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



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

My camera was from KEH the olympus om1 it looks 99% brand new, same goes for the lens, its pretty much flawless and fires off fine.

She showed me the film, it was that brown color film is BUT, it was COMPLETLY clear, i mean CLEAN see through CLEAR lol, and she said it was upside down in the roll. 

The only thing i can think of is i left the camera in my car at college, and it was like 12 degrees inside the car, would the totally erase the film and remove all emulsion?

So i break open a roll from the same box, its black side up, dull brownish side on the bottom, that roll seems fine.

Kinda funny, my first ever 35mm is black lol, doesnt bother me, not discouraged at all.

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!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 7, 2014)

I dont understand how that is possible. I havent done many films buy i feel like the roll will only go one way.


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

Another "magic" is going on. What do you mean the film was completely clear ? Do you have this film in your possession ? Can you check if there are any markings, where the perforation is ? Name of the film, some numbers, bar codes etc ? If there is nothing probably Walgreens screwed up development. If there are this markings, we should look at the camera. Temperature cannot remove emulsion from the film. We store film in deep freeze to preserve it, high temperature may damage emulsion but not remove it. 

"*She showed me the film, it was that brown color film is BUT, it was COMPLETLY clear, i mean CLEAN see through CLEAR lol, and **she said it was upside down in the roll*." --- VERY INTERESTING !


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

No, i held it and looked at it, buty was like looking through brown glass, there was numbers along the sides as would be expected, but the portion where you would have an image was clean like glass. I find it odd too, she said she put it in the machine and went to lunch, im assuming she screwed up. 

Regardless, ill give it one more shot just to make sure the light meter is accurate and everything is working, after that its home development, and a v600 lol...


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

wdh1974 said:


> So i break open a roll from the same box, its black side up, dull brownish side on the bottom, that roll seems fine.


Well it's not fine now!  


Cold weather would actually be good for film.  It being upside down would only make it redscaled.

Two things could have happened.
1 - They messed up developing it.
2 - You never actually would it onto the spool, and you "shot" a whole roll without ever advancing the film - then wound it back up and developed an unexposed roll.


If it were exposed to light (like that roll you opened up), the whole roll would be black, not clear.


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

well when i re-wound the film i felt resistance for a while then it felt like it "broke free" and wound smooth with no resistance, im sure i seated it properly

there were numbers yes, but even unexposed wouldn't there be something on the film it was truly clear like glass.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

wdh1974 said:


> No, i held it and looked at it, buty was like looking through brown glass, there was numbers along the sides as would be expected, but the portion where you would have an image was clean like glass. I find it odd too, she said she put it in the machine and went to lunch, im assuming she screwed up.
> 
> Regardless, ill give it one more shot just to make sure the light meter is accurate and everything is working, after that its home development, and a v600 lol...


Since the edge markings are there, I think the most likely thing is that you had an unexposed roll developed.

Either it never got onto the spool in the camera, or the camera might be broken.

Are you sure there's nothing wrong with the camera?  If it's empty, open the back and fire the shutter a few times at different speeds - is it working?


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

yeah it fires at various speeds and the light meter is reading along the same lines as a phone app light meter.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 7, 2014)

Um, are you sure you advanced it right?

First roll I ever shot was blank as i didnt properly align the leader when loading the film, so it didnt actually advance (though the counter went up and it rewound as expected, though very quickly, only wondered why it had been so quiet shooting 36 wated photos later...)


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Are you sure the film is advancing?  KEH is pretty good about grading camera, so if they say it works, I'd tend to trust them.


My bet is that you didn't get it hooked far enough into the take-up spool, and it just sat there in the same place the whole time you were taking pictures.  Next time, advance it a few frames and make sure the spool is holding it tight before closing the cover.


That's pretty much the only thing I can think of that it could be.  The film was never exposed to light, since it was clear.  If they put it in the Blix first, that would ruin it too, but I don't think you'd be able to see the edge markings, since they would have never been developed if that is what happened.


Blank film with normal looking edge markings doesn't leave many options other than the film having never been exposed.


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

Im a total noob so anything is possible, but i do remember the film locking into the grooves and i gave the lever a little turn to make sure its locked in, unless it popped off inside.

Ill take the blame for this one lol, gonna load another and MAKE SURE its in


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

I don't think the lab is at fault here - BUT, since they blamed it on "the film being upside down", they obviously don't know what they're talking about - so you'll probably want to find a new lab anyway.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 7, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> That's pretty much the only thing I can think of that it could be.  The film was never exposed to light, since it was clear.  If they put it in the Blix first, that would ruin it too, but I don't think you'd be able to see the edge markings, since they would have never been developed if that is what happened. Blank film with normal looking edge markings doesn't leave many options other than the film having never been exposed.



Yep, I aree about the advance. The film being upside down is rubbish and i dont believe it, but if they messed up it would usually be totally clear or you wouldnt see the writing, thats my experience when ive screwed up (i.e. used B&W process for C41 etc...)

What film was it? Colour?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 7, 2014)

Yes, if they really goofed on the processing of the film the number/lettering on the sides of the film would be affected. If they looked clear and exposed then the frames were not exposed.

When first loading and winding the film did you notice the rewind knob moving ? 
When rewinding you should have felt resistance for a while before it came loose.
The shutter is opening/closing ? You can see light during the exposure when you trip the shutter (while looking through the open back) ?


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

sacrifice a roll and advance it to the end with the back open


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

Ok, im a noob, i guess i was putting it in wrong, there seems to be a little slot for the leader to go in! lol

I feel dirty i need a shower.....


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

You can shoot film "upside down", and you can buy it that way.  (That would be Redscale film - is that what you were shooting?)
[EDIT> You can't just stick any old roll in there upside down though.  You have to load it into the film canister that way. <EDIT]

BUT - you would still get photos on it.  They would just be very red.

This is what it would look like if the film was upside down:


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

Yeah, my fault for not going to youtube to load film lol.

This mistake makes me like film more and digital less, kinda feels good to screw up at the start, makes you step back and think more.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 7, 2014)

wdh1974 said:


> Ok, im a noob, i guess i was putting it in wrong, there seems to be a little slot for the leader to go in! lol
> 
> I feel dirty i need a shower.....



Yes, its different on each camera. On my Canons I have to pull some out and lay it across until the tip is to the orange line, else the winder doesnt grip it, eventually youll learn to be able to feel when it is actually winding though, I guess (I can tell if its in ok or not by the noise of the winder motor on mine)


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 7, 2014)

Tip: when loading film look at the rewind knob ... make sure it turns as you advance to 1


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

Yeah, i think i got it this time lol, you guys are great thanks for all the reply's!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

wdh1974 said:


> Im a total noob so anything is possible, but i do remember the film locking into the grooves and i gave the lever a little turn to make sure its locked in, unless it popped off inside.
> 
> Ill take the blame for this one lol, gonna load another and MAKE SURE its in



On a classic 35mm camera, watch to make SURE the rewind crank spins counter-clockwise as you ADVANCE the film each time...THAT is the critical test to determine if the film leader has stayed in the take-up slot. I'm with Josh...my guess is you developed an UN-exposed roll of film.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 7, 2014)

wdh1974 said:


> This mistake makes me like film more and digital less, kinda feels good to screw up at the start, makes you step back and think more.


And it will also make you slow down and think about what you're doing before you hit the shutter!


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> I don't think the lab is at fault here - BUT, since they blamed it on "the film being upside down", they obviously don't know what they're talking about - so you'll probably want to find a new lab anyway.



This.



dxqcanada said:


> Yes, *if they really goofed on the processing of the film the number/lettering on the sides of the film would be affected.* If they looked clear and exposed then the frames were not exposed.
> 
> When first loading and winding the film did you notice the rewind knob moving ?
> When rewinding you should have felt resistance for a while before it came loose.
> The shutter is opening/closing ? You can see light during the exposure when you trip the shutter (while looking through the open back) ?



And this.

User error: If you had loaded the film backwards, the pictures would have been redscale. 

Developing error: If the developing was screwed up, you'd see no markings.

Camera error: Visible markings, but clear frames - film wasn't exposed for whatever reason. Could still have been user error if the film didn't take and you didn't realize it. That just comes with experience, though. It's something we've all done


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> Could still have been user error if the film didn't take and you didn't realize it. That just comes with experience, though. *It's something we've all done*


And that is why we all suspected that, lol.

Now you know.  Don't beat yourself up over it.  Learn, and move on.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

Consider this one of your first "shooting film war stories"...

If you have NEVER screwed up loading a roll of film, or a cassette or cartridge, or a magazine of film, or a sheet film holder, or any kind of film, then you have NOT shot much film.

One of my personal faves is shooting bulk film and loading it into reloadable cartridges...and exposing a roll, then accidentally dropping it on a hard floor surface, and watching as the little silver ring-top pops off and ruins the ENTIRE film in oh, I guess maybe 3,4 milliseconds... now THAT's a "*fun times were had by all*" kinda' memory!!!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Consider this one of your first "shooting film war stories"...
> 
> If you have NEVER screwed up loading a roll of film, or a cassette or cartriodge, or a magazine of film, or a sheet film holder, or any kind of film, then you have NOT shot much film.
> 
> One of my personal faves is shooting bulk film and loading it into reloadable cartridges...and exposing a roll, then accidentally dropping it on a hard floor surface, and watching as the little silver ring-top pops off and ruins the ENTIRE film in oh, I guess maybe 3,4 milliseconds... now THAT's a "*fun times were had by all*" kinda' memory!!!


I bulk load most of my film (pretty much all of my B&W 35mm) - and I remember you mentioning that very thing when I posted a thread about bulk loading when I bought my first bulk roll.  I tape the **** out of them because of that and have luckily never had to watch a roll get ruined after falling to the floor.

Like so:


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

My first developing error? I used the right amount of developer to process a roll of film loaded on the bottom reel. The problem? I'd put the loaded reel on the top. Good times.

The good thing about making these kinds of mistakes is that you generally will not make them again. Instead you'll make new mistakes!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> Instead you'll make new mistakes!


And eventually you will have made ALL of the mistakes!  

When you ruin a roll of film, you sure as hell make sure you learn from the experience.


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Instead you'll make new mistakes!
> ...



'Strewth!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Once you start developing your own film, there will be a whole new batch of mistakes to make.  It's worth it though.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> My first developing error? I used the right amount of developer to process a roll of film loaded on the bottom reel. The problem? I'd put the loaded reel on the top. Good times.



Ohhhhhh-good one, Leonore, good one!!!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 7, 2014)

OMs are kinda annoying to load. Make sure the leader is hooked into the take up spool. I'm telling you this from experience. A lot of experience. With film popping off that spool... :er: I'd say I've had 5-6 rolls pop off after I had them hooked on there. When you advance the film, watch the rewind knob-it should turn as you advance. That's my little secret test to make sure I got it right.

Edit: Didn't see we were on page 3. Whoops. Anyway, welcome to the world of film.  If you ever get into medium format cameras with interchangeable backs, you'll probably shred a few rolls of 120 trying to load it... THAT takes a bit of practice.


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> If you ever get into medium format cameras with interchangeable backs, you'll probably shred a few rolls of 120 trying to load it...


 What you've got ? Hassy ? The really troublesome back to load has Koni Omega Rapid 100 and is not about shredding , but about "where TF the arrows should show up so I don't loose  two frames !"


----------



## terri (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> My first developing error? I used the right amount of developer to process a roll of film loaded on the bottom reel. The problem? I'd put the loaded reel on the top. Good times.
> 
> The good thing about making these kinds of mistakes is that you generally will not make them again. Instead you'll make new mistakes!



My first-time developing error went like this: 20 minutes in darkroom loading the film with sweaty hands and many naughty words before getting it on the reel and placed it into the tank.   Screw on the top, snap on the lid.   Yay.   

Back at the sink, removed the lid to pour in the developer and THEN began my inversions - oh, the joy of seeing that developer slosh right out of the lid-less tank and go straight down the drain.    I sloshed in more water and added a couple of minutes to the development.   Result?   Such pretty negatives, half-way through the frame.    

Good times, yes!


----------



## snowbear (Jan 7, 2014)

The first time I used a metal reel (in class, a few of years ago), I had fat-fingered the film and didn't get the bow, so a few layers were touching.  I pulled them out of the wash and saw those muddy brown blotches on (what would have been) the better shots.  I bought a Patterson tank & reel that weekend.


----------



## wdh1974 (Jan 7, 2014)

nice stories, good read lol


----------



## Patriot (Jan 8, 2014)

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.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 8, 2014)

timor said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > If you ever get into medium format cameras with interchangeable backs, you'll probably shred a few rolls of 120 trying to load it...
> ...



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.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 8, 2014)

Patriot said:


> 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/


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2014)

Your lucky Robert Capa landed on Omaha beach shot some rolls and back in London a your lad in the lab cocked up and he only ended up with about 12 frames but they are some of the greatest shots ever taken

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Helen B (Jan 8, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> 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.


----------



## limr (Jan 8, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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:





Scanned in as black and white:


----------



## LeeStar (Jan 8, 2014)

wdh1974 said:


> 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.


----------



## timor (Jan 8, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> 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.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 8, 2014)

LeeStar said:


> wdh1974 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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 (Jan 8, 2014)

timor said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 8, 2014)

limr said:


> vimwiz said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot said:
> ...



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 (Jan 8, 2014)

Helen B said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > vimwiz said:
> ...



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 (Jan 8, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > minicoop1985 said:
> ...




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


----------



## Helen B (Jan 9, 2014)

limr said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



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 (Jan 9, 2014)

Helen B said:


> 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 (Jan 12, 2014)

Helen B said:


> vimwiz said:
> 
> 
> > 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/
> ...



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.


----------

