ORWO NC500 - FIRST RESULTS & QUICK REVIEW

S/S 2025

A
S/S 2025

  • 0
  • 0
  • 2
Street art

A
Street art

  • 0
  • 0
  • 9
20250427_154237.jpg

D
20250427_154237.jpg

  • 2
  • 0
  • 62
Genbaku Dome

D
Genbaku Dome

  • 7
  • 2
  • 81
City Park Pond

H
City Park Pond

  • 0
  • 1
  • 73

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,508
Messages
2,760,117
Members
99,522
Latest member
Xinyang Liu
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
117
Location
Bamberg
Format
Multi Format
Here are a few takeaways from my test with the material. This will concern the NC 500 emulsion. The NC 400 emulsion will be discussed in another post at a later date.
The tests were conducted with material cut down from long rolls with BH 1866 perforation, not with 135-36 finished material.


I've been fortunate enough to have been able to (technically) test a few stages of the emulsion over the last months and must say, that they have come a long way. Making a color film from scratch is not an easy task - some would have called it impossible. Yet, Orwo and the engineers and emulsioneers at Innoviscoat managed to come up with a new color emulsion - in record time. I suggest to take a moment to appreciate this.

Many here and elsewhere have been very sceptical and sometimes even demeaning. If you have a problem with the brand, or those associated with it, please refrain from commenting - marketing and distribution of the product is not subject of my short review here. I want to talk about the emulsion.

Film Speed:

Even though the Film is called NC 500, the sensitometrically determined film speed of the emulsion, processed in a monitored ECN-2 process is close to 320. Under practical conditions, I suggest the film be exposed at E.I. 250.

Granularity:

Compared to 5219 and 5207, Orwo NC500 is noticeably grainier. This, however, isn't necessarily a bug, but more a feature. The film is not a Vision3 emulsion, and does not even come close. But it does not have to, in my opinion. Compared to any available modern emulsion, the NC 500 has a distinct grain structure / dye distribution pattern that resembles early chromogenic emulsions. Some will like the look, others will not. That's a matter of personal taste.

Sharpness:

Sharpness and especially acutance could be improved upon, but again, in this regard as well the film is distinctly not a Vision3 film.

Antihalation:

Since the film has no remjet backing, one might assume halations could be an issue. However, I am pleased to say that the integral anti halation layer present in the emulsion works very well in surpressing both reflection and diffusion halations.

Color Reproduction:

Color Saturation is overall on the lower end of the spectrum. Especially the yellow dye forming layer fails to form sufficient dye density, which results in muted blues, especially apparent in a blue sky. Overall color reproduction is acceptable.


Conclusion

Someone who only shoots on 5203 / 50D will probably not enjoy NC 500. If you like to try a new look that is distinctly not as clean as Vision3, or any other Kodak / Fuji Stock for that matter, but more in line of color negative films found in the late 1960s and early 1970s, this might be a good way to explore that route.




Here are a few example shots taken last weekend in the mountains:



 

Attachments

  • 2RE_XXX_011.jpg
    2RE_XXX_011.jpg
    832.4 KB · Views: 354
  • NC_500_0021.jpg
    NC_500_0021.jpg
    938.1 KB · Views: 410
  • grain2.jpg
    grain2.jpg
    259.5 KB · Views: 365
  • grain.jpg
    grain.jpg
    237.9 KB · Views: 342

Mick Fagan

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
4,407
Location
Melbourne Au
Format
Multi Format
That grain 2 image, certainly reminds me of Agfa color film from the mid seventies, which was when I first started enlarging colour film. The muted colours are also reminiscent of Agfa stock of the same period and possibly into the late 80's.
 

Klaus_H

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
112
Location
Lower Saxony
Format
Medium Format
The presented results of NC500 look likte those of the AGFA CN 17 from 1970. This film was a so called "Universal Film", a film without an orange mask, which could be printed on color paper or on black and white material.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
117
Location
Bamberg
Format
Multi Format
The presented results of NC500 look likte those of the AGFA CN 17 from 1970. This film was a so called "Universal Film", a film without an orange mask, which could be printed on color paper or on black and white material.

The film does indeed lack an orange mask. But it has a dye filter layer.
 

Fredrixxon

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Messages
32
Location
Poland
Format
Analog
Horrible image structure. Luckily you can't buy it anywhere, including manufacturer's webshop,
 

Fredrixxon

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Messages
32
Location
Poland
Format
Analog
Yes. I'd be happier having simple un54 cheaper, than watch Filmotech wasting money on projects like that.
 
Last edited:

BMbikerider

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
2,915
Location
UK
Format
35mm
I am definitely not impressed!
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format
I am definitely not impressed!

+1.
There was the photo fair Photopia recently, and there some 135 NC 500 films were available. A friend of mine was able to get some film, tested it and showed me the results:
- real speed is more in the EI 200-250 range (developed in C-41)
- sharpness, resolution and grain are much worse than all other current Kodak and Fuji films in the 200-400 speed range
- colors: not my taste, but color rendition is quite subjective and determined by individual preferences, so everyone has decide for his own.
My personal summary:
Lower quality offered at much higher prices. Not convincing for me.
 

BMbikerider

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
2,915
Location
UK
Format
35mm
Enlarging the thumbnails it is obvious that the grain is quite course and is probably the reason for the apparent lack of sharpness
I quite like the softer look of the images but either if you are using this emulsion they will need, sorry demand bright sunshine to boost the colours a little.
This is a complete circle from the ORWO reversal film I used in 1978, where the colours were bright and garish and also had very coarse grain and not quite easy on the eye.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,448
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
The colours are to my taste. At least for some of the photos I take. I tend to prefer less saturated, less "popping" colours. Grain is a bit intrusive. Whether I would buy it would depend on price. I can see that I would have a use for it.

Even if I don't buy it, I'll doff my metaphorical hat to Inoviscoat for coming up with something much more like a conventional colour negative film than the emulsions they make for Lomography.
 

Fredrixxon

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Messages
32
Location
Poland
Format
Analog
Orwo reversal is a different story. Most of my family pictures on orwochrom films suck, but one in every ten rolls (perfectly developed, I guess) is brilliant, and keeps colours better than any other.
Unlike orwo's negatives, which were poor all the way, and scanning it today is a sheer torture. NC500 is a negative.
 
Last edited:

brbo

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,021
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format
@ludwighagelstein, thank you for the samples.

From your posts it is not quite clear whether you used ECN-2 or C-41 developer to process the film with the samples shown in the first post. Can you, please, add this information? Thanks!
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,188
Format
Multi Format
Orwo reversal is a different story.

Yes, but former ORWO colour negative film is also a "different story" as this new film has nothing to do with the former ORWO colour negative film technology.
Please don't get mislead by the ORWO brand name.
Because this current film is made by InovisCoat, and their "technology roots" are not the same as the former ORWO colour negative films.

Best regards,
Henning
 

Arcadia4

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
314
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
Thankyou for the review. From the description this seems to align with the claimed basis for the film - agfa xt320, a tungsten movie stock from 85-95. If anyone wants to compare...
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
20,697
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
From your posts it is not quite clear whether you used ECN-2 or C-41 developer to process the film with the samples shown in the first post.

Oh, am I misinterpreting this bit:?
processed in a monitored ECN-2 process

It's about determining film speed, but I assumed this would have been used for the example images as well.

The colours are to my taste. At least for some of the photos I take.

I agree! But these look like scans to me, so how this would print directly onto RA4 is still unknown. Given the lack of an orange mask and the overall nature of this emulsion, I expect some funny things to happen.
 

brbo

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,021
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format
Oh, am I misinterpreting this bit:?


It's about determining film speed, but I assumed this would have been used for the example images as well.

Most probably not, I also thought that samples must have been processed in ECN-2, but @ludwighagelstein didn't specifically state that. This is (predominantly) still photography forum where most people probably don't process their film in ECN-2 and ORWO is selling this film as C-41 so I thought maybe the samples were processed in C-41, but again, probably not as the same samples have been posted in Cinematography.com forum and there ECN-2 is the default process and C-41 isn't even mentioned in the Orwo CN500 thread...
 

Ten301

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
195
Location
Boston, Mass
Format
35mm
Is this film tungsten balanced like the Agfa XT320 it’s said to be based on? If so, would it be beneficial to use an 85 filter in daylight?
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
117
Location
Bamberg
Format
Multi Format
@ludwighagelstein, thank you for the samples.

From your posts it is not quite clear whether you used ECN-2 or C-41 developer to process the film with the samples shown in the first post. Can you, please, add this information? Thanks!

the film was processed in a Kodak ILS monitored ECN-2 process.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
117
Location
Bamberg
Format
Multi Format
Oh, am I misinterpreting this bit:?


It's about determining film speed, but I assumed this would have been used for the example images as well.



I agree! But these look like scans to me, so how this would print directly onto RA4 is still unknown. Given the lack of an orange mask and the overall nature of this emulsion, I expect some funny things to happen.

The effective film speed, determined using a sensitometer and status m densitometry is slightly shy of 320 in ECN-2. If processed in C-41 chemistry, I suppose you could rate the film at E.I. 400 with no ill effect. The sample pictures above were rated at E.I. 250 and processed in a complete ECN-2 cycle including Prebath, which is not only important for remjet removal, which in this case is unnecessary, but also for emulsion swelling.
 

Rudeofus

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
5,053
Location
EU
Format
Medium Format
I would also be careful with claims about "horrible grain" and "awful image structure" until I see these images printed on RA-4. Scanners are known to perform evil things on low contrast materials such as C-41 and even more on ECN-2. "Grain" definitely doesn't look worse from what I get with my Epson V700 on just about any color film and might well be dominated by scanner noise.

Yes, it's not nice to see an emulsion marketed as "500 speed" to turn out as 320 speed or less, but this is also not unheard of in this industry.

Looking forward to trying this one at some point.
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom