fuji velvia 100 red cast ??!!???

[thetooth]

10422

10423

check this out . i just picked them up today from the camera store . fuji velvia 100 about 6 months out of date . sorry i do not have a 4x5 scanner so the best i can do are 6x12 panorama's . the camera store guy and i are blaming the lab . i have used this film a few weeks before with no problem .

so what are your ideas . scans are exact i did not adjust .

thanks

tim

[Ted Harris]

There are others that ae more expert than I am on this but my first guess is that it was mistakenly crossprocessed.

[thetooth]

There are others that ae more expert than I am on this but my first guess is that it was mistakenly crossprocessed.

thanks for the info ted . there are 6 images total . the 2 shown are the worst , butt they all have this red cast . i plan to call the lab on tuesday to find out what they say .

thanks

tim

[Mark Woods]

Cross processing reversal in color negative developer does not look like this. The green layer adds density and the red is actually diminished. If the images were a couple of stops underexposed, I'd say that the film was loaded backwards in the film holder. The anti-halation backing, although it looks black, has a some color. Ted, how does the density of the image look?

[cotdt]

I used much older Fuji Velvia 100 4x5" and did not get any color shift at all. The problem is what you loaded the sheets backwards.

[Nathan Potter]

I'd guess temperature control failure but exhausted chemistry is also a possibility. Variation in the magenta cast from pic to pic suggests that the variable was in the development process - again a delta in temperature during the six film sequence.

Nate Potter

[Ted Harris]

Mark, I never thought of that :). Mine was a shot in the dark sort of as I have never seen E6 cross processed in C41. Nathan could be on the right track but I have processed E6 with some pretty strange (but consistant) temperatures and never had that sort of cast.

[Jim Jirka]

Tim,
I never saw anything like this at all in my experience with the film.
Jim

[jetcode]

my guess is (after several suggestions) the red layer is closest to the anti-halation layer - yup - check it out last page of this document

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/Velvia100.pdf

the film was loaded backwards

[thetooth]

i think i figured it out . it's my unlined burgundy leather camera bellows . i shined a flashlight through one side and it produces a nice red color . i will test tomorrow with the lined bellows to confirm.

thanks for your help

tim

[Mark Woods]

If you guys are interested I can post of test I shot of 5285 (Ektachrome) that was cross processed in C 41 and ECN 2.

[thetooth]

If you guys are interested I can post of test I shot of 5285 (Ektachrome) that was cross processed in C 41 and ECN 2.

i would enjoy seeing it mike . though i think my problem is the bellows i always enjoy a good photo .

thanks

tim

[Nathan Potter]

Holy macaroni! Never would have thought of a transparent red bellows but variation in the residence time that the film spent in the camera would have translated to the variation in the degree of magenta you see in the film. BTW a couple of E6 development houses that I have used previously have recently returned a small batch of chromes - Velvia 100 - with a distinct magenta cast. I think that a falloff in volume for them may have translated to sloppiness in bath maintenance so this is something to watch out for. Stick with labs with impeccable reputations and that appear to have consistent volumes of processing. Or do it yourself.

Nate Potter

[jetcode]

i think i figured it out . it's my unlined burgundy leather camera bellows . i shined a flashlight through one side and it produces a nice red color . i will test tomorrow with the lined bellows to confirm.

thanks for your help

tim

that's undirected light which would fog the film not provide a under exposed image in red - the direct light coming from the lens will be far stronger then the light produced by the bellows

[walter23]

that's undirected light which would fog the film not provide a under exposed image in red - the direct light coming from the lens will be far stronger then the light produced by the bellows

Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of the bellows explanation - this doesn't look like light leaks. Also I think the antihalation backing is pretty thick, and you didn't say these looked horribly underexposed. I'd blame the lab / chemistry - some contaminent or really old chemistry maybe?

[Ted Harris]

Exhausted or near exhausted developer might do it as well .... especially if it wasn't equally developing all layers. If no one has a definitive answer I can ask a buddy who runs a lab to take a look tomorrow if he has time ....

[thetooth]

thanks all for the input . i did a test today with the bellows theory . i took one shot with the bag bellows , another with the bag bellows covered with my dark cloth , and a final shot with the normal bellows . i also varied the film from the old pack to a new pack . hopefully this will confirm wether it's on my end or the labs . i won't find out till next weekend though it usually takes from monday till friday to drop off and pick up the photos .

also my buddy at the camera store is going to call the lab on tuesday to find out what they have to say , i'am sure they will say it's on my end or else they would have left a note with the film when i picked it up saturday.

thanks for your help and suggestions will keep you posted

tim

[thetooth]

Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of the bellows explanation - this doesn't look like light leaks. Also I think the antihalation backing is pretty thick, and you didn't say these looked horribly underexposed. I'd blame the lab / chemistry - some contaminent or really old chemistry maybe?

no exposure was not too bad i actually corrected them some what with the computer and did not have to adjust the exposure end to much a lot of adjustment with temperature and tint though .

[G.A. Landrum]

To rule out that the film was loaded backwards, a check of image orientation to film notch location will answer this question. I at first thought it was backward loaded film, but as pointed out film like that is usually underexposed.

G.A.

[thetooth]

Exhausted or near exhausted developer might do it as well .... especially if it wasn't equally developing all layers. If no one has a definitive answer I can ask a buddy who runs a lab to take a look tomorrow if he has time ....

yes i would appreciate that . i don't think i would get a honest answer from the lab i used . just a note to . there were a total of 6 images and they got progressively worst so 1 and 2 were not to bad . 3 and 4 were bad . and 5 and 6 are like you see posted . they may have been processed in that order .

thanks

tim

[thetooth]

To rule out that the film was loaded backwards, a check of image orientation to film notch location will answer this question. I at first thought it was backward loaded film, but as pointed out film like that is usually underexposed.

G.A.

yes thanks for the idea . i checked and the images are not reversed from what i originally took .

thanks

tim

[G.A. Landrum]

Tim,

Now that backward loaded film has been ruled out, what do you download the film into for transport? Also, it sounds like you aren't taking the film directly to the lab but an intermediary, a camera store.

I teach at a university, last year one of my students downloaded his film into something other than the clamshell film boxes that I handed out. Turns out that the box he put it in wasn't opaque to light and resembled what you are showing. He had several sheets as well, and the two sheets on the top were fogged worse than those farther down. Because it wasn't a light leak through a hole, but a slow fogging through cardboard the entire film was effected. I think we even determinded the color of the light source that fogged his film based on the color exhibited in the processed film. His box was a plain cardboard color, he left it sit under his tungsten desk lamp for several hours before going to the lab, The processed film was a warmish reddish color. We deduced that the mixture of tungsten light with cardboard color mixed to make the red cast.


I have a stack of worn out film boxes from ten years ago and longer that could possibly fog film as well as an "unapproved" container. It's probably good practice to use a fairly new film box to transport unprocessed film in.

Hope this helps.

G.A.

[thetooth]

Tim,

Now that backward loaded film has been ruled out, what do you download the film into for transport? Also, it sounds like you aren't taking the film directly to the lab but an intermediary, a camera store.

I teach at a university, last year one of my students downloaded his film into something other than the clamshell film boxes that I handed out. Turns out that the box he put it in wasn't opaque to light and resembled what you are showing. He had several sheets as well, and the two sheets on the top were fogged worse than those farther down. Because it wasn't a light leak through a hole, but a slow fogging through cardboard the entire film was effected. I think we even determinded the color of the light source that fogged his film based on the color exhibited in the processed film. His box was a plain cardboard color, he left it sit under his tungsten desk lamp for several hours before going to the lab, The processed film was a warmish reddish color. We deduced that the mixture of tungsten light with cardboard color mixed to make the red cast.


I have a stack of worn out film boxes from ten years ago and longer that could possibly fog film as well as an "unapproved" container. It's probably good practice to use a fairly new film box to transport unprocessed film in.

Hope this helps.

G.A.
i never considered this . i am using a fairly new t-max box . the only thing is though i used it the weekend before this happened with good results , but maybe the box was damaged from the previous time . i will have to check it out .

thanks

tim

[G.A. Landrum]

i never considered this . i am using a fairly new t-max box . the only thing is though i used it the weekend before this happened with good results , but maybe the box was damaged from the previous time . i will have to check it out .

thanks

tim

If it worked a week before, I don't think the box is the culprit assumimng you are using all three pieces configured properly. Another avenue to think about is the handling at the camera store after you leave. Even in a properly closed up box, fogging can occur if the box is left sitting on a light box for a period of time. I am a commercial photographer and have seen this happen a few times years ago when assistants would leave film boxes sitting on the light box before taking it to the lab. If I ever saw this I would throw away that film and box up the hold film I had shot.

Greg

[thetooth]

If it worked a week before, I don't think the box is the culprit assumimng you are using all three pieces configured properly. Another avenue to think about is the handling at the camera store after you leave. Even in a properly closed up box, fogging can occur if the box is left sitting on a light box for a period of time. I am a commercial photographer and have seen this happen a few times years ago when assistants would leave film boxes sitting on the light box before taking it to the lab. If I ever saw this I would throw away that film and box up the hold film I had shot.

Greg

thanks for the info greg . i did take the time to find a black 5x7 sleeve from a finished b/w paper box that i put the film in inside the box . just as a precautionary measure .

thanks

tim

[thetooth]

it was the bellows here are 3 photos . the first is with the normal bellows , the second is the bag bellows with my dark cloth over them , and the third is just the bag bellows .

thanks for all your help

tim10608

10609

10610

[G.A. Landrum]

That's pretty nutty, in all my time doing this stuff I've never seen or heard of this before.

G.A.