on.raw.photography

Glad to see you two are having fun with my photo Lots of interesting interpretations and I learn some techniques as well which is always golden!

One funny aspect that only I would notice on this photo, is that it is flipped due to how I scan with the emulsion side up

That's interesting, never seen the characteristic curve of Harman Phoenix II Before...

That crossover that happens with the dyes at the mid point might explain why different lighting generates different "uncorrectable" casts? Definitely not linear, and it can be visualized, as I said, highly unpredictable film, not my cup of tea.

About the Super Electric Blue, as Roberto mentions do that have anything to do with the film having a blue base? Does that makes blue hues overpowered compared to an orange base film?

I wouldn't go to such extremes to edit this photo, selecting the blue sky, to put a mask and reduce stuff etc, instead I would rather go for a film stock that gives me closer to what I like in terms of overall pallete and feel. Definitely not this one! Portra 160 is lovely however! I have some photos I like much better the rendition with it

AlexisMagni wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 7:07 am One funny aspect that only I would notice on this photo, is that it is flipped due to how I scan with the emulsion side up

And tell us right away, no
Or did you notice it after a week?
So this photo should be seen this way, or this way

With Kodak and Fujifilm films, you're on the safe side.
If you consider that converting and processing them digitally is more difficult than color negative film, it's best to start with something good.

robyferrero wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 11:20 am So this photo should be seen this way, or this way

Printed we should see the upper version. On a proper ground glass of a view camera the lower version. So as always a matter of circumstance
What is funny though is that I asked myself if I would have found this motif and how I might have framed it. With the corrected flip it feels more intuitive.

AlexisMagni wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 7:07 am About the Super Electric Blue, as Roberto mentions do that have anything to do with the film having a blue base? Does that makes blue hues overpowered compared to an orange base film?

I don't know yet. The whole taking the digital camera out of the equation is quite extreme, it could factor it. We'll see with more exposure, maybe.

C.OLDENDORF wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 1:18 pm What is funny though is that I asked myself if I would have found this motif and how I might have framed it. With the corrected flip it feels more intuitive.

Yes, that's the first thing I noticed, too.
It seems like a different perspective. It increases its dynamism.

Here it is. Showing 0.6 Stops of Headroom, the next step would put me dangerously close to clipping.

Still trying to see the difference. I am gonna wait for Christoph to give the veridic!

Let's just do something radically different this time, to illustrate that just like in the alaog darkroom there is not one way to print this "right". There are hundreds of paths we can pursue.

I am however given to wonder what the in camera pixel shift does to film grain, are you still set up to take a shot without it?

No selections, just a single pass at it in ColorNeg mode including the coarse attempt to customize the FilmType / SubType / FilmGamma to match this somewhat better, however I now think somewhere in between the two characterizations may be woth looking at. You can go to whatever lengths with tricky emulsions and that Phoenix II stuff is one I guess.

AlexisMagni wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 7:07 am That crossover that happens with the dyes at the mid point might explain why different lighting generates different "uncorrectable" casts? Definitely not linear, and it can be visualized, as I said, highly unpredictable film, not my cup of tea.

The crossover is not relevant. The straight sections of these curves define the R, G, and B gammas of the film by their inverse slope. The real question is whether they are straight. Within those straight regions, the channels can differ as much as they like, so long as the printing process undoes it — the negative is only an intermediate form, after all.

What does matter is the divergence that sets in once you reach the shoulder regions of these curves — and most often those parts aren’t even plotted. The Portra example we looked at doesn’t simply stop dead at the top; what happens with even more exposure just isn’t shown.

If we think back to black-and-white film and Ansel Adams’ books, we even encounter negative reciprocity in classic emulsions: density actually *decreasing* with increasing exposure, leading to true solarization — the effectively “black sun.” If I recall correctly, achieving that today would require on the order of a thousandfold overexposure.

The sky is beautiful, but for me it's still a bit of a weak film.
Then again, you can certainly find its ideal environment, where it works best.

To do something unusual, you could try Lomography Cinestills.
Or Lomography films in general.
They have many different features; creative and experimental.
I don't know who makes them.
They charge, but there are some affordable options out there.

C.OLDENDORF wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 8:04 pm

AlexisMagni wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 7:07 am That crossover that happens with the dyes at the mid point might explain why different lighting generates different "uncorrectable" casts? Definitely not linear, and it can be visualized, as I said, highly unpredictable film, not my cup of tea.

The crossover is not relevant. The straight sections of these curves define the R, G, and B gammas of the film by their inverse slope. The real question is whether they are straight. Within those straight regions, the channels can differ as much as they like, so long as the printing process undoes it — the negative is only an intermediate form, after all.

What does matter is the divergence that sets in once you reach the shoulder regions of these curves — and most often those parts aren’t even plotted. The Portra example we looked at doesn’t simply stop dead at the top; what happens with even more exposure just isn’t shown.

If we think back to black-and-white film and Ansel Adams’ books, we even encounter negative reciprocity in classic emulsions: density actually *decreasing* with increasing exposure, leading to true solarization — the effectively “black sun.” If I recall correctly, achieving that today would require on the order of a thousandfold overexposure.

Appreciate the explanation!

About the Harman Phoenix II being tough for DSLR, it is not only for Cameras... Lab Scanners suffers even more with it. Check this link

https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunit ... th_harman/

This film reminds me of another emulsion which is not a good thing... Kodak UltraMax 400. I have had a very complicated relationship with that film, and the fact Harman Phoenix II reminded me of it, is definitely not a good place to be!

I am going back to the trusted and predictable Kodak Color Film I know. My heart really is with Fuji film, I just shot the last roll of Superia 200 I had expired from 2000s, and there is nothing that came close to those colors in my opinion. But oh well, they decided to quit the business.

I like Superia too, and Fujipress even more.
Regarding Kodak UltraMax 400, I don't know how much experience you've had with them, but I personally used and printed them a lot. Back then, they were amateur films, but you could rely on them if you needed higher sensitivity. It's also true that professional films were a completely different beast.

Its one of those situations where you just don't like it, I can't explain why

Another question for Chritoph about Exposure, since we already have made so much information on this topic.

Does Black & White Scan contribute as much as Color in this aspect? I have made most of my Camera Scans so far with B&W Film, and it probably left some headroom as I didnt follow the guideline of pusshing the limit of the raw file. Without color getting in the way, do we also get some benefit from doing this?

Of course I understand, if you don't like it, you don't like it.
UltraMax 400 is a gold film.
In the last decade of the last century, gold was one of the best-selling films.
It was popular for its bright, vibrant colors, and it wasn't popular for the same reason.
It was popular with compact camera owners, like families, and it wasn't popular with amateur photographers, let's say more advanced.
Now gold 100 is "back in vogue" for those young digital photographers experimenting with film.

And I have to say, I quite like the Gold rendition

It has a Nostalgic Summer quality to it. But still on the neutral side, predictable, linear, unlike Phoenix and others. For me, together with Portra 160, one of my favorite Kodak Film. I will scan Gold and Portra next to compare the new CP 3.0 DC Mode to the the output from the Nikon CoolScan,

AlexisMagni wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 8:04 am Does Black & White Scan contribute as much as Color in this aspect? I have made most of my Camera Scans so far with B&W Film, and it probably left some headroom as I didnt follow the guideline of pusshing the limit of the raw file. Without color getting in the way, do we also get some benefit from doing this?

I would not let myself go crazy over it for existing scans if I see no visual detriments. Generally speaking, however, there always is a benefit. We have been over linear capture: the brightest values give us so many tonal steps we could never actually use them, while in the denser parts we get far fewer. Getting exposure maxed out, as we discussed, gives us the best we can achieve at zero additional cost or complication, so I’d always go for it for future shots. Getting farther away from intrinsic noise with the signal also does not hurt.

I used Gold, too.
Although it wasn't my favorite film, today, with digital, I've reevaluated it even more.
An easy film that always gets something out of underexposures.