File :-(, x, )
ac
Right. Okay. So I shot my first roll of slide film the other day.

All of my slides came back tinted *strongly* blue. Pic related.

They look okay when held up to a tungsten lamp, but they look blue when held up to any other light source, including the lamp in my scanner, which means they don't scan worth shit.

I shot the whole roll in Av mode, and a quick test against my Digital Rebel tells me that the film camera's metering properly. I took these under the same yellow star that I normally take photographs under.

Did the lab fuck up? Did I fuck up? Was there something wrong with my roll of Velvia? Is this completely normal and I have a shitty scanner? Anyone know what's going on?
>> des
>>45334
Where they all shot in the late evening or early morning? Was it just extremely overcast? Colour temperature is different then; on print film you can correct during printing but with slides you put warming or cooling filters on.
>> ac
>>45337
Wasn't overcast at all. Started around 5:50, so towards evening, but not *that* far towards evening...
>> ac
>>45338
(So it was around the time of day when, if anything, I'd be getting a warmer tone to my film...)
>> Anonymous
I can't help you much since the only film camera I've worked with (yet) is a disposable camera.

I am wondering, though: why not just correct the colors in Photoshop after the scans? This won't help the slides, but it's better than nothing.
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
>>45348
That's what I'm currently doing. But
(a) it's not perfect
(b) it's a lot of work
(c) the whole reason I was doing this was to get the pretty Velvia colors I've heard so much about

Pic related
>> des
>>45338
hrm. no clue, if all the frames are uniformly this cast, it's probably the lab. If it varies enough to notice, maybe it's exposure problems. Best thing to do would be to go down and show them, if they're local enough to do so.
>> Anonymous
>>45350
Try the automatic color correction options. They usually work pretty well. That should speed you up some.

Also, I don't know what JPEG compression you used, but if you didn't use a lot on the image you posted, you do need a new scanner, because the photograph looks splotchy.
>> ac
>>45351
Uniformly blue. There are a couple other labs in the area I know about which can probably handle E6, and this particular lab has fucked up my developing a bit before (I gave them a roll of 120 with 6x6 images on it, they seem to have tried to print it as if it were 6x4.5 or 6x7). I bought a roll of Sensia 100, so we'll see.

>>45355
Automatic options didn't work. The only thing that came anywhere close to decent was tedious manual overriding.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
That's really odd; i've never had a roll of Velvia do that to me before. How old was the roll and did it get exposed to any major heat or any major cold?
>> Anonymous
Wiki:
"A problem with the original Velvia 50 is that it suffers from the effects of reciprocity law failure much more than other films. Exposing the film for as little as 16 seconds will produce a marked color shift, typically to purple or green, depending on shooting conditions. Anything over four seconds requires the use of blue color correction filters if correct color balance is required, and anything over 32 seconds is "not recommended" by Fuji.

Velvia 100 is much better with longer exposures. A 2.5B color compensation filter (CC0025) is sufficient to correct the color shift of an eight-minute exposure for Velvia 100."
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
give us a few other frames shot in other conditions

maybe your lab fucked up. E6 processing takes some chemistry that's expensive to maintain, and I think E6 processing is quite tricky.

don't hope to fix the photos you've posted, Velvia doesn't forgive any exposure or correction that's off too far
>> ac
>>45383
1. It was Velvia 100
2. The longest exposure I did was about 1/10th. A quick test against my Digital Rebel says

>>45359
The roll was purchased recently (within a few weeks) from Adorama. It spent some time in my fridge before being shot (I've heard this is good for film, but it's certainly possible that this was the dumb thing I did) and some time in my pocket after being shot, but that's it for the temperature range.

I'll post some more from the roll when I finish scanning 'em in, but there doesn't seem to be much variation.
>> des
>>45392
>>VELVIA DOESN'T FORGIVE
lul it is true.
E6 isn't super tricky but if they let their chemicals get old or didn't take care with the temps, weird shit happens. I had one localish guy that would stretch out using his chems as long as he could because he didn't have much people calling for E6. I stopped going there because I'd get weird spots and stuff. Found out a couple weeks later that he's asking around at other labs if they want to buy an E6 machine... figures
>> ac
>>45403
Er.
>A quick test against my digital rebel shows it's picking the correct exposure.
(Sorry, it's early, my brain's not fully turned on yet)
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
Hmmm... Scanning a few more of these, I'm leaning more towards the "I fucked up" explanation. I think a few of these can be explained by underexposure...

When I burn through this roll of Sensia 100, I'll try bracketing to see if that makes things better.

(Example: Had to bump up the exposure on this one during scanning, but these are the colors that came directly out of it. Before I smoothed, though, it looked *extremely* grainy, which I gather is odd for Velvia, so I'm still not 100% sure either way...)
>> moot!Ep8pul8Vw2 ## admin ­­ ­­
>>45350
That actually has a really nice vintage-Cuban look to it. Keep it.
>> Anonymous
>>45432
Again, I don't know much about film, but I can't imagine underexposure would tint your photographs like this.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>45432
yeah, too blue. try a second roll from another source, but I'd rather think it's the processing.

>>spots and dust
yeah, also had that happen at a lab. let em process near 10 rolls from a wedding, the first rolls had a few scratches and dust. the week after I was talking to a friend there, who worked there, and said "ah yeah, they're cleaning the machines right now, it was really needed" -_-

at another small shop I had 1hr C41 processing, had tiny marks all over the film. probably polluted chemistry :/
>> Daylight or Tungsten Film?! dave
With colour slide film such as Velvia, there are two types you can get; daylight and tungsten. It looks suspiciously like you shot on Tungsten film (designed to give neutral white balance when you shoot scenes lit by tungsten); whereas you should've been using daylight film... Sorry to say, but there's not really much you can do about it. Better luck next time!
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>45460

this... is an oddly good point. do you still have the velvia packaging from when you bought it?
>> des
>>45434
Underexposed velvia gets blue in the shadows before it gets black but, I don't think I've seen it as blue as>>45334
>>45460
Good idea but they don't make tungsten velvia, it's practically sold as a landscape film, so only daylight.
>> Anonymous
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductVelvia.jsp
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
If it isn't the tungsten/light thing, it has to be the lab not knowing how to process it properly. I purposely underexpose my velvia film all the time to achieve some mood and mess the hell out of the exposures and fstops, and i've never had this situation before. AC, were you shooting the velvia 50 or 100?
>> ac
>>45482
100. They don't make Velvia 50 right now.

(I think. Last I heard, it's out of production but coming back into production soon. But when I searched B&H, I could only find Velvia 100, so I went with that)

And like Des said, I don't believe they make a tungsten Velvia. My understanding is that it makes people look very ruddy, and people are what you normally shoot by tungsten light.

B&H didn't send it to me in a box, which was weird. Just the little film canister. Sticker on the canister says Emulsion #464164 Expires: 08-2008.
>> elf_man
Their tungsten film is called T64. Everything on fuji's website and adorama show velvia as a daylight film.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>With colour slide film such as Velvia
there is NO Fuji tungsten slide film next to T64.

velvia 50 or 100, doesn't matter anyway. maybe 50 will get back into production, but I doubt this. differences between 50 and 100 would be small, unlike the 100F
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>45486

That isn't too odd.. all of my velvia I buy comes in the canisters, I just go in and take them out of the bigger box of 20. Perhaps you just got a bad roll of film, or they sent you a different format than it should've been or something. Try switching labs and see what you get from that, they might've had some bad chemicals, too.
>> ac
>>45493
Yeah, my plan is to try a different lab for the roll of Sensia I've got now. There are several factors that could have caused this that I can think of off the top of my head, so there's not really a good way I can test to find the real cause...
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>45495

If you don't mind, let me know how the Sensia does. I've never shot it (had no need before) and am curious to see how it turns out.
>> ac
>>45499
Will do.

Hopefully it doesn't turn out tinted strongly blue. ;)
>> ac
Oh, here's some evidence that it wasn't my fault. They threw in the film leader that got exposed starting the day the film left the factory until I stuck it in my camera. So presumably should be clear.

It's blueish green.

So yeah, either the film itself was bad or Delaware Camera fucked up. I no longer think it was a problem with me underexposing.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>45504

This makes sense. Do you have a film camera shop that you can go into and actually choose your rolls? Everyone local for me, both here and in my home town, you could just walk into the big fridge and grab whatever you needed.
>> des
>>45504
I've yet to get a sour roll of film from b&h, but truth is stranger than fiction
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
I'm shooting some Velvia 100 right now, so I'll see if I have any similar tales of woe in a few days.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:06 14:49:34Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1023Image Height680RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> des
>>45657
epic
>> Jen
I won't stake my life on this, but I think it was the people who developed the film. There is almost never a problem with getting bad film anymore with the more exacting techniques used to make it, so my immediate suspicion goes to development or camera exposure. If it was camera exposure, the problem wouldn't be as uniform. I had to get seals on a Minolta replaced a year ago because it was allowing enough light in to give a special light streak for every exposure, always to the right. So it's not an exposure problem. Even without knowing that the leader was blue, I'd say that it was an issue that didn't exist until development. Unfortunately, I've only developed B&W film before, so I don't know the specifics on color slide film, but I know a teacher that does. If you want, I can e-mail him some of the slides you've uploaded here and get his opinion on the matter. I'm almost certain he could tell you exactly what the developers did to the film.
>> Anonymous
>>45762
Wow. You're really going out of your way for /p/. =)

For print film, I think that most of the labs around the US are okay. The 1-hour photo joint in your town might not be the best place to get them developed unless you need them in a hurry. But as far as slide film goes, I have no clue where some good developers might be. The company mentioned, Delaware Camera, could be quality, and this might be an isolated event.

Does anyone have any recommendations for film developers?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>45762

I'm gonna have to agree on this, even though i've already said it before. I've shot 1000+ rolls of Velvia film, both 50 and 100 speed, and i've never gotten a bad roll. Except once, when a lab took it that didnt' know how to develop the rolls properly-- they tried to print and develop it like a regular roll of color film. Thank god it wasn't for a job or anything.

>>45657
Oohh, now i'm excited to see how it's gonna turn out! Am I the only one in here that openly and regularily photographs Velvia slide film in here?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>45765

Does location matter to you? This is the lab I use, and they've been great!

http://www.chromedigital.com
>> Jen
>>45767

I bet they get enough business being in the art and design district of San Diego to use fresh chemicals as often as they're supposed to. This place sounds like the next best thing to developing them yourself.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>45776

I've never had a problem with them; they do imprints on my slides, remember what it is without me having to tell them, too. I've got a great relationship with all of them, they remember me by name, and I can depend on them to do pretty much anything (the mounting/framing place behind them is another story, though). I actually go to the Lusk blvd location, then they send it out to the downtown place. I don't know where i'd be without them; they're pretty good priced for their processing, too. I've had to pay up to 18 dollars a roll at another place, only to find out that all the labs in San Diego county, for e-6 processing, send their shipments over to Chrome to do. Now if only I could get them to sell film, it'd be heaven.