35mm holiday snaps disaster!
Discussion
Hi all,
Yesterday I had some 35mm colour print film developed at Jessops using their 1hr service. The film in question is Fuji Superia 200asa and the camera is a Canon A-1. (The photographs were taken on a holiday in NZ from which I’ve just returned, the reason I’m posting at nearly 5.00am, I can’t sleep!)
When I got the photographs back I was disappointed to find they were appalling. The colours are all washed out and most of the photographs appear overexposed. I’m more than a little concerned because I’ve also shot 3 rolls of colour slide film which I’ve also given to Jessops to process. They actually have this processed by an outside company, but I’ve got to wait 7-10 days for the results.
I'd appreciate some insight into what the issue could be. I'm worried it's a fault with my camera and that my photos taken on the slide film are also doomed, but I'm also interested to hear if anyone's had issues with Jessops processing themselves?
Yesterday I had some 35mm colour print film developed at Jessops using their 1hr service. The film in question is Fuji Superia 200asa and the camera is a Canon A-1. (The photographs were taken on a holiday in NZ from which I’ve just returned, the reason I’m posting at nearly 5.00am, I can’t sleep!)
When I got the photographs back I was disappointed to find they were appalling. The colours are all washed out and most of the photographs appear overexposed. I’m more than a little concerned because I’ve also shot 3 rolls of colour slide film which I’ve also given to Jessops to process. They actually have this processed by an outside company, but I’ve got to wait 7-10 days for the results.
I'd appreciate some insight into what the issue could be. I'm worried it's a fault with my camera and that my photos taken on the slide film are also doomed, but I'm also interested to hear if anyone's had issues with Jessops processing themselves?
My Initial thought was that the film had been pushed in processing, http://www3.telus.net/drkrm/push-pull.htm
however on second glance, there seems to be sufficient shadow detail to maybe discount this, but it should not be ruled out.
If you have the time / opportunity, it may be worth having your outstanding film sent back to you and finding a processing facility with Q lab creditation http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/retailPhot... see section 3.
A Q lab, if specified by you, should do you a clip test. This is a standard processing of the first few frames and then a separate process of the rest of the roll with a Push / Pull in the processing to offset any exposure anomolies. You could of course show them these slides and tell them that the camera settings are consistent for the unprocessed rolls and they may have an opinion to help.
You will waste a few frames doing clip tests, but might get a decent set of images from the balance of the roll. Under-exposed images should give you a foundation then to recover some detail digitally (PS or similar) once scanned.
If it's not a processing glitch, it may be the camera settings but not being a 'Tog, I would have to defer to someone with more knowledge of your kit.
however on second glance, there seems to be sufficient shadow detail to maybe discount this, but it should not be ruled out.
If you have the time / opportunity, it may be worth having your outstanding film sent back to you and finding a processing facility with Q lab creditation http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/retailPhot... see section 3.
A Q lab, if specified by you, should do you a clip test. This is a standard processing of the first few frames and then a separate process of the rest of the roll with a Push / Pull in the processing to offset any exposure anomolies. You could of course show them these slides and tell them that the camera settings are consistent for the unprocessed rolls and they may have an opinion to help.
You will waste a few frames doing clip tests, but might get a decent set of images from the balance of the roll. Under-exposed images should give you a foundation then to recover some detail digitally (PS or similar) once scanned.
If it's not a processing glitch, it may be the camera settings but not being a 'Tog, I would have to defer to someone with more knowledge of your kit.
Thanks for the pointers, I've used push processing in the past to deliberatley overate 3200 iso film to 12800 iso. I'm 100% certain the camera settings were correct on this occasion though, because I remember it took me ages to remember how change the setting from the 100 speed slide film I'd previously used!
The digitised images come from the CD which was an option with the film processing/printing.
I've since had bash at scanning a few negatives with my own film scanner, although the results show a slight improvement over the Jessops prints and CD images it's not as dramatic as I thought. The trouble is my film scanner is a pretty cheap affair so it's hard to know whether it's the result of a poor negative or my shoddy equipment.
I've been back to Jessops and they wern't terribly helpful. The chap I spoke to said that all my images were overexposed and gave me all sorts of advice which I was already aware of, I didn't have to heart to tell him I was capable of taking photographs without overexposing an entire roll of film. My slide films have already left for the lab, so I shall just have to wait and see.
I've got an identical roll of colour print film in my camera at the moment, so my plan is to expose the rest of that and then find a decent lab to process that.
The digitised images come from the CD which was an option with the film processing/printing.
I've since had bash at scanning a few negatives with my own film scanner, although the results show a slight improvement over the Jessops prints and CD images it's not as dramatic as I thought. The trouble is my film scanner is a pretty cheap affair so it's hard to know whether it's the result of a poor negative or my shoddy equipment.
I've been back to Jessops and they wern't terribly helpful. The chap I spoke to said that all my images were overexposed and gave me all sorts of advice which I was already aware of, I didn't have to heart to tell him I was capable of taking photographs without overexposing an entire roll of film. My slide films have already left for the lab, so I shall just have to wait and see.
I've got an identical roll of colour print film in my camera at the moment, so my plan is to expose the rest of that and then find a decent lab to process that.
Edited by IROC-Z on Tuesday 15th November 16:16
IROC-Z said:
Thanks for the pointers, I've used push processing in the past to deliberatley overate 3200 iso film to 12800 iso. I'm 100% certain the camera settings were correct on this occasion though, because I remember it took me ages to remember how change the setting from the 100 speed slide film I'd previously used!
The digitised images come from the CD which was an option with the film processing/printing.
I've since had bash at scanning a few negatives with my own film scanner, although the results show a slight improvement over the Jessops prints and CD images it's not as dramatic as I thought. The trouble is my film scanner is a pretty cheap affair so it's hard to know whether it's the result of a poor negative or my shoddy equipment.
I've been back to Jessops and they wern't terribly helpful. The chap I spoke to said that all my images were overexposed and gave me all sorts of advice which I was already aware of, I didn't have to heart to tell him I was capable of taking photographs without overexposing an entire roll of film. My slide films have already left for the lab, so I shall just have to wait and see.
I've got an identical roll of colour print film in my camera at the moment, so my plan is to exposed the result of that and then find a decent lab to process that.
It's amazing what can be done in the scanning process but you really need to look at the colour density of the negatives.The digitised images come from the CD which was an option with the film processing/printing.
I've since had bash at scanning a few negatives with my own film scanner, although the results show a slight improvement over the Jessops prints and CD images it's not as dramatic as I thought. The trouble is my film scanner is a pretty cheap affair so it's hard to know whether it's the result of a poor negative or my shoddy equipment.
I've been back to Jessops and they wern't terribly helpful. The chap I spoke to said that all my images were overexposed and gave me all sorts of advice which I was already aware of, I didn't have to heart to tell him I was capable of taking photographs without overexposing an entire roll of film. My slide films have already left for the lab, so I shall just have to wait and see.
I've got an identical roll of colour print film in my camera at the moment, so my plan is to exposed the result of that and then find a decent lab to process that.
I think you wise to process the remaining in-camera film via a known quality lab - several mentioned on here in previous posts. Also double check the settings if you finish the film and use that as an assessment for what may have happened.
It's difficult to be sure about possible camera problems. Try bracketing a few shots as a guide for later assessment. If the shutter in the camera is marginal you might not be getting the speeds you expect. You could test for that I suppose.
The other thing that occurs to me is that some sort of scanning equipment may have re-exposed the film. It's been a long time since I took film through the old x-ray machines and things may have changed but I certainly had a few rolls affected by being scanned some decades ago having been assured that the scanners would not damage the film and 'in any case if in doubt we just turn up the power'. That was the only time, iirc, that the people insisted on putting the film bag through the scanner rather than doing a visual check. The results would look over exposed and lacking in contrast - or in my case, over imaged with the outline of a zip!
LongQ said:
It's amazing what can be done in the scanning process but you really need to look at the colour density of the negatives.
I think you wise to process the remaining in-camera film via a known quality lab - several mentioned on here in previous posts. Also double check the settings if you finish the film and use that as an assessment for what may have happened.
It's difficult to be sure about possible camera problems. Try bracketing a few shots as a guide for later assessment. If the shutter in the camera is marginal you might not be getting the speeds you expect. You could test for that I suppose.
The other thing that occurs to me is that some sort of scanning equipment may have re-exposed the film. It's been a long time since I took film through the old x-ray machines and things may have changed but I certainly had a few rolls affected by being scanned some decades ago having been assured that the scanners would not damage the film and 'in any case if in doubt we just turn up the power'. That was the only time, iirc, that the people insisted on putting the film bag through the scanner rather than doing a visual check. The results would look over exposed and lacking in contrast - or in my case, over imaged with the outline of a zip!
Good idea to bracket a few shots, I'll give that try. I think you wise to process the remaining in-camera film via a known quality lab - several mentioned on here in previous posts. Also double check the settings if you finish the film and use that as an assessment for what may have happened.
It's difficult to be sure about possible camera problems. Try bracketing a few shots as a guide for later assessment. If the shutter in the camera is marginal you might not be getting the speeds you expect. You could test for that I suppose.
The other thing that occurs to me is that some sort of scanning equipment may have re-exposed the film. It's been a long time since I took film through the old x-ray machines and things may have changed but I certainly had a few rolls affected by being scanned some decades ago having been assured that the scanners would not damage the film and 'in any case if in doubt we just turn up the power'. That was the only time, iirc, that the people insisted on putting the film bag through the scanner rather than doing a visual check. The results would look over exposed and lacking in contrast - or in my case, over imaged with the outline of a zip!
Funny you should mention x-ray machines! I did consider that and it wasn't until afterwards that I read it's recommended to request a visual inspection but as you say, that's down to the discretion of the security staff. I think next time I go abroad I'll be more careful, or better still get any exposed rolls developed before I come home.
What state are your lenses in? Is there any fogging internally in any of them? To me it looks as though the lens is slightly misted up, and you've got that slight overexposed appearance from this. Could be that it's a bit of flare, caused by the very bright skies, do you have any that are taken in duller light?
I've just taken the liberty of dragging one of your images into PS for a quick look, there's still detail in the highlights, so there's no clipping or burning out of the whites, however, that could be due to the 'shoulder' that negative film has, making it quite forgiving of incorrect exposure. I didn't take too much time trying to make it look good, I was just interested to see how much detail was left.
Have you looked at your negatives directly? Do they look dark? It could be that, as said, the film wasn't developed properly, or that it's been fogged due to the X-Ray machines, although personally I never experienced any issues back when I used to use film. Did your film go into your hold baggage or your hand luggage? If it was hold baggage, the scanners are more powerful, although the damage tends to be more obvious.
It'll be interesting to see how the transparencies turn out, that'll tell you one way or the other whether it's your equipment, or the lab.
I've just taken the liberty of dragging one of your images into PS for a quick look, there's still detail in the highlights, so there's no clipping or burning out of the whites, however, that could be due to the 'shoulder' that negative film has, making it quite forgiving of incorrect exposure. I didn't take too much time trying to make it look good, I was just interested to see how much detail was left.
Have you looked at your negatives directly? Do they look dark? It could be that, as said, the film wasn't developed properly, or that it's been fogged due to the X-Ray machines, although personally I never experienced any issues back when I used to use film. Did your film go into your hold baggage or your hand luggage? If it was hold baggage, the scanners are more powerful, although the damage tends to be more obvious.
It'll be interesting to see how the transparencies turn out, that'll tell you one way or the other whether it's your equipment, or the lab.
Super Slo Mo said:
What state are your lenses in? Is there any fogging internally in any of them? To me it looks as though the lens is slightly misted up, and you've got that slight overexposed appearance from this. Could be that it's a bit of flare, caused by the very bright skies, do you have any that are taken in duller light?
I've just taken the liberty of dragging one of your images into PS for a quick look, there's still detail in the highlights, so there's no clipping or burning out of the whites, however, that could be due to the 'shoulder' that negative film has, making it quite forgiving of incorrect exposure. I didn't take too much time trying to make it look good, I was just interested to see how much detail was left.
Have you looked at your negatives directly? Do they look dark? It could be that, as said, the film wasn't developed properly, or that it's been fogged due to the X-Ray machines, although personally I never experienced any issues back when I used to use film. Did your film go into your hold baggage or your hand luggage? If it was hold baggage, the scanners are more powerful, although the damage tends to be more obvious.
It'll be interesting to see how the transparencies turn out, that'll tell you one way or the other whether it's your equipment, or the lab.
The lenses look fine but I have since done some reading up on the Canon A-1 itself. They're quite notorious for shutting squeal due to insufficient lubrication on the mirror mechanism and apparently this can lead to exposure problems. Both my A-1 bodies do this, and I'm starting to wonder that the fact I've not used either of them for several years hasn't helped......I've just taken the liberty of dragging one of your images into PS for a quick look, there's still detail in the highlights, so there's no clipping or burning out of the whites, however, that could be due to the 'shoulder' that negative film has, making it quite forgiving of incorrect exposure. I didn't take too much time trying to make it look good, I was just interested to see how much detail was left.
Have you looked at your negatives directly? Do they look dark? It could be that, as said, the film wasn't developed properly, or that it's been fogged due to the X-Ray machines, although personally I never experienced any issues back when I used to use film. Did your film go into your hold baggage or your hand luggage? If it was hold baggage, the scanners are more powerful, although the damage tends to be more obvious.
It'll be interesting to see how the transparencies turn out, that'll tell you one way or the other whether it's your equipment, or the lab.
My film went in checked baggage and carry on baggage so it got a good dose of both! I did look up the effects of x-ray exposure and there doesn't appear to be any of the typical effects.
Looking at the negatives directly, there appears to be slightly more details in the sky of some of the more over exposed images vs the Jessops prints, but without a decent negative scanner of my own there's no easy way to prove this.
As you say, it won't be until I get the slides back that I'll know for sure....
IROC-Z said:
Super Slo Mo said:
What state are your lenses in? Is there any fogging internally in any of them? To me it looks as though the lens is slightly misted up, and you've got that slight overexposed appearance from this. Could be that it's a bit of flare, caused by the very bright skies, do you have any that are taken in duller light?
I've just taken the liberty of dragging one of your images into PS for a quick look, there's still detail in the highlights, so there's no clipping or burning out of the whites, however, that could be due to the 'shoulder' that negative film has, making it quite forgiving of incorrect exposure. I didn't take too much time trying to make it look good, I was just interested to see how much detail was left.
Have you looked at your negatives directly? Do they look dark? It could be that, as said, the film wasn't developed properly, or that it's been fogged due to the X-Ray machines, although personally I never experienced any issues back when I used to use film. Did your film go into your hold baggage or your hand luggage? If it was hold baggage, the scanners are more powerful, although the damage tends to be more obvious.
It'll be interesting to see how the transparencies turn out, that'll tell you one way or the other whether it's your equipment, or the lab.
The lenses look fine but I have since done some reading up on the Canon A-1 itself. They're quite notorious for shutting squeal due to insufficient lubrication on the mirror mechanism and apparently this can lead to exposure problems. Both my A-1 bodies do this, and I'm starting to wonder that the fact I've not used either of them for several years hasn't helped......I've just taken the liberty of dragging one of your images into PS for a quick look, there's still detail in the highlights, so there's no clipping or burning out of the whites, however, that could be due to the 'shoulder' that negative film has, making it quite forgiving of incorrect exposure. I didn't take too much time trying to make it look good, I was just interested to see how much detail was left.
Have you looked at your negatives directly? Do they look dark? It could be that, as said, the film wasn't developed properly, or that it's been fogged due to the X-Ray machines, although personally I never experienced any issues back when I used to use film. Did your film go into your hold baggage or your hand luggage? If it was hold baggage, the scanners are more powerful, although the damage tends to be more obvious.
It'll be interesting to see how the transparencies turn out, that'll tell you one way or the other whether it's your equipment, or the lab.
My film went in checked baggage and carry on baggage so it got a good dose of both! I did look up the effects of x-ray exposure and there doesn't appear to be any of the typical effects.
Looking at the negatives directly, there appears to be slightly more details in the sky of some of the more over exposed images vs the Jessops prints, but without a decent negative scanner of my own there's no easy way to prove this.
As you say, it won't be until I get the slides back that I'll know for sure....
Not using for several years may not be great and the light seals can degrade quite badly with age. I also wonder if the battery age might be a factor - not sure. Did you fit a new battery or is it one that has been used for some time?
I didn't replace the battery, infact I've probably done everything wrong! I hadn't used the camera for several years and it even had a roll of film in it. I just dusted it off and loaded it with a new roll of film. 
As for lens aperture blades, all of the photograpghs were taken with either my 24mm lens or my 35-70mm zoom lens, so unless both lenses are faulty I don't think it's that.
I've since discovered a set of slides I took on holiday a few years back which came back mysteriously overexposed. I put it down to poor processing at the time, but I've a nasty feeling I took them with the same camera.
Hmmmm......time to go digital?
As for lens aperture blades, all of the photograpghs were taken with either my 24mm lens or my 35-70mm zoom lens, so unless both lenses are faulty I don't think it's that.
I've since discovered a set of slides I took on holiday a few years back which came back mysteriously overexposed. I put it down to poor processing at the time, but I've a nasty feeling I took them with the same camera.
Hmmmm......time to go digital?
IROC-Z said:
I didn't replace the battery, infact I've probably done everything wrong! I hadn't used the camera for several years and it even had a roll of film in it. I just dusted it off and loaded it with a new roll of film.
As for lens aperture blades, all of the photograpghs were taken with either my 24mm lens or my 35-70mm zoom lens, so unless both lenses are faulty I don't think it's that.
I've since discovered a set of slides I took on holiday a few years back which came back mysteriously overexposed. I put it down to poor processing at the time, but I've a nasty feeling I took them with the same camera.
Hmmmm......time to go digital?
Well, with digital at least you get a good idea of how things look straight away. The little screens on the back of the cameras are not full proof for ultimate quality in tricky situations but they are a darned good indicator. Once kit has been purchased the cost per image is likely to be significantly lower than film - though you will probably take many more than would be the case with film.As for lens aperture blades, all of the photograpghs were taken with either my 24mm lens or my 35-70mm zoom lens, so unless both lenses are faulty I don't think it's that.
I've since discovered a set of slides I took on holiday a few years back which came back mysteriously overexposed. I put it down to poor processing at the time, but I've a nasty feeling I took them with the same camera.
Hmmmm......time to go digital?
A few years ago I was shooting film and picked up a nice Canon New F1 for not too much cash and a 600mm FD mount lens for not a huge amount and headed out with my lens collection to shoot stuff. Got some great results from time to time. Marginal film processing though. Good when good but could have problems. At least the price was much lower than it used to be and the service faster.
The 600mm came with a converter for FD to EOS. So after a while I bought a refurb Canon SLR body - just to try it out. I already had other pocket/prosumer digital cameras by this time for other purposes.
I don't think I put another film through the 35mm bodies. I still have quite a few films stored away in case the grain bug bites again. Some may still be in date ...
Right! I've got back two of my three transparency films. Not sure where the third is but Jessops seemed a bit vauge and said it should turn up early next week....
The results have confirmed my worst suspicions, I strongly suspect my camera is faulty. The first film had been sitting in the camera since 2007, since it had some photos I took in the South of France at that time. As well as being over exposed, they had a greenish haze across them, I suspect down to out of date film.
The film taken in NZ was also over exposed, with washed our colours and burnt out highlights. I've managed to resurrect a few in Picassa because it wasn't actually as bad as the colour negative film. Whether that's down tot the characteristics of the film or better processing I'm not sure.
One thing annoyed me slightly. I paid extra for 'super high' res scans but all the file sizes range between 500kb - 1mb. I expected them to be larger? I had a look a few other places and they generally offer a 'standard' CD with 6mb files.
The results have confirmed my worst suspicions, I strongly suspect my camera is faulty. The first film had been sitting in the camera since 2007, since it had some photos I took in the South of France at that time. As well as being over exposed, they had a greenish haze across them, I suspect down to out of date film.
The film taken in NZ was also over exposed, with washed our colours and burnt out highlights. I've managed to resurrect a few in Picassa because it wasn't actually as bad as the colour negative film. Whether that's down tot the characteristics of the film or better processing I'm not sure.
One thing annoyed me slightly. I paid extra for 'super high' res scans but all the file sizes range between 500kb - 1mb. I expected them to be larger? I had a look a few other places and they generally offer a 'standard' CD with 6mb files.
IROC-Z said:
One thing annoyed me slightly. I paid extra for 'super high' res scans but all the file sizes range between 500kb - 1mb. I expected them to be larger? I had a look a few other places and they generally offer a 'standard' CD with 6mb files.
That's not high res by any stretch of the imagination, if it's uncompressed it's less than 1MP resolution.davepoth said:
That's not high res by any stretch of the imagination, if it's uncompressed it's less than 1MP resolution.
Well I paid £8 extra per film for high res scans so that's pretty bad. There's not enough resolution there to do any serious editing. I wonder if I've got grounds to ask for my money back? I think a trip to Jessops is in order. Oh and by the way, if anyone does think of shooting 35mm don't take it to Jessops to be processed. I did out of laziness and I'm never using them again!
IROC-Z said:
Well I paid £8 extra per film for high res scans so that's pretty bad. There's not enough resolution there to do any serious editing. I wonder if I've got grounds to ask for my money back?
That is NOWHERE NEAR Hi Res - money back or tell the press Jessops think Hi Res is 500k.1m is not hi-res. Complain loudly. That your branch of Jessops says it is suggests you're being fobbed off.
It's also odd that you say that the negs suffer more from overexposure than the transparencies. If overexposure is the problem, then the transparencies should suffer the worst. Your observations suggest some kind of inconsistency. Use another camera or borrow a light meter and try doing some comparison tests.
If you're certain that you know how to get good exposures and your camera isn't faulty, then I'd be inclined to think your branch of Jessops isn't very good at setting up its processor and that maybe you're the first person to put a film through their system for a long time.
Take your exposed and unexposed films to a different, more experienced printer (either a QLab or a Fuji Oasis). Ask them for advice.
It's also odd that you say that the negs suffer more from overexposure than the transparencies. If overexposure is the problem, then the transparencies should suffer the worst. Your observations suggest some kind of inconsistency. Use another camera or borrow a light meter and try doing some comparison tests.
If you're certain that you know how to get good exposures and your camera isn't faulty, then I'd be inclined to think your branch of Jessops isn't very good at setting up its processor and that maybe you're the first person to put a film through their system for a long time.
Take your exposed and unexposed films to a different, more experienced printer (either a QLab or a Fuji Oasis). Ask them for advice.
Well I complained about the scans and to their credit I was refunded the cost of the three CDs at £10 a piece.
I still have a slide film missing, since they sent three off for me originally but only got two back. This was on Saturday, having originally taken them in on Sunday 13th. Yesterday I had to go into the store again in person to find out about my third film which is still missing. The assistant I spoke with said he'd chase it up for me and phone me back the same day, did he heck. So last night I emailed off a complaint to their customer services, I would have phoned, but they don't seem to be very good with telephones since that was the third time I'd been promised a return call and never heard back.
I should probably clarify that the colour negative film was processed in-house by Jessops and the slide film was processed by a company in Germany. I’m ware that the slide film has poorer latitude and should have suffered worse from overexposure, but I did consider that perhaps I was the first person to have a negative film processed for some time at Jessops (there can’t be much demand for 35mm colour negative processing on the high street any more) and therefore either the chemicals were well past their sell by date or it was the Saturday kid who set the machine up.
I’m fairly certain it’s my camera. I am guessing either the mirror mechanism is operating out of sync with the shutter and possibly my light seals need replacing too. I’ve shot many rolls of slide film and only had the same problem once before, as I mentioned that was with what I suspect to be the same camera. Unfortunately I have two identical Canon A1 bodies so it’s probably bad luck I fished that one out to take on holiday.
My plan is shoot my remaining film in my T70, get it processed at a decent lab and see how that turns out. If it comes back crap, I’m switching to digital.
I must say I'm pretty unimpressed with Jessops. I appreciate 35mm is turning into something of a specialist market but for the money they charged me to process four films (£65!) I'd expect good service. I know one thing; I'm never spending a single penny in Jessops again! I'm seriously considering a DSLR but I won't be buying it from them.
I still have a slide film missing, since they sent three off for me originally but only got two back. This was on Saturday, having originally taken them in on Sunday 13th. Yesterday I had to go into the store again in person to find out about my third film which is still missing. The assistant I spoke with said he'd chase it up for me and phone me back the same day, did he heck. So last night I emailed off a complaint to their customer services, I would have phoned, but they don't seem to be very good with telephones since that was the third time I'd been promised a return call and never heard back.
I should probably clarify that the colour negative film was processed in-house by Jessops and the slide film was processed by a company in Germany. I’m ware that the slide film has poorer latitude and should have suffered worse from overexposure, but I did consider that perhaps I was the first person to have a negative film processed for some time at Jessops (there can’t be much demand for 35mm colour negative processing on the high street any more) and therefore either the chemicals were well past their sell by date or it was the Saturday kid who set the machine up.
I’m fairly certain it’s my camera. I am guessing either the mirror mechanism is operating out of sync with the shutter and possibly my light seals need replacing too. I’ve shot many rolls of slide film and only had the same problem once before, as I mentioned that was with what I suspect to be the same camera. Unfortunately I have two identical Canon A1 bodies so it’s probably bad luck I fished that one out to take on holiday.
My plan is shoot my remaining film in my T70, get it processed at a decent lab and see how that turns out. If it comes back crap, I’m switching to digital.
I must say I'm pretty unimpressed with Jessops. I appreciate 35mm is turning into something of a specialist market but for the money they charged me to process four films (£65!) I'd expect good service. I know one thing; I'm never spending a single penny in Jessops again! I'm seriously considering a DSLR but I won't be buying it from them.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff