 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / April 2008Seattle Film Works Process SFW-XL
I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with Process: SFW-SL on the canister. Where does a person send these to get them developed? I searched several photograph news groups but there is very little information that isn't over 6 years old. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Some advice that I find says the film is old movei film. Others have stated that it is C-41. The local labs won't touch it. What is a person to do to get these rolls developed? Thanks in advance, djs > I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with > Process: SFW-SL on the canister. My advice is to just toss them out. Exposed film degrades rapidly and the images will probably not be very good. > Where does a person send these to get > them developed? I searched several photograph news groups but there is > very little information that isn't over 6 years old. Seattle FilmWorks changed their name to PhotoWorks more then 5 years ago. I bet they will process it for you. www.photoworks.com > Some advice that I find says the film is old movei film. Others have > stated that it is C-41. The local labs won't touch it. And for good reason. If it is movie film, it will pollute their line. > > I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with > > Process: SFW-SL on the canister. > > My advice is to just toss them out. Exposed film degrades rapidly > and the images will probably not be very good. Rapidly? I have seen film developed after forty years that still has a latent image YMMV. > > Where does a person send these to get > > them developed? I searched several photograph news groups but there is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And for good reason. If it is movie film, it will pollute their line. Yes it produces goo when run through regular C41 lines and coats all rollers and racks with stuff that is very hard to clean off.  Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com >Yes it produces goo when run through regular C41 lines Didn't SFW stop using that movie film long ago? > >Yes it produces goo when run through regular C41 lines > > Didn't SFW stop using that movie film long ago? Could be, I haven't seen any of their stuff recently so I was speaking with regard to my memory. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com >> Yes [movie film] produces goo when run through regular C41 lines > > Didn't SFW stop using that movie film long ago? Yes they did, but after they switched to Agfa C-41 film, they still didn't print "C-41" on the cassettes, so you had to send the film back to them for processing, anyway. >> My advice is to just toss them out. Exposed film degrades rapidly >> and the images will probably not be very good. > > Rapidly? I have seen film developed after forty years that still has > a latent image YMMV. Color film? I didn't know they even made color film 40 years ago. I once left an exposed roll of Supra 800 for just one year, and the images printed from it were totally unacceptable. > Color film? I didn't know they even made color film 40 years ago. > I once left an exposed roll of Supra 800 for just one year, and > the images printed from it were totally unacceptable. You made the blanket statement. The next question is what did the negative look like? I have kept slide films up to a year with no adverse affects, it may depend on where one stores the film. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com >> Color film? I didn't know they even made color film 40 years ago. Sorry, I forgot to put the irony indicator into my post: <irony> or ;-) But while I'm mentioning it, most color films of the 1950-60s (except Kodachrome of course) were much less archival than those of today. G- Blank <Stubborn@notgonnagive.com> axed: >> I once left an exposed roll of Supra 800 for just one year, and >> the images printed from it were totally unacceptable. > > You made the blanket statement. The next question is what did the > negative look like? I have kept slide films up to a year with no > adverse affects, it may depend on where one stores the film. The negatives were awful as well, judging by HP Photosmart scans. I'm telling ya, "Process Promptly" like it says on the box. > >> Color film? I didn't know they even made color film 40 years ago. > > Sorry, I forgot to put the irony indicator into my post: <irony> or ;-) > > But while I'm mentioning it, most color films of the 1950-60s (except > Kodachrome of course) were much less archival than those of today. There are a lot of variables here, storage being the main concern. I have seen good results from films over 20 years old. How they were stored I can't tell you but it is not always a loss or worthless effort. >>> Yes [movie film] produces goo when run through regular C41 lines >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I once left an exposed roll of Supra 800 for just one year, and > the images printed from it were totally unacceptable. You must be kidding! I was just looking at my dad's old Kodachrome movies from around 1950. Kodachrome was introduced in about 1935. Color film is far older than 40 years!! SignatureMichael Weinstein | "Those who cannot remember the Nashua, NH | past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana >I didn't know they even made color film 40 years ago. Ever see the Wizard of Oz? >>I didn't know they even made color film 40 years ago. > > Ever see the Wizard of Oz? And that was released 67 years ago! SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 (refering to the Wizard of Oz) > And that was released 67 years ago! The Wizzard of Oz was NOT shot on color film. It was shot using technicolor which was a monochrome process. There films were shot simultaneously, one with a red, one with a green and one with a blue filter. They were combined in printing to give the normal color appearence. Color film was first produced as Kodachrome in 1935. I'm not sure when color negative film was first produced, but it was general use in the late '50s or early '60s. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > (refering to the Wizard of Oz) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with a red, one with a green and one with a blue filter. They were combined > in printing to give the normal color appearence. Perhaps it was not shot in color, but the distributed copies were in color (they didn't run three projects overlayed together in every theater). SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 -- Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never afraid to break your face. > (refering to the Wizard of Oz) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > combined > in printing to give the normal color appearence. Listen up, smart a.s - TECHNICOLOR is a COLOR process. They used three special monochrome films (2 panchromatic, 1 orthochromatic) to record the Red, Blue, and Green records, which were combined in printing to give a full color image. Note that there were only TWO filters, Magenta and Green, not three as you stated in your post (see technical diagrams at website below). The insulting tone of your post implies that "The Wizard of Oz" (note how I spelled that correctly) was not color, when in fact, it simply wasn't shot with monopack color film. Stop confusing folks with your semantic bullshit and drop the attitude. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor4.htm > Color film was first produced as Kodachrome in 1935. I'm not sure when > color negative film was first produced, but it was general use in the > late '50s or early '60s. > > Geoff. Let's see if we can fill in some blanks here... According to "A Half Century of Color" by Louis Walton Sipley, 1951, Macmillan Co. ... Kodachrome first came out as 16mm motion picture film in 1935. In spring of 1936, it came out in 8mm movie film. In Aug. 1936, it was introduced in 35mm and 828 formats. Color film was produced MUCH earlier than Kodachrome, as the Lumiere brothers invented Autochrome film in 1903, and were selling it in 1907!!!! Go here to see what Autochromes look like: www.autochrome.com www.autochrome.org/ Color negative film was introduced in 1941-2 with Kodacolor (George Eastman House says 1941, Eastman Kodak says 1942 for this film). Derek > > (refering to the Wizard of Oz) > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Color negative film was introduced in 1941-2 with Kodacolor (George Eastman > House says 1941, Eastman Kodak says 1942 for this film). Please do not confuse people with facts. This has been attempted many times in the past and is now officially consideredd a waste of time. [---] >Color negative film was introduced in 1941-2 with Kodacolor (George Eastman >House says 1941, Eastman Kodak says 1942 for this film). Earlier than that. It was patented by Agfa in 1936, and put on the market in 1937. > [---] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Earlier than that. It was patented by Agfa in 1936, and put on the > market in 1937. Found a few more facts... Agfa introduced their Agfacolor-Neu transparency film in 1936. Their color negative film didn't appear until 1939 - two years before Kodacolor. Derek > I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with > Process: SFW-SL on the canister. Where does a person send these to get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks in advance, djs SFW is now PhotoWorks. They used to respool movie film but for at least the last 10 years or more their film has been C41. Whichever it is, Photoworks will develop it for you. SignatureMichael Weinstein | "Those who cannot remember the Nashua, NH | past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana Thanks for the info. I found a local lab that said they can handle it. They send it out somwhere, but they said it takes four weeks. I will let you all know how it works out. Thanks for the info. djs > I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with > Process: SFW-SL on the canister. Where does a person send these to get > them developed? You posted this separately (multi-posted) to at least two newsgroups. In the future, please either restrict your post to a single group or cross-post (put all group names, separated by commas, on the "Newsgroups" line). Multi-posting wastes bandwidth, makes the message appear multiple times in the newsreaders of people who read multiple groups to which the message is posted, and creates two separate discussion threads, which means people might respond needlessly or be unable to get the benefit from posts in an unread group. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with > Process: SFW-SL on the canister. Where does a person send these to get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Some advice that I find says the film is old movei film. Check with Dale Labs. They were one of the original Eastmancolor movie film processors back in the 70s. They list a toll free number on their web site at www.dalelabs.com. They're an excellent photofinisher and, if they handle your film type, you can be assured that they will give you good results. > I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with > Process: SFW-SL on the canister. Where does a person send these to get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks in advance, djs SFW changed its name some years ago and I think they are still in business. The SFW film was movie film long long ago but it has been more than 10 years since they converted to C41. Likely you have C41 but because they deliberately labeled their film to be confusing so that you would send it to them for processing, most photofinishers won't touch any SFW film just in case it MIGHT be the old stock. The other post I saw recommended Dale and they used to process the old movie film, so they would probably do your film. SignatureMichael | "He's dead, Jim." |>I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with |>Process: SFW-SL on the canister. Where does a person send these to get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] |>Thanks in advance, |>djs They have a newsletter: From: "PhotoWorks" <marketing@photoworks.com> Copyright 2007 PhotoWorks Inc. | 71 Columbia Street Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 ** Free standard shipping on prints offer applies to online digital print orders of $20 or more placed by 11:59pm (PDT) 12/28/2007. Offer is not applicable to gift certificates or pre-paid products and cannot be used in combination with any other offers. Offer does not apply to non-print items within the same order. Offer expires 11:59pm (PDT) 12/28/2007. Enter coupon code DECEMBERNEWS during checkout. Offer not valid on shipping addresses outside of the continental U.S. They also have a large website at http://www.photoworks.com, with many functions like digital to prints, prints to digital, and C-41/etc. developments, but this might get you all nfo you need for now....... SignatureTriad Productions-Fantalla®(tm)~EZine~ParaNovel http://tarbitch.balder.prohosting. com mirror>> http://triad.beam. at > |>I hate to admit it, but I founds four rolls of exposed file with > |>Process: SFW-SL on the canister. Where does a person send these to get [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > many functions like digital to prints, prints to digital, and C-41/etc. > developments, but this might get you all nfo you need for now....... SFW originally sold respooled movie film and processed it to negative, as it is supposed to be, and then made prints and also printed on positive film to provide slides. They were kind of lousy and had to be developed either by SFW or by Dale or other such companies, because the jet backing on the movie stock would gunk up commercial processors. Then SFW started selling regular C41 film and doing the same process, but they implied it was different so you'd have to go to them for processing. The downside was that even though ANY commercial processor could process the film, they were all afraid of it because of the old days of the movie stock. I THINK what you've got is the newer C41 film, but cannot be sure. Rocky Mountain photo labs will process it if it's the movie stock, but at about $35 plus dollars aroll. SignatureMichael >I THINK what you've got is the newer C41 film, >but cannot be sure. Rocky Mountain photo labs will process it if it's >the movie stock, but at about $35 plus dollars aroll. What do the perforations look like? If they are "BH" perfs which look like this _ (_) then you definitely have motion-picture camera film. If they are "KS" perfs that look like this _ |_| (same as perfs on standard 35mm still film), then it is not motion-picture camera stock. - Scott There is some good information but also misleading advice in this thread. Some SFW-XL is ECN-2 process, some is C-41 by Agfa. The cassettes are not distinguishable, although the film pots are. Obviously these are interchangeable so the only way to tell is to examine the film leader for rem-jet backing. The movie material is also the rounder Bell&Howell sprockets, the previous post is absolutely correct in this statement. Seattle Filmworks got into trouble for all this and paid the price by losing trust. Orwo had similar problems over here but that was more to do with accidental customer ignorance (on holidays to E. Europe in the Communist Bloc days) than marking their cassettes incorrectly. To be honest even the standard Agfa film is at least 10 years old now and although certainly recoverable needs quite special attention for decent results to be obtained. Photoworks will not process SFW-XL film, they make this clear on their FAQ. We run these films through in the UK, and have the advantage of single-roll hand processing and 'economy dev only service' discounts for US customers stuck with rolls they cannot get processed elsewhere. Our site is www.processc22.co.uk. The film can be processed in the USA by DaleLabs (according to Photoworks) but there was no mention of that or any other ECN-2 service on their website. I don't think Rocky Mountain has an ECN-2 line anymore either, but I do not have confirmation. Hopefully this information has been useful! Process C-22 > The film can be processed in the USA by DaleLabs (according to > Photoworks) but there was no mention of that or any other ECN-2 > service on their website. I don't think Rocky Mountain has an ECN-2 > line anymore either, but I do not have confirmation. > > Hopefully this information has been useful! Thank you! I will occasionally use Fuji Eterna 500T in my still cameras, which is also ECN2. At least as of a few months ago, Dale Labs still offered the service, as does "The Camera Shop" in St. Cloud, MN (http://www.thecamerashop.com). AandI photo has announced that they will discontinue the service as of May 31, 2008, but one can still sneak in under the wire: http://www.aandi.com/film_pro2.htm SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification required) Legalize Updoc. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.