Sun damage?

What does sun damage do to film? Do you get icky prints that are
non-unformly greenish and seem cartoony, like over-saturated colors?


--
"He who only sees business in business is a fool."

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
What does sun damage do to film? Do you get icky prints that are
non-unformly greenish and seem cartoony, like over-saturated colors?

Pre or post exposure? What's your experience, and/or why do you ask?

--
john mcwilliams

In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
What does sun damage do to film? Do you get icky prints that are
non-unformly greenish and seem cartoony, like over-saturated colors?

Pre or post exposure? What's your experience, and/or why do you ask?

Operating a minilab. I don't know the history of the film, that's just
how the prints came out. I played with the colors a little and that made
the faces worse, so I just ran it the way the machine wanted to run it. A
coworker suggested sun damage.
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

What does sun damage do to film? Do you get icky prints that are
non-unformly greenish and seem cartoony, like over-saturated colors?

Pre or post exposure? What's your experience, and/or why do you ask?


Operating a minilab. I don't know the history of the film, that's just
how the prints came out. I played with the colors a little and that made
the faces worse, so I just ran it the way the machine wanted to run it. A
coworker suggested sun damage.

Date of film? I'd think it could have been exposure to heat from the sun
or anything else that'd make colors go wonky, in addition to age. You
developed the film, I suppose?

--
John McWilliams

I hope and pray I don't need to ask this... it *was* negative film, and
not transparency???

A local lab (admittedly in a small town) blithely ran a friend's
Ektachrome film through c41, and then when the friend (who wasn't very
knowledgable either!) took the results back, they *still* didn't know
what they had done wrong....

It doesn't quite sound like cross-processing, though... but then again,
you operate a mini lab and haven't seen sun damage or faded films
before? Don't they give you a course or something? Sorry, that
probably sounded rude, but I am genuinely interested - who is the
franchisee? (Go on, dob them in!)

What was the film (or can you describe the edge markings in detail),
and can you post the results?

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...

What does sun damage do to film? Do you get icky prints that are
non-unformly greenish and seem cartoony, like over-saturated colors?

It's heat damage--the sun would just overexpose the film. I've never seen
the result, but I once used a blue filter on reala (just to see what it
would do, ya know), sent it off to qualex for development and it came back
with a sticker on it warning me of heat damage to my film. I quit using
them shortly thereafter.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

What does sun damage do to film? Do you get icky prints that are
non-unformly greenish and seem cartoony, like over-saturated colors?

Pre or post exposure? What's your experience, and/or why do you ask?


Operating a minilab. I don't know the history of the film, that's just
how the prints came out. I played with the colors a little and that made
the faces worse, so I just ran it the way the machine wanted to run it. A
coworker suggested sun damage.

Date of film? I'd think it could have been exposure to heat from the sun
or anything else that'd make colors go wonky, in addition to age. You
developed the film, I suppose?

Developed it, too, yes. Control strips came out fine, and the film run
before, after, and in parallel were fine. When printing, the images
looked icky on the screen, but I checked the paper anyway, and everything
was working right. When something unexpected like that happens, my first
thoguht is "What did I do wrong?", and I try to find out. And I'm quite
confident that the problem didn't occur in the lab. But if she had asked
why her pictures looked like that, I wouldn't have been sure what to tell
her.

--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"

In article .com,
wrote:
I hope and pray I don't need to ask this... it *was* negative film, and
not transparency???

Kodak Gold 100, as I recall. It was C-41, anyway. I check.


A local lab (admittedly in a small town) blithely ran a friend's
Ektachrome film through c41, and then when the friend (who wasn't very
knowledgable either!) took the results back, they *still* didn't know
what they had done wrong....

What did it look like?


It doesn't quite sound like cross-processing, though... but then again,
you operate a mini lab and haven't seen sun damage or faded films
before? Don't they give you a course or something? Sorry, that
probably sounded rude, but I am genuinely interested - who is the
franchisee? (Go on, dob them in!)

They teach the operation and maintenance of the equipment, they don't say
much about interpreting things like that. The word from Corporate is
actually that special processing is officially not allowed, which makes
some sense in a production environment with one-hour deadlines and
employees of varying skills, although the store manager has said "Make
the customer happy", which I'd rather do. The new software actually
removed some options that the old software had, like *not* correcting for
exposure, e.g. underexposed frames will print grayish and grainy, and I
could darken them by hand but have no way of just printing it as it is
without introducing my own judgement. I can still see those menus on the
screen, the options grayed out and inaccessible. It bugs me.


What was the film (or can you describe the edge markings in detail),
and can you post the results?

I can only go by memory now.


--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby

That green color sounds like the film was shot indoors under tube lights.


--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/




"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

What does sun damage do to film? Do you get icky prints that are
non-unformly greenish and seem cartoony, like over-saturated colors?

Pre or post exposure? What's your experience, and/or why do you ask?


Operating a minilab. I don't know the history of the film, that's just
how the prints came out. I played with the colors a little and that
made
the faces worse, so I just ran it the way the machine wanted to run it.
A
coworker suggested sun damage.

Date of film? I'd think it could have been exposure to heat from the sun
or anything else that'd make colors go wonky, in addition to age. You
developed the film, I suppose?

Developed it, too, yes. Control strips came out fine, and the film run
before, after, and in parallel were fine. When printing, the images
looked icky on the screen, but I checked the paper anyway, and everything
was working right. When something unexpected like that happens, my first
thoguht is "What did I do wrong?", and I try to find out. And I'm quite
confident that the problem didn't occur in the lab. But if she had asked
why her pictures looked like that, I wouldn't have been sure what to tell
her.

--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote
wrote:
I hope and pray I don't need to ask this... it *was* negative film, and
not transparency??? Ektachrome film through c41
What did it look like?

Example:

http://hometown.aol.com/artsiannie/ciba-3.html

Popular [or was] with the Lomo and Diana crowds.


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Remove blanks to reply: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
F-stop timers, immediate shipping: http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/