How did this happen?

[Brian Moore]

So I took this photo and when I got it back from processing I discovered something surprising: The photo looks like it has been colorized. It looks like an old postcard from the early 1900s. I posted this image to the Landscape & Architecture forum yesterday, and in my description I mentioned what I think happened. I was hoping someone would corroborate my theory or refute it, because I want to reproduce the look.

Since I'm looking for advice I thought I would re-post the image here.

My theory is as follows: I had been indoors before taking this shot and so I had the aperture pretty wide--maybe f4 or thereabouts (I seldom shoot wide open at 2.8, since I want to get a little bit of DOF due to the difficulties focusing the XA--the camera I shot this with--in dim light. I forgot to adjust the aperture for daylight (f11 or 16) before taking this picture. I think the camera's brain tried hard to find the right shutter speed (the XA is an aperture priority system) to compensate for the massive flooding of light and probably tripped the shutter at its supposed maximum speed, 1/500th.

So, I would guess this shot was made at f4 and 1/500th. I was using 800 ASA film. Would these conditions be likely to give the colorized look of this photo? Thanks.

 

[Darren Bradley]

Yes, I think you're on the right track. I get this effect whenever I try to correct a completely overexposed shot. What happens is that even if the image appears completely white or close to it, the sensor has still probably captured SOME data from the image you were trying to take. So when you correct exposure in PP later, you can usually recover some sort of image. But because your sensor wasn't able to capture as much data as if you'd shot the photo at the correct exposure, there's missing data and this is the sort of thing you end up with.

 

[Davie Hudson]

I can see why you'd want to re-produce it , the effect is great

 

[Hamish Gill]

... Darren, it a 800iso film photo...

What were the rest of te shots from the roll like?

I think Darren is on the right track...
Who processed it for you?

There is a chance that the people who developed the roll have pulled back an over exposed shot!

On a sunny day with 800iso film you would need
1/800th at f16

With you settings you would have been 4 2/3 stops over exposed
Negative film has vast latitude ie. it can be very over/underexposed and pulled/pushed back to normal exposure ...
Of course there are limitations... I would guess that this effect is because of those limitations

If you want to repeat it, over expose then ask them to correct the images they produce for you

 

[Hamish Gill]

... I'm pretty sure that's te explanation anyway ...
Although I'm not sure my terminology is correct?
The exposure maths are right though, I've just checked ... 4 2/3 stops over if it was sunny


Pete will know I'm sure ...

 

[Brian Moore]

Darren thanks. I appreciate your explanation. But yeah,...it was film.

Davie thanks. Yeah, a want to do it again. I have a small collection of post cards from the early 1900s--Rutherglen mostly (that's where I'm from), but a few of Glasgow also--and I love the fact that I can maybe reproduce a similar look.

Hamish thanks. The rest of the roll looked normal and as was to be expected. I confess that with color film--unless it's 120 or unless it's subject matter that I really value--I just have my local Target store process them. (Target's a "big box" department and grocery store, like Asda I suppose.) There's zero chance they adjusted anything to compensate for my overexposure.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Is this a scan from a print or neg or image from a cd they produced for you?

 

[Darren Bradley]

Actually, I think you may be surprised. Even those big box film processors like Walmart, Target, or Costco will still make adjustments to your prints to try to optimize them. There's little or no chance that somebody did it by hand, but the machines used to process the film will do automatic adjustments, nonetheless. As the machine reads the negative, it makes calculations and adjustments automatically. Even if it was film, the same explanation applies, I believe.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Indeed... They do it as a matter of course!
Its in thier interest to produce more consistent results and it costs nothing to do! (bar the kit that does it of course)

 

[Brian Moore]

Hamish: I scanned it myself on my Epson V500 from a neg.

Darren: Yes,...even though you were talking sensor vs. film, I did see that your explanation would still apply. Thank you.
As to the Target processing,...can those machines adjust individual frames within a roll?

Thanks.

 

[Darren Bradley]

Yes, they do frame-by-frame adjustments automatically - every photo is analyzed separately.

 

[Hamish Gill]

But not every neg is deved differently
The whole roll would have been deved the same so in theory this would just appear as a very over exposed neg...
In that case, I would look at what the scanner is doing?
Do you use it in "professional" mode?

 

[Brian Moore]

Thank you Darren.

In that case, I would look at what the scanner is doing?
Do you use it in "professional" mode?

Yes, Professional mode, Hamish.

 

[Hamish Gill]

What does the actual neg look like?
Hat settings do you use?
In the menu at the bottom, which auto correction modes do you have turned on?
I'm determined to get to the bottom of this for you

 

[Brian Moore]

I'm determined to get to the bottom of this for you

Clearly! And thank you.

The neg doesn't look any different from any of the others.
Settings: 600dpi, color neg film, 48bit I think, unsharp mask box clicked I think. That's it.
I'm going to post the three immediate predecessor images. The image I originally poster was number 27 in the roll.

This one's #26. Hamish, your prompt for me to inspect the other negs made me realize that the immediate predecessor was in fact an outdoor shot also, and that I presumably failed to adjust for daylight (but it's in shade, so not so pronounced an inconsistency.

This one's #25.

This one's #24.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Are there any other out door shots?
The sky in the first has that slightly greeny look to it ...
The rest of the shots have a similar feel to them if not to the extent of the first shot ...
Maybe it's just the film? Have you used this 800iso film before?

I'm baffled how the neg of the first image isn't over exposed concidering the limitations of te camera?

 

[Brian Moore]

Here's one, Hamish.

 

[Pete Askew]

I assume Brian that you had the film developed only and not printed. It is at the printing stage that, of course, that the D&P machine / operator will make any adjustments to try and get the prints as 'correct' as possible. My guess is that Hamish and Darren are correct and that this is the result of being over 4 stops over-exposed. Film does have a lot of latitude and I suspect that the colour shift that comes out when you create a reversal of the negative at the scanner stage is do to the relative sensitivities of the dye layers in the film at the extreme exposure. For example, the yellow layer should stop blue light getting through but will have its limits (and so on) so you will get both a colour shift and over-exposure. Plus quite low contrast.

It is interesting though that you see relatively little effect in the other exterior images but that may be because the film is still within its tolerances in the scene is partial shade - it looks like there might be something happening at the far right.

Visually, how do the adjacent negative look? Is it possible to scan the whole strip in one go so you can make a direct comparison of relative density?

 

[Brian Moore]

Yes, Pete. Development of film only,...no prints.

Is it possible to scan the whole strip in one go so you can make a direct comparison of relative density?

Yes,...I think so. However, I think they'll be small. I will give it a try and post the results.

Thanks Pete!

 

[Hamish Gill]

They all have a certain "feel" to them though don't they ... It's just a bit stronger in that first shot ...
I've exhausted my reasoning ... Interested to see the strip though!
(Sellotape each end of the strip to the glass of the scanner, that way it will scan it as a whole- the sticky will come off with spirits if there is any left)