Walgreens says my 35mm FUJI 200 was UPSIDE down and blank inside the roll....

[vimwiz]

And the charge 11.99 to develop 35mm in 1 hour lol, i will run a successful test roll then im buying my own dev kit!

What I want to know is where did you find a Walgreens that still does one hour developing? I was told they phased that out in all their stores, and did away with the machine. I'm going to mail mine to a lab to develop negatives and just scan them myself, but sometimes you just want to be able to see them the same day. Spoiled by digital. LOL. I do have a camera store near here but they did a horrible job so I won't be wasting my money on them anymore.

Btw, here in the UK Boots (our equivilent i guess?) does 1 hour processing + printing for £6-£8. They are the ones who did my XP2 (I think limr is right btw, about the scanning), but dont let it put you off, all my colour Kodak film has always come out fine.

 

[minicoop1985]

LOL. The very virst time I loaded Blad I thought the marks indicating 1 were - marks. So I kept going and got to 2, then realized OH CRAP. If I can do that, I can only imagine how bad I'd screw up that Koni... :lmao: What an odd looking camera, by the way. I imagine a 120 RF would be great to use though.

I've seen Hassy back loaded with the paper back facing the lens , but the owners previous only MF camera was Holga. It's a big jump.
Koni is ugly, but in action very easy to operate. Everything is big. Big grip (has to be with camera's weight), big, bright viewfinder with parallax correction, big focusing wheel, big trigger. And just the big weight, well, all is made of bullet proof steel. One unique feature; it has a pressure plate. Not only that, a movable plate. When you wind plate moves back releasing the film, when new frame is in place, plate presses forward "locking" the film and making it as flat as possible. Camera doesn't rely only on film tension for flatness.

That's a neat system. Great idea too, actually.

I have somehow managed not to do that with my Blad, but I did it with a Rolleiflex-a camera that's remarkably easier to load... :lmao: And one of my wife's folding Kodaks-the easiest of all medium format cameras to load too... The ENTIRE back plate came off. All you have to do is cover the bellows opening with film and thread the film into the top reel, advance a little, and done. And I screwed THAT up.

I didn't know Walgreens charged more for 1 hour processing. Maybe they're phasing that out in markets where it isn't popular. All our local Walgreens do 1 hour film processing, 10 minute or less digital prints.

 

[Helen B]

This happened to me. I later found out that they couldn't process true B/W film. They didn't have the correct chemicals so my film came out blank.

The chemists here ruined my XP2 in a similar way - it looks black and white but is C41 process, but they must have gottten confused, and somehow my prints came out in some rubbish sepia-tone effect/

Actually, that might be the scanning. If they developed it like they should have in C41, you'd get black and white images, but then if you scan those negatives as color negative images, then you get a sepia-ish tone. If you have them rescanned, they might look fine.

As with anything, I know this from experience

Edited: Here's one from that roll of TriX (didn't do any post on them, so don't tell me they're crooked and have dust spots )

Scanned in as color:

View attachment 63926


Scanned in as black and white:

View attachment 63927

It doesn't matter how it is scanned (it's all scanned in color really) but it does matter how it is printed. Even a greyscale scan (ie a color scan that has been converted to greyscale from one or more color channels) can look sepia when printed. They do not have to be rescanned, just reprinted.

 

[limr]

The chemists here ruined my XP2 in a similar way - it looks black and white but is C41 process, but they must have gottten confused, and somehow my prints came out in some rubbish sepia-tone effect/

Actually, that might be the scanning. If they developed it like they should have in C41, you'd get black and white images, but then if you scan those negatives as color negative images, then you get a sepia-ish tone. If you have them rescanned, they might look fine.

As with anything, I know this from experience

Edited: Here's one from that roll of TriX (didn't do any post on them, so don't tell me they're crooked and have dust spots )

Scanned in as color:

View attachment 63926


Scanned in as black and white:

View attachment 63927

It doesn't matter how it is scanned (it's all scanned in color really) but it does matter how it is printed. Even a greyscale scan (ie a color scan that has been converted to greyscale from one or more color channels) can look sepia when printed. They do not have to be rescanned, just reprinted.

I don't know how the pro labs (or drugstore developers) scan, but the two pictures I posted were definitely a function of the scanning. They were never printed. My scanner has settings for color negative (or positive) film and for black and white negative. I can see the difference in the tone even on the screen if I switch from one to the other. Maybe the lab scanners scan everything the same and in their case it's the printing to blame, but I don't think scanning is off the table as a reason for the sepia tone.

 

[gsgary]

LOL. The very virst time I loaded Blad I thought the marks indicating 1 were - marks. So I kept going and got to 2, then realized OH CRAP. If I can do that, I can only imagine how bad I'd screw up that Koni... :lmao: What an odd looking camera, by the way. I imagine a 120 RF would be great to use though.

I've seen Hassy back loaded with the paper back facing the lens , but the owners previous only MF camera was Holga. It's a big jump.
Koni is ugly, but in action very easy to operate. Everything is big. Big grip (has to be with camera's weight), big, bright viewfinder with parallax correction, big focusing wheel, big trigger. And just the big weight, well, all is made of bullet proof steel. One unique feature; it has a pressure plate. Not only that, a movable plate. When you wind plate moves back releasing the film, when new frame is in place, plate presses forward "locking" the film and making it as flat as possible. Camera doesn't rely only on film tension for flatness.

That's a neat system. Great idea too, actually.

I have somehow managed not to do that with my Blad, but I did it with a Rolleiflex-a camera that's remarkably easier to load... :lmao: And one of my wife's folding Kodaks-the easiest of all medium format cameras to load too... The ENTIRE back plate came off. All you have to do is cover the bellows opening with film and thread the film into the top reel, advance a little, and done. And I screwed THAT up.

I didn't know Walgreens charged more for 1 hour processing. Maybe they're phasing that out in markets where it isn't popular. All our local Walgreens do 1 hour film processing, 10 minute or less digital prints.

Send them to Peak Imaging
Here's one i developed in Rodinal instead of C41

 

[Helen B]

Actually, that might be the scanning. If they developed it like they should have in C41, you'd get black and white images, but then if you scan those negatives as color negative images, then you get a sepia-ish tone. If you have them rescanned, they might look fine.

As with anything, I know this from experience

Edited: Here's one from that roll of TriX (didn't do any post on them, so don't tell me they're crooked and have dust spots )

Scanned in as color:

View attachment 63926


Scanned in as black and white:

View attachment 63927

It doesn't matter how it is scanned (it's all scanned in color really) but it does matter how it is printed. Even a greyscale scan (ie a color scan that has been converted to greyscale from one or more color channels) can look sepia when printed. They do not have to be rescanned, just reprinted.

I don't know how the pro labs (or drugstore developers) scan, but the two pictures I posted were definitely a function of the scanning. They were never printed. My scanner has settings for color negative (or positive) film and for black and white negative. I can see the difference in the tone even on the screen if I switch from one to the other. Maybe the lab scanners scan everything the same and in their case it's the printing to blame, but I don't think scanning is off the table as a reason for the sepia tone.

Sorry, but I think that you are missing the reason why the PRINTS are sepia toned. It doesn't matter what colour the original scan appears to be on a computer monitor.

Edit: Even if it did matter, you would not need to rescan. You could simply convert the RGB scan into a greyscale scan. That is what almost all 'greyscale scans' are anyway.

 

[limr]

Sorry, but I think that you are missing the reason why the PRINTS are sepia toned. It doesn't matter what colour the original scan appears to be on a computer monitor.

Edit: Even if it did matter, you would not need to rescan. You could simply convert the RGB scan into a greyscale scan. That is what almost all 'greyscale scans' are anyway.

If the prints came directly from the negative, then yes, it wouldn't matter how they were scanned in. But if the prints came from incorrectly scanned digitized files, then they'd be sepia toned because of the scanning, no?

Again, I don't know about the equipment the lab has or what the work flow is. I don't know how the drugstore labs process, scan, or print. I don't know how much of the process has gone totally digital and how much traditional process is left. I don't know if the drugstore the poster mentioned did the film on premises or sent it to a lab, or if he got a disk with the scans as well as the prints. Maybe there was no scanning at all and then it's all on the printing. But if they have a totally digital work flow once the film is developed, then improper scanning becomes an issue.

I agree, if the poster has a disk with the scans, he can simply convert them if they too are sepia-toned.

 

[Reciprocity]

The chemists here ruined my XP2 in a similar way - it looks black and white but is C41 process, but they must have gottten confused, and somehow my prints came out in some rubbish sepia-tone effect/

That sounds more like a printing problem than developing. You film might be OK.

Re the original problem: although the reason seems all sorted out now, if it had been a normal 135 cassette loaded in to the camera the wrong way round (so that the film back faced forwards to the lens) not only would it be underexposed (having been exposed through the antihalation layer) and miscolored (having traveled the wrong way through the color filters) but it would also be very likely to show regular pressure marks cross-wise from the film coming out of the light trap at a sharp reverse angle. These would show up on the neg as black bars part way or right across the film, usually stretching from the corners of the sprocket holes.

As Helen mentions above re the XP2, the printer used the wrong channel.

Excellent description of stress marks, Helen! Here is a pic of stress marks on BW negs.