How to cook your film

Kevin Kehler · Apr 16, 2011

Step by step to great colour:

Load a Lomo or Holga with Kodak's Ektar 100 print film.
Take a bunch of shots.
Throw the camera in the glove box.
Leave it there over a +35 C (100 F) week.
Take the camera out and put it in a backpack, put the backpack in the trunk.
Leave it in the trunk over the winter (-25C/-13F).
Take the backpack out, curse at yourself for leaving the camera in there.
Get the film developed.
Argue with the lab that they screwed up, wind up with a credit on your account with the lab.
Realize what you did but still enter some of the pictures in the local camera competition.
Argue incessantly that you did not fake it in Photoshop.

brucemuir · Apr 16, 2011

What color were those flowers originally?

It looks like maybe only one layer fried.

The blue leaves are cool for sure.

2F/2F · Apr 16, 2011

Very nice result. Not so nice knowingly stiffing the lab! You should give them their money back.

kevs · Apr 16, 2011

Kevin Kehler said:
Step by step to great colour:

Load a Lomo or Holga with Kodak's Ektar 100 print film.

Take a bunch of shots.

Throw the camera in the glove box.

Leave it there over a +35 C (100 F) week.

Take the camera out and put it in a backpack, put the backpack in the trunk.

Leave it in the trunk over the winter (-25C/-13F).

Take the backpack out, curse at yourself for leaving the camera in there.

Get the film developed.

Argue with the lab that they screwed up, wind up with a credit on your account with the lab.

Realize what you did but still enter some of the pictures in the local camera competition.

Argue incessantly that you did not fake it in Photoshop.

A week at +35c probably wouldn't harm the film, a month might, so I assume the trunk was at that sort of temperature over summer. Leaving it over winter at -25c would be positively beneficial - most pros keep film in cold storage as it lasts longer that way. There could be problems with a freeze/thaw cycle; if there's any humidity you could get condensation forming on the film that might cause problems. Perhaps a member with more C-41 experience will weigh in.

I'm guessing the foliage wasn't blue when photographed, but the background foliage is green whilst the flowers are a uniform yellow. Foreground flower stems and a few odd leaves are green. Did the parks department catch you with that can of blue spray paint? j/k

I agree with 2F, nice picture, shame you unintentionally scammed the lab. Shoot 300 rolls of Ektar and give them your business to restore your karmic balance...

Cheers,
kevs.

2F/2F · Apr 16, 2011

kevs said:
I agree with 2F, nice picture, shame you unintentionally scammed the lab.

Lab's are not stupid. They know that problem could not have been caused by them, and they know that he is the only one from that batch who had the problem. They just wanted to please the customer at all costs. It is a shame that so many businesses adhere to that philosophy in the United States IMHO.

Kevin Kehler · Apr 16, 2011

brucemuir said:
What color were those flowers originally?

The leaves were green and in the shade, which explains the blue becoming more prominent. The flowers themselves were a lighter shade of yellow, not the neon they now seem to be.

2F/2F said:
Not so nice knowingly stiffing the lab! You should give them their money back.

When I dropped off the film, I thought it had just been frozen; I forgot about the heat, so it was an honest mistake and yes, I apologized to the lab tech and repaid the processing fee on my next visit.

2F/2F · Apr 16, 2011

Kevin Kehler said:
The leaves were green and in the shade, which explains the blue becoming more prominent. The flowers themselves were a lighter shade of yellow, not the neon they now seem to be.

When I dropped off the film, I thought it had just been frozen; I forgot about the heat, so it was an honest mistake and yes, I apologized to the lab tech and repaid the processing fee on my next visit.

That is good! I take back my criticism.

Kevin Kehler · Apr 16, 2011

2F/2F said:
I guess his payback is that every time he comes in, the lab folks know up front they are dealing with a guy who actually lied straight to them just in order to scam them out of five or six bucks, rather than just accepting his mistake (which actually resulted in very cool shots). Lab's are not stupid. They know that problem could not have been caused by them, and they know that he is the only one from that batch who had the problem. They just wanted to please the customer at all costs. It is a shame that so many businesses adhere to that philosophy in the United States IMHO.

On what basis are you saying I intentionally lied to them in order to "scam" money out of them? Since you know my mind at the time, how many other films of mine have they screwed up in the past which they admitted to screwing up? Your arrogance at my intentions and attitude is amazing.

Kevin Kehler · Apr 16, 2011

2F/2F said:
That is good! I take back my criticism.

Maybe you shouldn't have laid it in the first place without asking for more facts.

2F/2F · Apr 16, 2011

Kevin Kehler said:
Maybe you shouldn't have laid it in the first place without asking for more facts.

Given the information you gave initially, you sounded quite proud of it. My response was perfectly warranted given the understanding of the event that you presented. I erased what I said so as not to offend you, but given what I knew at the time, I wholeheartedly meant it, it was not arrogant, and I am not sorry, because it was an honest and sensible reaction to what was presented. It was critical, but based on an incorrect understanding of the facts and an apparent attitude of the post. And I am not the only one who took it that way. And what part of erasing it and saying that I take it back, don't you understand? Why are you attacking me after I admitted that something I wrote did not apply on reading further statements from you, and recanted?

So, I think a good case can be made that:

1) It was quite understandable, if not, in fact, more likely than not, that the statements in your OP could have painted a picture in which you happily argued with a lab to get money that you know you should have paid them.

2) If this was the case, my response was understandable, and nowhere near as harsh as it could have been. It was not a personal attack, as you have made. There were no names called – only presumed facts repeated.

And moving on, as I have stated, it is a happy accident, and I am glad for the lab (and humanity) that I misunderstood the OP.

Kevin Kehler · Apr 16, 2011

Actually you are the only one who thinks I intentionally tried to steal something from the lab and there is nothing that even hints at pride in my actions. By the way, how is calling someone a thief not a personal attack. The part of your "apology" I don't understand is how you assume the worst in me, then blame me for your assumptions.

If I could erase the thread, I would.

2F/2F · Apr 16, 2011

Kevin Kehler said:
Actually you are the only one who thinks I intentionally tried to steal something from the lab and there is nothing that even hints at pride in my actions. By the way, how is calling someone a thief not a personal attack. The part of your "apology" I don't understand is how you assume the worst in me, then blame me for your assumptions.

If I could erase the thread, I would.

It is at least partly reasonable that I thought what I did. The tone of the post seemed irreverent and proud to me. And at least one other person read it the same way.

And I did not call you a thief. I restated what I thought your actions were. It is different.

I did not assume the worst in you. I judged what I thought were your stated actions.

And I did not blame you for my assumptions. I explained why I assumed them: the perceived tone and wording of your OP.

I am sorry you were offended, but I admitted I was wrong and took it back. Yes, I could have asked more questions first, but I don't think what I wrote was unreasonable. I don't see how my being judgmental about someone's perceived "admissions" is arrogant, insulting, or a personal attack. If law enforcement arrests someone for something they did not do, based on what was known at the time, is that arrogant or indicative of personal attack by society? No. And we have systems in place that "undo" this, once more information comes to light. Society, via the judiciary system (and sometimes via law enforcement itself, if the new information comes to light before a hearing), "takes it back," in other words. Do we insult the officers for doing their jobs? I "arrested and charged" you for something you didn't do, based on what I perceived, and I am sorry. But you should not be angry with me. You might consider being glad as a member of society that someone is willing to be scrappy about another member of society's perceived foul actions, and accepting of the actions that "undo" this (i.e. rescindment).

Your story is great, and your picture is great. I am glad you shared, and sorry I offended you and that I did not inquire further before making my statements. So, I propose that we move on from the distraction I unnecessarily inflamed.

Kevin Kehler · Apr 16, 2011

2F/2F said:
Your story is great, and your picture is great. So, I propose that we move on from the distraction I unnecessarily inflamed.

Thanks for the comments on the picture, agreed to moving on.

mikecnichols · Apr 16, 2011

2F/2F said:
Lab's are not stupid. They know that problem could not have been caused by them, and they know that he is the only one from that batch who had the problem. They just wanted to please the customer at all costs. It is a shame that so many businesses adhere to that philosophy in the United States IMHO.

Customer service? Most businesses could not survive without customer service.

Worker 11811 · Apr 16, 2011

2F/2F said:
Very nice result. Not so nice knowingly stiffing the lab! You should give them their money back.

No, just make sure you spend more money there.

Jeff Kubach · Apr 17, 2011

Whatever happen, the picture looks cool!

Jeff

2F/2F · Apr 17, 2011

mikecnichols said:
Customer service? Most businesses could not survive without customer service.

The problem IMO is the opinion that giving the customer exactly what they want even if they are wrong is flawed, and does not equal "customer service" in my book. More like "customer enabling" and self punishment. And it is a very U.S. business characteristic. But, that is my own opinion. We'll have to just disagree.

threemilesfinal · Apr 17, 2011

Very interesting results!

Rick A · Apr 17, 2011

I re-read the OP's original post, and nowhere does he come off looking a bragard for his actions. In fact, #10 clearly says "realizing what I'd done" tells me he did not purposely defraud the lab. 2F/2F should offer up a genuine apology for his assumption, and get on with life.

BTW-- I love the photo. Maybe we should have a sticky thread for mistakes that worked to the good or astounding.

2F/2F · Apr 17, 2011

Rick A said:
I re-read the OP's original post, and nowhere does he come off looking a bragard for his actions. In fact, #10 clearly says "realizing what I'd done" tells me he did not purposely defraud the lab. 2F/2F should offer up a genuine apology for his assumption, and get on with life.

BTW-- I love the photo. Maybe we should have a sticky thread for mistakes that worked to the good or astounding.

#10 came after the OP, and my post. And several people have read the OP the same way I did. Big deal. Different people read things differently. Move on, quit bringing up a subject that the OP and I already settled.

Rick A · Apr 17, 2011

Feeling a bit testy today arent we.

2F/2F · Apr 17, 2011

I wonder if we could replicate this effect by somehow heating Ektar in a controlled manner for a period of time. Something that will be hot enough to screw up the color this way, but not enough to damage the base. Are there any other examples from the roll?

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 17, 2011

This is a thrilling, beautiful shot very much like the standard result from a pinhole camera.
The compositional axis leading to the front makes this for me and the shallow focus like that to narrow the 'peg' of visual focii in tilt-shift movements, is great stuff. How about you cast aside your ill-feeling toward the lab, kiss and make up, then frame this image for perpetuity?

Kevin Kehler · Apr 18, 2011

These are couple other shots off the roll, none as overly prevalent in colour shifts as the first one. The Corvette is actually a candy apple red in real life; I played a lot in Photoshop to make my daughters skin not so red (just about lobster red in the negative); the shadows on the fire hydrant are purple (not blue/black) and the grass has a lot of chromatic aberrations.

2F/2F, I would love to be able to control the process or repeat it in some way. I remember reading about photographers in the 1970's-1980's who found their film too red when really fresh so they would "cook" the film in the oven at a low temperature to have the colour become more normal. There is a resemblance to cross-processing but not the same. How much the Lomo played into it is also up for grabs.

My mom has the flower shot framed in her house, I haven't hear back from the photo competition yet but I also am not holding my breath. I think I might put it as the background on my computer but maybe I need to put hang it on the wall.

How to cook your film

Kevin Kehler

Attachments

brucemuir

2F/2F

kevs

2F/2F

Kevin Kehler

2F/2F

Kevin Kehler

Kevin Kehler

2F/2F

Kevin Kehler

2F/2F

Kevin Kehler

mikecnichols

Worker 11811

Jeff Kubach

2F/2F

threemilesfinal

Rick A

2F/2F

Rick A

2F/2F

Poisson Du Jour

Kevin Kehler

Attachments

How to cook your film

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency