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



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

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 (Mar 19, 2014)

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 (Mar 19, 2014)

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 (Mar 19, 2014)

How did you meter these shots?


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

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 (Mar 19, 2014)

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


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 19, 2014)

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 (Mar 19, 2014)

> 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 (Mar 19, 2014)

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


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 19, 2014)

dxqcanada said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2014)

jsharp29 said:


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



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 (Mar 19, 2014)

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 (Mar 19, 2014)

^ 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 (Mar 19, 2014)

compur said:


> ^ 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.


----------



## limr (Mar 19, 2014)

Did they scan the negatives and give you a disk? Or did you scan prints that you got back?


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

limr said:


> Did they scan the negatives and give you a disk? Or did you scan prints that you got back?



They gave me a disk. The images on this post are from the disk


----------



## limr (Mar 19, 2014)

It looks like there's something going on with development, and possibly some overexposure (do you have a digital camera or a light meter to check your Canon's meter against?) but some of that can be adjusted with some color correction during scanning. If you're interested in trying to salvage these images, you might want to find a place that will rescan the negatives, or at least the ones that you think might have been 'keepers' without the color errors.

If it's not worth it to you for this roll, then I'd say shoot another roll of the same film, in similar conditions and meter readings from camera, but then bring it to a different place for development. Keep the other variables as similar as possible and just change the development variable.

And don't be discouraged by disappointing early results! We've all been there - how do you think we can come up with theories about what went wrong?


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

limr said:


> It looks like there's something going on with development, and possibly some overexposure (do you have a digital camera or a light meter to check your Canon's meter against?) but some of that can be adjusted with some color correction during scanning. If you're interested in trying to salvage these images, you might want to find a place that will rescan the negatives, or at least the ones that you think might have been 'keepers' without the color errors.
> 
> If it's not worth it to you for this roll, then I'd say shoot another roll of the same film, in similar conditions and meter readings from camera, but then bring it to a different place for development. Keep the other variables as similar as possible and just change the development variable.
> 
> And don't be discouraged by disappointing early results! We've all been there - how do you think we can come up with theories about what went wrong?



I do have a digital camera that I actually took identical shots with. And thanks for the reassuring words. I can actually load some into GIMP and auto white balance and they look okay. I obviously don't want to do that every time though. These are the original then auto white balanced
View attachment 68887


----------



## manaheim (Mar 19, 2014)

It seems very odd to me that anyone would go through the effort to find, buy and use film... and then have it developed at CVS.

It's seems akin to buying a vintage car... and then bringing it to Maco to paint it.


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

manaheim said:


> It seems very odd to me that anyone would go through the effort to find, buy and use film... and then have it developed at CVS.
> 
> It's seems akin to buying a vintage car... and then bringing it to Maco to paint it.


Touche. However, I couldn't wait! Next time I'll be shipping it off to a reputable lab. Any suggestions??


----------



## limr (Mar 19, 2014)

That looks a lot better. Many times the scans will need a bit of tweaking, just like shots from a digital camera, but it shouldn't need that much correction.

Not sure what part of the country you're in, but if there aren't other options for local developing, you could send the film out. I haven't used them but I hear good things about Dwayne's: A trusted name in photo processing for over 50 years - Dwayne's Photo  There are others but I can't think of them at the moment. My head is too busy having a cold 

I can almost guarantee that att some point, someone is going to pop in and say "You should develop your own!" Yes, it's easy to develop your own (start with black and white - it's easier. Color film requires more fussy temperature control), but I say there's no need to develop your own until if or when you're ready  I actually think you should get a handle on shooting with film before you add your own developing into the mix. Focus on one thing at a time.


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

Thanks for the help!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 19, 2014)

Was the film sold by Amazon or listed by another seller? Wondering if the film could have been expired or improperly stored. 

For outdoors daylight I usually use 100 instead of 400 speed film. Depending on if you have more of this film or use something else maybe keep notes on what you do.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 19, 2014)

manaheim said:


> It seems very odd to me that anyone would go through the effort to find, buy and use film... and then have it developed at CVS.
> It's seems akin to buying a vintage car... and then bringing it to Maco to paint it.


Uh, CVS sells film. I know the OP didn't buy it there, but I'm sure a ton of people who get film developed at CVS do buy it at CVS.

And although for a lot of the regulars on this forum it might be something we mainly do for artistic or pacing reasons or whatnot, plenty of people who are complete newbies to photography might choose film due to its lack of up front investment compared to digital. Especially if they inherit old equipment. And for them, CVS likely seems perfectly logical and they don't give it a second thought.


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 19, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> Was the film sold by Amazon or listed by another seller? Wondering if the film could have been expired or improperly stored.
> 
> For outdoors daylight I usually use 100 instead of 400 speed film. Depending on if you have more of this film or use something else maybe keep notes on what you do.


It was sold by Amazon, although I didn't think to look at the exp date


----------



## MarkF48 (Mar 20, 2014)

Not sure it's relevant, but how did the price of the film from Amazon compare to the same film from say B&H or Adorama? Perhaps if the film was old or not stored well (old store stock?) it may have been discounted a bit.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 20, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > It seems very odd to me that anyone would go through the effort to find, buy and use film... and then have it developed at CVS.
> ...



Uh, and what percentage of those people join photography forums?


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 20, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



1) You didn't specify "_on a photography forum_" you just said anybody.
2) I also already addressed this distinction quite explicitly in the post of mine that you just now quoted (apparently without reading first).


----------



## manaheim (Mar 20, 2014)

Well that was a very typical response from you.  Thanks for being consistently pedantic and snippy.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 20, 2014)

I was wondering if it's the film, the developing, or both. On Amazon it seems like anybody can list anything (just like on ebay), the seller may not be a business. I have to wonder where people get film cheap enough to resell it cheap... 

Unless there's something on this roll of film you really need (which you could scan and adjust digitally) I'd shoot another fresh roll of film purchased from a reputable seller and try another lab. The chain drug stores in my area have never been the best option for developing film.


----------



## limr (Mar 20, 2014)

I've never had any issues buying film from Amazon. Sometimes the price is dropped because the film is about to expire in a few months, but it's still perfectly good to shoot. Even expired film shouldn't start showing signs of age for a few years after expiration - assuming proper storage, of course. Buying film that's about to expire should be fine if you're shooting it when you get it. If you keep it in the fridge, it should keep for several years and still be fine to shoot with.


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 20, 2014)

MarkF48 said:


> Not sure it's relevant, but how did the price of the film from Amazon compare to the same film from say B&H or Adorama? Perhaps if the film was old or not stored well (old store stock?) it may have been discounted a bit.


Pretty sure the price was comparable...about $9


----------



## gsgary (Mar 21, 2014)

Why buy one of the best colour negative films on the market and then send it to a 2 bit outfit to have it developed


----------



## limr (Mar 21, 2014)

Okay, y'know what? Perhaps we should stop giving the OP a hard time about the CVS development. Before digital was the norm, places like Walgreens, CVS, and Wal-mart did a LOT of developing and they did a fine job. I used to get plenty of rolls developed at CVS and never had any complaints. If they've gone downhill, it's only because not many people develop film anymore, so they have fewer people trained on the machines and fewer rolls to develop, which leads to lower quality. Sometimes people don't have many other choices for development or don't know where to even look.

Give the guy a break already.


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 21, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Why buy one of the best colour negative films on the market and then send it to a 2 bit outfit to have it developed


Because I'm a genius and you'll soon see the method to my madness. Mwahahhaha! 
Seriously, thanks to the helpful posters. Getting a rescan somewhere (The Darkroom). I'll let you know if they turnout better.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 21, 2014)

jsharp29 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Why buy one of the best colour negative films on the market and then send it to a 2 bit outfit to have it developed
> ...



Could be a waste of money if they have made a mess of the negs


----------



## MarkF48 (Mar 21, 2014)

I look at that first roll of film as simply a quick test of the cameras basic functionality, so if it needed to be returned to the ebay seller as "Not As Described", that he would know before too much time went by. I'd probably do a CVS, Walmart, or similar One Hour processing just for the peace of mind that it was an OK ebay purchase.

Would have been nice to have had some decent pics out of it, but remember there are folks out there that pay a lot of money for software to get the processing effect in digital images that you achieved :lmao:  :lmao:


----------



## NedM (Mar 21, 2014)

Walgreens FTW.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 21, 2014)

jsharp29 said:


> I obviously don't want to do that every time though


I think it's likely that the reason they look like this is because CVS DIDN'T do that, or much of anything else.

Scans from a 1-hour lab almost never look as good as scans you do yourself at home or those done by a "pro" lab.

CVS is mainly concerned with getting the film back to you in under an hour.  They are not generally going to do ANY color correcting, or other adjustments like that.


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 25, 2014)

Well, the verdict is in. It was either bad film or bad CVS. Just got another roll back after I took it to a more reputable place and they look much better


----------



## limr (Mar 25, 2014)

jsharp29 said:


> Well, the verdict is in. It was either bad film or bad CVS. Just got another roll back after I took it to a more reputable place and they look much better



Pics or it didn't happen!


----------



## jsharp29 (Mar 25, 2014)

limr said:


> jsharp29 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the verdict is in. It was either bad film or bad CVS. Just got another roll back after I took it to a more reputable place and they look much better
> ...


This was with a roll of Portra 400


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 26, 2014)

I've had good luck with Walgreens, but they never cut my negatives the way I want. And my new favorite lab is like 1/3 the price. Develop a roll of 35mm C-41 for $1.60? Why yes, yes you may. In fact, do many of them.


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2014)

jsharp29 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > jsharp29 said:
> ...



Yup, there are those beautiful Portra colors!


----------

