a few months ago a new colour film was released, Harman Phoenix 200, so I picked up a roll to try it out. they say that

With a DX coded cassette and a box speed of ISO 200, Phoenix can be rated between ISO 100 and 400 but performs best in good, consistent light.

and I can only select between ISO 100 and 400 on my camera, so I figured I'd go with ISO 100, since I've been burned by underexposure in the past, and I also typically shoot Kodak Gold 200/Fujifilm 200 at ISO 100. but all of my photos came back washed out and overexposed :(


the ones I've picked here are one of the few that at least have some parts that are exposed decently, but it's still so overexposed in the lighter areas. in the first one all of the detail has been blown out of the walls facing the sun to the right, in the second one it's the part of the building in the upper left, and in the third I don't even know what's going on with the tree and the sky behind it

I think this is what people mean when they say a film doesn't have a lot of latitude? or dynamic range? because I think if I had shot at ISO 400 then all of my photos would've been underexposed except in the brightest areas like those above. I'm going to try to edit these some, and if that doesn't work I might try to rescan them myself at the library, but tbh I don't think these are gonna be salvageable

honestly I'm mostly annoyed that a film this expensive gave results like this >:[ my fault for thinking I could treat new experimental film like anything I've casually used before ig


๐Ÿ“ท Canon Snappy 50
๐ŸŽž๏ธ Harman Phoenix 200
๐Ÿ“ David Rittenhouse Laboratory
๐Ÿ“ Chestnut ร— Juniper
๐Ÿ“ Bowery ร— Great Jones

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @ionchy's post:

auuuugh that sucks. Phoenix really is a shockingly premium stricker price for what seems to be a brutally temperamental stock.

I wonder if they mean it can be shot for 100 and underdeveloped instead of shot for 100 and standard processing? You really shouldn't have to make that kind of choice in C-41 with just a one-stop difference, and if that's what they meant they should've said it specifically because no reasonable person would assume that reading.

this film gives me early 90s dollar store film vibes (no latitude, huge grain/no acuity, etc) which is something people might want for sure, but not at $18+ per roll.

my experience with Phoenix is basically exactly the same. I think it can be good if you're going for a specific look and shooting with that in mind, but it's just too persnickety and too expensive to just throw in my camera and shoot. I have heard that rating it at 160 of all things is the way to go, but I don't have the money to experiment with it, and that certainly doesn't solve your problem of having only the options for 100 or 400 iso. After shooting a roll of it, I feel pretty comfortable kind of classing as a toy film, along with Lomo's Purple and Turquoise. But even then I feel like you don't get a lot of delightful surprises with it, like you do with those two.