My suspicion with the ORWO film is that they are doing experiments to get the film right at some point and they are packaging the experiments. This prevents a loss of money and keeps them "in the head". This is also why I think they are limited edition. The next batch, were they are tweaking some parameters, may be completely different.
@@xander1052 I agree, and I think this would be a great opportunity for them to have two different products in the market, one based on this first emulsion, and a newer, more "regular" emulsion.
That's where the Lomochrome films come from. It's not a bad move, why throw away all this film if you can sell it as something unique and experimental - the market is clearly there.
@@lucadipaolo1997 If it will sell reasonably well, why not. Although it may be that they will never reach the "Kodak Gold"-level. We shall see... The current ORWO films remind me btw somehow of 70s TV shows. If the reliability gets slightly better, yeah, I am in for that look.
I've shot a few rolls of NC500. It definitely should be overexposed a 0,5 to 1 stop for best results. This film is not for everyone, but I love that there are alternatives to Kodak and Fuji color film coming.
It seems like a film you'd have to lean into to get much of anything out of. It reminds me a lot of TV shows filmed in the 70s, where you've got a washed out look; all that's missing is the 70s LA smog. Part of me would love using it to shoot a tech conference, to give an anachronistic feel to shiny tech gadgets.
In my esperienze Nc500 is a really great Film. I shot it with a lot of light, developed and scanned at home and got bright colours, beautiful reds&blues and a nice grain, so you're experience surprises me.
I like the colors. This is really some old-style color negative film. The scans you showed remind me the scans I get from Agfa color negatives my grandfather shot in sixties. One reason for this washed-out colors is that the film is obviously constructed as simple as it can be just to do colors. It lacks the mask - this is the overall orange cast we are used to in modern Kodak or Fuji color negatives. It is there to compensate for imperfections in dyes, causing loss of saturation. This makes quite difference. I hope they will continue to produce this style of film stock, of course with more stable results and production issues solved, so that it will be reliable stock. And btw. your T-shirt joke gives me some chills, as it can be prophetical - it can happen that future of color film will not be Kodak.
@@gavinjenkins899 You are maybe right in that point - film can be saturated even without mask, it depends how strong the dyes are. To the function of the mask: the film dyes generally are imperfect, which means they in part absorb besides their own color also adjacent colors. This leads in loss of purity of some colors. Films have usually two mask - one is yellow and compensates for stray (false) absorption of magenta dye in blue area, helping to improve rendition (purity) of greens and blues. Other mask is red and compensates for stray absorption of cyan dye in green and blue areas. But if you directly scan the negative, you can do all these compensations digitally.
Why the film stock is limited, is because Orwo uses the color coating line at Polaroid (Enschede the Netherlands) for three weeks a year. So they can only produce a few master rolls for the whole year.😊
Actually as far as I know its the other way around, the company behind orwo is inovis coat, they are coating a bunch of film, in forums many people suspect they are the producer of all lomography films that say made in Germany. Many people on UA-cam and redit said that lomo 92 is orwo NC.... As far as it goes, there is no other producer for film that could produce the quantity tomography needs. I think even polaroid said to "In an Instant" that coating is done in Germany.
i shot nc500 at 500 iso with a yellow filter turned out great except for the grainier look. Also the new stocks come in metal canisters unlike the first release that came in plastic.
I have seen some nc400 marketed as 400 tungsten, even though it’s not advertised as such by orwo no does it behave like a Cine tungsten stock. I’m glad you’re honest about the quality of this film, especially with how it has been unjustly been hyped as an alternative rather than a small step in the mile long journey to make quality colour film. I think also the marketing of a similar Noviscoat stock lomo 92 has been very problematic, with most UA-camrs making videos about it having personal connections with the lomo team and not properly disclosing the much lower quality than expected.
I recently bought a roll of Ilford Ilfocolor 400 (Vintage Color) - which is the same film used in their disposable cameras. Ilford doesn’t manufacture color film and the package says made in the EU and packaged in China. I suspect it’s actually an ORWO film (or made by their parent company InovisCoat) as it’s the only other color film manufacturer outside of Kodak. It is expensive 17€ for 24 exp. Btw I used to shoot ORWO B&W films in the 70’s and 80’s .. it was cheap and very very good…
Nice! Good to see you with a new video! Interesting muted colours you get, I didn't see too much of the grain in the photos as I watched the video on my phone. I have shot a roll of metropolis in 120 and enjoyed the muted colour, I didn't think the grain felt too heavy in my camera scans.
My first viewing. Great presentation. Keep up the good work. I can understand you weather problems living in Toronto. I am fortunate to be living in the Soutwest USA. presently retired living in Fabulous Las Vegas. (There are 2 Las Vegas in the Southwest. Las Vegas in the State of New Mexico and Fabulous Las Vegas in Nevada.
It's so weird. I got into (analog) photography last year and I'm now finding out that there is an actual filmmaker (not just repacking) for B&W as well as color film, like 35km from where I live. Good to know that I can get some east german film to match my east german Praktica.
I dig the Lomo 400 stuff, and if that's just a slightly better made version of this, I'm ok with that for now. I like Lomo's price a lot better, but it's helping me overcome my initial first bad reaction to 2 dud rolls. I still have a couple left, and I haven't shot the Orwo branded 400 yet ... so it's time I try it. Hopefully this film improves and they can get something a little closer to what Color Mission showed us, which seems reasonably attainable within a couple of years?
Reminds me of the Agfa 400 from the 90s. I liked the look of it then. I have owned and operated a film processing lab since '93 and it seems to me that the variety of film base tones, (the orange mask) challenge the ability RA-4 C-print material and scanners to produce acceptable results. I'd like to see manufacturers attempt the Agfa Ultra 50 and the Agfa Portrait 160. With Kodak milking the market and Fuji only grudgingly interested in film It would be wonderful if some grown-ups got together in Germany and decided film deserved fresh investment and some quality control.
Currently finishing off a roll of NC500 that I bought on a whim. It was only after a few shots that I researched what it was about, so I'm curious what my results will be. I don't mind grainy and muted, as long as it doesn't look like sandpaper.
I finally got the film developed at "The Lab" here in Vancouver, and scanned on my Epson v550. Overall I like the colours; Epson's scanner software and lightroom made everything look very neutral despite the unusual negative colour. As far as the grain, it's hard to say exactly what it's actually like because the scanner always produces this CCD-like blotchy noise regardless what film I scan. But I can tell some photos are grainier than others, especially when shooting indoors against a gray-ish wall with a flash or areas with shadows. But others are actually perfectly fine. I mean it's no Portra, but for printing 4x6 or 5x7 it'll more than suffice! I'd definitely shoot it again for casual stuff.
Could you review the super 16 app that clams to make your video look just like film? I’ve already used once it but now i want to get your expert opinion
Those ORWO stocks look really bad IMHO. Your inhouse scans made with your GH5 looks sharper and more vivid than the lab ones, good job, it's impressive! Cool to see Toronto, it's a beautiful city, cheers from Montreal ;)
You know: I have had a similar experience with fomapan film. The grain structure shifted troughout the film. Very weird result when the emulsion is not made consistent
I started using cheap cameras in the 1980s and the films I used were either Kodak or Fuji. I got better results than these ORWO films photos. You see, we (as in people of my generation) wanted quality, colors and less grain. Our parameter were the photographs we saw in magazines, with wonderful colors and texture. I feel that younger generations have a differente not to say wrong impression of analog technology. For starter, if I bought a vinyl record and it was scratched, I would return it. I don't like ORWO's washed out colors. I have photos that are grainy because they were underexposed, therefore were not taken in broad daylight.
I get what they're going for. When it's finished, it should be one of the films that hits for people who want their photos to look older/more aged fresh off the scanner.
I've got a roll of NC500 that doesn't have the "Limited Edition" on it, I think that might've been a first run thing? Its nice to have something thats not Kodak, and I don't mind the desaturated colour look for the option, but it is a bit ehhh. I've seen some suggest shooting at 320 is the best but idk.
Some of your home scans were much nicer. The ORWO 500 negs you showed remind me of when I self scanned some Silberra film. The negs were a clear/ bluish colour and the lab scan weren't that great, they were too green I think.. The colours were nice and natural when home scanned though.
Out of Africa is a pretty big film in cinematography. Agfa made the only film above 100 ASA at the time and the movie was the first shot at 400 ASA without pushing. It’s interesting that ORWO rated it at 500 instead of 400. The film Robin Hood was shot on was 320, not 400. The results look very much like the film is being pushed, so it might look better to pull process it instead. And, like most film, it would probably look better printed than a negative scan with no processing.
orwo hived off the film production business 20 odd years ago, the original company just handles processing and printing now. the film company has the film related trademarks and patents. this company and the coating company are currently in the process of being voluntarily liquidated. there are two UK registered companies with the brand orwo, one of these runs the online shop. in august there was a transfer of "assets" from one of the german companies to a uk one. there is a family holding company behind this which also bought Arri a few years ago. uk companies house site has all the filings. ORWO UK well capitalised with sizeable backing from a canadian bank. uk transparency is much better than the german one
5:27 The ORWO box design is a solid lol for putting the icons of all these social media sites on the end panels. This ORWO ended up on UA-cam, sure, but I dont think the film itself can claim UA-cam compatibility as some differentiating feature in the marketplace. Also, sooooo many "low fi" aesthetic films. Is anyone out there even trying to make a new GOOD film? Its weird it seems everyone is starting out with "looks like mud" as an end goal. Why not at least TRY to make something spectacular... and if you fail, then say "I meant to do that" and sell it as low fi aesthetic film.
I ilke film I still have some Fuji from 20 years ago which I shot last year and it came out great, but paying over seventeen Euro for a roll plus processing is crazy especially when it may not be that good.
Film stocks are allway desaturated,...even Vision3.Cine stocks of course were never made with the intention of photography. Contrast comes with post proscessing,... making direct duplicates with duplicate film. Or apply a colour scheme (forgot the term of it) after the roll is scanned.
Thank god we finally got an unmasked colour film again. I love the fact that it´s different from Kodak, although I do like Aerocolor a lot. Not so much a fan of those modern coulour negative films... unfortunately, the Gold 200 got changed "recently", the old stock was kind of a last reminder of the Kodak stock from the 80s.
I have some stuff from my childhood (early 2000's) that was shot on Gold 100 and you could almost pass it up as Portra 160 no joke, really fine grain too.
I wish I could afford to shoot more film. I miss shooting film. But I don't have space for a dark room and taking the film someplace to get developed is so costly. :(
replying very late but I wanted to let you know that a darkroom is no longer necessary today, most amateurs develop with something called a Patterson Tank, which is a light-safe tank you pour your dev chems into after loading it in a dark bag. This channel actually has a video on them, you can do it in your laundry!
Supposedly Wittner’s gonna start selling this in Super-8 and 16mm soon, so we may end up seeing this in the US being sold by Spectra Film and Video in North Hollywood…
anyway, I dont think anyone is going to make something like colourplus at 5€ ever again :') More ultraexpensive colour film is ok, but I really want cheap colour film that I can shoot everyday.
The more muted colors on some shots in what seems to be overcast day, to me looks more like Polaroids rather than expired films, the really grainy ones looks like 8mm or 16mm at most T400 pushed to 800 iso. Unfortunately, I can see a great virtue on those films, maybe they are really cheap ?
I guess that I must be part of their target audience because I remember those two films in the movie theater -- but they did not look like your results at all.... Like your scans better, and the underexposed results better -- well, except for that first roll!!! 😁
I like NC400 the best but its... complicated lol. I don't think it has a very high dynamic range. It seems to perform quite well when everything is evenly lit and exposed, in that situation I've gotten quite vibrant colors. But it falls short in more complicated exposures.
Had a roll of NC400 on MSRP at B&H(14 or 16 buck I forgor), and the result made it looks like it's shot on either subpar PnS/Disposable or expired film back in 1990s with film scratch on the last few shot, ngl not very pog considering that was worth Portra money, plus the packaging are frankly, not great --at least ORWO are trying to make colour film real, and they are on constant discount. You can even get them in China for 7-9 buck, if you know how to get them from China.
I tried two rolls of NC400 on two different cameras and it was just awful. One had washed out colors and the other a lot of blue and green. They were not good and they are rather pricey I’d rather stick with Lomo 400 & 800 before trying anything else from Orwo.
The look of ORWO NC 400 reminds me of pre-World War II Agfacolor. (Hitler Color!) While ORWO NC 500 reminds me of Anscochrome slide films of the 1950's. With a muted color palette, high contrast, and prominent film grain, it's like the 1960's have returned. I wonder if the ex-Ferrania company is doing any better?
I recently exposed 3 ORWO NC500 with 400 ASA and my negatives are very good, no underexposure. The colors are very nice. Somewhat muted but nice, love the green colors. With strong underexposure the colors suffer enormously, which then looks bad with every film. I therefore cannot confirm the poor results shown here. Obviously there are quality differences in the production or it was not worked correctly in the lab.
There are only THREE serious film manufactures any more (Kodak, Ilford, Fujifilm), the rest are experimental reboots with knowledge, tech, and skills lost, or just brand names sold using rebranded film from those aforementioned companies.
I shot one roll of NC500. Most of the roll was OK. It was grainy. The colors were mostly close to accurate. And then, a photo of a vibrant purple building came out brown and Concord grapes also came out brown. I have ZERO interest in shooting more of NC500. How I wish Adox ColorMission 200 was readily available and cheap. I love that film.
I have to say, for a channel based solely on promoting film photography you do throw a lotta shade at the only attempt at making a new stock in how many years now?
pretty much any film that's not Kodak is going to be finished in China. otherwise it would probably raise the price by +$10 or more trying to get it done anywhere else
My suspicion with the ORWO film is that they are doing experiments to get the film right at some point and they are packaging the experiments. This prevents a loss of money and keeps them "in the head". This is also why I think they are limited edition. The next batch, were they are tweaking some parameters, may be completely different.
honestly I do think you are right, though I also hope they keep the colours desaturated.
@@xander1052 I agree, and I think this would be a great opportunity for them to have two different products in the market, one based on this first emulsion, and a newer, more "regular" emulsion.
That's where the Lomochrome films come from. It's not a bad move, why throw away all this film if you can sell it as something unique and experimental - the market is clearly there.
@@lucadipaolo1997 If it will sell reasonably well, why not. Although it may be that they will never reach the "Kodak Gold"-level. We shall see... The current ORWO films remind me btw somehow of 70s TV shows. If the reliability gets slightly better, yeah, I am in for that look.
It also seems like they are sell it as Ilfocolor 400
I've shot a few rolls of NC500. It definitely should be overexposed a 0,5 to 1 stop for best results. This film is not for everyone, but I love that there are alternatives to Kodak and Fuji color film coming.
Main issue with overexposure is the highlights don’t last AT ALL
It seems like a film you'd have to lean into to get much of anything out of. It reminds me a lot of TV shows filmed in the 70s, where you've got a washed out look; all that's missing is the 70s LA smog. Part of me would love using it to shoot a tech conference, to give an anachronistic feel to shiny tech gadgets.
It's awesome to see companies releasing new film stocks!! Don't let film die :)
In my esperienze Nc500 is a really great Film. I shot it with a lot of light, developed and scanned at home and got bright colours, beautiful reds&blues and a nice grain, so you're experience surprises me.
I like the colors. This is really some old-style color negative film. The scans you showed remind me the scans I get from Agfa color negatives my grandfather shot in sixties.
One reason for this washed-out colors is that the film is obviously constructed as simple as it can be just to do colors. It lacks the mask - this is the overall orange cast we are used to in modern Kodak or Fuji color negatives. It is there to compensate for imperfections in dyes, causing loss of saturation. This makes quite difference.
I hope they will continue to produce this style of film stock, of course with more stable results and production issues solved, so that it will be reliable stock.
And btw. your T-shirt joke gives me some chills, as it can be prophetical - it can happen that future of color film will not be Kodak.
@@gavinjenkins899 You are maybe right in that point - film can be saturated even without mask, it depends how strong the dyes are. To the function of the mask: the film dyes generally are imperfect, which means they in part absorb besides their own color also adjacent colors. This leads in loss of purity of some colors. Films have usually two mask - one is yellow and compensates for stray (false) absorption of magenta dye in blue area, helping to improve rendition (purity) of greens and blues. Other mask is red and compensates for stray absorption of cyan dye in green and blue areas. But if you directly scan the negative, you can do all these compensations digitally.
Why the film stock is limited, is because Orwo uses the color coating line at Polaroid (Enschede the Netherlands) for three weeks a year. So they can only produce a few master rolls for the whole year.😊
Actually as far as I know its the other way around, the company behind orwo is inovis coat, they are coating a bunch of film, in forums many people suspect they are the producer of all lomography films that say made in Germany. Many people on UA-cam and redit said that lomo 92 is orwo NC.... As far as it goes, there is no other producer for film that could produce the quantity tomography needs. I think even polaroid said to "In an Instant" that coating is done in Germany.
As much as I admire and appreciate any company making new film today, this video definitely showed me I do not want to shoot this stuff at all.
I had this is my shopping cart online. It is now removed. Thank you!
i shot nc500 at 500 iso with a yellow filter turned out great except for the grainier look. Also the new stocks come in metal canisters unlike the first release that came in plastic.
@@gavinjenkins899 just a generic color filter
2:26 I can recognise the Revox A77 chassis from 10thousand kilometers away xD Dude shot period speciffic reenactments on period speciffic film lol
The photo at 2:57 is actually cool
14:50 My local camera shop ftw!
And yep I have bought NC500 from them in the past.
I have seen some nc400 marketed as 400 tungsten, even though it’s not advertised as such by orwo no does it behave like a Cine tungsten stock. I’m glad you’re honest about the quality of this film, especially with how it has been unjustly been hyped as an alternative rather than a small step in the mile long journey to make quality colour film. I think also the marketing of a similar Noviscoat stock lomo 92 has been very problematic, with most UA-camrs making videos about it having personal connections with the lomo team and not properly disclosing the much lower quality than expected.
Are you planning to do a video on the new Harman Phoenix colour film? Would love to see what you think about it!
I recently bought a roll of Ilford Ilfocolor 400 (Vintage Color) - which is the same film used in their disposable cameras. Ilford doesn’t manufacture color film and the package says made in the EU and packaged in China. I suspect it’s actually an ORWO film (or made by their parent company InovisCoat) as it’s the only other color film manufacturer outside of Kodak. It is expensive 17€ for 24 exp. Btw I used to shoot ORWO B&W films in the 70’s and 80’s .. it was cheap and very very good…
I actually like these. They remind me of the Iron Curtain days
Hopefully this is the start of a process to make a high quality film
Awesome, thanks for including us! If ya want some raw footage or something, please feel free to reach out! Always here to help!
Just been to Fotografiska in Stockholm the other week and seen a book of Brian Adams photography - it's bloody awesome!
Nice!
Good to see you with a new video!
Interesting muted colours you get, I didn't see too much of the grain in the photos as I watched the video on my phone.
I have shot a roll of metropolis in 120 and enjoyed the muted colour, I didn't think the grain felt too heavy in my camera scans.
Rose-lipped maidens, Lightfoot lads!
5:27 notice how it says NC500 and NC400 on the same box.......?
This video comes out while I’m on holiday in Sweden with NC500 loaded in my best camera. At least I didn’t shoot the other 2 ORWO
These muted colors look so amazing
Great work please keep us up to speed if they change the film and all new film coming out on the market. Great job !
My first viewing. Great presentation. Keep up the good work. I can understand you weather problems living in Toronto. I am fortunate to be living in the Soutwest USA. presently retired living in Fabulous Las Vegas. (There are 2 Las Vegas in the Southwest. Las Vegas in the State of New Mexico and Fabulous Las Vegas in Nevada.
Reminds me of old 110 film!!!
It's so weird. I got into (analog) photography last year and I'm now finding out that there is an actual filmmaker (not just repacking) for B&W as well as color film, like 35km from where I live. Good to know that I can get some east german film to match my east german Praktica.
I dig the Lomo 400 stuff, and if that's just a slightly better made version of this, I'm ok with that for now. I like Lomo's price a lot better, but it's helping me overcome my initial first bad reaction to 2 dud rolls. I still have a couple left, and I haven't shot the Orwo branded 400 yet ... so it's time I try it. Hopefully this film improves and they can get something a little closer to what Color Mission showed us, which seems reasonably attainable within a couple of years?
Reminds me of the Agfa 400 from the 90s. I liked the look of it then. I have owned and operated a film processing lab since '93 and it seems to me that the variety of film base tones, (the orange mask) challenge the ability RA-4 C-print material and scanners to produce acceptable results. I'd like to see manufacturers attempt the Agfa Ultra 50 and the Agfa Portrait 160. With Kodak milking the market and Fuji only grudgingly interested in film It would be wonderful if some grown-ups got together in Germany and decided film deserved fresh investment and some quality control.
Currently finishing off a roll of NC500 that I bought on a whim. It was only after a few shots that I researched what it was about, so I'm curious what my results will be. I don't mind grainy and muted, as long as it doesn't look like sandpaper.
I finally got the film developed at "The Lab" here in Vancouver, and scanned on my Epson v550. Overall I like the colours; Epson's scanner software and lightroom made everything look very neutral despite the unusual negative colour. As far as the grain, it's hard to say exactly what it's actually like because the scanner always produces this CCD-like blotchy noise regardless what film I scan. But I can tell some photos are grainier than others, especially when shooting indoors against a gray-ish wall with a flash or areas with shadows. But others are actually perfectly fine. I mean it's no Portra, but for printing 4x6 or 5x7 it'll more than suffice! I'd definitely shoot it again for casual stuff.
I kind of like the look of the NC400 images. And most 20 year olds are smart enough to vibe with film / pop culture references from earlier eras.
I have a bunch of orwopan 100 in 120 size, it's sadly no longer manufactured, but I love to use it.
Could you review the super 16 app that clams to make your video look just like film? I’ve already used once it but now i want to get your expert opinion
Whew rocking that Andrew Garfield cut.
Those ORWO stocks look really bad IMHO. Your inhouse scans made with your GH5 looks sharper and more vivid than the lab ones, good job, it's impressive! Cool to see Toronto, it's a beautiful city, cheers from Montreal ;)
You know: I have had a similar experience with fomapan film. The grain structure shifted troughout the film. Very weird result when the emulsion is not made consistent
I started using cheap cameras in the 1980s and the films I used were either Kodak or Fuji. I got better results than these ORWO films photos. You see, we (as in people of my generation) wanted quality, colors and less grain. Our parameter were the photographs we saw in magazines, with wonderful colors and texture. I feel that younger generations have a differente not to say wrong impression of analog technology. For starter, if I bought a vinyl record and it was scratched, I would return it. I don't like ORWO's washed out colors. I have photos that are grainy because they were underexposed, therefore were not taken in broad daylight.
Don’t think I’ll be trying it anytime soon. Then again like you said maybe I’ll throw some support
New video, yaay!
I get what they're going for. When it's finished, it should be one of the films that hits for people who want their photos to look older/more aged fresh off the scanner.
I've got a roll of NC500 that doesn't have the "Limited Edition" on it, I think that might've been a first run thing? Its nice to have something thats not Kodak, and I don't mind the desaturated colour look for the option, but it is a bit ehhh. I've seen some suggest shooting at 320 is the best but idk.
Some of your home scans were much nicer. The ORWO 500 negs you showed remind me of when I self scanned some Silberra film. The negs were a clear/ bluish colour and the lab scan weren't that great, they were too green I think.. The colours were nice and natural when home scanned though.
Out of Africa is a pretty big film in cinematography. Agfa made the only film above 100 ASA at the time and the movie was the first shot at 400 ASA without pushing.
It’s interesting that ORWO rated it at 500 instead of 400. The film Robin Hood was shot on was 320, not 400. The results look very much like the film is being pushed, so it might look better to pull process it instead.
And, like most film, it would probably look better printed than a negative scan with no processing.
OMG I have orwo 500 rn in my camera and I didn't know about the diferent color base. How do you think that it will work out with a color enlarger?
orwo hived off the film production business 20 odd years ago, the original company just handles processing and printing now. the film company has the film related trademarks and patents. this company and the coating company are currently in the process of being voluntarily liquidated. there are two UK registered companies with the brand orwo, one of these runs the online shop. in august there was a transfer of "assets" from one of the german companies to a uk one. there is a family holding company behind this which also bought Arri a few years ago.
uk companies house site has all the filings. ORWO UK well capitalised with sizeable backing from a canadian bank. uk transparency is much better than the german one
5:27 The ORWO box design is a solid lol for putting the icons of all these social media sites on the end panels. This ORWO ended up on UA-cam, sure, but I dont think the film itself can claim UA-cam compatibility as some differentiating feature in the marketplace.
Also, sooooo many "low fi" aesthetic films. Is anyone out there even trying to make a new GOOD film? Its weird it seems everyone is starting out with "looks like mud" as an end goal. Why not at least TRY to make something spectacular... and if you fail, then say "I meant to do that" and sell it as low fi aesthetic film.
I ilke film I still have some Fuji from 20 years ago which I shot last year and it came out great, but paying over seventeen Euro for a roll plus processing is crazy especially when it may not be that good.
I shot 2 rolls of the 400 and I shot it at 100 speed. I was happy with the results. Very muted colors but I liked the look.
This really makes me wanna listen to some Bryan Adams right now
Film stocks are allway desaturated,...even Vision3.Cine stocks of course were never made with the intention of photography. Contrast comes with post proscessing,... making direct duplicates with duplicate film. Or apply a colour scheme (forgot the term of it) after the roll is scanned.
Thank god we finally got an unmasked colour film again. I love the fact that it´s different from Kodak, although I do like Aerocolor a lot. Not so much a fan of those modern coulour negative films... unfortunately, the Gold 200 got changed "recently", the old stock was kind of a last reminder of the Kodak stock from the 80s.
I have some stuff from my childhood (early 2000's) that was shot on Gold 100 and you could almost pass it up as Portra 160 no joke, really fine grain too.
great video
I wish I could afford to shoot more film. I miss shooting film. But I don't have space for a dark room and taking the film someplace to get developed is so costly. :(
replying very late but I wanted to let you know that a darkroom is no longer necessary today, most amateurs develop with something called a Patterson Tank, which is a light-safe tank you pour your dev chems into after loading it in a dark bag. This channel actually has a video on them, you can do it in your laundry!
@@mxnevermind Thanks
Supposedly Wittner’s gonna start selling this in Super-8 and 16mm soon, so we may end up seeing this in the US being sold by Spectra Film and Video in North Hollywood…
I like the look tbh. I don't mind if it doesn't measure up to Kodak, I like the vibe of the photos.
anyway, I dont think anyone is going to make something like colourplus at 5€ ever again :') More ultraexpensive colour film is ok, but I really want cheap colour film that I can shoot everyday.
Fuck we are really fighting for scraps in colour film these days. $22/roll for this shit looking film is brutal!
The more muted colors on some shots in what seems to be overcast day, to me looks more like Polaroids rather than expired films, the really grainy ones looks like 8mm or 16mm at most T400 pushed to 800 iso. Unfortunately, I can see a great virtue on those films, maybe they are really cheap ?
NC400 is curiously not available in Germany
I guess that I must be part of their target audience because I remember those two films in the movie theater -- but they did not look like your results at all.... Like your scans better, and the underexposed results better -- well, except for that first roll!!! 😁
I like NC400 the best but its... complicated lol. I don't think it has a very high dynamic range. It seems to perform quite well when everything is evenly lit and exposed, in that situation I've gotten quite vibrant colors. But it falls short in more complicated exposures.
Didnt expect to hear that they have a coating plant 10min away from me 😅
for now.... look up what northdata has to say about inoviscoat
Had a roll of NC400 on MSRP at B&H(14 or 16 buck I forgor), and the result made it looks like it's shot on either subpar PnS/Disposable or expired film back in 1990s with film scratch on the last few shot, ngl not very pog considering that was worth Portra money, plus the packaging are frankly, not great --at least ORWO are trying to make colour film real, and they are on constant discount. You can even get them in China for 7-9 buck, if you know how to get them from China.
I got some pretty nice results with NC500 at ISO 200. I'm not sure I believe the box speed😂
I need some green film ever since Fuji killed Superia... This'll have to do...
And if they cut it in 120, I'd be all over that. The grain would be far more negligible at that size.
Personally ive enjoyed NC 500 quite a bit although i do get some unde exposure quite often at rated speed, so i get best results rating it at 200
has anyone tried pulling this stuff or something cause these results are not good
I tried two rolls of NC400 on two different cameras and it was just awful. One had washed out colors and the other a lot of blue and green. They were not good and they are rather pricey I’d rather stick with Lomo 400 & 800 before trying anything else from Orwo.
The look of ORWO NC 400 reminds me of pre-World War II Agfacolor. (Hitler Color!) While ORWO NC 500 reminds me of Anscochrome slide films of the 1950's. With a muted color palette, high contrast, and prominent film grain, it's like the 1960's have returned. I wonder if the ex-Ferrania company is doing any better?
A few weeks ago they made an Instagram story saying they were testing a colour film. It may take a while, but they may come up with something
I recently exposed 3 ORWO NC500 with 400 ASA and my negatives are very good, no underexposure. The colors are very nice. Somewhat muted but nice, love the green colors. With strong underexposure the colors suffer enormously, which then looks bad with every film. I therefore cannot confirm the poor results shown here. Obviously there are quality differences in the production or it was not worked correctly in the lab.
3:17 no, you didnt.
Fujifilm left the colour film chat
Maybe what they need is NC450🤣, split the difference, then shoot it at 320.(I'll let myself out now)
This stuff is available in German drugstores for some reason...
Got that sad East German look. Bryan Adams DOES work as pro photographer (he shot some stuff for Q magazine) but still...
There are only THREE serious film manufactures any more (Kodak, Ilford, Fujifilm), the rest are experimental reboots with knowledge, tech, and skills lost, or just brand names sold using rebranded film from those aforementioned companies.
I shot one roll of NC500. Most of the roll was OK. It was grainy. The colors were mostly close to accurate. And then, a photo of a vibrant purple building came out brown and Concord grapes also came out brown. I have ZERO interest in shooting more of NC500. How I wish Adox ColorMission 200 was readily available and cheap. I love that film.
As long as they don't call it 800T lol
Your excitement about these stocks just leaps off the screen. Unlike the color. Please try to contain yourself lol
All the shots look way over exposed to me
I have to say, for a channel based solely on promoting film photography you do throw a lotta shade at the only attempt at making a new stock in how many years now?
Pass on this film stock, mate.
Yeah... This just looks like trash film
The colorcharts are all over the place it's hard to tell what is blue, green or red :)
it's old film.
Unfortunately, finished and packed in China.
probably add the word "manufactured" to that statement in due course
pretty much any film that's not Kodak is going to be finished in China. otherwise it would probably raise the price by +$10 or more trying to get it done anywhere else
first
I bought one roll of nc400 but I don't even want to shoot anymore. thanks.
Looks like bleach bypass. How they will compete in the „pleasant looking“ category too in the future