OK, I see. I'm still wondering what explains the contaminated reds on PII that we didn't appear to have (or at least not so much) on PI.
@Lachlan Young thanks; I'd have to think about how that works for a bit. I should sit down with some spectral charts and do some overlays to get a feeling for it.
As to improving Phoenix II...frankly, I'd not bother trying in analog print given what I've seen so far, and just scan & adjust digitally. My comment about using a blank piece of C41 film won't fix the reds; it'll just bring the average color balance closer to where a normal C41 sits, but the idiosyncrasies will still be very much there. Like Phoenix I, there is probably artistic potential in it, anyway.
I find this a peculiar choice given that this red hue must have required a hefty dose of digital post processing to render this way
Because of the peculiar way this film appears to be rendering red; numerous posts on the first two pages of this thread discuss this. I was skeptical at first and blamed @Meinrad for unfortunate post-processing, but by now it's clear also to me that this Phoenix II tends to convert any saturated red into a vivid orange. If you compare the red in this photo to the examples posted in this thread so far by @Meinrad, @chromemax as well as @mshchem you'll notice that it's much richer than in any of 'our own' examples.Why? (Genuine question, not being pedantic).
These are mine, a quick test with flowers of my garden:
View attachment 403323View attachment 403324View attachment 403325View attachment 403326View attachment 403327View attachment 403328View attachment 403329
Color fidelity is better than Phoenix I, look at skins tones on colorcheker (first two top left samples) but there is still some of work to do on reds and magentas. Grain of Phoenix II is much better than Phoenix I, great job done by Mobberley guys, but is still far from the grain of Kodak or Fuji films.
Because of the peculiar way this film appears to be rendering red; numerous posts on the first two pages of this thread discuss this. I was skeptical at first and blamed @Meinrad for unfortunate post-processing, but by now it's clear also to me that this Phoenix II tends to convert any saturated red into a vivid orange. If you compare the red in this photo to the examples posted in this thread so far by @Meinrad, @chromemax as well as @mshchem you'll notice that it's much richer than in any of 'our own' examples.
I'm just not sure that the one in the promotional image is sooo far away from what people have been getting.
View attachment 403324
I'm pleasantly surprised to see how good it comes out at box speed. I think the general consensus was that you had to shoot Phoenix I at 100 or 125 or so to get good shadow detail and help prevent too much contrast.
I'm about 6 frames into my first roll of Phoenix II so far, and shooting it at 125. Might actually shoot the next roll at 200 depending on how this comes out. I'm dealing with the further wild card of planning to develop mine in ECN-2 chemistry though, so who knows what the result will be.
I've probably posted this somewhere here before, but I'm really partial to Phoenix at 125 in ecn2. I've joked that it's kind of like ektar where everything except skin tones looks fantastic.Yeah I think I only shot one roll of Phoenix I, and probably at box speed. I developed in ECN-2. It came out fine. I rather liked the colors (obviously it wasn't particularly realistic), but the dynamic range was ridiculously low, and the halations were pretty extreme.
I've probably posted this somewhere here before, but I'm really partial to Phoenix at 125 in ecn2.
I've joked that it's kind of like ektar where everything except skin tones looks fantastic.
YouTuber Shaka1277 is a huge proponent of ECN-2 for Phoenix I. In this video he says that Phoenix II is also a good candidate for ECN-2. "Images come out very warm and pinkish with a tone of red in the image though that is fixed relatively easily in post".
In the image you posted the skin tones look fine to me. What's wrong with them? I think the whole image looks great.
It looks pretty wildly different to me, but YMMV and all that. I'm kind of fussy when it comes to color (which doesn't mean I always get it right, necessarily).
Incidentally, I'm shooting a lot of Opticolour 200 (Orwo NC200). I know we can't do direct comparisons to Phoenix II as the latter is a totally new film and yadda yadda, but the Orwo NC200 is a much more mature product. Especially beautiful in 120. People should really give it a go.
It's a very different shade of orange, though. Whether it's pleasant or not is entirely personal; I'm referring specifically to the hue.What I'm saying is, that unpleasant shade of 'orange' red comes through strongly even in that promotional image.
It's a very different shade of orange, though. Whether it's pleasant or not is entirely personal; I'm referring specifically to the hue.
View attachment 403677
Top row are samples of the 'red' as shown in scans posted by @Meinrad, @chromemax and @mshchem . Bottom row is a sample from the example image I posted. It has a higher saturation on a* (in Lab) and is overall just more red while the other samples are more pale and/or more orange. This difference is quite consistent if you also include other examples posted e.g. on Harman's own website.
I can only explain this by the red in the grain elevator image being shifted in hue in digital post processing to make it appear closer to an actual red.
I did not suggest or mean to imply who color graded that particular image. If I were to guess, I'd say the photographer did it himself.and Harman has hired an army of basement hackers to systematically make those ugly oranges a slightly more saturated tone of ugly red.
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?