A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > photo.net > Exposure > Color cast: Overexposure, UV ,...

Color cast: Overexposure, UV , weather or film?

Jeffrey Rodgers , Sep 11, 2000; 06:44 p.m.

OK, I accidently overexposed some high altitude shots (8,000- 10,000ft.)and got some color cast (pinkish). Now I'm trying to determine if this was caused by 1. the film's reaction to over exposure, 2. UV effects, 3. the weather (summer heat with clouds/humidity), or 4. a combination of these factors. The film was relabled drugstore brand (they say it's Fuji)200 print film. Camera is 35mm SLR with 50mm prime lens (used at f/16 and f/11) and the scenes included a good ammount of sky/clouds. Usually, the air is quite clean unless there is a "contolled burn" that day, but there was a slight haze (visually) because of high humidity. The sky appeared very blue between the clouds. Some of the prints (no color adjustments made!) show pink clouds, and also a dead tree that normally looks light gray show as pinkish. Other shots on the same roll look OK, but they were at lower altitudes and not overexposed. Was this simply caused by the film's reaction to overexposure, and/or the other factors I mentioned, or am I missing something else? Is there any reason to suspect the film quality as being different from officially labelled Fuji (Long's drugs brand). BTW, it was mid-day to afternoon, and no filter was used (I have been reading the threads on UV and haze but haven't bought the filter yet).


Chris Gillis , Sep 12, 2000; 12:24 a.m.

With print film of this garde, I would suspect that you took it to a mini lab to be processed and printed. The prints probably could show all sorts of colors, you have pink this time. I suspect the lab did not get the prints right.

How can you tell? Take the offending prints and negs back to them and ask them to reprint them with an eye to white coluds and blue sky, as well as any other importnat element of color, i.e. a red car or yellow bus. Such color can be corrected in printing most color negs. If the color cast was dominat, you would only be able to shift int in a certain direction, much as they seem to have done in the first printing twoards pink.

hwo can this be prevented? use a slightly better film just to make sure. You never know where those drug store brands have been. Second and more important, use a better lab. It will cost more, but you will have more interaction with staff for the final product and the quality will be higher in the long run.

Jeffrey Rodgers , Sep 12, 2000; 01:41 a.m.

Chris, I did use a "mini-lab" (in store) service, however the info on the back of the prints show no color adjustment (NNNNN) and the pink cast also shows on the index print. I was wondering if this could have been caused by bad processing instead of printing. I doubt this because not all of the shots on the roll show the odd color. Also, I would suspect UV haze but I have taken shots at even higher elevations (same camera/lens) without this problem (usually get the blue effect) so I'm really wondering if the combination of overexposure and UV caused one layer of the emulsion to overreact? I suppose that using better film, a good "haze" filter and reliable processing/printing would prevent this the next time, but the mystery would still remain. Maybe there are too many variables to be sure?

Shoshana * , Sep 12, 2000; 02:23 a.m.

How close to expiration was this film? Expired (or close) film can turn pink ... and not real evenly either.

Also, film that gets too hot can color shift.

Then again, I've had the lab wonder why I wanted reprints when all my prints came out purple (no one else had complained...)


Ruth Statman , Sep 12, 2000; 04:21 a.m.

Your lab probably didn't calibrate properly. If the overexposed shots are the ones with the color cast, then they probably just have the regular color set up correctly, but havn't set up the overexposure color balance or underexposure one. Ask them to reprint as has been said before, they're probably just too lazy to calibrate correctly.


Jeffrey Rodgers , Sep 12, 2000; 01:51 p.m.

The film was reasonably fresh (not expired) and never got too hot. I also had other films (Kodak and Fuji) in the same camera case that had no problems. I've been using this "lab" because they have done some great work for me before, but this time I noticed the initials were different and the work was poor (the printing, hopefully the negs are OK). The "technician" actually adjusted the density on several prints in the wrong direction (ie -1) even though they were overexposed shots. I was aware of this but my main concern was that it might still show up in a properly made enlargement (which I'll have made ASAP).

Christopher Hawkins , Sep 12, 2000; 03:09 p.m.

"The film was reasonably fresh (not expired) and never got too hot." I doubt if you know the storage conditions prior to your purchase. It could have been sitting in a hot warehouse or truck for days. This may have no bearing on the color shift you saw, but it is relevant to note that drugstores probably don't take the utmost care with regard to storage of film.

Suhas Dutta , Sep 13, 2000; 12:24 p.m.

you dont seem to have used filters - so at the worst you shd be getting blue tones - which you are not. I would perhaps concur with most of the ppl above. Most likely its a color lab problem. Might not have to do with the developing, but most likely with printing. Of course, different types of film accentuate different color tones - but as far as I remember the Fuji 200 type should be greenish. And if its a Ritz type place, then they are going to use Fuji paper and will make the warm skin tones, orange casts of the evening skies also look bluish or greenish. And if you use a regular drugstore type Kodak Procssing, it will saturate your reds and similar tones. Another thing which could have happened is a bit of lens flare (or overexposure)- that would provide pinkish tones too..but not to a specific object. I would really zone in on either the overexposure or miserable printing.

Back to top

Notify me of Responses