Видео

Good timing on your video Hashem :) I bought my Pentax 67 a few months ago now, and the two lenses i opted to get was the 105mm and the 55mm actually. I do not think im getting another lens for this kit , might be one of the smaller lenses out theer in that case to keep the weight down. My back is not liking the Pentax 67 to begin with and more lenses would make it hate me even more ;) I have not shot a ton with my 55 yet, but i really like the 28mm FL from earlier on other cameras, so the 55 was kind of a no brainer for me. And i like the images i have seen thus far at least :) Just made a little video update myself and the Pentax 67 with those two lenses are featured in there as well, nothing like review or so just some opinions and images taken with that lens combo . Also liked your shots with it in this video. Oh also interesting with the adapter for the 645 pentax. Was not aware you could adapt them on there, might be intersting option to for a lighter setup at times but share lenses :) Happy shooting! /regards Martin.

These 67 lenses are kind of not affected by recent film hype, probably because the system is simply über heavy. Still I do not get one exception, the prices for 75/2.8.

I definitely advocate for the 55 + 105 combo. I have the 6x7 version of the 55 but from my experience it is also great.

I've used the Pentax 67 system for almost 40 years. I own and use lenses from 35mm to 400mm. The video is correct, in that after a :normal: focal length lens, the second selection should be a version of the 55mm 4.0. There were four versions of 55mm offered by Pentax over the years. The first was the 55mm 3.5. While it enjoys something of a cult following, this first version reflects the design and available glass options from the mid-1960s and is optically inferior to the later versions. The next two versions are 55mm 4.0 and look identical, representing a minor design change made on the fly with no separate marking to distinguish the two. The final version, what he shows here, is distinguished by the lens label being marked around the front of the focus ring rather than on the retaining ring surrounding the front lens element. All of these versions are optically indistinguishable in practical use, and all are just superb. The earlier versions show a conventional, slight, roll-off in image sharpness from image center into the edges/corners. The last version has almost no roll off of sharpness or contrast cross the entire image. We're splitting hairs here, and in normal usage, you'll never see a difference between them. The 55mm 4.0 is my second most used lens, and it is possibly one of the best lenses in the P67 line-up.

Yeah, nice video. I've had the 55mm for quite some time and my copy is ridiculously sharp. I think at the time the 45mm was the hot lens and more expensive.

Midnight video drop. Also medium format content. Double win.

Nice Video! Just bought a 67 II yesterday and this one is on my list. Perfect timing - thanks for that gread input!

I think THYPOCH will be a great company, 3 weeks ago I bought a Simera 28mm Z mount for my Nikon Zf and really, I don’t regret at all. I’m impatient to discover their next lenses. 👍

The Jumper is a nice bag. I’ve had one for a long time now. My main gripe though is the dividers. They don’t have any Velcro on the sides and so as the bag flexes all the stuff falls around the sides of the dividers to the bottom, making them completely pointless.

Hey Mr Pushing! Thank you for sharing! I just shared my youtube short showing my camera scanning method. I remember watching this back when I was still a scanning noob. I'm still no pro, but I've come a long way thanks to people like you paving the way for people like me. Anyway let me know if plugging my content in your comment thread is bad form. Hope you have a blessed day, and happy snapping!

Thanks for Posting this can help alot

Great video! Thank you. I have, like you, the Leica M-A, a film camera. I think my simple, flat-bed scanner (Epson Perfection V600) has been giving both my M-A and film a big black eye. In my scanner the film negatives are NOT pressed flat against the glass. For me to assume that an 8x10 print made from a "scanned" image - even a very high-resolution image (e.g. 9600 dpi) - would be of equal quality to an 8x10 image made directly from my film negative is my mistake. I think it's probably a given that a scanned, digitized image from a film negative CANNOT be as high quality as an image made directly from the negative itself. I think you could do "film" a big favor by making this point in a video.

Very cool video, Hashem!! Vietnam looks amazing!! Both breathtaking scenery AND amazing street photography opportunities! So good!!

It's right that this formula works with a camera with manual settings, but there is nothing there to make it exclusively usable only for film cameras! otherwise, it's a great video.

The highlight blooming is a little bit interesting on this film. As a whole, the film seems to be almost a little bit unstable or unpredictable. The colors are really nice, though, and I could see this film being a great asset to really enhance those warm tones in more muted or flat scenes.

I had light leaks every frame because of the poorly manufactured cassette and the short film leader lips!! terrible stuff.

This is awesome! Thank You for real life moments example. It’s so helpful! Thank You for This brilliant tutorial!!

I used Nikon FTN starting in 1969!

Very helpful. Thanks

Note: If you just want to dabble in the leica line but can't afford a M series. Hear me out... The Leica R-E has aperture priority, it is an SLR but it's very compact. Glass is a little cheaper and you get the red dot. I found one in like new condition for $300. It's still a manual focus lens with similar metering to the M6. You can shoot just like a rangefinder, just sent to f8 and uses the zones on the lens. But you also have the luxury of looking through the lens if you are inclined. Happy shooting.

Does this film have any anti halation layer? The orange glow around the highlights indicates that it may not have, which explains some of the ills that this film displays.

This film looks like 2012 instagram

Digging up some old stuff here haha. Got my hands on .. shit, probably, 3000ft of 50D/250D/500T short ends locally. Will be using this technique. Thanks from across the ditch!

His videos led me down the rabbit hole so many years ago now. I also found his spiritual transmission to be inspiring. I now wonder if his granddaughter will take up the mantle -- models are often strong photographers. Thanks!

I opted for the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar ZM for my LeicaMD 262. It performs wonderfully and would not replace it with a Leica...!

I started photography in 1968, learned the Zone System in 1971, shots weddings on color negative film assisting Monte Zucker from 1972 to 1974 then got a job as a lab technician at National Geographic and I made my own color prints in the 1980s 😮so I know a bit about the subject. Color negative film has a 2-3 stop margin for overexposure which is why your great granny was able to take reasonably decent photos with her Instamatic with a fixed aperture. Even if over-exposed by 2 stops the lab could make a decent print by just increasing the print exposure because of the length of the straight line portion of the DlogE curve. The limiting factor in terms of scene range wasn’t the film, it was the print paper. My mentor Monte Zucker’s rise to fame back when weddings switched to color prints in the late 1960s was realizing from in studio lighting experience that if you start with a foundation of center fill raised to were shadow detail is recorded on the negative, then OVERLAP a 45° angle key light and raise its power to 2x that of the fill a scene range contain groom in black tux and bride in white dress would fit the range of the Type C color paper and produce stunning tonal ranges with lifelike 3D modeling. We did it with one single power electronic flash on a bracket over the camera shooting from 11, 8 or 5.6 feet with a TLR Rolleiflex f/2.8 with 80mm lens with the off camera flash at 8, 5.6 or 4 feet respectively which made its incident strength 2x greater than fill per the inverse-square law. Using systematic distances that matched f/stop numbers meant exposure could be kept consistent but opening or closing the aperture by a full ‘click’ stop. It was brilliant in its simplicity, a Zone System for color prints with flash. I put film in my rear view mirror in 2000 when bought a 2.1 MP Kodak DC290 and haven’t yet been motivated to get a scanner for my old color negatives so I don’t know how the range of scanners today compares to the range of prints but based on the results I see hear it appears to be greater which will make results from negative converted to digital better in terms of dynamic range than chemical printing. I do have a lot of professional experience with scanning of transparencies on laser scanners like the HELL DC300 and DC380 from being an offset printing plant production manager who engineered the switch to an all digital workflow when resolution in digital cameras increased enough to print a two page center spread in a magazine at 150 halftone dots per inch, the standard for web presses. We had completely different color compensations settings depending on film type. For that reason the difference in results between scanners isn’t surprising. If you want to quantify the differences shoot and compare a standard test target like a color checker. That should be part of any test protocol otherwise evaluation becomes too subjective. In closing I’ll point out that what film / print did not have which digital editing provides with scans and digital capture is that magic middle slider in LEVELS and that Devils Workshop CURVES, something Ansel Adams would have given his left nut for and spared his readers all the smoke and mirrors mumbo-jumbo above shifting midtones with Zone System mojo when all he really did was first record a full tonal range on a #2 print then dodge and burn to make selective editorial changes.

Funny how a guy with TWO Leica “party cameras” is complaining about the price of the 17. 🎉

At 5:30 time Mark,thats what propably happend, with my canon ae-1. Two blank Films,1 kodak Gold 200,and 1 kodak ultramax 400.picture counter counting,everything seems working,but no photos on the negatives.

Very good review 👍👍

Damn this looks so much better than the initial reviews! And I quite like the grain. I wouldn't shoot it all the time, but it can produce a nice vibe.

Thanks for this review, Hashem! I really haven't watched much about it before, because, like you, I tend to like predictability in what I shoot. But I do tend to enjoy some experimentation from time to time! You got some great shots in here, and some lovely warm tones

I only ever home scanned phoenix, and in general I think it gives good/accurate colours, if quite saturated. Conditions are everything, by far my best results were on cloudy days, genuinely feels like 3 stops is hitting the limit (though I don't always mind the crushed shadows).

Hi man. Love ur sharing and thoughts of the HPhoenix200 film. You mentioned here u shot most of the the pics at ASA100 or ASA125 yah. Just wondering do you developed it at ASA100/125 or at boxspeed(200)?

Awesome camera, wanna get it someday. So far I'm using Canon A1, which honestly I don't much like and Kyiv-19- old soviet camera, kinda a Nikon rip-off with Nikon mount, pretty basic but for some reason feels really nice.

Great tips! Thank you.

If Phoenix 200 came from some no-name producer in Eastern Europe, given its many lackluster characteristics, it would have been laughed at for a few weeks and then consigned to the YT garbage bin. That it comes from Harmon/Ilford does not justify a different treatment. Apart from its lack of color fidelity and excessive contrast, the reason it's hard to scan is that scanners come programmed to scan C-41 specification film, which means a color mask required for traditional darkroom chemical paper printing. Phoenix 200 lacks such a mask, which throws off lab (and personal) scanners. Harmon acknowledged this problem from the first day, and it offered programming adjustments to allow such scanners to cope with their new film. That many labs don't care to make allowances for one, low volume film brand is understandable, and it is not worthy of a YT video. If Phoenix 200 is the future of film, we're all going to be shooting digital in the foreseeable future.

I hadn't heard of John Free before this video, so thank you for introducing me to his work.

Personally I think Phoenix 200 is a ton of fun to shoot. I like the unique look and sometimes strange results it gives.

To me it Looks like a „beta-version“ of a film if i can say so. I will treat it like an Ilford 50 and use fill flash all the time to reduce Contrast especially with Portraits . After I‘ve seen your video I will give it a try.

This is one of many reasons why I shoot slide film (even though it's expensive). If I'm really happy with my slide, then I try to make the scan closely match what I see on my light table. There's really no question about what it "should look like". If I'm less happy with it, but it looks salvageable, then I fix it as much as I can.

Nice video, and I love the colour palette.

I LOVE my Zf! Like you I always hated the Nikon DSLRs and missed my old Nikon film camera (an N2000 but almost identical in shape and size to the Zf). The Nikon Z lenses work really well, but I loving using Voigtlander and old Nikon lenses with it. They work beautifully.

Amateur here. I just shot my first roll of this a couple of weeks ago. I was using a Canon AE-1 Program. It was a bright day so I left the shutter at 1/500 the whole time and adjusted the aperture when I needed to. In all honesty, it was super grainy. I thought I'd be fine with that but it was so grainy that I wondered if I was doing something wrong (camera shake and the like). Then the next roll I shot was Kodak Gold and had no weird issues on that one. I do like the high color saturation on Harman Phoenix but that grain is HEAVY.

I was hoping it was going to be cheaper in the UK due to it being fucking manufactured here. We need bulk rolls

Hasham thanks for this, its good to see tests performed after the initial release on anything, well after the hype/bashing is over some more thoughtful/experimentally minded people have been exposed to the product.

awesome video!! and really love those sun soaked images with the shadow fall off (especially the van trip ones!)...wish they had rated the film at 125 instead of 200 from the beginning, but I'd shoot this again knowing now how better to work with it :) My images were Frontier scanned and its wild what a difference the scanning makes!

This a great review! I would NEVER have considered shooting this or any of these new “lomo” type incarnations but youve actually changed my mind. One of the best film reviews ive seen.

I shot my first roll of Phoenix on landscapes and basically bushwalking type shots and that was a big mistake - too much detail to try and capture with the chunky grain, and too much dynamic range for the emulsion’s limited latitude to handle. My lab’s Frontier scans looked like hot trash, DSLR scanning brought back some level of detail and dynamic range, but still not great. As the film stands now it’s best treated like slide film in terms of dynamic range, and on bold shapes and lower detail subjects where the grain isn’t struggling to reproduce finer elements. I’ve seen some excellent results with street and portraiture work,l that seems to bring out the best in the film. Theres another roll sitting in my fridge awaiting its turn, I reckon I’ll do a portraiture series with it and see how that goes. Phoenix isn’t perfect but it’s still bloody awesome to have, and can only get better as Iford/Harman work with the formula.

As a minilab operator using Noritsu system, I think you can only get the best of Phoenix 200 by either darkroom print or household flatbed scan with auto colour adjustment. The missing of orange mask makes this film does not get correct colour with minilab scanners, but also make it able to be processed by either E-6 (at E.I. 50) or ECN-2. The case is similar to OROW NC400 / NC500. Although it's still a long way from producing a standard colour negative film, we should appreciate HARMAN to invest on a brand new colour emulsion, and the promise of ongoing improvement. Brand new film cameras like Pentax 17 and Mint Rollei 35AF are also important to the film photography market, no matter these cameras are your cup of tea or not, they are gambling on the future of film photography and need a good sales figure to shows they are right.

Noritsu scanner at Irohas Melbourne is giving me much better scans than other labs I used in the past who are using Frontier scanners. I do rescan at home and even better with my cheap Kodak scanner than Frontier