Discovered this nice alternative. Has potential to be an alternative to cross-processing, especially now that slide films are hekspenshib.

Simply put, if there's the "baligtad lens", in redscale photography, its "baligtad film". Pics taken by a Canon EOS Rebel Xti with Kodak Color ISO 100:

WHEN YOU DIE, YOU SEE THE RING...
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/jeromeisbridget/000010-9.jpg

LOMOGRAPHERS
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/jeromeisbridget/000007-7.jpg



If you want the technical definition, here's one from Wikepidia:

Redscale is the name given to a technique of shooting photographic film where the film is exposed from the wrong side, i.e the emulsion is exposed through the base of the film. Normally, this is done by winding the film in upside-down into an empty film canister. The name "redscale" comes because there is a strong color shift to red due to the red-sensitive layer of the film being exposed first, rather than last (the red layer is normally the bottom layer in C-41 (color print) film). All layers are sensitive to blue light, so normally the blue layer is on top, followed by a filter. In this technique, blue light exposes the layers containing red and green dyes, but the layer containing blue dye is left unexposed due to the filter. E-6 (color slide) film has also been used for this technique.
Depending on the type of film used, the resulting colors seem to range from maroon, to red, to orange, to yellow.

you should also consider having your film redscale also cuts down your films speed 200 to 100 and so on with other film speed..

you should also consider having your film redscale also cuts down your films speed 200 to 100 and so on with other film speed..

hi, vincent! yup your right. that's why its nice to use a camera that allows you to push down the iso setting one to two stops to compensate. nevertheless, with some of the redscaled photos i have, i experimented on over and underexposing some. results vary from nice to very trippy! thanks for the reply.

hi, vincent! yup your right. that's why its nice to use a camera that allows you to push down the iso setting one to two stops to compensate. nevertheless, with some of the redscaled photos i have, i experimented on over and underexposing some. results vary from nice to very trippy! thanks for the reply.


sure thing bro..:) i've done redscale before but my images aren't good as yours so i never tried it again..

I'll just leave this right here. This was done in my Holga. I didn't have pre-winded redscale film then. I just loaded a regular 35mm roll backwards. Easy since a 120 holga is roomy for 35mm's. :Grin:

Still trying to get the hang of it.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3258592086_a54dffe71a.jpg

Wouldn't a red filter have the same effect?

rap, i dont think red filter will do it.. i think a red cellophane in front of your lens? more like a color splash? hehehe

use photoshop.. tada!

rap, i dont think red filter will do it.. i think a red cellophane in front of your lens? more like a color splash? hehehe


In theory, having a red filter over the lens should create similar effects.

When you expose film from the base, you expose the red-sensitive, cyan forming layer mostly, some the middle, green-sensitive magenta forming layer, and NONE of the "top" blue-sensitive, yellow forming layer. None because the yellow filter between the green and blue layers stop any blue light.

As such a negative full of cyan and magenta forms- its positive complements being red mostly. A truly "red-scaled" image should be mostly red. The presence of blues should be considered strange. And the appearance of blue can be explained by scanning procedures- the software used tries to recreate the missing blues. That is what the software is made to do- correct images which it deems defective.

Some distortion should also be present- such as blue objects being represented as red. The red and green layers remain sensitive to blue. But of all the 'redscaled' images I've seen (and I've seen a lot), none of this happened. Again, blame the scanning process.

It can be concluded that any good seen out of 'red scaling' is due to what the scanner/printing software does. A true analog print will reveal only reds.

In the past, 'redscaling' was considered a defect. We used to do this a lot- accidentally, when loading colour sheet film. Sometimes, the film gets in the holder base-side up. What we got were awful-looking red transparencies- which we hid and threw out, before our bosses saw them.

A simpler, reversible, and less painless way to do redscale is through using orange/red filters over the lens. IT WILL COME OUT THE SAME WAY ANYWAY. At least looking similar to all the so-called red-scale stuff seen all over. You have a choice of going red-orange on one frame, and normal on the next, just by putting something red-orange over the lens.

Or Photoshop. There you can red-scale anything, even normally shot frames. Even digital captures...

And less expensive too. Any colour film as it comes out of the box can be used...have you considered how much reverse-spooled (respooled) film costs?

The reverse film photo is nice. Would mind if you explain it further thanks