Just got my first roll of (CVS-developed) film back. Terrible results

[jsharp29]

Hey guys, new to the forum. I recently bought a Canon AE-1 off of Ebay in great condition. I loaded it up with some Fuji Pro 400H. Just got my first roll back from having CVS develop them (Yes, I know). The results are disappointing to say the least. Every photo has a milky/bluish color cast to them (like the one's attached). Please tell this is a developer/film problem. Any advice would be most welcome!

 

[Derrel]

It looks like film or development issues. The camera seems fine. NO big light leaks, seems to focus okay, and to me these look adequately exposed.

What was the film and was it "in date"? Had it been stored properly? Or was it film of uncertain provenance?

 

[dxqcanada]

Umm, where did you get the film ? Was it expired ?

Pay more attention to the negative ... what does it look like ?

Great resource from Olympus:

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/photomicrography/negativefaults.html

Olympus Microscopy Resource Center | Photomicrography - Color Negative Film Processing Errors

 

[compur]

How did you meter these shots?

 

[jsharp29]

Thanks for the reply guys. I bought this film from Amazon and took it out of the original box to use almost immediately. I forgot to look at the expiration date, but I'm assuming it was fine and stored properly. I got the film developed at CVS in one hour just because I couldn't wait.
The negatives seem fine, but I'm not really sure what I'm looking for.

 

[jsharp29]

I metered using the in-camera meter, which think I just center-weighted

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, sorry ... got carried away and forgot you probably have not examined negatives.

The reverse image will look yellowish (not talking about the orange film base) overall to cause the print to be bluish.

 

[Gavjenks]

The negatives seem fine, but I'm not really sure what I'm looking for.

What you'd be looking for is very faint images on the negatives. In a proper exposure, they should be crisp and nicely contrasted on the negative. As in, the whites should almost be opaque or very dark (negative), and the blacks almost clear. If, however, everything is just varying shades of almost-transparent, then it means the negative was underexposed, and there isn't much data available to work with. So no matter how they develop it, it's gonna look drab and cloudy like the ones in the OP.

Whereas if the negatives are crisp and contrasty and fine, yet you get milky crap results, then CVS screwed up, not you.

Therefore, you can distinguish between developer error versus photographer error by looking at negatives. Either could potentially lead to the above results (the color cast can also result from the same issue -- if they have to dramatically alter the timing of the development to adjust for a huge missed exposure, then the colors will end up odd due to the strained procedure. OR they could have just effed up.)

 

[dxqcanada]

http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/photos/color-print-negative.jpg

 

[jsharp29]

The negatives seem fine, but I'm not really sure what I'm looking for.

What you'd be looking for is very faint images on the negatives. In a proper exposure, they should be crisp and nicely contrasted on the negative. As in, the whites should almost be opaque or very dark (negative), and the blacks almost clear. If, however, everything is just varying shades of almost-transparent, then it means the negative was underexposed, and there isn't much data available to work with. So no matter how they develop it, it's gonna look drab and cloudy like the ones in the OP.

Whereas if the negatives are crisp and contrasty and fine, yet you get milky crap results, then CVS screwed up, not you.

Therefore, you can distinguish between developer error versus photographer error by looking at negatives. Either could potentially lead to the above results (the color cast can also result from the same issue -- if they have to dramatically alter the timing of the development to adjust for a huge missed exposure, then the colors will end up odd due to the strained procedure. OR they could have just effed up.)

I'm almost certain I didn't underexpose. Especially if you look at photo #2. I actually tried to overexpose by a stop or two. It was bright sunny day.

 

[jsharp29]

http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/photos/color-print-negative.jpg

Yeah, my negatives don't look near that contrasty and colorful, even on the ones I actually tried to overexpose. I don't notice a yellowish tint

 

[Gavjenks]

http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/photos/color-print-negative.jpg

Yeah, my negatives don't look near that contrasty and colorful, even on the ones I actually tried to overexpose. I don't notice a yellowish tint

In what way are they less contrasty? All varying shades of much darker colors (overexposed)? All varying shades closer to transparent (underexposed)? Or gray/in between (probably something wrong with the film, assuming no other weird factors like hazy lenses)?

 

[jsharp29]

Actually on closer inspection the ones I would decently exposed seem okay. Here's the neg for pic one above. Lit up by my iphone :mrgreen:

 

[compur]

^ If that's the actual color of the neg than either it was improperly processed or you were shooting with some sort of CC filter. The magenta cast in the neg is the reason for the cyan cast in the prints.

 

[jsharp29]

^ If that's the actual color of the neg than either it was improperly processed or you were shooting with some sort of CC filter. The magenta cast in the neg is the reason for the cyan cast in the prints.

I wasn't using any filter. This^ makes me feel better. It was CVS one-hour processing after all.