The Truth About Phoenix 200 (it sucks)

A review of the new Harman Phoenix 200 film. Disclaimer as I know it is their first attempt and it was meant to be experimental but I still feel that criticism should be encouraged to offer feedback for the brand moving forward, I’m glad to have had the opportunity to support Harman and I will probably do it again in the future just maybe not with this stock. Thanks for watching!

[@forgottencameras]

Yea this is why it is still sitting in my fridge. I might try it with strobes to see what it looks like in a well-controlled ideal lighting situation.

[@gregwardecke]

Thanks for your honest candid review. I appreciate the heck out of someone trying to make a new film, I REALLY do. But let’s not fluff it up like many influencers are trying to do. We are left with the equivalent of a roll of expired film. I will still buy a roll and shoot it to support the venture.

[@AFluffyMobius]

I think the key word for Phoenix 200 is 'experimental'. So i would 100% not shoot this for a family get together, lol. Having said that i do have a roll of Phoenix 200 that i have yet to shoot. I think shooting/metering it at ISO 100 or 125 and then developing in ECN2 is the way to go. Many examples of this stock dev'ed on ECN2 and it looks much better than C41 in my opinion.

[@atzkey]

Are those lab scans (Noritsu, Frontier, or something else with a CCD sensor)? My first roll was scanned on Noritsu and came out like arse. Turned to a fancier lab with Frontier, came out even worse, even TIFF files were lacking any room for tweaking, absolutely no dynamic range. Symptoms just like on your examples, except my pictures were in focus. ; ) Weeks after this disaster decided to scan it at home with DSLR - it was just the first film I grabbed to tweak my new scanning setup, and the results were unexpectedly good.

[@flyingo]

As an example of the batch difference theory I made above, take a look at Callum Malloy’s review of Phoenix.. he’s got some nice shots with it. But really, reviews are all over the map. I bought a couple of rolls but probably won’t shoot them yet. Hopefully version 2.0 will prove to be a great improvement.

[@pd1jdw630]

It’s not a film to trust yet. It’s an experiment for them and for us as well.

[@flyingo]

My thoughts exactly. Then again, looking at yours makes me think there’s a difference in the batches of rolls released, because most others showed the best results when metered closer to 100 ISO, but that would just blow out more if you were to do so. At least they’ve started the process of new color film creation. I wish them the best of luck.

[@SGTCloudrunner]

It’s interesting, I finally shot my first of two rolls last week. I metered at 100 because I saw that recommended pretty consistently and my results were strangely about the same. Most of my photos had absolutely blown out highlights and crushed blacks. I was scratching my head looking at every photo. I don’t regret spending the money and supporting the endeavors of developing a new color film stock and hopefully (better) future stocks, but with one more roll in my possession, I’m left scratching my head as to how I’m supposed shoot this. edit: oh yeah and I hate halation so I’m not a fan in that regard

[@js2765]

If it's cheap, I might give it a whirl. I rarely over expose film but very often under expose. Fill-in flash is always an issue indoors for me. It is definitely one area that lets film cameras down if you don't plan for it.

[@annamariacobb5295]

Thumbsed up for the pretzel cord

[@offshoretom2380]

Lab scans? Did you check the negatives to see if detail is in the shadows? I think it’s pretty widely known at this point that lab scans are going to come out super contrasty and well, bad. DSLR scanning seems to have much different and better results.

[@rayce]

finally somebody says it.

[@Mike_Wazowski_z]

I thought this isn't the final rendition of the emulsion, and that's why its a limited stock but I could be wrong. It always sucks getting images back you were hoping would turn out.. :(

[@mgscheue]

I think Harman calling it "experimental" is a pretty good indication that it's not meant to be trusted. That said, I'm looking forward to trying out mine. I'm not expecting it to be Portra.

[@dflf]

14:00 that's an umbrella right?

[@Deathbyreality1]

Shot one roll of it and I had the same issues as you the film even in broad day light came out muddy and dark and just looks bad.

[@metalfingersfilm]

4:28 holy shit, the fact that anyone has made anything decent with this lack of dynamic range is wild. rooting for them, but yeahhh not great so far :/

[@RascalKyng]

Is it cheap though?

[@atzkey]

No.

[@RascalKyng]

@@atzkey Then the hell with it... puh

[@metalfingersfilm]

Bruh make the title "Phoenix 200 Sucks" & profit lmao