kodachromeproject.com Forums  

Go Back   kodachromeproject.com Forums > Main Category > Kodachrome, The Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-15-2012, 08:50 PM
nzoomed nzoomed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 136
nzoomed is on a distinguished road
Default Can someone help me here?

Ive just got my first roll of Ektachrome (elitechrome) developed, and have been told by the lab that it has a slight magenta cast to it, it was dated 2007 but kept frozen. Since ive ordered it from overseas, im trying to work out if its from X-ray damage from customs scanners, or the age of the film, he also told me that its not a good idea to freeze film and should only be refrigerated, either way, they photos have turned out, but just want to know if anyone else has had this problem.
It was all shot on an olympus XA3
TIA
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-16-2012, 08:05 AM
sdkodachrome sdkodachrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 211
sdkodachrome is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nzoomed View Post
Ive just got my first roll of Ektachrome (elitechrome) developed, and have been told by the lab that it has a slight magenta cast to it, it was dated 2007 but kept frozen. Since ive ordered it from overseas, im trying to work out if its from X-ray damage from customs scanners, or the age of the film, he also told me that its not a good idea to freeze film and should only be refrigerated, either way, they photos have turned out, but just want to know if anyone else has had this problem.
"Kept frozen" since when? That's a nice sales pitch phrase on eBay, but it can be meaningful or meaningless depending on the seller. It's still technically true (but useless) if it were kept frozen since 2010 (after having expired in 2007), if all the seller said was "kept frozen".

And ordered it from overseas when and with what shipping? (By when, I mean, did it sit on a hot truck for days? When I order film from cross-country, especially in summer, I always specify at most 3-day shipping, because I'm wary of cheap slow ground shipping, while the middle of the country is in a heat wave, baking my film before I get it. (I don't know if I"m being paranoid or not in this case.)

Finally, if you really meant Elite Chrome, it could have been storage before it was sold originally. Elite Chrome was "consumer" film, and as such was sold in a much wider variety of stores, some of them with poor storage conditions for film (no consistent air conditioning, and such). Ektachrome was mostly sold through photo specialty stores, or stores with photo specialty departments, and tended to be stored better at the retailer (and depended on that).

I think you can rule out X-Rays, though. If there's no fogging, and imply a magenta cast, that seems more typical of conditions and time of storage than of an X-Ray (or even cosmic ray) exposure. Radiation doesn't pick on one color and then affect the whole film evenly with that one color shift.

Last edited by sdkodachrome; 08-16-2012 at 08:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-20-2012, 04:20 AM
nzoomed nzoomed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 136
nzoomed is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdkodachrome View Post
"Kept frozen" since when? That's a nice sales pitch phrase on eBay, but it can be meaningful or meaningless depending on the seller. It's still technically true (but useless) if it were kept frozen since 2010 (after having expired in 2007), if all the seller said was "kept frozen".

And ordered it from overseas when and with what shipping? (By when, I mean, did it sit on a hot truck for days? When I order film from cross-country, especially in summer, I always specify at most 3-day shipping, because I'm wary of cheap slow ground shipping, while the middle of the country is in a heat wave, baking my film before I get it. (I don't know if I"m being paranoid or not in this case.)

Finally, if you really meant Elite Chrome, it could have been storage before it was sold originally. Elite Chrome was "consumer" film, and as such was sold in a much wider variety of stores, some of them with poor storage conditions for film (no consistent air conditioning, and such). Ektachrome was mostly sold through photo specialty stores, or stores with photo specialty departments, and tended to be stored better at the retailer (and depended on that).

I think you can rule out X-Rays, though. If there's no fogging, and imply a magenta cast, that seems more typical of conditions and time of storage than of an X-Ray (or even cosmic ray) exposure. Radiation doesn't pick on one color and then affect the whole film evenly with that one color shift.
I got the photos back today, and am quite impressed with them to be quite honest, i will try and get some samples uploaded to see what you think, i forgot to mention that i opened the film door by mistake while trying to rewind it, but i only lost 2 photos, the rest were perfect, im going to get another roll developed soon, so will be able to tell if anything is wrong with the film or not, there is a slight magenta cast, but is only really noticeable on the clouds and a couple of peoples faces look slightly more pink. yet i dont notice it when holding the filmstrip up to the light. I have no idea of the film door being opened would affect it or not, was a very cloudy day and the door only opened a crack. It would have been at the end of winter in the US when i bought it, ive had the roll in my camera for around a month, is that too long?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-21-2012, 08:07 PM
wlodekmj wlodekmj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 143
wlodekmj is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nzoomed View Post
I got the photos back today, and am quite impressed with them to be quite honest, i will try and get some samples uploaded to see what you think, i forgot to mention that i opened the film door by mistake while trying to rewind it, but i only lost 2 photos, the rest were perfect, im going to get another roll developed soon, so will be able to tell if anything is wrong with the film or not, there is a slight magenta cast, but is only really noticeable on the clouds and a couple of peoples faces look slightly more pink. yet i dont notice it when holding the filmstrip up to the light. I have no idea of the film door being opened would affect it or not, was a very cloudy day and the door only opened a crack. It would have been at the end of winter in the US when i bought it, ive had the roll in my camera for around a month, is that too long?
Opening the door a crack would cause bands of fogging, but not a uniform magenta cast on the whole film.

Elitechrome is designed for consumer use, meaning that it is designed to stay in the camera for up to a year, thus one month is not too long if the film is in good condition.

So your slight magenta fog is likely due to age or to storage under less than perfect conditions. These less than perfect conditions could have been before you used the film, or the camera with the film being kept somewhere very warm, or the film being stored badly - usually very warm - after exposure and before development.

Glad you got acceptable results, and if you ever scan the slides you can remove a slight magenta cast on the scanned record.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-22-2012, 12:32 AM
nzoomed nzoomed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 136
nzoomed is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wlodekmj View Post
Opening the door a crack would cause bands of fogging, but not a uniform magenta cast on the whole film.

Elitechrome is designed for consumer use, meaning that it is designed to stay in the camera for up to a year, thus one month is not too long if the film is in good condition.

So your slight magenta fog is likely due to age or to storage under less than perfect conditions. These less than perfect conditions could have been before you used the film, or the camera with the film being kept somewhere very warm, or the film being stored badly - usually very warm - after exposure and before development.

Glad you got acceptable results, and if you ever scan the slides you can remove a slight magenta cast on the scanned record.
What i dont get is that when i hold the film up to the light i cant see any sign of the magenta cast, yet the scans show it clearly, the guy at the lab said my film was the only one in the run he noticed the cast on, so i can only assume that scanning the film shows it up, there are also a couple of frames that look a little blurry, but the frame on the film looks fine.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-22-2012, 09:06 AM
sdkodachrome sdkodachrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 211
sdkodachrome is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nzoomed View Post
What i dont get is that when i hold the film up to the light i cant see any sign of the magenta cast, yet the scans show it clearly, the guy at the lab said my film was the only one in the run he noticed the cast on, so i can only assume that scanning the film shows it up, there are also a couple of frames that look a little blurry, but the frame on the film looks fine.
Size can affect the perception of color (as well as sharpness). So it can misleading to compare an unmagnified slide held up to the light to a full screen view of a scan on a computer.

Try to equalize that, by first using a magnifier on the film, and then after seeing what size you get up to with that, shrink the scan image to the same size.

Also, what light you're using may affect the noticeability of a slight magenta cast. Holding up to skylight, which is on the blue side, or holding it up to a house lamp, which is perhaps on the yellow side, will each lower or change the magenta cast a bit. The scanner is presumably calibrated for some sort of more central "white" light (less cold than open blue sky but less warm than house lamps), and judging a slight cast may be harder if you aren't using a similar light.

(I presume you don't have a lighted film review box, nor a lighted slide viewer?)

That's not to say that it's impossible for the scanner to have been miscalibrated. Did the guy at the lab mention whether that day they were scanning only slide film, or were they scanning mostly negative film (other than yours)? The scanner has to have different color calibrations for slide film than negative film, and if all the other films scanned that day that didn't have a magenta cast were negative films, their statement would be meaningless, as a scanner can be miscalibrated for slide film while being calibrated correctly for negative film.

Also, here's a wild thought: Some people complain about a slight greenish cast with Fuji slide films. Well, how do you set a scanner to compensate for a slight greenish cast? The opposite of green is magenta!!!!!!!!! So maybe this scanner was calibrated to offset the greenish cast of some Fuji films, and yours was the only Kodak slide film run that day?

None of these answers are as likely as storage, but if (after comparing equal sizes in truer white light, or after getting one or more of the shots rescanned elsewhere) you determine that the magenta cast is in the scans only, then only the scanner-based possibilities remain.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-22-2012, 03:36 PM
nzoomed nzoomed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 136
nzoomed is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdkodachrome View Post
Size can affect the perception of color (as well as sharpness). So it can misleading to compare an unmagnified slide held up to the light to a full screen view of a scan on a computer.

Try to equalize that, by first using a magnifier on the film, and then after seeing what size you get up to with that, shrink the scan image to the same size.

Also, what light you're using may affect the noticeability of a slight magenta cast. Holding up to skylight, which is on the blue side, or holding it up to a house lamp, which is perhaps on the yellow side, will each lower or change the magenta cast a bit. The scanner is presumably calibrated for some sort of more central "white" light (less cold than open blue sky but less warm than house lamps), and judging a slight cast may be harder if you aren't using a similar light.

(I presume you don't have a lighted film review box, nor a lighted slide viewer?)

That's not to say that it's impossible for the scanner to have been miscalibrated. Did the guy at the lab mention whether that day they were scanning only slide film, or were they scanning mostly negative film (other than yours)? The scanner has to have different color calibrations for slide film than negative film, and if all the other films scanned that day that didn't have a magenta cast were negative films, their statement would be meaningless, as a scanner can be miscalibrated for slide film while being calibrated correctly for negative film.

Also, here's a wild thought: Some people complain about a slight greenish cast with Fuji slide films. Well, how do you set a scanner to compensate for a slight greenish cast? The opposite of green is magenta!!!!!!!!! So maybe this scanner was calibrated to offset the greenish cast of some Fuji films, and yours was the only Kodak slide film run that day?

None of these answers are as likely as storage, but if (after comparing equal sizes in truer white light, or after getting one or more of the shots rescanned elsewhere) you determine that the magenta cast is in the scans only, then only the scanner-based possibilities remain.

Im 99% confident my roll was probably the only kodak roll that went through the run, but as far as scanning goes, he told me he tried to compensate it a little when he scanned them, but it was still present,
Here are some links to a couple that showed up the most, again, it really is not that noticeable, im interested to know how a fresh scan with out any compensation would look.

I will try and get some links posted for high resolution copies of the 2 photos below that the magenta cast is the most obvious.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...04417565_n.jpg
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...79027973_n.jpg

I dont have anything for viewing filmstrips, since i havnt mounted the processed film, a slide viewer is not much use, i think the film is personally better off unmounted, as its easier to scan them and you dont loose as much image with the cardboard mount.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-22-2012, 11:28 PM
sdkodachrome sdkodachrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 211
sdkodachrome is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nzoomed View Post
Ive just got my first roll of Ektachrome (elitechrome) developed
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzoomed View Post
I will try and get some links posted for high resolution copies of the 2 photos below that the magenta cast is the most obvious.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...04417565_n.jpg
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...79027973_n.jpg
Which exact Elite Chrome was this, do you know? (Ie, did you keep the box, or write down all the codes?)

Without knowing admittedly how these scenes looked in real life, the results look more like Elite Chrome EC (Extra Color) -- equivalent to E100VS -- to me, but you said the film was from 2007, and I didn't think they had that version back then. I thought the version back then was equivalent to Ektachrome E100GX, which was a warmer version of E100G. But I see nothing to indicate in these pictures that they were taken with a warming version of this film. Maybe Elite Chrome was yet something else back in 2007?

I mention this, because E100VS (and by extension Elite Chrome EC) distorts (exaggerates with shifts) colors in the shadows more than E100G/E100GX in my experience, and has higher contrast than E100G/E100GX (and I again seem to see the higher contrast I associate with E100VS in these pictures).

(Like I said, the problem with buying Elite Chrome is that it's not always really clear what you get, because while Ektachrome was always clearly labeled as to whether it was E100VS, E100G, E100GX, I don't think Elite Chrome was always so clearly labeled as to which "flavor" of Ektachrome it essentially was.

... Having said all that, the magenta cast seems really mild here compared to several rolls of Kodachrome 200 that I shot (bought at different times, shot at different times, and developed at different times) in the last few years of Kodachrome. (And in those cases it wasn't in the scans only, and at any rate those scans were done by Dwayne's, which specializes in Kodak more than Fuji.)

Last edited by sdkodachrome; 08-22-2012 at 11:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-23-2012, 12:31 AM
nzoomed nzoomed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 136
nzoomed is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdkodachrome View Post
Which exact Elite Chrome was this, do you know? (Ie, did you keep the box, or write down all the codes?)

Without knowing admittedly how these scenes looked in real life, the results look more like Elite Chrome EC (Extra Color) -- equivalent to E100VS -- to me, but you said the film was from 2007, and I didn't think they had that version back then. I thought the version back then was equivalent to Ektachrome E100GX, which was a warmer version of E100G. But I see nothing to indicate in these pictures that they were taken with a warming version of this film. Maybe Elite Chrome was yet something else back in 2007?

I mention this, because E100VS (and by extension Elite Chrome EC) distorts (exaggerates with shifts) colors in the shadows more than E100G/E100GX in my experience, and has higher contrast than E100G/E100GX (and I again seem to see the higher contrast I associate with E100VS in these pictures).

(Like I said, the problem with buying Elite Chrome is that it's not always really clear what you get, because while Ektachrome was always clearly labeled as to whether it was E100VS, E100G, E100GX, I don't think Elite Chrome was always so clearly labeled as to which "flavor" of Ektachrome it essentially was.

... Having said all that, the magenta cast seems really mild here compared to several rolls of Kodachrome 200 that I shot (bought at different times, shot at different times, and developed at different times) in the last few years of Kodachrome. (And in those cases it wasn't in the scans only, and at any rate those scans were done by Dwayne's, which specializes in Kodak more than Fuji.)

On the roll it says ELITE CHROME, 100/24exp and has the large letters "EB" on the right hand opposite the DX logo, nothing to indicate that its the extra colour version, i assume elitechrome extracolor is clearly marked as so on the film itself and not just the box?
They were cheap enough on ebay, so am buying anything that i can afford as i see it, im on a limited budget and not a professional photographer, so i cant afford to, nor have the space to stash away 300 rolls of e100g. Ive got about 20 rolls of e100g and 6 of e100vs, that will give me something to play around with i guess, im going to try out AGFA precsia next.

I spoke to the lab operator today, and from what im gathering, i highly doubt they process much kodak film at all, the scanner he used was not set up for any particular film at all as their main scanner was getting repaired, it was just scanned on a $900 flatbed scanner that had no profiles setup on it.

Either way, i cant complain about the image quality or colour at all from this film, although a couple of photos turned out rather dull(still has an interesting effect) off the same film, so i can only assume its the way it was exposed(shot on Olympus XA3), here's the link.http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...87321198_n.jpg
yet here is another photo taken from almost the exact same spot about 1/4 an hour later.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...97458248_n.jpg

Last edited by nzoomed; 08-23-2012 at 12:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-23-2012, 08:32 AM
sdkodachrome sdkodachrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 211
sdkodachrome is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nzoomed View Post
a couple of photos turned out rather dull(still has an interesting effect) off the same film, so i can only assume its the way it was exposed(shot on Olympus XA3), here's the link.http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...87321198_n.jpg
yet here is another photo taken from almost the exact same spot about 1/4 an hour later.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...97458248_n.jpg
Are you familiar with how your XA3 meters? The first shot looks like maybe it was metered straight off the spot in the very middle of the frame where the bright sun seems to be hitting the white snow (much more so than anywhere else in the shot). If the camera has something close to "spot" metering (or extremely center-weighed), and you just let it automatically expose on that with that overly bright snow in the middle, it would have radically underexposed the shot. (Then the scanner may have tried to lighten the scene back; I have the worst results with Dwayne's scans on those shots which are underexposed.)

You have to be conscious of how your metering systems works and when something is in its prime metering area that is not representative of the whole scene, or is way way brighter or way way darker than "18% grey" (which is the brightness level any meter always assumes it's metering). And in those cases you have to compensate somehow: Among the choices: Note the automatic metering setting but meter manually and compensate (add expsore if the object it's metering is very light, subtract exposure if the object it's metering is very dark); meter a more representative thing (by moving what the camera is aimed at, note that setting, and use it manually as you reposition the camera back on what you wanted to shoot); some cameras have an "exposure hold" feature that does that last process automatically, if you do something (press another lever, partly press the shutter, what it is varies among cameras) after metering the other view and you hold that as you move the camera to the shooting view; and finally some cameras have an exposure compensation (-/- 1 or 2 stops in some fraction of a stop increments), and with experience you can set these reasonably well based on the scene (again, add some if what is being metered is overly bright and subtract some if what is being metered is overly dark).

But first you need to figure out how your camera meters. You can gain some ideas (assuming it shows you the exposure it's choosing) without any film loaded, just by going around and aiming at scenes where there's something bright in the middle but darker elsewhere (or vice versa) and then moving around the camera so the unusually bright/dark thing is in the center vs other parts of the frame vs out of the frame completely, and see how differently it comes up with exposure settings in each case.

My Nikon FE2 has center-weighed metering (not as drastic as some other cameras), and yet it definitely gives the wrong exposure if something quite bright or quite dark is in the center. For example, when shooting sunsets with the sun in the frame, I have to meter the sky around the sun, then shoot that setting manually (after recomposing with the setting sun in the frame). If I let the camera meter with the sun in the frame, anywhere in the frame, it is likely to vastly underexpose. (Except I found that this procedure doesn't work quite right during an annular solar eclipse maximum, because in that case the sun hardly lights up the sky! But that's another story...) And if I'm shooting something where the middle of the shot is extremely dark (perhaps some trees in shadow); in that case getting an exposure off of trees that are not in shadow and using that works way better than letting the camera decide the exposure off of the dark section in the middle of the scene.

(Some modern cameras may have metering systems which can deal better with such situations perhaps. I've heard terms like 51-point metering! But don't expect that from film cameras from decades ago...)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.