c41 film came out looking weird after developing - examples images shown

[MingMingPhoto]

these are three differnt films processed at the same time with the same chemistry in the same tank

It was shipped from the UK to the USA in this "subscription box" of random film sent every month

Does anyone have any clue what's going on here?

the first 4 (top row)are from an expired disposable camera - but still I've never seen such results
the next set of 4 (second row) are from ProImage 100
and the next set of four (third row) are Portra 160
the last three are from "lomo purple"

 

[koraks]

Looks like you don't have one single cause here. In no particular order:
* Underexposure
* Color balance issues in the digitalization/scanning workflow
* Processing defects possibly caused by film handling issues (film touching during development, muck stuck to film, scratches)
* Partial fogging of film perhaps due to film handling during processing or in-camera problems
* Possibly underdevelopment

Judging scans is always difficult to begin with. The variety of problems we see here makes it extra difficult to nail down the exact causes of your trouble. A thorough review of the entire workflow is in order IMO.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Looks like you don't have one single cause here. In no particular order:
* Underexposure
* Color balance issues in the digitalization/scanning workflow
* Processing defects possibly caused by film handling issues (film touching during development, muck stuck to film, scratches)
* Partial fogging of film perhaps due to film handling during processing or in-camera problems
* Possibly underdevelopment

Judging scans is always difficult to begin with. The variety of problems we see here makes it extra difficult to nail down the exact causes of your trouble. A thorough review of the entire workflow is in order IMO.

ah wow

Ok I also have photos of some negatives - these are some that were processed after the fact but still had issues

 

[koraks]

Hm, that gives some potentially crucial information - I see a strong cyan cast, which we sometimes see if someone has tried handling C41 film under red 'safe' light. You didn't by any chance make the mistake of thinking that a safelight can be used with C41 film, did you...?

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Oh man. Do you think that is likely the only cause now?

 

[pentaxuser]

Oh man. Do you think that is likely the only cause now?

So I take it that this is confirmation that you did use a red safelight throughout all the various films?

pentaxuser

 

[MingMingPhoto]

No I didn't, so I have a huge basement and it has two parts. The first par is small and seperated by a door. In the frthest side of the bigger aprt I do the processing. I left the door open on the far side and turned out the lights only in the big part. I come form a black and white film devleoping background so I'm accustomed to packing film in not 100% darkness and still getitng away with what seem to be perfect negatives (to my eyes and when I print I don't notice any fogging) but I guess c41 films are a litle more senstive to the color of the non 100% dark room and also more senstive in genral to light I guess. So no not a safe light, but not a 100% dark room - very dark but not dark enough

 

[koraks]

Yeah, that's likely a big part of the problem. "Very dark" isn't good enough for C41. It needs to be pitch black, unable to see a thing, not sure if I'm still alive dark.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply. This is a general question for all: Would the "not quite darkness result in all of the differences we see in the sets of pictures.? Clearly, or at least on my VDU some shots are much worse than others. Some look as if a slight colour filtration change would produce a reasonable picture whereas other examples seem to be beyond any redemption. I cannot quite follow the notation of rows. I see two columns on my screen so each row contains two pics but not 4 shots in a row. It is unclear to me whether the first four, next four etc are the two columns moving across each time. This way the first four are top left;top right then next row of two are left and right or is a row ( this is a column ) going downwards for first four shots, the next row are the four underneath etc

I cannot work out which film the better shots are from

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

I cannot quite follow the notation of rows. I see two columns on my screen so each row contains two pics but not 4 shots in a row.

I do not see any series at all, but every photo has to be loaded on its own.

 

[pentaxuser]

I do not see any series at all, but every photo has to be loaded on its own.

On my screen, if you click on any of the photos, that photo then reveals itself at a bigger size and the others are in a line underneath. You can then bring each one up on the screen

What I think is the case is that each set of four in the line belong to a different film. So 1-4 is disposable camera film, 5-8 is what ever the Op mentioned etc but I cannot be sure as there are no separate rows. Some shots look close to normal or are in fact normal such as the street scene. Others are beyond any saving and others have strange colours which may be the Lomo Purple.

It might just be that as a couple are OK then it was simply a case of the film being bad or good and had nothing to do with the "not quite darkness" situation or the process.

It is one of those that we could speculate about for all eternity and never find an answer or so I suspect

The best thing the OP can do is process another film which he know to be fresh such as Portra and see what happens. If as I suspect it will be OK then he knows that old disposable cameras, Lomo film of possibly unknown age etc are always as the Americans say "a crap shoot"

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Shots 1-4 are apparently from a disposable camera, which usually means 400 speed film. Consequently any fog will be more pronounced there than on the 100/160 films. The examples are consistent with this. In the other images it's likely that digital color correction has "saved" some of the images, but wasn't successful on others.
I think the major contributor to the problems is the light fogging in the "undark" darkroom.

 

[AgX]

On my screen, if you click on any of the photos, that photo then reveals itself at a bigger size and the others are in a line underneath. You can then bring each one up on the screen

Thank you. Yes, that is the usual way attachments show up, but for me not in this case. Did I already say that computers are a mystery to me?

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank you. Yes, that is the usual way attachments show up, but for me not in this case. Did I already say that computers are a mystery to me?

Well maybe but you can only claim the silver medal for computers being a mystery as I claim the gold

pentaxuser

 

[AnselMortensen]

Don't Panic.
"Lomochrome Purple " has a greenish-purplish base, not the typical orange.
It's the film, not the processing.
It's one of the trendy-boutique "ooh, look at the weird colors...aren't we trendy" films out there, along with the ones with random pre-exposed color fogging.
FPP, Freestyle, et al have a selection of them.