Phoenix II pictures

[ags2mikon]

A 1 min. sodium sulfite bath (10 grams to the liter) after fixing clears T-max real well then a wash and photoflo.

 

[chromemax]

@koraks looking at colorchecker picture I posted above, the red of Phoenix II (the third row from above are BGR and YMC) is quite similar to the swiss flag Red of @Meinrad photo.

 

[koraks]

I see what you mean; I hadn't noticed. It's really odd as it seems to be very selective.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What's happening is that the cyan dye is effectively too blue, but on a sliding scale across the curve. This is essentially what the mask in the red sensitive layer(s) will correct. I think you can guess what colour it should be.

Phoenix I had no mask. I don't think those pictures of the Phoenix II negs are wrong at all, it's just that there seems to be some level of denial on here about masking.

The mix of M+Y masks is what effectively makes up the 'orange' mask. Harman have clearly decided to do one mask at a time.

 

[chromemax]

I agree with you that without a mask some colours can't be reproduced correctly but I don't think that Harman are doing one mask at a time because they still have to fix the spectral sensitivity and dye spectral density of layers, as stated on Harman internet site.

In post above you can see that magenta cast is because of short or none wash and It isn't a colour mask.

May be that in future Phoenix-xx film will have a mask but i think that Phoenix I and Phoenix II are maskless films

 

[Graham06]

I wonder if anyone has made actual paper prints from the new Phoenix film. And what did prints from the old phoenix look like. Everything I have seen from both films has been from scanned negatives.

I have seen quite a few good looking photos from the pre. Release YouTube crowd

 

[dcy]

This video was linked before and the reviewer kinda authoritatively stated that Phoenix I will not be produced anymore (earlier in the video he claims to have talked to Harman people):

I have heard the same thing from three other YouTubers who released videos on day 1. This is clearly the official message handed down from Harman. They will sell Phoenix I while stocks last, and they'd consider making a special release of Phoenix I if there's demand, but their intention is to just move forward with new versions of Phoenix.

 

[koraks]

And what did prints from the old phoenix look like.

Feet of clay – My first impression of Harman Phoenix – Koraks tinkers

tinker.koraks.nl

 

[koraks]

I don't think those pictures of the Phoenix II negs are wrong at all, it's just that there seems to be some level of denial on here about masking.

1: the reds are wrong.
2: I don't think we're in denial about anything. You state that Phoenix I was unmasked and you expect Phoenix II still has an unmasked red channel. The reds on Phoenix I rendered rich and extremely saturated as you can tell from thousands of scans and also the prints on my site. You now argue that the lack of masking in Phoenix II results in poor reds allegedly due to a wrong spectral absorbance profile for the cyan image, but this aspect of the film hasn't changed. It's not denial - it's that the argument doesn't add up. Perhaps you could explain in terms that those who are supposedly in denial can understand. Apparently, both scanners and RA4 paper have been sufficiently spectrally selective on the cyan/red channel to produce vivid reds on Phoenix I despite the same wrong cyan dye color its successor has.

I can see how things might break down if either of the following applies:
1: The introduction of partial masking has introduced non-image density in other color layers, particularly magenta/green, specifically for the red channel. Which doesn't align with your statement about red being the/a remaining unmasked channel.
2: The spectral sensitivity has changed, so reds are effectively recorded with crosstalk on esp. the green channel.
#2 seems the most obvious possibility. I can't really trace it down to the spectral sensitivity plots of the new version of the film, although that is sure enough dramatically different from Phoenix I. But that plot is stylized and normalized, so we don't really know what the real differences are.
#1 would seem less plausible to me, but we have spectral transmission profiles for neither of these films, so someone would have to run a photospectrometer across some test strips to get this kind of info. I'm not volunteering.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Long story short, a single mask (done with a #33 magenta) will correct for contrast and saturation, double masking (done with a #29 and #61 - the outcome of which is effectively pretty close to the C-41 mask colour) will correct for hue shifts in areas like the reds. Harman will be well aware of this. If the greens and blues are more 'normal', then a single mask is what Harman are using. The key areas that will still likely be weird will be hue shifted reds (and magentas) etc and yellow saturation. This has been well known in terms of masking for colour reproduction for a very long time. Hue shifting the blue to cyan in the negative image upthread makes the reds properly red.

 

[koraks]

Hue shifting the blue to cyan in the negative image upthread makes the reds properly red.

Hue shifting of the cyan dye accomplishes nothing as long as there's no substantial difference in how the tristimulus digital capture or print medium is affected. Which for all we know is the case, see the example w.r.t. Phoenix 1 reds. That's what I asked about; I see no answer - do you have one or not?

 

[brbo]

I just don't understand why everybody that's reviewed Phoenix II need to emphasise that II has the same "vibe", "boldness" etc. as Phoenix I when, for anyone with eyes, that is simply not true. Were they instructed to say that?

Phoenix II is much closer to the Inoviscoat colour film "vibe". Plus some hues are obviously MIA.

(I'm basing my observations on scans of II I've seen from other people, haven't shot II yet)

 

[Graham06]

Feet of clay – My first impression of Harman Phoenix – Koraks tinkers

tinker.koraks.nl

I love those prints! Nothing else would have given you those results

I think Kyle McDougall is one of the more skilled youtube reviewers, and he seems to have figured out the red more than others

 

[koraks]

Nothing else would have given you those results

That's absolutely correct; printing that film made me realize it, too. But I don't think it's something that's appreciated by many, and I have to admit it's also not what I'm looking for in general in my photography.

he seems to have figured out the red more than others

His colors are all over the place although generally subjectively pleasing. Did you notice the comparison on 9:31? That's apparently the same object. Not that you'd believe it if you were presented these photos...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hue shifting of the cyan dye accomplishes nothing as long as there's no substantial difference in how the tristimulus digital capture or print medium is affected. Which for all we know is the case, see the example w.r.t. Phoenix 1 reds. That's what I asked about; I see no answer - do you have one or not?

What I was pointing out is that by simulating what the yellow component of the mask would do, you can see how it'll improve the reproduction of the reds. You can apply that to your usage of Phoenix II as you see fit. I am very aware that this is getting into the field of colour separation, and that it probably won't be of much application to most.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[lancewielder]

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.

Uneducated guess: I think the contaminated reds are possibly due to an issue with the sensitisation of the green and red layers, with the green layer being a little too sensitive to red light.

Phoenix I's red layer was heavily sensitised to wavelengths between 660 and 680nm and was apparently sensitive to some near IR. Most red objects probably reflect a little light in this range, and Phoenix I's high sensitivity to this range would have allowed red objects to appear red even if the green layer was picking up red light.

Phoenix II's red layer's sensitisation looks more "normal".

I vaguely recall that this issue (or a similar one) plagued the Soviet film industry.

 

[koraks]

Yes, indeed, I was thinking along similar lines, although my guess would be just as uneducated.

 

[Meinrad]

when i look at different examples, especially chromemax color checker pictures it seems to me the darker the red the more red it is. So your theorie sounds resonable for me. And thanks for the tip to get rid of the violet base with washing - i‘ll try that!

 

[qqphot]

FWIW I washed Phoenix II 4 minutes at 39C before stabilizer and watched for visible color in the early wash water but did not see much, and certainly none in the stabilizer. The purple film base color appeared the same at the end of washing. Just an unscientific observation. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCmHZu

 

[Graham06]

That's absolutely correct; printing that film made me realize it, too. But I don't think it's something that's appreciated by many, and I have to admit it's also not what I'm looking for in general in my photography.


His colors are all over the place although generally subjectively pleasing. Did you notice the comparison on 9:31?

I did, which I found interesting. He was showing how the two films compared when scanned the same way. The Phoenix II orange is definitely a thing. There was also a fragment of digital video showing the fuel pump which was more orange than Phoenix I, but that may just have been color grading. Phoenix I may have a tendency to show orangey reds more deep red than reality.

Phoenix II seems to be an improved film with its own charm. People who only consider technical brownie points will still hate it, but I think lots of people will buy it and make beautiful images with it.

I think when making prints from a negative you can't change the contrast of one colour channel, you can only change the relative levels using filters (I don't print colour so don't know) I think the green base level on Phoenix II is quite high which leads to the orangey reds. Don't have a clear enough understanding to say more.

I asked about non-scanned prints from negatives because the Harman engineers obviously made some deliberate choices. The yellow colour of the unexposed film and the blue/purple base of the developed negative must have been chosen, and I wonder if they were tuned for modern photographic paper. We can tune things ourselves by shooting with colour filters.

Last thing: I think Phoenix II will probably turn out to look best shot at ISO 125-150

 

[Samu]

I did, which I found interesting. He was showing how the two films compared when scanned the same way. The Phoenix II orange is definitely a thing. There was also a fragment of digital video showing the fuel pump which was more orange than Phoenix I, but that may just have been color grading. Phoenix I may have a tendency to show orangey reds more deep red than reality.

Phoenix II seems to be an improved film with its own charm. People who only consider technical brownie points will still hate it, but I think lots of people will buy it and make beautiful images with it.

I think when making prints from a negative you can't change the contrast of one colour channel, you can only change the relative levels using filters (I don't print colour so don't know) I think the green base level on Phoenix II is quite high which leads to the orangey reds. Don't have a clear enough understanding to say more.

I asked about non-scanned prints from negatives because the Harman engineers obviously made some deliberate choices. The yellow colour of the unexposed film and the blue/purple base of the developed negative must have been chosen, and I wonder if they were tuned for modern photographic paper. We can tune things ourselves by shooting with colour filters.

Last thing: I think Phoenix II will probably turn out to look best shot at ISO 125-150

What I found quite "interesting", was one sentence in the tech sheet by Harman: "Print making HARMAN Phoenix II negatives are printed in the same way as other colour C41 films. Either via scanned negatives or direct analogue exposure.", followed b two pages about scanning. Not a single word more about analog printing. I'll get my first rolls Tuesday, and I'm going to try RA4 printing. But as the film lacks the orange mask, my hopes are not very high.

 

[lamerko]

About pink/magenta stain I think that it is a dye that can be seen in every in color film and some BW film with color derived chemestry (e.g T-max).

Most color labs use a short or no wash going directly on stab bath, a regular procedure that can be find in kodak datasheet.

In home processing, where you can "waste" time, color films can be thoroughly washed. After the first 30" water rinse after fixer, water came off with a strong magenta color; if you wash your films for 10-15 minutes with a series of 30-60-120 seconds rinses untill wash water are clear the magenta cast on film disappear. I saw this with slide films (and may be that velvia magenta cast was due to washing too short?), color negative films (thorougly washed color negs have a less dense orange mask), with chromogenic BW films and of course with maskless color negs like Phoenix.

View attachment 403355

View attachment 403356

View attachment 403357

This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[koraks]

I'll get my first rolls Tuesday, and I'm going to try RA4 printing. But as the film lacks the orange mask, my hopes are not very high.

Cool, give it a try! You could do something along the lines of what @Lachlan Young suggested - just use a piece of unexposed but processed, orange-masked C41 film as a filter. This will help get the filter settings closer to where you're used to. At that point, it'll be a matter of how contrasty the negatives are. By the looks of the negatives I've seen being posted online so far, it should be easier to print than Phoenix I. With Phoenix I, I found flashing was pretty much the only way to get a usable print, and then only from relatively low-contrast scenes.

 

[thinkbrown]

I'm gonna have to try printing some of my phoenix negatives at some point. I've been shooting all of mine at 125 and then cross processing in ecn-2 which does seem to result in a more "normal" contrast negative, but I've only been scanning them until now.