I admit these are rhetorical questions, since it's to the best of my knowledge only possible to calibrate a scanner against a specific film stock from a specific production batch shot under specific (and controlled) lighting conditions at a specific E.I. and processed under specific/controlled conditions. Under these circumstances, it would be possible to create something like a calibration target.

Under all other circumstances, the best one can do is use a manufacturer-supplied film-specific color balance which may get you close, depending on how well the film in question corresponds to the conditions under which the supplied balance parameters were established. This is not a calibrated workflow, however. It's just using a more or less fitting set of adjustment parameters and hoping for the best.

Or, of course, the more common approach of automatically adjusting color balance based on mathematical analysis of the image data without a fixed reference, and then doing a manual adjustment on top of that based on visual inspection.

Perhaps I'm wrong in all of the above, in which case I'd gladly hear which scanner models you're referring to and how these calibration settings look like in practice. A link to a user manual or screenshots would of course be splendid by means of illustration. I've went through the manuals of a couple of Frontier scanners and surely nothing of this sort is present in them.

 

[George Mann]

I've went through the manuals of a couple of Frontier scanners and surely nothing of this sort is present in them.

You must have pretty limited manuals then because this is exactly the scanner series I am referring to.

The video below shows a basic view of this function.

 

[George Mann]

We've done here with several photrio members a lot of tests of rebranded films in the recent past, and the results in comparison of Lomo CN 100 and ProImage have been very clear. The only (tiny, negligible) differences have been in batch-to-batch differences. And you can be ensured that if a batch is not completely up to the specs (and that happens), it will be taken for rebrand shipments.

Best regards,
Henning

It appears that Gold (verified by PE) is a tweaked version of Kodacolor. So where does that leave ProImage?

I shot VR 100 for years, and can see no difference between it and CN 100.

 

[koraks]

The video below shows a basic view of this function.

The video shows nothing along the lines of actual calibration and supports exactly what I wrote above: the scanner auto-adjusts based on image content (which is a process the user cannot influence) and then manual adjustments on top of that auto-balance are possible.
No calibration.

Actual operators of the Frontier scanners will confirm to you that there is no calibration on these scanners other than a limited set of hardware-related parameters that need to be verified when e.g. changing the light source. That's not a film calibration, however.

 

[George Mann]

The video shows nothing along the lines of actual calibration and supports exactly what I wrote above: the scanner auto-adjusts based on image content (which is a process the user cannot influence) and then manual adjustments on top of that auto-balance are possible.
No calibration.

Actual operators of the Frontier scanners will confirm to you that there is no calibration on these scanners other than a limited set of hardware-related parameters that need to be verified when e.g. changing the light source. That's not a film calibration, however.

It's obvious that your definition of calibration is less liberal than my own.

 

[Ten301]

No, if you compare Lomo CN 100 under identical test conditions with Kodak ProImage 100, you will see..........no differences.
Lomo CN 100 was introduced at a time when film sales were still in a significant decline. And at that time ProImage was only offered in some emerging markets, not in the main markets NA, Europe, Japan.
So for economical reasons it was by far the best solution to use ProImage for that deal with Lomography. Trying to bring back a long discontinued film (for which you prabably even don't get all raw materials anymore) would have been much too costly. Would have been a very bad move in a situation with severe financial problems (please don't forget Chapter 11 in 2011 for Kodak; and that in 2014 they were really short before stopping film production entirely).

Best regards,
Henning

I have to respectfully disagree. While I do not have your sophisticated testing methods, I do have my eyes, and have used many rolls of both Kodak Pro Image 100 and Lomo CN 100. In my opinion, they are not the same films.

Lomo CN 100 has more pronounced grain, color appears more muted and less rich (although reds ‘pop’), it appears to have more contrast and less pleasing skin tones. It has the look of an older emulsion, but it is not the original VR100. I used VR100 when it first came out in the 1980s. Kodak’s big advertising push was the T-grain tech used in the VR films, but VR100’s color was bland; it couldn’t come close to the beautifully rich color of Fuji’s first generation HR films released first. It wasn’t until Kodak released VR-G that the playing field started to level. Lomo CN 100 looks much like VR-G 100, not VR-100.

Kodak Pro Image is rumored to be a tweaked version of Gold 100 Gen. 6. That timeline makes sense if you consider the original release of Pro Image in its intended market. The tweaks are said to include somewhat lower contrast for wedding applications, adapted skin tones and improved heat/humidity tolerance.

 

[koraks]

It's obvious that your definition of calibration is less liberal than my own.

That's probably the base of the difference in our views, yes. I don't consider the auto-balancing that a scanner does as 'calibration', and certainly not in the sense that it would somehow result in someone having their scanner calibrated wrong, as the only thing to cause this would be a hardware defect. I don't think that's what was the case in the Gold shots we both found poorly color balanced. I think it's due to unfortunate choices on behalf of the operator in terms of color balancing. This is also why I chose to nitpick on it, because it's highly relevant in a thread where the results of a 'film' are discussed on the basis of arbitrarily color balanced examples. It's an inescapable problem when discussing the characteristics of color film, and the main reason why such online comparisons are entertaining, but in my opinion not very useful, and certainly no substitute for hands-on testing.

Even worse (sorry for the personal gripe of mine, and this has nothing to do with anyone in this thread of course) is the HORRIBLE habit of people presenting film reviews and examples in the format of YOUTUBE VIDEOS. It's something I'll probably never understand. How on EARTH is it convenient for ANYONE to browse through still-image examples in a MOVING VIDEO. AWFUL!!!

 

[koraks]

so in practical terms… there is no way to share information about film quality/performance/characteristics

Sure. Harman provides very useful information in their datasheet.

 

[George Mann]

That's probably the base of the difference in our views, yes. I don't consider the auto-balancing that a scanner does as 'calibration', and certainly not in the sense that it would somehow result in someone having their scanner calibrated wrong, as the only thing to cause this would be a hardware defect. I don't think that's what was the case in the Gold shots we both found poorly color balanced. I think it's due to unfortunate choices on behalf of the operator in terms of color balancing. This is also why I chose to nitpick on it, because it's highly relevant in a thread where the results of a 'film' are discussed on the basis of arbitrarily color balanced examples. It's an inescapable problem when discussing the characteristics of color film, and the main reason why such online comparisons are entertaining, but in my opinion not very useful, and certainly no substitute for hands-on testing.

Even worse (sorry for the personal gripe of mine, and this has nothing to do with anyone in this thread of course) is the HORRIBLE habit of people presenting film reviews and examples in the format of YOUTUBE VIDEOS. It's something I'll probably never understand. How on EARTH is it convenient for ANYONE to browse through still-image examples in a MOVING VIDEO. AWFUL!!!

I agree wholeheartedly with your premise and findings. As I see it, the biggest bottleneck in film photography is the inability to utililise the full capabilies of negative film.

Furthermore, nothing I see online shows us a truly accurate representation of the various available film stocks resulting in the blind leading the blind.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sure. Harman provides very useful information in their datasheet.

Sure; true in some respects. I was referring to actual photographic results, but that’s okay… I thought twice about what might turn into a nonproductive rabbit hole discussion.

 

[George Mann]

Lomo CN 100 looks much like VR-G 100, not VR-100.

I actually never shot the original VR, so right you are.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Even worse (sorry for the personal gripe of mine, and this has nothing to do with anyone in this thread of course) is the HORRIBLE habit of people presenting film reviews and examples in the format of YOUTUBE VIDEOS. It's something I'll probably never understand. How on EARTH is it convenient for ANYONE to browse through still-image examples in a MOVING VIDEO. AWFUL!!!

+1

 

[runswithsizzers]

Is it likely that Harman will be able to reduce the graininess of Phoenix 200 in future iterations?

We know some films are less grainy than others, but is there a precedent which demonstrates a single film becoming noticeably less grainy between inception and subsequent improved generations of that same film?

 

[Henning Serger]

There's still a massive overcapacity for film coating worldwide.

Yes, correct. But Harman can reduce its own surplus coating capacity by adding colour film to their product portfolio.

New entrants only add to this capacity unless they're 'fabless' (in semiconductor parlance),

But we don't have real new entrants, because there is no new installed coating capacity, no real new coating machines. All current existing coating capacity, all these machines have already existed and were in operation before the "digital revolution".

Harman and other new entrants do have a clear target (i.e. compete with Kodak & Fuji quality), but this can only be done if we take away revenue from Kodak (& Fuji) and reallocate it to these new players. They'll then use these revenues to catch up on what's already out there.

I recommended to differentiate here, because the market situation is a bit more complex: The market potential is definitely big enough so that all (including potential, future) players - Kodak, Fujifilm, Harman, Film Ferrania, InovisCoat, ADOX - could grow and would have an attractive, sustainable future colour film market. In the last years we've had growth rates in certain market segments of 30-40% p.a.. That has meanwhile slowed down, especially due to Kodak Alaris' pricing policy.
Whether we can exploit the full market potential in the future is dependent on the behaviour of the market players: Reasonable pricing policy and new attractive products are needed to continue the film revival.
If e.g. the demand will be destroyed by a too aggressive pricing policy, then the situation you are describing could happen.

This 'success' will consist ultimately of virtual replication of something we've already had for decades.
The subtle differences may be worthwhile. I don't know.
I'm hesitant in rejoicing at this point from a market/technology perspective. So far, this looks like a giant leap for Harman, but a small step for mankind.

It is definitely an important step for the market, especially in the long run. Harman technology is a company which is clearly focussed on classic film photography. In contrast to Kodak, which defines itself as a printing B2B company. Film business is only a smaller part of their whole business. They went through Chapter 11, and in 2014 they almost stopped film production completely, just the deal with the Hollywood studios in that year saved their film production. Well, and the whole situation with Eastman Kodak for production, and Kodak Alaris for distribution is.....let's say it diplomatically: sub-optimal.
Therefore as a BW and colour film shooter I just don't want to be dependent only on one major player (no matter who that one is).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Has anybody tried wet printing this stuff already? All I can find in the internet are from people scanning their films.

'Twas two decades ago when, over on photo.net, Scott Eaton started rhetorically asking (I paraphrase) "why are people taking digital pictures of film when they could start with a digital capture?" Today, I can find no reason for a color negative film unless it's used to make a wet print. However, the almost universal approach is scanning ("taking a digital picture") and printing either via inkjet or by laser on RA-4 paper. So the question remains: why?

 

[Ten301]

I actually never shot the original VR, so right you are.

When Fuji released their HR series films in the early 1980s, they were revolutionary. I don’t think that’s hyperbole. It was like someone had taken a veil off the image for the first time. I remember processing my first roll of Fuji HR 100 and being blown away, I couldn’t stop staring at the images. The richness, the depth, almost 3-dimensional in comparison to other color negative films.

I believe even Kodak was caught a bit off guard, as they soon countered with their Kodacolor VR series, I believe the first to use their T-grain tech, but still, it had nothing on Fuji. Maybe it had fine grain, but it still didn’t look any different than Kodacolor II. In fact, I thought Kodacolor II had better color; VR looked pale and bland in comparison. It wasn’t until Kodak released VR-G in it’s new colorful box (it’s like even Kodak knew they had to play catch-up) that things started to level out.

 

[LeoniD]

let's say it diplomatically: sub-optimal.

It is so suboptimal that here in Ukraine everyone just shoots Vision 3 most of the time

But hey, at least many labs now do (almost) proper ecn 2

 

[George Mann]

When Fuji released their HR series films in the early 1980s, they were revolutionary. I don’t think that’s hyperbole. It was like someone had taken a veil off the image for the first time. I remember processing my first roll of Fuji HR 100 and being blown away, I couldn’t stop staring at the images. The richness, the depth, almost 3-dimensional in comparison to other color negative films.

I believe even Kodak was caught a bit off guard, as they soon countered with their Kodacolor VR series, I believe the first to use their T-grain tech, but still, it had nothing on Fuji. Maybe it had fine grain, but it still didn’t look any different than Kodacolor II. In fact, I thought Kodacolor II had better color; VR looked pale and bland in comparison. It wasn’t until Kodak released VR-G in it’s new colorful box (it’s like even Kodak knew they had to play catch-up) that things started to level out.

Now that I revisit these images, I see that VR-G is indeed the precurser to Gold, but just as I remember, it doesn't tend to get as "muddy" as Gold.

VR, ProImage and Lomo CN appear to be closely related.

 

[mshchem]

You might be interested in this website if you've never seen it: https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/index.html

So much great info about the early days of Kodak and other manufacturers color film and printing. Might be a nice trip down memory lane for you!

Yep, I'm quite familiar with this great site. I was just a kid when I was playing with the early stuff. I still mess with it just because it's fun.

 

[Agulliver]

I got mine....