Slide film processed as negative!

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Colin D, Aug 14, 2005.

  1. Colin D

    Colin D Guest

    This is in the nature of an SOS.

    My daughter has just completed a holiday through Alaska and Canada, and
    on getting back to her home in Hong Kong, handed in her Fuji slide films
    to the local frontier outfit for processing. The stupid bloody idiots
    processed the films through as negatives! so all her slides are lost.

    What I would like to know is if anyone has cross-processed slide film as
    negative through C-41 or equivalent, what the results might be like, and
    are they able to be rescued, in PS as prints, or re-shot as slides?

    Any info really appreciated.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Aug 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Colin D

    Mark Roberts Guest

    A lot of people cross-process slide film for artistic effects. I doubt
    there's much that can be done to "rescue" the film, though I suppose you
    might be able to salvage *something* in Photoshop. Start by getting the
    "negatives" (so to speak) scanned onto CD. Perhaps that lab that screwed
    things up can be persuaded to do this for free as compensation for their
    error? (Don't get your hopes up, but it's worth a try.)

    For more information on cross-processing try this Google search:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=cross-processing+slide+film
    A couple of results from that search:
    http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/99/23/index3a_page4.html?tw=design
    http://www.planetneil.com/faq/cross-processing.html
     
    Mark Roberts, Aug 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Colin D

    ian lincoln Guest

    photoshop sounds like your only hope but unless they are really important I
    wouldn't bother. There will be no one click fix. Its going to be
    painstaking.
     
    ian lincoln, Aug 14, 2005
    #3
  4. Colin D

    Tony Polson Guest


    I'd like to know who was actually the stupid one here.

    Was it the (minimum wage) counter assistant at the Frontier lab, or
    was it really the customer who took their slide film there in the
    first place?
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Colin D

    Jerry L Guest

    Next trip, have your daughter take the slow-road method of getting
    important film processed.


    __/// Give the lab one roll and return the next day ///__


    If the results are good, then let the lab process the other rolls.
     
    Jerry L, Aug 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Colin D

    Alan Browne Guest

    Typical of Polson to be looking to blame the customer after it's too
    late, rather than try to help the OP.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Colin D

    Alan Browne Guest

    Unfortunately, when cross processing for artistic reasons, the dev times
    involved are different than the standard C-41 process, so the result she
    gets might not be usable at all. Look up the various x-processing
    websites to see what the "usual" x-process is for the film in question
    and that might give you a feel for the results.

    You may be able to scan the results and try to recover images (which may
    now be of a more "artistic" nature)... and you may get a few surprise
    winners in the batch.

    G'luck.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Colin-

    I did this once back in the early 60s with a roll of outdated Ektachrome
    film. The result wasn't bad, but Kodacolor would probably have been
    better.

    The most obvious difference is that there is no orange "mask". Therefore
    the color balance in prints must be adjusted differently than the normal
    processor can do. Therefore prints may not look right, perhaps more blue
    than they should be.

    If you can scan the negatives, some scan programs may be able to switch
    the mask on and off. You also might scan them as slides and invert the
    colors.

    Whatever the effect, you can almost certainly recover useable images if
    you can get them into digital form.

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Aug 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Where was this, Colin?

    I recommend Kodachrome anyway, so there's no mistaking it.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Aug 14, 2005
    #9
  10. Colin D

    columbotrek Guest

    Sorry to read that. The lab I use will flag a roll if you place a E-6
    roll in a C-41 bag or vice versa. So to get them to cross process I
    need to write it on the envelope. Just placing an E-6 roll in a C-41
    bag is not enough. To bad those who processed your rolls were not
    paying attention.
     
    columbotrek, Aug 14, 2005
    #10
  11. Colin D

    kz8rt3 Guest

    I thought Polson was helping. I mean the OP did say the workers were
    "stupid idiots", yes. He was helping to clarify who the other idiot
    might be.

    But I think they both made a mistake and should go in back of the
    McDonalds next door and suck face.
     
    kz8rt3, Aug 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Colin D

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Sure, crossprocessing is done quite often. The problem is that the normal
    film ISO will not work for the same exposure. You would need to either push
    processing two or three stops, or just overexpose the film two or three
    stops. The cheaper and easier route is overexposure, for example if you had
    ISO 400 slide film, then set your camera to ISO 100 or ISO 50, then process
    like an ISO 400 film in the opposite chemicals.

    Results depends upon the films. Sometimes the colours go strange, usually
    the contrast increase, and with a few there is an overall colour cast
    (either blue or orange). Can be dramatic for people images, but completely
    wrong for landscapes.

    Unfortunately, once film is processed it is fixed. You could try
    reprocessing, but it is more likely to make a worse mess of the images. If
    any images were overexposed, then you might actually see something.

    You could try scanning some frames, though the results might only work by
    cranking up the gain (exposure setting, gamut setting, or other settings
    depending upon scanner) to see if an image appears. However, I think any
    results might be nearly unusable.

    Since the lab screwed it up, they should try to print small photographs in
    their machine, to see if they can rescue any of your images. If they
    cannot, they should be giving you some free replacement film.
     
    Gordon Moat, Aug 14, 2005
    #12
  13. Colin D

    Tony Polson Guest


    Way to go!

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2005
    #13
  14. Colin D

    no one Guest

    May not be politely worded, but it's a reasonable question.

    I shoot both slide & negative.

    You put slide film in one of those one hour mini-lab envelopes, and
    they're going to run it through the machine.
     
    no one, Aug 15, 2005
    #14
  15. Colin D

    Colin D Guest

    Firstly, Tony, Frontier labs are Fuji film processing centres, and there
    is nothing wrong with their standards, your implied criticism
    notwithstanding.

    Secondly, my daughter pointed out to the assistant there that they were
    fujichrome films, not fujicolor, so your inference that she was stupid
    is not only wrong and deeply resented by me, but points out to all here
    that your erstwhile prolonged absence from this group has done nothing
    for your snide remarks and heavily offensive posts that are your
    hallmark in this NG.

    Thirdly, my original post asked for others' experience with similar
    problems, and was not an invitation for you to post as you did above.

    Lastly, as the saying goes, if you're not part of the solution then
    you're part of the problem, and you're now part of the problem - in fact
    you are a part of everybody's problem on this NG.

    For the benefit of readers of this thread, Tony Polson is a pommy
    arsehole who is very big with his mouth, but not so big when he's called
    out. My last encounter with this twerp was when he mistook me for an
    American, with insults to match, and when I called him out to apologize
    to Americans on this group he went silent, and to this day has not yet
    apologized. The words 'snivelling coward' come to mind.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Aug 15, 2005
    #15
  16. Colin D

    Colin D Guest

    You're as big an arsehole as Tony - worse, since you hide behind a
    nonsense name. Apart from that, there was no 'other idiot', and no call
    for your offensive remarks. My daughter is an experienced photographer,
    and she did point out to the assistant when handing them in that the
    films were 'chromes, that is, slide films. They admitted their mistake
    and replaced the films - big deal, what about the loss of irreplaceable
    images?

    Tell me, why is it that when somebody asks for help or advice in this
    NG, there's always people like you and Polson who ignore that request
    and instead reply with insulting crappola? Does it get your tiny rocks
    off for you, big ego but no courage, hiding anonymously behind a
    computer?

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Aug 15, 2005
    #16
  17. Colin D

    Colin D Guest

    Thanks to all who replied with helpful suggestions. She is posting the
    films to me to see if I can resurrect some of the more important images
    in PS. It'll be interesting to see how they turn out.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Aug 15, 2005
    #17
  18. Colin D

    Matt Clara Guest

    Oh c'mon, he suggested that the two parties should in essence, kiss and make
    up. Hardly makes him an arsehole--a smart ass, yes, but not an arsehole.
    That's the deal whenever you take your film in, anywhere you go, as far as I
    know.
    I don't think you've been following Tony's recent posts, as many have been
    helpful, and others cheerful and polite.
     
    Matt Clara, Aug 15, 2005
    #18
  19. Colin D

    Alan Browne Guest

    Tony, as usual, attacked the OP on this topic rather than suggest a
    possible beneficial outcome.

    On one recent post:

    "True, and that is something most people here completely fail to
    understand." -- Tony Polson, implying that he knows the mind of everyone
    on usenet.

    And of course on this subject, simply attacked the poster rather than
    offer some means to attempt a recovery of sorts...

    I know you have a "thing" with Tony, Matt, but you're way, way above him
    as both a photographer and a human being. And the later is much more
    important, admired and valued.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 15, 2005
    #19
  20. It would be interesting if Photoshop 7, (or some later version) could come
    up with an algorithm to fix this problem.Surely it has happened before, and
    if the information is there, there should be a way to correct it.
     
    William Graham, Aug 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.