Horrible first results with color neg film

Yesterday, I asked a question about changing

<p>

film when the entire roll isn't exposed. The

<p>

suggestions worked well.

<p>

However...

<p>

The reason I wanted to do it - using color

<p>

film at a party - ended in tears. I got my

<p>

film back from the pro lab I used and it's

<p>

horrible! It's Kodak Supra 400 processed

<p>

normally. The light wasn't great at the

<p>

restaurant but it wasn't terrible either -

<p>

1/60 at f2.8, perhaps. I was using the

<p>

Summilux 35.

<p>

I scanned the negatives using a Kodak RFS

<p>

3600. I didn't get prints made. The scanner is

<p>

fairly new, so I thought it might be an issue

<p>

of calibration, especially as this is the

<p>

first color negative film I've scanned.

<p>

However, I then scanned some Supra I took in

<p>

daylight using an F100 and the results are

<p>

fine.

<p>

I would really appreciate any suggestions you

<p>

might have on this issue.

<p>

Here's the bad:

<p>

http://www.dingoboy.com/bad.jpg

<p>

Here's the good from the F100:

<p>

http://www.dingoboy.com/good.jpg

<p>

I'm not unfamiliar with poor results but these just seem odd.

<p>

Regards,

Fergus

On the "bad" shot, I notice the colors look pretty good on the left

side - notice the green & blue colored lights, the wall decorations,

and the skin tine of the person at the far left. The rest of the

frame seems washed with an unnatural light. Notice the incadescent -

maybe halogen - spotlights on the ceiling - these lights can be bad

news for outdoor color balanced flm. Your "good" shot, on the other

hand, is an outdoor shot - no artifical lights at all.

<p>

Before suspecting any of the equipment, I would shoot a single roll

in a variety of lighting situations, outdoors and indoors with

different types of lighting. Then have prints made - notice the

different effect of different lights on outdoor film. Then scan the

negs in to see how they match the prints.

<p>

You may find all your equipment is working just fine. It may be just

the outdoor film reacting differently to different types of light.

You're comparing a photograph made under artifical light with one

made in natural light, which doesn't make any sense. The color looks

exactly like what one gets with incandescent light. I'd recommend a

good book on lighting, it has nothing to do with the specific film.

Ok, both answers make sense to me. I did have a "good" indoor shot

but I guess it was under a different type of light. I'm not sure what

type of light the restaurant had. I'll have to go back and take a

look. I'm sure they'll think I'm crazy.

<p>

Any suggestions on good books regarding this subject? I'm used to

digital cameras (the Nikon D1) and B&W film but this issue is new to

me.

<p>

Regards,

Fergus

<p>

P.S. Sorry about the odd formatting on the original post. I

copy/pasted from another program.

That's exactly the colour I'd expect from an uncorrected indoor shot

under incandescent light. You should be able to do a fair bit with it

in Photoshop or any other photo editing program. Start by pulling out

a lot of red and yellow - you'll see a big difference.

There's an excellent book that is probably out of print by Michael

Freeman called "Light." You may be able to find it second hand.

Apples and jackfruit!!!

<p>

Perhaps any basic book on color photog. will clear things up. I've

always enjoyed leafing through the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/

obidos/ASIN/0821225758/102-2471527-0822548">books</a> by John

Schaeffer.

<p>

HTH,