Is this my fault (off colors on photos)

[King Riffle]

Hey guys, I have a problem for you.

Okay, so I took some photos over christmas with my Yashica TL-Electro (lots of photos actually). I just today got one roll processed, and I'm not particularly pleased with the results. The colors are terrible on many of the shots.

Now I was playing around with the arperture and shutter speed (usually setting it to whatever the guide in the viewfinder suggested), but I can't see how that would do this. Examples (all taken with Kodak 800):

Here is a bad one,

This is much closer to the actual color (though now that I think about it, I may have used my flash in this one, bouncing it off the ceiling)

Here's another bad one,

and much closer to what the church actually looks like inside,

Iirc, the trees were shot with my 28mm Yashikor lens, and the church scenes with my 50mm Yashinon-ds lens.

Am I doing something completely and utterly wrong with this? Did I get some bad film? Is it the lighting? What's going on, why are my photos yellow/greenish?

 

[IgsEMT]

Expired film? jack@$$es who ever processed it?

Back in the wonderful film days the few times when colors were of an issue is when lab tech(s) was/were not doing his/hers job OR, film was WaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaY overdue.
It was actually fun at times to see what you can do with expired film

 

[djacobox372]

Looks like your using outdoor film indoors. The ones that turned out are undoubtedly the ones you used your flash on, or had a smaller aperture so the flash provided the majority of the lighting.

Artificial/indoor lighting is yellow/orange, the only way to take properly white-balanced photos indoors is to use film that is made for indoors (which is hard to find these days), OR very bright flash and very small apertures so that you're providing the light and not the yellow indoor lighting.

Back in the days of flash bulbs they came in blue and clear versions, the blue versions were for indoors to counteract the yellow/orange look if artificial lighting.

 

[CSR Studio]

Your prints just need to be color corrected. A table lamp is yellow light while the sun is blue light and that is what most film is made for. You can buy film made for table lamp light that is called tungsten film. Here is some more info on kelvin temps of light:

Light Bulb Colour Temperatures

 

[Dwig]

...
Am I doing something completely and utterly wrong with this? Did I get some bad film? Is it the lighting? What's going on, why are my photos yellow/greenish?

Yes, you did something wrong. You used a daylight balanced film under artificial non-daylight balanced lighting and expected to magically get the correct color.

Its hard to say whether the lab contributed to the error by not printing as well as possible. The images look as if the artificial lighting was fluorescent, thus adding a greenish tint, but may be tungsten. If the latter, the green tint is the labs error; the prints should be more of a pure reddish-orange.

 

[King Riffle]

Okay, I see. I didn't use my flash for the one inside the church though, I didn't want to bother anyone during the service. I may have adjusted the exposure though, which Kodak's website lists as a way to keep the color correct under such lighting conditions.

Moving on then, is there a good way to correct them after the fact? I've been toying around with them on the computer, but haven't found a way to get them to look quite right. I have paint.net and Gimp at my disposal.

 

[djacobox372]

Okay, I see. I didn't use my flash for the one inside the church though, I didn't want to bother anyone during the service. I may have adjusted the exposure though, which Kodak's website lists as a way to keep the color correct under such lighting conditions.

Moving on then, is there a good way to correct them after the fact? I've been toying around with them on the computer, but haven't found a way to get them to look quite right. I have paint.net and Gimp at my disposal.

Hmmm... the photo evidence points to a use of a flash in the 2nd church photo--maybe accidental.

The evidence:

1) The depth of field is fairly wide, which points to a smaller aperture (f5.6 or f8)

2) The photo is sharp, no camera shake or motion blur--this points to a fast shutter speed.

Combine these two and it's hard to see how you get such a bright clear photo without a flash.

 

[djacobox372]

You can improve the white balance in post, but it will never look that great when it starts so far off:

 

[Actor]

The green cast says 90% chance that the lighting is fluorescent. Use an FL-D filter if you're using daylight balance film. If too late to use a filter have the lab correct for florescent light when making a print. If you're scanning and using a computer in post then the correction can be done. I know because my daughter fixes it using PhotoShop, but I don't know how. I'm not a PhotoShop guru.

Using flash overrides the fluorescent light with daylight balanced light. It also effectively makes the shutter speed the speed of the flash, something like 1/1000 second.

"White balance" is a digital term. The film term is "color balance" or "color temperature."

 

[CSR Studio]

One thing to know, using flash makes most of the yellow or green color go away but depending on the intensity of the ambient light it can still be in images that you take with flash. Especially when using film, it is more sensitive to it than a digital sensor.

 

[King Riffle]

Okay, I see. I didn't use my flash for the one inside the church though, I didn't want to bother anyone during the service. I may have adjusted the exposure though, which Kodak's website lists as a way to keep the color correct under such lighting conditions.

Moving on then, is there a good way to correct them after the fact? I've been toying around with them on the computer, but haven't found a way to get them to look quite right. I have paint.net and Gimp at my disposal.

Hmmm... the photo evidence points to a use of a flash in the 2nd church photo--maybe accidental.

The evidence:

1) The depth of field is fairly wide, which points to a smaller aperture (f5.6 or f8)

2) The photo is sharp, no camera shake or motion blur--this points to a fast shutter speed.

Combine these two and it's hard to see how you get such a bright clear photo without a flash.

Interesting. I can assure you though that I did not use the flash, it was in my bag for the entire service. Camera shake shouldn't have been bad, it was on a tripod.

Thanks for the comments and advice. About how much would such a filter cost? And is it a good thing to have for dslr's too? Or can they easily compensate for the lighting without?

 

[Dominantly]

Thank god for digital technology.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but what a PIA to have to worry about the age of your film, the dude processing your film, making sure you have the right film loaded for your current lighting conditions, etc.........

 

[CSR Studio]

Interesting. I can assure you though that I did not use the flash, it was in my bag for the entire service. Camera shake shouldn't have been bad, it was on a tripod.

Thanks for the comments and advice. About how much would such a filter cost? And is it a good thing to have for dslr's too? Or can they easily compensate for the lighting without?

No, you don't need a filter for digital. White balance will take care of that or you can take care of it in post.

 

[djacobox372]

Okay, I see. I didn't use my flash for the one inside the church though, I didn't want to bother anyone during the service. I may have adjusted the exposure though, which Kodak's website lists as a way to keep the color correct under such lighting conditions.

Moving on then, is there a good way to correct them after the fact? I've been toying around with them on the computer, but haven't found a way to get them to look quite right. I have paint.net and Gimp at my disposal.

Hmmm... the photo evidence points to a use of a flash in the 2nd church photo--maybe accidental.

The evidence:

1) The depth of field is fairly wide, which points to a smaller aperture (f5.6 or f8)

2) The photo is sharp, no camera shake or motion blur--this points to a fast shutter speed.

Combine these two and it's hard to see how you get such a bright clear photo without a flash.

Interesting. I can assure you though that I did not use the flash, it was in my bag for the entire service. Camera shake shouldn't have been bad, it was on a tripod.

Thanks for the comments and advice. About how much would such a filter cost? And is it a good thing to have for dslr's too? Or can they easily compensate for the lighting without?

Is it possible that someone else in the room was shooting with a flash? That would explain things.

With digital you can adjust wb very easily before you shoot, or after you shoot--especially if you shoot in raw.

All I did was adjust the color balance in photoshop.

 

[King Riffle]

Thank god for digital technology.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but what a PIA to have to worry about the age of your film, the dude processing your film, making sure you have the right film loaded for your current lighting conditions, etc.........

Not to mention the fact that you can't swap out films in the middle of a roll if the situation changes.

Hmmm... the photo evidence points to a use of a flash in the 2nd church photo--maybe accidental.

The evidence:

1) The depth of field is fairly wide, which points to a smaller aperture (f5.6 or f8)

2) The photo is sharp, no camera shake or motion blur--this points to a fast shutter speed.

Combine these two and it's hard to see how you get such a bright clear photo without a flash.

Interesting. I can assure you though that I did not use the flash, it was in my bag for the entire service. Camera shake shouldn't have been bad, it was on a tripod.

Thanks for the comments and advice. About how much would such a filter cost? And is it a good thing to have for dslr's too? Or can they easily compensate for the lighting without?

Is it possible that someone else in the room was shooting with a flash? That would explain things.

With digital you can adjust wb very easily before you shoot, or after you shoot--especially if you shoot in raw.

All I did was adjust the color balance in photoshop.

A very thin possibility. Is it that unbelievable though that shooting with a tripod and 800 speed film in a brightly lit church would produce such a result? Or perhaps the people standing blocked a lot of the flourescent light that was causing the problem in the other shots?


I did get a few other shots to come out that well, all without the flash.