In an interview, the chemists who designed it said the film is actually about 125 ISO. 200 was picked by test shooters who thought it produced the "best" results.
Ava, you've got this!!, Hasselblad all day long!!- a tip, at 3:50 the Hasselblad CF lenses have 1/2 stop increments on the Aperture ring, so just open/close one detent click between numbers... done, thats got the faster speed for you (another trick is to still use 1/500 or 1/250th BUT add a 1or 2 stop ND filter to cut the light, bringing it down to what shutter speeds that Leaf shutter has :-) ) ; as a note, if you had a choice of films, for this camera, Ilford HP5+ is a great B&W one for this very scenario, as its wide exp. latitude allows not just 400 asa, but you can safely go to 800/1600 asa without determent!! (rating the film this way gives you that extra stop, Just write it down thats what you did, and let the lab know, so they develop it correctly (time and chemistry used are dependent on what you metered the film for).
Unpredictable color and wicked contrast....a bit of a wild horse, but lots of fun. It helps to get a few rolls under your belt to find out what qualities this film can offer for your style.
at 8:41 it, as far as I have seen on RUclips videos is a 'dark' film, if shot @ box speed, what I have seen is people (for 35 mm variant of this film) expose at asa 125 and dev. at 200 so it turns out right, esp. in shadow and overcast lit days, at least according to Yvonne Hanson's channel, and her experience with 135 stocks, and her conclusion of her recent review of this film.
The outdoor shots taken with the incident light meter's advice were extremely dark and undetailed. Did the green in the indoors result from using daylight balanced film under fluorescent or other lighting it would need a filter for? Alternately those might have turned out fine with an electronic flash. I only saw one of the earlier outdoor shots in which any blue was rendered in the sky, when the videographer's views clearly showed patches of blue sky there. Could that have been an exposure problem, or was it a problem with the film, like being too contrasty?
It seems as if it needs more light for processing as slide film. The shot overexposed per the light meter had the best exposure. Indoor shots definitely need a filter as the color temp of our indoor lights caused that strong hue. The film itself is really contrasty.
When the 35mm was first announced, I had a lot of excitement and hope. However, the more I see reviews and shots, this is just not for me. Seems very inconsistent. Maybe the next gen color film will be better.
ava did have a slight disadvantage, should have allowed her to use a 205Fcc that has 1/2000th shutter speed (focal plane, like the contax), and an internal spot meter (also accurate to +/- 1/10th EV! ) to get good exposures.
Not a fair comparison. John had an auto camera with a light meter and Ava did not. For a fair comparison both should have the same type of cameras. And the next time John does the metering over expose it by one stop of what his readings are.
This video is a clear example of how the apparent results of a film make you not buy it. Depending on how you scan a film, it can give you one result or another. For Harmax Phoenix, not having the orange mask, the results are bad. If the photo is enlarged with an enlarger, the results are way better. People, don't pay attention to the reviews. Buy and shoot.
The overwhelming vast majority of those shooting this film will send it to a lab like ours and get these results. Noritsu and Frontier scanners, which dominate the pro lab world, will yield results like this, so this is exactly the review people need to see.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
There are free light meter apps available for your phones. They work fine for reflected light readings.
This makes me feel a lot better about my results when I look at the one roll of Phoenix I've shot.
It looks like metering at 100 might produce better results across the board.
I personal felt 100 is just the baseline for Phoenix 200, you can even lower to rate it at 80 iso.
In an interview, the chemists who designed it said the film is actually about 125 ISO. 200 was picked by test shooters who thought it produced the "best" results.
Meter man training for John episode in the future... Would love to see another attempt at this stock exposing it a few stops over.
Ava, you've got this!!, Hasselblad all day long!!- a tip, at 3:50 the Hasselblad CF lenses have 1/2 stop increments on the Aperture ring, so just open/close one detent click between numbers... done, thats got the faster speed for you (another trick is to still use 1/500 or 1/250th BUT add a 1or 2 stop ND filter to cut the light, bringing it down to what shutter speeds that Leaf shutter has :-) ) ; as a note, if you had a choice of films, for this camera, Ilford HP5+ is a great B&W one for this very scenario, as its wide exp. latitude allows not just 400 asa, but you can safely go to 800/1600 asa without determent!! (rating the film this way gives you that extra stop, Just write it down thats what you did, and let the lab know, so they develop it correctly (time and chemistry used are dependent on what you metered the film for).
Unpredictable color and wicked contrast....a bit of a wild horse, but lots of fun. It helps to get a few rolls under your belt to find out what qualities this film can offer for your style.
everyone and their moms got this but me lmao. Very exciting time for film!!
Shoot Mike an email and we got you mike@reformedfilmlab.com 😎
at 8:41 it, as far as I have seen on RUclips videos is a 'dark' film, if shot @ box speed, what I have seen is people (for 35 mm variant of this film) expose at asa 125 and dev. at 200 so it turns out right, esp. in shadow and overcast lit days, at least according to Yvonne Hanson's channel, and her experience with 135 stocks, and her conclusion of her recent review of this film.
Like the shirt, Mike. Looking forward to getting some Phoenix 120.
hahaahaha "and John did not do a good job metering for Ava yesterday"
Size Does Matter!
🤣
How the heck do you develop it as a slide film? I've never heard of that.
Just run it through slide chemistry. It does seem though you need to shoot it at ISO 100 or slightly less to get solid results.
@@reformedfilmlab I was not aware that was an option. Very cool, thanks!
Color film should have wide enough latitude that you shouldn't need a meter for shooting outside in sun...Just use the "Sunny 16" rule.
When developing negative films in E6, you need to compensate 2 stops. You'll be able to find plenty of information on the internet
Great advice! Certainly lines up with what we saw on our test.
The outdoor shots taken with the incident light meter's advice were extremely dark and undetailed. Did the green in the indoors result from using daylight balanced film under fluorescent or other lighting it would need a filter for? Alternately those might have turned out fine with an electronic flash. I only saw one of the earlier outdoor shots in which any blue was rendered in the sky, when the videographer's views clearly showed patches of blue sky there. Could that have been an exposure problem, or was it a problem with the film, like being too contrasty?
It seems as if it needs more light for processing as slide film. The shot overexposed per the light meter had the best exposure. Indoor shots definitely need a filter as the color temp of our indoor lights caused that strong hue. The film itself is really contrasty.
When the 35mm was first announced, I had a lot of excitement and hope. However, the more I see reviews and shots, this is just not for me. Seems very inconsistent. Maybe the next gen color film will be better.
ava did have a slight disadvantage, should have allowed her to use a 205Fcc that has 1/2000th shutter speed (focal plane, like the contax), and an internal spot meter (also accurate to +/- 1/10th EV! ) to get good exposures.
Not a fair comparison. John had an auto camera with a light meter and Ava did not. For a fair comparison both should have the same type of cameras. And the next time John does the metering over expose it by one stop of what his readings are.
Not so much a comparison video today on the cameras, though John will go through more meter maid training :p
This should be their advertising: "Its bigger, it still looks the same, and yes, it's still terrible!"
It’s the same film base, there’s nothing new over the 35mm besides size. Maybe the funds will eventually go and made better film.
This video is a clear example of how the apparent results of a film make you not buy it. Depending on how you scan a film, it can give you one result or another. For Harmax Phoenix, not having the orange mask, the results are bad. If the photo is enlarged with an enlarger, the results are way better. People, don't pay attention to the reviews. Buy and shoot.
The overwhelming vast majority of those shooting this film will send it to a lab like ours and get these results. Noritsu and Frontier scanners, which dominate the pro lab world, will yield results like this, so this is exactly the review people need to see.
John, bro, you're not as funny as you think you are
Calm down, bro. He’s just a kid