Really red Velvia photos

[swmcl]

I have just got six 4x5 Velvia sheets back from the lab that are very, very red. The whole sheet has a distinctly red tone evenly distributed across it. I've seen it before too in other sheets but not in this batch.

These six were shot in the same session using a Kodak Portrait and a Heliar lens.

Other 4x5 sheets from a recent holiday are more normal. So the processors may not be at fault.

Has anyone seen this before? Is it because these sheets were left out of the fridge after shooting? Was it the lenses?

Is it possible that older uncoated lenses let through a bunch more IR or something?

Is it because the processors happened to get these exact six sheets and processed them in a bath at the wrong temp??

Thoughts appreciated.

[Denis Pleic]

You have loaded the film backwards into the film holders, and exposed them through the back film layer :(

I've had a case exactly like that with a colleague recently (whose 4x5 slides were exactly like yours), and it took me about 5 minutes leafing through JOBO documentation and troubleshooting list to come up with the explanation.

My colleague claimed he's loaded the film properly, but after some double-checking it turned out the he didn't :)

This is the only possible explanaion for slide (E6) film in sheets which turn out red throughout (as if shot through strong red filter, and also somewhat underexposed...).

HTH,

Denis

[Lachlan 717]

This is the only possible explanaion for slide (E6) film in sheets which turn out red throughout (as if shot through strong red filter, and also somewhat underexposed...).


Isn't another explanation if the film had, in fact, been shot through a strong red filter?

Seriously, though, if loaded back to front, wouldn't a simple check be that the image is back to front when viewed?

[Denis Pleic]

Isn't another explanation if the film had, in fact, been shot through a strong red filter?

Seriously, though, if loaded back to front, wouldn't a simple check be that the image is back to front when viewed?

Lachlan, I presumed the original poster would have known that he shot Velvia through a red filter on the lens :)

OTOH, regarding the simple check for inverted (mirrored) image, it's not always that obvious at first glance, particularly if you don't have e.g. signs or any kind of text in the image... However, a closer look should prove that indeed the film has been loaded backwards...

[swmcl]

Hi Denis,

Your theory sounds plausible! They are photos of me and my family and another family. No text visible. I wonder how to determine whether the film was loaded incorrectly ...

I do struggle with how this might have happened but I have made lots of mistakes so this one would just be another on the list!!

And 'No' there wasn't a red filter on the lens!!!

Rgds,

[DKirk]

Hi Denis,

Your theory sounds plausible! They are photos of me and my family and another family. No text visible. I wonder how to determine whether the film was loaded incorrectly ...



Does any one wear a watch that is visible in the images?

[rdenney]

Does any one wear a watch that is visible in the images?

There are lots of ways. Check anyone who parts their hair on one side, or whose do is otherwise asymmetrical. Check the buttons on shirts.

But it's easy to look through the processed transparency backwards to correct what looks wrong without realizing it.

Rick "who hasn't made this mistake, but has made all the rest" Denney

[Denis Pleic]

Hi Steve,



No text visible. I wonder how to determine whether the film was loaded incorrectly ...


You have to look at the slides so that the edge markings (the yellow "Fuji" text and those numbers on the edge) appear in correct orientation (not inverted - that means you're looking at the slides from the back).
Then try to remember the arrangement of the people when the photos were taken,e.g. if you have 2-3 people in the photo, try to remember who was on the left or right... Or, if the photo has any landmark or identifiable surroundings, try to see if the orientation is "mirrored" - e.g. a road that should be on the left is on the right, stuff like that.

If the photos were e.g. taken in the backyard, see if the orientation is mirrored (e.g. a shed which in reality is to the left of the fence now appears on the right....). There must be some identifiable fixed object in the photo, if you can't remember the left-to-right order of the people you photographed.

[Harold_4074]

Women's clothing usually buttons right-over-left, while men's clothing is (in my experience) always left-over-right.

Now, whether or not you want anyone to know that you are looking that closely at the women's clothes is another matter...

[dave_whatever]

Surely if the film had been shot the wrong way round, through the anti-halation layer, wouldn't you also expect them to me massively underexposed?

[swmcl]

OK.

It's a portrait orientation portrait. I also have landscape oriented landscapes.

I am right handed and insert the film holder from the right or from the top.

I flip the films on the light table until I see the 'Fujifilm' and orient them correctly (portrait or landscape).

On the landscape shot it, looks correct. The image is oriented correctly and the notches are in the top right.

In the portraits, the image looks to have the correct orientation and the notches are in the top left.

My belief is that the film was loaded into the holders the same way for both the portrait and the landscape.

Still not solved ....

[RJC]

Surely if the film had been shot the wrong way round, through the anti-halation layer, wouldn't you also expect them to me massively underexposed?

Yes, the one time I managed this the resultant transparency looked as though it had been shot through a red filter of factor something in the region of 6+ stops.

[C. D. Keth]

If it's shot through the base, the film should also be a bit soft.

[swmcl]

My thanks to those who've posted. I truly think the backwards film idea is the best bet. It's just that the film is relatively sharp - I can see individual hairs at 3-4m on a whole body adult standing portrait (the Heliar shots not the Kodak Portrait!!). I have also noticed they vary from bad to really bad in terms of the redness and also even on a single film there is a bit less at the edges.

I don't think Fuji would get the film notches wrong. It would be me putting them in the holders incorrectly.

The only other option is that the film was processed at the wrong temp or chemical concentration. As I gave them about 15 or 20 4x5 films it is a bit of a fluke they'd pick up these 6 sheets and muck them up while the tank wasn't at temp or wasn't at the correct chemical concentrations.

I did ask they be processed when the temp and chemicals were right. They replied before processing that all they do is replenish chemicals ...

I've had it before and funnily enough it was when I did other family portraits!! On that occasion all the films were damaged the same way too.

Maybe I should shoot with a blue filter on family portraits!! Then we'd all be purple!

I've had probably 10-12 of these at least over a period of time.

[cps]

Steve,

I did exactly the same thing once. Film was backward and shot through the base. Deep, dark, red. I scanned them in with Epson anyway, and though noisy because of the density, I got reasonably sharp B&W out of it. Not great tonal range, however.

Chris

[Andre Noble]

Has anyone seen this before?

Yes, instead of properly triple boxing your exposed film, you only double boxed it (at some point) and fogged the film.

Been there, done that! My film looked exactly as you described. You live and learn.

[swmcl]

Thanks cps,

I have no working scanner at present but your reply gives me some hope. A large format portrait session with families of youngish kids is a fair effort in organising so I don't want to keep doing this.

A B&W would perhaps be a better way forward anyway given the harsh shadows and bright highlights in the Aussie sun. Getting a shaded location with an acceptably non-distracting background for the photos is part of the complication.

Cheers.

[cps]

Steve,

Here is what one of my RVP 50 shots exposed through the base looked like after scanning to B&W. A Bit contrasty, but worth attempting if the moments on film are not replaceable. It's essentially what you would expect from black and white if you had a pretty dark red filter on the lens in terms of contrast etc. Maybe not the most flattering filtration for portraits, but certainly could be worse.

80650

Link to Flikr location:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11125063@N00/5016324361/

Chris

[Harold_4074]

The notion of fogging seems unlikely; it would probably be non-uniform, almost certainly not pure red, and the parts covered by the filmholder rebates would be affected or not depending on whether it was in the filmholder when damaged. But you mentioned the Australian sun, which might just be able to fog film through a plastic darkslide. I seem to remember that in some cases infrared film can be fogged through polypropylene darkslides; could something like this be responsible?