Portra 160NC green cast after processing

[EdColorado]

I'm new to home color processing and have run into a question looking for an answer.

I'm using a Unicolor kit and processed three rolls of 35mm in my Patterson tank this afternoon. 2 rolls are Ektar, and the third is an older roll of Portra 160NC. The two Ektar rolls look great but the Portra has a dark sort of muddy green cast in the film base. Its not clear (orangeish) like the Ektar and all the other C41 I've seen. As these were all processed together I'm at a loss as to what went wrong with the Portra. I'm figuring something other than processing issues but the film has been frozen in storage and this just doesn't look like expired film. Any ideas? This is the first roll of Portra I've processed, all the Ektar I've done so far has been fine.

Thanks for any insight,

 

[chassis]

Can you post a cell phone photo of the film base? Sounds like a processing issue.

 

[EdColorado]

Can you post a cell phone photo of the film base? Sounds like a processing issue.

Here ya go. I'm thinking processing too but the other two rolls processed with this one are fine. Leaves me a little confused.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Looks like fog. It might be a keeping problem.

PE

 

[EdColorado]

Does anyone think this could have been an environmental issue? I'm talking exposure to too much heat while in the camera? This roll was in cold storage for quite a while after being shot. It was basically forgotten in the freezer buried under a bunch of unexposed film. Looking at it now, it looks to have been in two different cameras. The first part of the roll was shot when I was working in North Dakota so I know that would have been in my Olympus XA which I commonly kept in my pickup. The second part was shot at a later time, I think in my Rollei 35S. The thing is, that XA would live in the center console of my truck and would have been exposed to a bit of heat at times. Could this be heat damage?

 

[EdColorado]

Looks like fog. It might be a keeping problem.

PE

Hmm. It was I think always stored in the freezer, except when in the camera, but does heat look like fog? Looking at whats on this roll it was certainly in the camera a long time and not always under the best of conditions.

 

[MattKing]

Does anyone think this could have been an environmental issue? I'm talking exposure to too much heat while in the camera? This roll was in cold storage for quite a while after being shot. It was basically forgotten in the freezer buried under a bunch of unexposed film. Looking at it now, it looks to have been in two different cameras. The first part of the roll was shot when I was working in North Dakota so I know that would have been in my Olympus XA which I commonly kept in my pickup. The second part was shot at a later time, I think in my Rollei 35S. The thing is, that XA would live in the center console of my truck and would have been exposed to a bit of heat at times. Could this be heat damage?

Sorry, I have to chuckle.
"It has been in heat, it has been in cold, it has been in multiple cameras, it has been in multiple vehicles, it was exposed a long time ago, it has been stuck behind stuff in the freezer.
There must be something wrong with the film or processing!"
This reminds me of my time working in retail, and the stories my Dad used to tell about customers and film.
I understand the desire (hope?) that the film be robust enough to withstand all, especially considering the many examples where it has been true, but sometimes film will suffer.
It looks like heat fog to me. It may still give usable if not great results.

 

[EdColorado]

That's OK Matt, I'm laughing too! Trust me, I take full responsibility here. Seeing what I shot and knowing how that film was treated, I'm not surprised. Its the first time I think though that I've ever had any heat damaged film. If that's what heat fog looks like then that's fine, I can live with it. I remember thinking back then, when that XA was living in my truck, that I wasn't doing that roll of film any favors. Looking close at it I think it will scan OK. Most of whats on the roll isn't a big deal but a couple shots of my daughter and mother together will deserve some scanner time. I'll have some weird color shifts but I think it will be fixable.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is either heat fog or red safelight fog.

PE

 

[CatLABS]

Bleach in the developer.

 

[Berri]

I'm curious, did you try to print it?

 

[EdColorado]

I'm curious, did you try to print it?

I don't have a wet darkroom so no, no printing. I have done some quick scanning however. Everything has a green cast but with a little effort I should be able to get something at least usable.

This is a straight scan. Scanner set to auto expose and adjust. Please excuse the dirt and dust, I did nothing to prep this film prior to scanning.

Roosevelt Nat. Park in South Dakota.

 

[chassis]

Looks nice to me!

 

[Berri]

Roosevelt Nat. Park in South Dakota.

I'd love to see that place! looks beautiful!
the castlooks more Cyan than green to me, if I was to print it from there I would subtract some yellow and a bit more magenta, but this negative would probably print by dialing cyan and magenta. Nice work tho.

 

[pentaxuser]

Like Berri, it looks cyan to me as well. The clue is the sky but you are right the negatives do have a distinct greenish look.

pentaxuser

 

[EdColorado]

This is getting to an area I really don't know. I've never printed color, and the digital manipulation thing is new to me too. Not sure how to put it, but it seems I don't have any experience in "seeing colors". I have a real hard time looking at the shots and deciding what needs to be done, I just know they need something. Frustrating but just something to learn!

I'll fool with them some more keeping cyan in mind. Now I just have to learn this PS thing to figure out how to fix them...

Thanks for the input, much appreciated!

Oh, I just noticed I seem to have had a brain fart, and said that Theodore Roosevelt Nat. Park was in South Dakota. Nope, that would be North Dakota. This picture was taken in the north section which is along Hwy 85 just a bit south of Watford City. Lovely place and usually pretty devoid of people, stop by if your ever in the area.

 

[Berri]

in PS you could use image->regulations->colour balance. This'll open a window where you see the primary colours fiddle a little bit with the sliders untill you are happy with it. In the darkroom we basically do the same but in reverse, sice we print from negative!

Try sliding it a bit towards yellow and a bit more towords magenta, I'm sure this'll make a bettere image!

 

[chassis]

I played around with this image using auto white balance, and did some color tweaking with curves. Looks pretty good to my eye. The negatives are usable in my view.

 

[EdColorado]

in PS you could use image->regulations->colour balance. This'll open a window where you see the primary colours fiddle a little bit with the sliders untill you are happy with it. In the darkroom we basically do the same but in reverse, sice we print from negative!

Try sliding it a bit towards yellow and a bit more towords magenta, I'm sure this'll make a bettere image!

I played around with this image using auto white balance, and did some color tweaking with curves. Looks pretty good to my eye. The negatives are usable in my view.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the input. Hopefully I'll have a chance to play with this some later today. From what I've been able to do so far myself, I agree that these will be usable.

 

[MattKing]

If you have negatives that have an overall colour cast, when you scan them, the scanning software will most likely try compensate for the cast.
An overly green negative will result in an overly magenta positive. So the scanning software compensates by reducing the magenta, leaving a "greener" result.
The inverted scan looks to be "off" by a mixture of too much green and too much green+blue=cyan. So the added cast on the film is probably a mixture of both.
Speaking in terms of the controls available in photo editing software, you get rid of cyan by adding red, and you get rid of green by adding magenta (red+blue).
EDIT: I did some playing around with your image in my software. The problem is complicated by the fact that you are also dealing some flare or a light leak in the foreground.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Note the lighter appearance of the bottom of the image and the dark streak down the right.

This indicates some sort of severe process error and/or uneven fog due to light or keeping.

PE

 

[EdColorado]

EDIT: I did some playing around with your image in my software. The problem is complicated by the fact that you are also dealing some flare or a light leak in the foreground.

I noticed that light leak too, its more or less consistent across the roll. It confuses me though, I'm pretty sure this roll was in two different cameras. The shot I attached above was shot in an Olympus XA, but I'm pretty sure the 2nd half of the roll was shot in my Rollei 35S. Those frames however show some leakage too. I don't know, perhaps my memory is faulty...

Thanks for the further tips Matt, much appreciated!

 

[EdColorado]

Note the lighter appearance of the bottom of the image and the dark streak down the right.

This indicates some sort of severe process error and/or uneven fog due to light or keeping.

PE

What kind of process errors would do this PE? Note my reply above and my confusion about the effect being a light leak on a roll that was shot in two different cameras.

I'm very new to color processing, and while I try very hard to keep temps and agitation consistent, I wouldn't doubt an issue.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, a streak along the length of the film indicates a solution quantity issue or an agitation issue or edge fog.

Along the width indicates a camera issue or a general lab fog problem.

This is a guess without seeing the entire roll and is opinion at this time.

PE

 

[CatLABS]

What kind of process errors would do this

Bleach in the developer.