Any ideas what happened here..(16mm has come back looking like its got a red filter)?

[jack layfield]

Just got this film back from the lab and it looks like its been shot with a red filter.

Was shot on Eclair ACL with schneider-kreuznach variogon 18-90mm f2 

Have spoken with the lab and they said no error reports so just a bit confused why this wouldve happened, if anyone has any insights would be much appreciated.

 

 

Thanks 

[Gregory Irwin]

Did you shoot negative or chrome stock?

G

[jack layfield]

Ah should've mentioned that, Kodak 500t  Colour Negative Film

[Gregory Irwin]

Am I wrong? It appears that you are projecting the negative which would make sense for the red. 
 

G

[jack layfield]

40 minutes ago, Gregory Irwin said:

Am I wrong? It appears that you are projecting the negative which would make sense for the red. 
 

G

So having the film the wrong way? I thought that but it can only be lead through the sprockets and im pretty sure the emulsion was on the correct side. 

[Uli Meyer]

40 minutes ago, jack layfield said:

So having the film the wrong way? I thought that but it can only be lead through the sprockets and im pretty sure the emulsion was on the correct side. 

Have you uploaded the scan file of your film as you've received it from the lab? It looks like you filmed it off a monitor or projected onto a wall. Very odd.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Uli Meyer

[Heikki Repo]

Was this fresh film or some short end? I'm asking, because that really does look like it was exposed through the back, compare to these: https://microsites.lomography.com/redscalefilm/ Yours has same color and the under exposed look.

With single perf 16mm it shouldn't be possible unless you had different winding. But if it's some short end or Aaton Minima film... Still, I'd think you'd notice if it wasn't the lighter emulsion side you saw when checking the gate. Quite weird.

[Frank Wylie]

49 minutes ago, Heikki Repo said:

Was this fresh film or some short end? I'm asking, because that really does look like it was exposed through the back, compare to these: https://microsites.lomography.com/redscalefilm/ Yours has same color and the under exposed look.

With single perf 16mm it shouldn't be possible unless you had different winding. But if it's some short end or Aaton Minima film... Still, I'd think you'd notice if it wasn't the lighter emulsion side you saw when checking the gate. Quite weird.

That would be my guess; either short ends wound incorrectly to a spool or a magazine somehow loaded incorrectly...

 

[jack layfield]

Thanks for all insight,  I must of as it was from a 100ft roll i needed the spool for and then i put back on...I thought i was sure the emulsion side was correct but must have been wrong. These thing do happen : /

[Frank Wylie]

Yes, after 40 years, I still have to think hard about proper wind/orientation on single perf 16mm!  It never gets any easier (at least for me)!

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't know how you'd mis-load a single perf roll of film, the sprocket can only be on one side with single perf. So it seems highly highly highly unlikely, but yes these are the results you'd get if you shot through the backing side instead of the emulsion side. I just can't think of how you'd do it. No cameras I know can be threaded backwards like that. 

[Gregory Irwin]

5 hours ago, jack layfield said:

So having the film the wrong way? I thought that but it can only be lead through the sprockets and im pretty sure the emulsion was on the correct side. 

I’m suggesting that you are projecting the actual negative instead of the positive print. Either that or the film stock is a bad batch. 
 

Was your scene a day exterior or night? The red on the negative would be blue on the positive. If the film was loaded backwards, there would be numerous other problems. Focus would be soft, exposure would be completely off and the image would just look bad. 
 

G

Edited November 29, 2021 by Gregory Irwin

[Karim D. Ghantous]

AFAIK, RedScale film has a slightly lower ASA rating. In addition to that, the Remjet is even more dense than regular film (I think?), and if you shot through the Remjet, you'd be noticeably underexposed. So obviously you threaded the film the correct way.

[Jon O'Brien]

It's positive film. There isn't a red filter in the filter holder? Looks like a coloured filter as used sometimes with B&W film.

[Jon O'Brien]

Yes focus would be soft if film was loaded backwards. Looks pretty sharp to me.

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

It's positive film.

The OP said it's Vision 3 500T 

It was also professionally processed and scanned. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Indeed. Quite so! I meant to say that the image, to my eye, looks like a positive image. Not a projected negative image. But perhaps I misunderstood some elements of the discussion. Forgive my incorrect wording.

[Aapo Lettinen]

for me the most logical explanation would be that if the stock was a short end, it was not 500T 7219 at all but probably some lower sensitivity daylight balanced stock like 250D (7207). So could it have been just incorrectly marked 250D which everyone though was 500T and then you shot it with 85 filter which would have been good with the tungsten balanced 500T but lead to the underexposed reddish orange look when used on lower sensitivity daylight balanced 250D ?  

to me the typical light leak on the film edges and sprockets due to the daylight spool looks relatively normal. If there would be something wrong with the film itself the light leaks would look much weirder and more off colour I think

[Jon O'Brien]

Yes that seems a highly feasible possibility to me, Aapo.

[Simon Wyss]

If the film had been exposed through the back, sharpness would have lost. I think Aapo has it quite right.

[jack layfield]

It was 100% 500T shot without any filter. It wasn't a short end, it was 100ft wound and then rewound back on and i had to do this twice as the first time the it didn't feed through as the sprockets and emulsion where on the wrong side. 

It got processed at cinelab and scanned at on8mil and no one said anything before sending the file back to me. Really baffled right now.

[Dom Jaeger]

Seems pretty clearly shot through the back of the film ie redscale.

Rewinding twice it could happen.

I’ve done it with reversal and it was still sharp, these redscale films on 16mm neg are sometimes fairly sharp, and look similar:
 

 

I think whether it loses focus or not would depend on the focal length and f stop.

[jack layfield]

Hey Dom everything is pointing that way so will have to take the fault as my own, it will fill a few holes in the short doc im making either way. 

Thanks all for you thoughts on this topic. 

: )

[Gregory Irwin]

My next question would be if the film was exposed base side out, why didn’t the lab report it as such? 
 

G

[Aapo Lettinen]

I would imagine it being very easy to detect a colour negative film being back side out because the remjet side is black coloured and does not look like emulsion at all.  

I have once made the base side out mistake with ektachrome colour reversal film which does not have black remjet layer but films with remjet are so easy to detect that it would really be a "haven't slept in three days" type of mistake ?