What happened to these photos?

[okayheidi]

Hello everyone,

I hate for this to be my first post, but I figured I would try here first before consulting a professional.

I shot nine rolls of film overseas this summer. When I came back and got them developed, none of them turned out properly. Needless to say, I was devastated, which is why it has taken me so long to finally getting around to researching exactly what caused this problem (denial is a strange beast). So here's the scoop.

The camera is a Canon Rebel T2 and used a 28-90mm lens. I shot with some simple Kodak gold and some drug store Fuji film, 200 and 400 speed, respectively. Nothing fancy. Here are a couple examples of what happened.




Every photo got, to some degree, this pink hue on it.








These are two examples of photos that turned out okay, but still were not even close to the amount of color and contrast they should have had. Something about the color is still totally washed out.


Also, for what it's worth, zooming in (as in the image above) resulted in an even MORE pink color than when the lens stayed at 28mm. Zooming up to the 90mm seemed to make the color at its worst.

Yikes, these sure were small uploads. They get the point across, but if anyone needs a look at a larger image, please let me know.

To clarify, I know that there is some issues with film being sent through security scanners at airports. This film went through twice, and not through the heavy-duty x-ray scanner for checked luggage, but the carry-on scanner. From what I understand, for this speed of film and considering it only went through twice, this shouldn't be the reason it turned out this way, but I didn't want to rule anything out.

If this is a problem I've obviously missed and I'm an idiot, please be kind to me, because I truly have no idea. I have shot hundreds of rolls of film on this camera and have never had a SINGLE problem prior to this.

I'm thinking it's a camera problem, considering EVERY roll of film was equally as affected as the others and in the exact same way. Otherwise, did the film get too exposed? Light leak in my camera? Film damaged? Fault of the developer? I don't remember DROPPING or bumping my camera in any way, but if I did, could this be the cause?

If it IS my camera, does anyone know if this is fixable? Where should I take it / send it?

Even if you aren't able to help / respond, thanks for reading this far. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me!!

 

[KmH]

All but the dog look like you shot them without your eye at the camera viewfinder and no viewfinder cover, creating a large light leak.

 

[compur]

The photos above that didn't "turn out" were underexposed. All of these contain a lot of bright sky which you did not compensate for.

When a composition contains a lot of bright sky or a lot of backlighting (like your window photos) your camera's meter is going to "think" the scene is very bright and will suggest or provide less exposure than is actually needed to properly expose the foreground subject.

You need to learn a little about film latitude (how much exposure range film can reproduce) and how to compensate for back-lit subjects. More modern cameras (including some later film cameras) can do this more or less automatically by metering different sections of the scene separately but you shouldn't rely on that. It's best if you build your own sense of scene analysis so you can automatically compensate for scenes like this (my opinion).

 

[okayheidi]

I wish that was the case, but my eye was where it should have been and I have a viewfinder cover; I didn't shoot these any differently. Like I said, this camera has shot hundreds of rolls of film and I have NEVER had this problem, or any problem with it, for that matter, which is what makes this particularly frustrating. Oh, film. You're lucky I love you.

EDIT: this comment was in response to KmH

 

[okayheidi]

By comparison, here are some photographs from the last roll of film I shot prior to this trip on the same camera, same lens, and same type of film. Not sure if this helps at all.

 

[limr]

The x-ray scanners shouldn't have had an effect. I traveled to Europe this past summer as well and had 20 rolls with me. They agreed to hand inspect them going out of NY at JFK, but then the next three airports I went through in Europe refused and they went through the scanner all three times. I had Portra 160 and TriX 400 and had no problems with any of them. Supposedly, it only really could affect the very fast films. I think even 800 speed is usually okay. I think temperature is more likely to affect film than x-ray - like if the film was sitting in a bag in the sun for a long time or something. I don't know if it would cause the low contrast of those pictures, though.

Really, though, it looks to me more like a developing problem rather than an exposure problem. Did you have them developed at the same lab that you usually go to?

 

[timor]

Depleted batteries ?

 

[okayheidi]

I did have it developed at the same place, yes. Granted, they've never been the most AMAZING place, but they've always been able to competently get my photos developed. When I got a look at these photos and took them back, the associate working assured me that it was an issue with the film and not the developing. How honest they're being about it I have no idea.

 

[limr]

At first glance it seems like overexposure, and maybe there is also a bit of overexposure at work here as well if, as timor suggested, your batteries were running low and the light meter wasn't functioning properly. But it looks more to me like what I've seen from expired film. Very low contrast. That's what makes me think it is a problem with the film and not the camera. Maybe underdevelopment or perhaps you bought some expired film without realizing it, or film that had been exposed to heat or improperly stored before it made it to the shelf where you bought it.

Have you shot anything since? How did it come out?

 

[vintagesnaps]

Is it possible that the ISO could have been set for a different speed than the film? Trying to think what else could have caused this.

I'm not sure what would have caused the pinkish tint... only time I've had that is when I tried using a fluorescent filter in an arena that I found out later had mercury vapor lights (so I ditched the filter!) and that caused a magenta tint.

Have you shot a roll since this? I'd try another roll and take it to the same lab and see what you get, that would at least give you some idea if it was the developing of those rolls or something that happened to the film on the trip - or if you get similar results that might tell you that something could be wrong with the camera.

If you want to restore some/all of the photos you could try scanning and adjusting digitally, or try Film Rescue International (or other labs that offer restoration). I haven't tried it but old photos that have been in a shoebox in somebody's basement for years seem to be salvageable so yours should be able to at least be somewhat improved in quality. Film Rescue International | Revealers Of Lost And Found Treasures

 

[maris]

None of the pictures you show are what you shot. They are only digitally reprocessed scans of what you shot; which potentially admits of greivous errors by other people. What does the camera-original material, the actual negatives, look like?

 

[Josh66]

All but the dog look like you shot them without your eye at the camera viewfinder and no viewfinder cover, creating a large light leak.

That might mess with the meter, but it wouldn't affect exposure. The mirror will seal the film/sensor from any light coming in through the viewfinder while it's up.

It WILL affect exposure on my main camera - the Canon 1N RS though, since the mirror doesn't move. The viewfinder has a shutter though, I use that whenever it's on a tripod.



I agree that they look like they were underexposed, and then the lab tried to salvage them during scanning though. How do the negatives look?

edit
If you don't know what a "good" negative looks like, compare the shot of the dog or the mountain next to it in your post to the first one you posted. I'm guessing that the 'bad' ones are going to be noticeably 'thin' compared to the good ones.

The person at the lab who said it was an issue with the film and not the processing was most likely right. Especially if some were good and some were bad on the same roll. If they messed up developing it, the whole roll would be bad.

X-Ray is really only an issue with high ISO film, like 1600 and up.