What color was the ceiling? If it was pure white it should not have affected
color, but I am often surprised at what bounce flash can do color wise. Most
interior paints around here are some shade of off-white and some of them do
the damnedest things color wise. You could also be experiencing color shift
due to out of date film. I have found that out of date film is often ok, but
when a roll goes south it seems to do so without regard to how long it has
been out of date and rather randomly.
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> At Thanksgiving time I shot two rolls of Kodak Gold MAX 400 indoors
> taking shots of the family. The first roll was my normal people
> snapshooting using mostly the 85/2. Most shots were wide open or nearly
> so since there was not much natural light. The film was developed and
> printed using Walmart 1 hour service and all looks fine despite the fact
> that (as I discovered later) both rolls were 2 months out of date.
>
> The second roll, shot the next day, was a different story. The day was
> gloomy and even f/2 and 400 ASA weren't good enough inside. So, I
> decided to use flash which I rarely use and generally dislike. As an
> experiment, I used my recently purchased (from Brian Huber) T-32 and BG2
> as a bounce flash and added my little Vivitar 555FD on the hot shoe as a
> direct flash. I then fitted my Kiron 70-150 and set it variously at
> f/5.6-8. The film was processed at another 1 hour service place.
>
> Yikes! The prints looked so ugly that I have chosen not to show them to
> the subjects. To see whether this ugliness was on the film vs. the
> print I loaded a few negatives into my newly acquired Acer Scanwit and
> saw that, yes indeed, the ugliness is right there on the negative too.
>
> The problem is that the flash shots seem to be exceptionally sharp and
> constrasty and also exceptionally red. Minor skin blemishes in the
> adults have been super accentuated. Everyone seem to have ugly reddish
> and/or brownish skin blemishes and blood shot eyes. A quick check in
> Photoshop (which I don't know how to use yet) shows that I can get a
> much better (but still not good) picture by significantly lowering the
> contrast and the red content.
>
> So, where did all this redness and contrast come from? Of particular
> films I know little. I usually use whatever Kodak or Fuji 200 is on
> sale at the local drug store. Is the Kodak Gold MAX 400 known to be
> especially contrasty and red or was there something about the processing
> of this roll that made it different. Is my Kiron 70-150 at f/8
> responsible for accentuating minor skin blemishes that my 85 at f/2
> manages to blur over? Is the flash in some way responsible or is it
> only that the bright light allowed me to shoot at f/8 and get a much
> sharper and contrastier image?
>
> I'd have to classify this whole roll of film as the ugliest photographs
> I've ever taken in my 35 years of casual photography. Any suggestions
> or comments would be appreciated.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
> Woburn, Massachusetts, USA
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|