Red and green lines/double image in Walgreens prints (Fujicolor C200)

[jphwx7]

Just got some prints from a roll of some cheap Walgreens store brand film (I have been told this is rebranded Fujicolor C200) that I shot awhile ago and I'm seeing some obnoxious red and green lines / "double images" where darker elements within the photo meet lighter ones. These red and green lines appear only at areas of sharp contrast between darker and lighter lines/shapes. They become much more noticeable when the prints are scanned. Is this an artifact associated with cheap film, bad processing, or my inexpensive printer/scanner?

An example (please excuse the dust and debris):

 

[ozphoto]

Have a look at your negatives under a loupe (a 50mm lens will work as well) - if it's to do with the film, you'll see the opposite colours in the exact areas on the neg, if not, and they don't appear on a print - it's a scanner problem.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG!

It looks to me like Walgrens has a "stability" problem somewhere in a tri-colour process.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

It sounds to me like you are seeing this in the prints that you got from them, right? If so, then I suspect it is their scanner. You could be exacerbating it with your scanning, perhaps through oversharpening, but if it is on their prints it didn't originate on your scanner. I would be rather surprised to see something like this from the film.

 

[dehk]

You forgot your 3D glasses.

 

[jphwx7]

You forgot your 3D glasses.

Heh, that occured to me right after I posted this.

Can anyone reccommend me an inexpensive place to get Fuji Superia developed? I thought I could get away with cheap film/processing for awhile while I transition to color, and I was prepared for some minor imperfection, but until i get my hands on the negatives (in transit) I can't really use these prints.

EDIT: I used the lens I took these with (25-70mm) to inspect the prints, and the problem is just as prevalent as it appears on the computer with the benefit of enlargement. I don't know if I'll be able to check the negatives without something more powerful as the lines are quite small - even on the prints. These lines also seem to "bleed out" in an ink-like pattern near very bright lights or colorful objects, so I'm thinking it's Walgreens' print processing that's at fault here.

Thanks to all for the quick and helpful responses.

 

[domaz]

This could happen if you lens got knocked out of alignment. It's very similar to chromatic aberration.

 

[Bob-D659]

Could be the laser head in their printer is out of collimation.

 

[holmburgers]

Where do you live? The best thing to do is get 'develop-only' from Walgreens, Target, CVS, whatever and wherever, and then do the scanning yourself. That's not an option for some people, and I was lucky enough to have a great photo lab in town that did beautiful scans, but alas, they closed. Now I scan on an Epson 4990.... but let's not get into scanning... Maybe you've got a lab nearby??

 

[jphwx7]

This could happen if you lens got knocked out of alignment. It's very similar to chromatic aberration.

This is an extremely alarming prospect. This was the first roll I took after disassembling the lens and repairing a loose spring on the aperture mechanism. Any way to check this w/o wasting another roll of film? Would the aberration appear in the viewfinder? I plan to check the negatives as soon as I can.

EDIT: I'm becoming quite concerned about how closely my photos resemble the examples of CA that I'm seeing online (red line on one side, green on the other etc.). I would think that the aspherical lens element in the lens I'm using (Nikkor 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5) would produce better results with regard to chromatic aberration than what I'm seeing here. I suppose I could have screwed something up when conducting my amateur lens repair, though.

Also, the issue is at least as prevalent at the center of these images as it is on the edge of the frame. This would conflict with the information I'm seeing on chromatic aberration, which, as I'm told, is normally almost non-existant tat the center of the frame. I've been checking some older negatives taken with this camera before I did the repair using similarly cheap Kodak film and I've yet to encounter any examples of chromatic aberration. It also does not appear on the older prints, which I had developed at a different Walgreens.

 

[holmburgers]

The aberration should appear in the viewfinder, but of course it'll be small. Hmm, disasembling the lens doesn't sound promising though....

What kind of lens/camera is it?

 

[jphwx7]

Nikon F100 shot through a Nikkor 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5.

Ah, crap. I've noticed that the rear lens element (the part that slides in and out with adjustment the zoom ring) is a little "loose" on the wide end of the zoom and it jiggles a bit inside the lens. Since I was shooting these inside the cramped quarters of a semi-abandoned building, all of the photos that I took on the problem roll were at or around the wide end - 28mm. Could the loose lens element be causing this? If so, this may just be a matter of tightening some screws.

 

[Bob-D659]

Did you get a CD of the scans which were used to make the prints? If it's the lens, then the problem would also be on the scans of the negatives.

 

[jphwx7]

Did you get a CD of the scans which were used to make the prints? If it's the lens, then the problem would also be on the scans of the negatives.

Good point, but unfortunately I was going for the cheapest workable develop/print solution, so I opted out on the CD.

I guess the ultimate question here is whether or not the chromatic aberration could be caused by a mistake or two in my disassembling/reassembling of the lens and/or a loose rear lens element (not sure if that's the correct terminology)...

 

[Q.G.]

The lines are too sharp to be chromatic aberration. The colour isn't quite what you see in chromatic aberration either (though that's hard to judge through a computer image).
I wouldn't think the lens is at fault.

 

[erikg]

It could be something you did, sorry to say, but if you have some way to print or scan your negs yourself that would be very helpful. Then you would know if it is a lens issue or just poor printing on their side. All machine prints these days are from scans so there are two ways things can go wrong on that end.

 

[dehk]

Can anyone reccommend me an inexpensive place to get Fuji Superia developed? I thought I could get away with cheap film/processing for awhile while I transition to color,

You all are gonna laugh at my response, but i always say...

"Bring your film to where they don't develop film and sell tampon at the same time"

 

[jphwx7]

The lines are too sharp to be chromatic aberration. The colour isn't quite what you see in chromatic aberration either (though that's hard to judge through a computer image).
I wouldn't think the lens is at fault.

I sincerely hope you're right. I'll post a couple more examples soon.

It could be something you did, sorry to say, but if you have some way to print or scan your negs yourself that would be very helpful. Then you would know if it is a lens issue or just poor printing on their side. All machine prints these days are from scans so there are two ways things can go wrong on that end.

Trust me, I would give anything for the negatives right now. They're still in Chicago where I shot the roll and had it developed. I'm at college in Missouri and I had a friend send me these after a short visit up there - unfortunately he forgot to drop the negs in the envelope. I'll check them when I return in a week but until then there's really no way for me to get my hands on 'em. I have another roll shot that I could have developed at an actual photo shop in town, but it's B&W, so the results probably would not be very conclusive.

 

[jphwx7]

Here are more examples as promised:

The original, for scale:

I don't exactly have EXIF data but I can tell you that all of these were taken w/ my Nikon F100 through a Nikkor 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 at around f/3.5 in about 1/40 or 1/60. The film, again, was Fujicolor C200.

 

[erikg]

Tough to tell, too bad about the negs. The fringing does seem sharp, but there is sharpening that is applied both in scanning and in printing so it's hard to judge. The B&W still could tell you something, if it is the lens it would show as softness, something like a "glow" that true soft focus lenses give. If nothing else, you would have some negs to look at, so you can eliminate any digital effects. Eliminating digital, what apug is all about.

 

[dehk]

This is an extremely alarming prospect. This was the first roll I took after disassembling the lens and repairing a loose spring on the aperture mechanism. Any way to check this w/o wasting another roll of film? Would the aberration appear in the viewfinder? I plan to check the negatives as soon as I can.

Alright for a real reply this time. You said you repaired a loose spring on the aperture mechanism. Let me guess that would be the spring at the mount (back of the lens), so you didn't really have to disassemble the whole thing (i am still guessing), if that's the case it shouldn't be knock out of alignment. And another thing, those type of zoom nikkor, from my experience, if you tear everything out of it, everything can pretty much go back in ONE way, or that thing wouldn't move at all, so chances of it being out of alignment is slim. I can't tell you what it is because I do not do color negs much. But what I can tell you is to borrow a DSLR and see if the problem exist, if it does, its the lens for sure. One last question, your images are not blurry and they are in focus where you want them to be correct?

 

[photoncatcher]

Were these optical prints from you film negatives, or did the simply process the film to do digital prints from scans? If it was the latter, run do not walk away from that place. I find it annoying, at least, that they wouldn't just make regular prints from your negs. Also pretty disheartening if that is the state of the photo finishing industry. I rarely shoot color film, but recently I have been asked to do some for my day job. I took the film to a local CVS, and got back pretty nice 4x6 prints from my negs. If they are digital prints, there is definately an allignment problem some where.

 

[dehk]

If it was the latter, run do not walk away from that place.

I like your style.

 

[jphwx7]

I think I'll have the B&W developed then. Here's one more crop from an outside shot. The cement between the bricks pictured here is not particularly bright in person, but there is consistent fringing on each brick. This would also tend to conflict with what I've heard about CA.

Once again, the original for scale and sharpness comparison:

 

[jphwx7]

Alright for a real reply this time. You said you repaired a loose spring on the aperture mechanism. Let me guess that would be the spring at the mount (back of the lens), so you didn't really have to disassemble the whole thing (i am still guessing), if that's the case it shouldn't be knock out of alignment. And another thing, those type of zoom nikkor, from my experience, if you tear everything out of it, everything can pretty much go back in ONE way, or that thing wouldn't move at all, so chances of it being out of alignment is slim. I can't tell you what it is because I do not do color negs much. But what I can tell you is to borrow a DSLR and see if the problem exist, if it does, its the lens for sure. One last question, your images are not blurry and they are in focus where you want them to be correct?

The spring in question wasn't on the mount but rather on the aperture mechanism itself (where the blades are). I did in fact have to remove the mount down to the center ring around the rear lens element that has the CPU contacts on it. From there i was able to reposition the spring at the center of the lens that pulls the aperture lever on the mount. Borrowing a DSLR and testing the lens would be a great idea; I'll try to get my hands on one. As for the focusing, I haven't worked much with this camera, lens, or film before, but I consider the results satisfactory. Check out the two original images that I posted for reference to see for yourself.

Were these optical prints from you film negatives, or did the simply process the film to do digital prints from scans? If it was the latter, run do not walk away from that place. I find it annoying, at least, that they wouldn't just make regular prints from your negs. Also pretty disheartening if that is the state of the photo finishing industry. I rarely shoot color film, but recently I have been asked to do some for my day job. I took the film to a local CVS, and got back pretty nice 4x6 prints from my negs. If they are digital prints, there is definately an allignment problem some where.

I wouldn't venture to qualify Walgreens as an important part of the photo finishing industry, but I'm relatively sure they printed these from scans. Either way I know not to order prints from Walgreens next time...