Film ruined - Fujifilm says light fogging

<p>Hey guys,<br>

<br />I recently had 2 rolls of film developed through Wal-Mart's send-out service. Fujifilm included the following note to me:<br /><br />FILM TROUBLESHOOTING:<br />LIGHT FOGGED FILM<br />Light can fog film in so many ways that it is not possible to show all the examples. Most streaks, reddish spots, or blobs are caused by light fog.<br />Light can also cause off color pictures, usually reddish in color, if the entire negative has been fogged.<br /><br />CAUSES:<br />1. Opening the back of the camera with the film loaded.<br />2. Damaged cassette caused by dropping or rough handling.<br />3. Pulling film out of a 35mm cassette.<br />4. Loading camera in direct sunlight.<br />5. X-rays or heat can cause a similar problem.<br /><br />1 and 4 are not options, as I took these photos on a disposable camera. I used up all my exposures within a day or two, and I know my film wasn't dropped or exposed to heat after purchase.<br /><br />I googled light fogging and the wikipedia page says that it is most often caused by the film being processed with expired chemicals. It also said that it could be caused by the wrong chemicals being used, insufficient washing, etc. E.g., PROCESSING errors.<br /><br />The vast majority of the photos that have this damage to them are either completely or almost completely blank, except for that weird coloring in the corners and on the bottom of the image and weird dots. Also, a LOT of grain. A few have an image, but the color values are WAY off. <br /><br />I am extremely suspicious that this was a processing mistake for the following reasons:<br />1) I never abused my film.<br />2) On my contact sheets, most of the images look like this, but the ones that did turn out are not all together, but instead strewn about randomly.<br />3) They also scratched at least two frames.<br />4) My negatives were not returned to me.<br /><br />Any ideas as to what caused this? My boyfriend wants to raise hell at Wal-Mart for this, and I want to make sure it's a processing error before doing so.<br>

<br>

Here are examples (links, I can't seem to add photos to the post):<br>

<a href="http://i49.tinypic.com/2eecsjm.jpg">EXAMPLE 1</a> - the "light fogging", plus a scratch. Not to mention the grain.<br>

<a href="http://i46.tinypic.com/spayp0.jpg">EXAMPLE 2</a> - what most of my pictures look like. The "light fogging", the weird black dots and lack of image. Most of my photos on both rolls look exactly like this. Doesn't matter what I was taking a picture of.<br>

<a href="http://i50.tinypic.com/nwldon.jpg">EXAMPLE 3</a> - more "light fogging", another (worse) scratch.<br>

<a href="http://i46.tinypic.com/m8fl01.jpg">EXAMPLE 4</a> - a picture that "turned out", but has "light fogging" and weird colors.<br>

<a href="http://i47.tinypic.com/1dy2jc.jpg">EXAMPLE 5</a> - a picture that turned out perfectly fine from one of the same rolls.</p>

<p>It's easy to determine that if the film was fogged. Now when and how. All the reasons you listed related to photographer error. The lab could be at fault too. If you are 100% sure that it was not your fault then the film was fogged when they remove the film from the disposable camera for processing.</p>

<p>another questiomn<br>

did wal mart send out return the negatives ?<br>

I was told that only prints and possible a scan would be returned.<br>

this was the cause of may posts here several months ago<br>

" no negatives returned"<br>

when I put a roll thru my canon or pentax<br>

I want the negatives back</p>

<p>Walter - as I mentioned in my original post, I did NOT get back my negatives. I didn't know this when I sent it out, but I'm not too concerned about it since it was only disposable camera film, anyway.</p>

<p>It looks like you don't understand that disposable cameras are fixed-exposure, and can only make decently-exposed negatives outdoors in daylight. All your bad shots are indoors, and obviously taken without flash.<br>

These cameras depend on the film in them to respond somewhat graciously to under- or over-exposure. But you've gone beyond the limits on under-exposure.<br>

Once you do that, you're working in the domain where the film's behavior is much more sensitive to poor treatment. Film is not only sensitive to light, it can also be "exposed" by heat. The camera may have been stored someplace hot before you bought it. Or you may have left it in a car in the sun. Also, getting the camera cold, and then bringing it someplace humid enough for water to condense on it can cause water spots on the film.<br>

Also, disposable cameras are cheap. Not out of the realm of possibility to get one with a light leak. Although I don't see the colors typical of a light leak on C-41 negative film (bright orange flames).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi, I concur with John. The bad shots look, to me, as though they were EXTREMELY underexposed (this would be from your end). But you would really need the negatives to be certain about this.</p>

<p>The odd look, with all the grain, could be the result of scanning film that barely has any image registered, then drastically amplifying it to get some sort of image.</p>

<p>More than likely, the inspector who supplied the "explanation," is not an expert - rather they are just following instructions as best they can. So it is possible that they are completely wrong (I think they are).</p>

 

<p>I know many of my photos are underexposed. I haven't used a disposable camera since I was a child, and completely forgot that "low light" for them is anything indoors, regardless of whether the lights are on.</p>

<p>But what does the underexposure have to do with the "light fogging" stuff? I'm asking about the red and white parabola at the bottom of all my photos. Underexposure, as far as I know, doesn't cause that.</p>

<p>As I mentioned, I used both cameras within a couple of days. They were NOT left in the car, or anywhere else. They were with me at all times, and so I'm sure that they weren't exposed to any damage after I purchased them. If the film or camera was damaged BEFORE I bought it, then that is Wal-Mart's fault, as they sold me defective cameras. In which case, I deserve a refund for the price of the cameras, not the processing.</p>

<p>a suggestion: this may hoorify many real camera people<br>

Is to look for and purchase a plastic point n shoot of severa;l.<br>

But a auto focusing model . hopefully one that used aa batteries.<br>

buy one from Nikon pentax canon or olympus.<br>

I I have a very small nikon with a 28mm lens<br>

and an olympus with a smooth design where the cover spides over the lens so<br>

it slides in a pocket<br>

The canon autoboy has zoom flash and a settings dial. <br>

these $50-75 cameras now sell for $5.00.<br>

hopefully it will have 4 dx contacts not just two.<br>

drug store brand film ( fuji) works well.</p>

<p>The Olympus Stylus Epic is a wonderful P&S 35mm camera that is pocketable, has a sharp f2.8 lens, and is weather resistant. Should be cheap on the used market.<br>

Getting labs to admit mistakes is difficult. I once had two rolls of C41 Fuji film processed at a nearby Wal Mart and both sets of prints had faint horizontal lines over the images. The lab tech claimed it was my camera but when I showed him the two rolls were shot in different cameras he changed his tune and reprinted my photos properly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But what does the underexposure have to do with the "light fogging" stuff? I'm asking about the red and white parabola at the bottom of all my photos. Underexposure, as far as I know, doesn't cause that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a bit skeptical that it was even fogged. Rather, I suspect that the negatives were virtually blank, and the "defects" are a result of extreme amplification of the scanned images. There may have been a slight (virtually unnoticeable) amount of flare from a lamp, and this was amplified to where it looks like fog. Again, I'm just guessing - with no negatives, it's hard to be certain.</p>

<p>Bill - There weren't any lamps, though. Almost all of the ruined pictures were taken in overhead lighting.</p>

<p>Also, as you can see in EXAMPLE 4, some that were not underexposed still have the defects.</p>

<p>Hi, I think that even Example 4 is still drastically underexposed. I'm saying this because the very strong grain pattern looks like extreme amplication of a scanner image. I agree that there is some flare/fog artifact on the bottom; it might even be flare from the scanner. I just think that it would have been insignificant without the amplification (I doubt you could see it by eye if you had the negs.) Again, I'm guessing.</p>

<p>Even example 4 looks seriously under-exposed to me--just not as massively, incredibly, way-under-exposed as examples 1 through 3. When you see that much graininess (especially in the darker areas of the image), serious under-exposure is by far the most likely cause. Anyway, what you <em>may</em> be seeing in #4 (semi-informed speculation alert!) is the effect of a compact fluorescent in a fixture casting a patterned greenish light, combined with some attempt to counter-act the green cast by adjusting the color balance toward magenta, making the areas nearer the edges (especially left and right) look magenta.</p>

<p>I don't see any clear evidence of fogged film / light leaks in any of the examples, and my guess is that some marginally-trained technician either guessed at the cause of the poor quality or checked the box that seemed closest when none seemed really correct.</p>

<p>See how in each frame with a problem, the problem has a certain pattern to it - it's circular and centered a bit high on the frame. What you're seeing, I think, is flaws in the lens - it is after all a disposable plastic lens - that are amplified by the extreme amount of manipulation that the automated scanning computer did to try to retrieve a usable image from the underexposed negative. </p>

<p>This is not a processing problem at all.</p>

<p>Also, I think it's BS that they don't give your negs back. </p>

<p>Pictures 1-4 are grossly underexposed. Pic 5 is well exposed hence that picture came out. I suggest you get a disposable camera with a flash next time for indoor shots.</p>