Did the lab totally screw up this film?

[sully75]

Blah. Very dissapointed.

Sent 12 rolls of film to someone highly recomended on the forums here. I've been scanning and maybe 60% of the negatives are obviously screwed up and most of them are screwed up to some extent.

I just want to make sure it's not something that I'm doing before I talk to the guy.

Film is Portra 400. Shot on a Leica and a Mamiya C330, both CLA'd recently. I know this is not specifically an LF question but in this case I don't think the camera is that relevant.

On the MF there is a brown border around the frame of the picture. There are some weird color casts in the whites (clouds). In general the colors are not particularly vibrant (I'll let that slide, I'm more worried about the rest of it).

On the 35mm, you can see the sprocket hole stains on any picture that has light areas near the border. It's pretty obvious.

I've never had color film developed by a pro lab before, but I can't think of anything I could have done in the camera that would make this happen. Open to suggestions.

Looks like over agitation and maybe effed up chemicals to me?


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-t66_-ZykyEY/ThKQKF38FnI/AAAAAAAAA2o/gTmtw5nIY_E/s512/img512.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qPR4_ykShi4/ThKQL_wGTiI/AAAAAAAAA2s/cO9PT1qPWvA/s640/img513.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9yHgDskA7a0/ThKQMj2VbSI/AAAAAAAAA2w/wQD8ACIxf2A/s640/img515.jpg

[sully75]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-X2kA6cwxTgU/ThKQFJmq_wI/AAAAAAAAA2k/-PxSiqx4vOo/s512/img418.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-fX0txiD9glE/ThKQE12PPJI/AAAAAAAAA2g/ZjwfF2CjnGE/s512/img427-Edit.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-MieBYFI3OOc/ThKQBTaNc1I/AAAAAAAAA2c/6ciHwer8ijE/s512/img423.jpg

[sully75]

really this makes me want to cry. I put a lot into these pictures. I have never really put a lot of energy into shooting color film before, and I was really excited about all this portra, because I love the look of it. But I'm just wondering if I should pack it all in and go back to digital.

Some of the pics are useable but really I would have been better off with the ol' 5D. I love the look of Portra well developed but I can't believe how badly this stuff turned out. There's two rolls of 35mm I can't even bare to scan, it's just heartbreaking. I can fix some of it in PS but it's so much work for less then acceptable results.

Please let me know what you think.

[MMELVIS]

Contact the lab and ask them to scan the images for you correcting the problem when they are scanned.

[Frank Petronio]

What lab?

[edtog]

Looks like it could be the lab but just to be sure have you run a roll through each camera and send them to a different lab.
Also check the t&c's of the lab, best you may get is replacement film.

[sully75]

What lab?

Rather not out the lab until I see what he says.

[David Higgs]

looks like pretty 'effed' chemicals to me

What do he negs look like? Some of the images look sort of over exposed - in my opinion i actually quite like the almost monochrome/tobacco staining of the images, but they are completely different to the portra that I know...

C41 is a pretty easy and forgiving process and I assume the lab is automated which makes overagitation seem unlikely.

[Jim Michael]

How was your film stored and handled prior to processing? Did it get hot? It does sort of look like chemical exhaustion or contamination, or an out of control process, but I seem to recall seeing a similar effect with heat damage. I'd like to see what the control plots look like on the day the film was processed and the day after.

[Armin Seeholzer]

How old was the film? I get very similar colors with outdated films!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers Armin

[Frank Petronio]

You wouldn't get sprocket marks unless they messed up, they should replace your film (the limit of their liability) and you should use a better lab.

[Nathan Potter]

Yes the sprocket marks are a clear indication that the film processing was out of control. Which also could account for the magenta shift in overall color and the brownish stains emanating from the edge of some of the films. Overall contrast is too low.

Can't analyze the actual fault but un-replenshed chemistry and temperature control are good possibilities.

The best way to nail the precision and repeatability of a processing house is to include a couple of test images with each batch of film. I shoot a step wedge and piece of grey card against a clean white towel with fresh film. The step wedge is at the film plane in the camera. Use full sun for proper color balance. This forms a record of meter calibration as well as processing integrity. Yes - it's a colossal PITA but worth it for valuable color images. Yes I should do it every time when out sourcing development - but don't always.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[J. Gilbert Plantinga]

Do you see the sprocket hole marks on the film itself? I've seen similar marks on 35mm negatives scanned on an Epson flatbed (10000XL) when not using the negative masks (trying to make "contacts") but just placing to film on the glass. The negatives were actually fine, the marks were flare in the scanning. Inspect the film with a loupe on a lightbox. Without a proper mask on your scanner it will be difficult to get the color or contrast right.

[reallifenow]

...
The best way to nail the precision and repeatability of a processing house is to include a couple of test images with each batch of film. I shoot a step wedge and piece of grey card against a clean white towel with fresh film. The step wedge is at the film plane in the camera. Use full sun for proper color balance. This forms a record of meter calibration as well as processing integrity. Yes - it's a colossal PITA but worth it for valuable color images. Yes I should do it every time when out sourcing development - but don't always.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

I'm wondering what is a 'step wedge'. Is it a pie shaped disk that has half-step wedges like neutral density filters?

[Jim Michael]

I don't see sprocket hole fogging. I see fogging or other damage throughout the film.

[Jim Noel]

Blah. Very dissapointed.

Sent 12 rolls of film to someone highly recomended on the forums here. I've been scanning and maybe 60% of the negatives are obviously screwed up and most of them are screwed up to some extent.

I just want to make sure it's not something that I'm doing before I talk to the guy.

Film is Portra 400. Shot on a Leica and a Mamiya C330, both CLA'd recently. I know this is not specifically an LF question but in this case I don't think the camera is that relevant.

On the MF there is a brown border around the frame of the picture. There are some weird color casts in the whites (clouds). In general the colors are not particularly vibrant (I'll let that slide, I'm more worried about the rest of it).

On the 35mm, you can see the sprocket hole stains on any picture that has light areas near the border. It's pretty obvious.

I've never had color film developed by a pro lab before, but I can't think of anything I could have done in the camera that would make this happen. Open to suggestions.

Looks like over agitation and maybe effed up chemicals to me?


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-t66_-ZykyEY/ThKQKF38FnI/AAAAAAAAA2o/gTmtw5nIY_E/s512/img512.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qPR4_ykShi4/ThKQL_wGTiI/AAAAAAAAA2s/cO9PT1qPWvA/s640/img513.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9yHgDskA7a0/ThKQMj2VbSI/AAAAAAAAA2w/wQD8ACIxf2A/s640/img515.jpg

This first image is obviously over agitation.

[Jim Michael]

Actually, on the big monitor I do see a little sprocket hole fogging.


I don't see sprocket hole fogging. I see fogging or other damage throughout the film.

[sully75]

for the record I do not use a mask when scanning on an Epson 4870. I use the better scanning glass holder and tape the film to the glass. I just never got around to making the masks.

I have seen sprocket hole marks on film in the past, but I think it was due to my poor developing (B&W).

I'm pretty sure this is not due to the lack of the masks. Any thoughts? I can retry scanning some of it.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Look at the original film with a loupe and tell us what you see

[Don Dudenbostel]

Over agitation is the problem. The Increased density at the edges and sprocket marks are a dead give away. Gas burst agitation too high or too vigorous agitation if dip and dunk.

[Nathan Potter]

I'm wondering what is a 'step wedge'. Is it a pie shaped disk that has half-step wedges like neutral density filters?

It is a series of steps of different transmission densities usually in film (but can be on glass) that typically vary by approximately log .15 (a half stop). Made by Kodak or Stouffer the versions I use are about 1/2 inch wide by about 5 inches long and have about 20 steps from .05 to 3.0 log density. I use a couple of these film wedges taped to a standard 4X5 film holder under the dark slide and in such a way that when the film is inserted and the dark slide pulled for exposure the step wedge stays close to the emulsion for a contact print.

Two of these placed lengthwise in the holder are separated by about an inch such that one side is exposed to a white towel and the other side is exposed to pure white mat board. I meter off a grey card then expose at about +5 f/stops over in order to place the grey card at about density log 1.5. Thus I can get an equivalent exposure range of +/- 5 stops and make an accurate determination (within reason) of where zone II and VIII fall based on the shadow and highlight detail in the towel.

This technique is simply a version of what was suggested by Davis in Beyond The Zone System.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[BennehBoy]

You really should rescan with the sprocket holes/film edges masked, this all looks like light bleeding over from the edges of the film during scanning to me (without actual sight of the negs).