|
|
| Author |
Message |
jep
|
|
developed pictures from 35 mm camera are blue
| 
May 11 21:21 UTC 2009 |
All of the pictures developed from my mother's 35 mm camera are blue in
color. Why would that happen?
Thanks!
|
| 32 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 1 of 32:
|
May 11 23:10 UTC 2009 |
Do they have anything in common, like all indoors, or all in sunshine?
Another thought is it could be that some automatic "adjustment" feature
was activated accidentally. Have you checked the camera to see if any of
the settings are odd?
|
slynne
|
|
response 2 of 32:
|
May 11 23:47 UTC 2009 |
Was the film old?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 3 of 32:
|
May 12 00:50 UTC 2009 |
(is any film new these days? :)
|
durrett
|
|
response 4 of 32:
|
May 12 02:10 UTC 2009 |
That was my thought that the film might be old, and yes you can still
buy 35 mm film. Anyway it can be fixed by either yourself with a good
photo program or at a photo processing place.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 32:
|
May 12 06:22 UTC 2009 |
Was the film balanced for tungsten (incandescent) lighting? This would
yield bluish photographs if used outdoors.
|
jep
|
|
response 6 of 32:
|
May 12 16:03 UTC 2009 |
Mom tried developing pictures from two different rolls of film, and
both had about the same amount of blue. It looks like the pictures are
being viewed on a monitor which is going bad. I tried scanning in some
of the pictures and fixing them with a photo editor but wasn't able to
get them looking very good.
Most of the pictures I saw were taken outdoors, in November. She
didn't use the camera again until this weekend past, and said the
pictures were blue again. I haven't seen them yet.
I haven't checked out the camera much. I don't know much about film
cameras. I'll look it over to see if there are any settings which
might be whacky. What settings should I look for?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 32:
|
May 12 18:30 UTC 2009 |
What was the film that was used? (It would be unusual to have used an indoor
color film as the usual choice is to use an outdoor film with a blue filter
for indoor photography).
|
jep
|
|
response 8 of 32:
|
May 12 18:50 UTC 2009 |
I am sure she used standard 35 mm film, or whatever she believed was
that.
|
bru
|
|
response 9 of 32:
|
May 12 18:56 UTC 2009 |
therea re a lot of different 35mm films jep. ASA 400 is more sensetive to
light than ASA 200.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 32:
|
May 12 19:15 UTC 2009 |
I'm wondering about the *color balance* of the film. ASA is just speed.
If she had just picked a film off the rack without knowing about color
balance and such she might have bought an indoor (tungsten) film. So,
what was the film code number?
|
jep
|
|
response 11 of 32:
|
May 12 19:21 UTC 2009 |
I'll ask.
|
krj
|
|
response 12 of 32:
|
May 13 01:31 UTC 2009 |
I assume that info would be "printed" in the negative frames, though
my memory here is hazy, as I have done little 35 mm photography in
the last decade and I never processed my own color film.
|
tsty
|
|
response 13 of 32:
|
May 13 02:24 UTC 2009 |
if these are prints, the printing color balance is way off ... they
neeed to bre reprinted ... which is usually done wen a roll comes
out that way ... (commercial experieerence spseakig .. film lab)
it they are slides ... they mya have devleoped ektachrom in a kodachrome
process ... or the revese ... (i forget which .. long time ago).
soemtimes, with slides , the ektachrome could have bbeen exposed with
the wroing filter over the lens ... or using a indoor film outdoors.
outdoors has *tons* more blue in the light source. partof what rcurl
said in #5.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 14 of 32:
|
May 13 13:36 UTC 2009 |
Which is why I wonder if he used a digital camera accidentally set for
"indoor."
|
tsty
|
|
response 15 of 32:
|
May 13 15:23 UTC 2009 |
ummm, not with .............. film .....
|
jep
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
May 13 19:18 UTC 2009 |
It's a film camera, not a digital camera.
My mother doesn't know what kind of film she was using.
|
keesan
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
May 13 19:23 UTC 2009 |
Photos exposed to light for a long time turn blue - first the yellow then the
red fades. Maybe the camera is leaky and light also affects the film?
|
tsty
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
May 14 01:35 UTC 2009 |
taht woujld abe arond the edges fo the frame, not he full frame and
at he head and tail of the stirp of film.
jep - are these pics prints or sildes?
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
May 14 13:07 UTC 2009 |
They are prints.
|
tsty
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
May 16 05:44 UTC 2009 |
then they can be reprinted wiht the correct color correctoin ... adn if
it's not too alte, the repriting should be no-charge - the lab goofed bigtime.
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 32:
|
May 16 17:59 UTC 2009 |
The photo labs failed two different times, months apart, getting the
same results both times? That's hard to believe. I think my mother's
camera is defective. I was hoping to find a way to fix it.
I'll probably be at her house next weekend and so I will go through
this item then to check out any suggestions.
|
krj
|
|
response 22 of 32:
|
May 17 16:02 UTC 2009 |
At this point I would buy a short fresh roll of film (12 exp. or so).
Be sure you buy a roll marked for outdoor use.
Take a bunch of meaningless photos of kids, pets, scenery, at
an inconsequential time. After processing, this new roll
would provide strong evidence of whether the
problem was in something that happened to those two rolls of film
which came out blue (were they from a common source? were they
old? John's mom probably doesn't know) or if the camera is
somehow messed up.
But "blue" seems like a chemical error relating to the film, either in
its manufacturing, storage or processing. A 35 mm camera doesn't know
about color. Camera errors would be things like light leaks, blur,
bad focus, chronic over- or under-exposure. Color should be in the
realm of film chemistry. (Unless there's a filter on the lens...)
If the two rolls came out of the same retail package of film, or
were bought at the same time, there could have been a screwup
at the film factory.
Next step: Get your mom a digital camera. :-)
I miss photography sometimes.
|
jep
|
|
response 23 of 32:
|
May 17 16:53 UTC 2009 |
Mom bought a digital camera for my niece's graduation, then took the SD
card to RiteAid to have them print pictures for her. Heh. I'll show
her how to print her own. Maybe she will come to like that better.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 32:
|
May 17 20:17 UTC 2009 |
We don't print our own because we don't print many. Printing pictures will
probably largely go the way of newspapers - you can always bring them up on
a computer - or a digital picture frame (we had a travel series showing
continually on a digital frame - but it failed after a couple of months. The
store did honor the warranty and sent a new one, but we are not longer running
the loop on it).
|