Orwo Wolfen NC500 - One Roll Review

A new emulsion with a unique look

Orwo Wolfen NC500 is one of the few new emulsions released to the market in the past few years. Based on old Agfa stock, it’s a 400 speed (don’t let the name fool you) color film that’s, in the words of Orwo, “not trying to imitate current stocks available on the market…with different characteristics and a different palette.” Prices seem to vary a lot online, from $21 on the Orwo shop to as low as $7.50 on sale at certain retailers.

Thoughts

We’re trying a different format this time around. Instead of independently writing our thoughts, we decided to share our photos with each other and document our reactions. Each shot will start with a brief description of the context, followed by the other’s reaction, and closed with some comments by the original photographer.

Andrew: Here’s a daylight shot of a mural, just exposed at box speed. Nothing fancy in terms of shadow or framing, just some cool, colorful art. The mural itself was slightly faded and heavy on the blue/green colors (here’s the street view).

Eric: Nice colors, especially in the sky. The stone texture hides the grain really well, but the sky makes it apparent. I really like the colors, but the grain on the Wolfen is quite mediocre here and kind of turns a great photo into good.

A: I kind of like the grain, as it’s so apparent that it adds to the character. The colors are also a bit funky and definitely shifted towards teal in my scans. Not what I’d call an accurate reproduction, but I could see it appealing to some people.

E: Here’s a local shopping center, exposed at box speed, metered automatically. This is the first shot on the roll, the one where you’re not sure if the frame will be half wasted from loading. I thought it was interesting framing and would make a nice example shot with the various textures.

A: The first thing that comes to mind for me looking at this, and the rest of the photos, is how much redder your scans came out. This is probably 90% a scanning choice and not a film thing, so I think it’s a good demonstration of how much effect individual preference has when digitizing, or even printing, photos. The detail seems decent here, based on being able to read the sign all the way in the back.

E: I bet a big part of this is how the automatic settings on the scanners deal with the film base. I mostly accepted the colors as scans, only making a few minor tweaks to the default profile. I do agree the details here come through very well.

A: The old Fort Worth city hall at golden hour, I think exposed more for the shadows but don’t quite remember. The light looked more epic in person but I think that’s a skill issue and not a film issue.

E: I think I get what you were going for—maybe a skill issue? But it also feels like a film with more dynamic range and contrast can really grab that lighting better. It looks somewhat flat, which I’m not sure you can do anything about.

A: The dynamic range was honestly better than I thought it would be, though I didn’t have high expectations. All but the darkest shadows have some detail. I might be able to rebalance this towards the warmer tones to emphasis the golden hour colors, but I mainly chose this photo to show how it handled shadows.

E: A friend’s cat on his balcony. I wanted to push the limit of shutter speed indoors, and this was a high contrast environment. Who doesn’t like a cat photo? I don’t necessarily like this framing as much after the fact since the wall comes out featureless. If there was more dynamic range to show the wall I think I would have liked it more.

A: From an artistic perspective, I actually quite like this framing and how the wall is completely void of detail (aside from redness). Maybe a “better” film would have been able to pull something out, but I don’t think it’s necessary here. Put another way, if I were shooting this on black and white, I’d probably reach for JCH Streetpan 400. The other thing that stands out is that the grain looks a lot sharper than your previous frame.

E: Maybe I misspoke. I like the void, but I would have cut off the left and bottom by maybe ¼ or so, had I anticipated it. When I framed, there was a bit more detail to the left of the window so the black space felt less overwhelming. I really like the grain here as well.

A: Unfortunately, I didn’t take many photos of people with this roll; this shot of a man leaving a store is the best I’ve got. Standard metering, could’ve increased the exposure a bit to draw out more shadows but didn’t think too much about it in the moment.

E: This photo showcases what I really like about Wolfen. Surprisingly, vibrant colors can come through when exposed correctly, coupled with visible—but not too offensive—grain, lending to a very '60s retro aesthetic that I think is really unique for this film. The sign and mostly obscured modern cars helps this a lot.

A: I liked the colors here too. They’re not as punchy as something like Kodak Gold, but I also find the slightly faded look and larger grain give it a bit of a vintage look. Others might just see this as undesirable technical deficiencies. It’s hard to make a judgement on skin tones, but I think it’s safe to say this is no Portra.

E: Gas station signage and pumps. I shot this in bright daylight when the colors felt super saturated in person, and wanted to capture that blown out, overly bright summer day feel with unnatural colors. I think here the colors didn’t do real life justice, as they seem a bit blown out and muted.

A: Contrast is low for my taste, but, other than that, it has a nice colors (even though there’s only two of them) that reminds me a bit of the “overexposed Portra look” that some people prefer; though maybe that’s just the overexposed film look. Similar heavy grain as the cat photo that gives it a distinctive look. The clouds in the back are very painterly, which is a look I’ve been keen on in other films (e.g. Portra 160).

E: It did have lower contrast than I’d like, as well as “overexposed Portra look.” I honestly didn’t even look at the clouds much but you’re right about them. I wish it had more contrast but I guess that’s the downside of chasing the blown out look.

A: Now for one near sunset in lower light. I could’ve exposed a bit higher but I think my shutter speed was already quite low and I didn’t want to lose too much depth of field. The tacos were decent.

E: How late is “REALLY LATE!”? That could significantly sway my opinion on this taco stand. Honestly here I feel like the film lets you down a bit—it turns something that could have been a nice sunset sky with some colors into a more “snapshot” looking photo. I think this really highlights a strength and weakness of the film. It’s based on an older technology, which makes the film really have that retro look. That means if you dig into it, you can take some really nice retro looking photos, but photos where high dynamic range or vibrant colors are needed to pull it together get turned more into “snapshot” looking frames.

A: This one turned out a bit flat, and I think the teal-shifted colors don’t help at sunset when you want warmer colors. Like you said, things like the colorful sign could use some more pop. I also think the detail isn’t great, but a lower shutter speed might have contributed to some lost sharpness.

E: Conveyor belt sushi joint. I stopped by to pick up a to-go order and the conveyer was mostly empty. I feel like this frame best captured the mood of the film I was hoping for. I was going for a bit of a cyberpunk-ish emptiness, and the colors really came through here. I got a bit lucky with the exposure, the camera meter nailed it.

A: This grain looks super weird to me, nothing like the previous 3 and not to my taste at all. Maybe some artifact of compression, and I won’t weigh it too heavily since the other photos were fine. The dynamic range seems adequate, but I don’t know if the colors speak to me in any special way. I think I get what you’re going for though with the empty diner, maybe something like 800T would be a cool comparison here. I also had no idea what I was looking at until it was explained to me that they were sushi boats. I’ll stick to tacos.

E: The grain does look a bit odd. 800T might have nailed this photo. I think while the colors came through, as seen, it did miss what I had in mind in my head. Black and white film could avoid a lot of these color problems we’re having though…

Conclusions

A: If I’m grading Wolfen based on how well it set out to achieve its goals and not how “good” of a film it is, I think it scores pretty well. It has a unique look with enough character that I’d recommend everyone give it a shot, especially if you can find it for under $10. At full price, it’s probably not worth it for regular use, but it seems to go on sale often. It shines when there’s plenty of light, and while I don’t think it’s as technically excellent as Kodak’s offerings, it’s not trying to be. Whether you’re okay with that will heavily depend on personal preference. With Fuji Superia no longer in the U.S. market, I welcome any variety in the 400 speed color category, and I can see myself using Wolfen again.

E: I generally don't mind Wolfen NC500. When it's characteristics tend to match well with the scene, it produces great images with lots of character. When you miss the mark, it likes to show it's ugly side. At its worst, it's a retro looking snapshot film with some slightly odd colors, so I'd say it's a decent general use film. I've oddly not shot any other 400 speed color film, but at its price, I also don't necessarily see a reason to pick it over an UltraMax (which I should try out…). All that said, there are definitely situations where I'd want to pick up a roll again, but they’re pretty niche. I struggle to see situations where a Portra or UltraMax or Gold couldn't get the job done more reliably. I am always happy to see more options in color film, and part of me wants to support Orwo for its efforts in bringing another color film to market. Overall, a good effort by them. I'm very excited to try Harman Phoenix soon as well, the other new color emulsion to come out.