"Process SFW-XL only at Seattle FilmWorks"
Old 10-25-2011   #1
HLing
Registered User
 
HLing's Avatar
 
HLing is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 276
"Process SFW-XL only at Seattle FilmWorks"

There was a roll of a 20-exp color film ASA 200-20 DX in the newly arrived Contessamatic E. The film has 916.2 USE BY NOV. 98, and the 716820-(maybe the 916.2 goes here?) -607. Also, Process SFW-XL only at Seattle FilmWorks. I finished the roll. Now am debating whether I should try to look for more info on this, or if I should just start a new roll for testing.

Has anyone come across this film? I've read that it may or may not be movie film, which I guess will not be compatible for the C41 labs.

I'm liking the Contessamatic E so far. Hope to see some shots soon.

Thanks for your inputs!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2011   #2
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
 
SolaresLarrave's Avatar
 
SolaresLarrave is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: DeKalb, IL, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 7,489
I used to have some stuff from Seattle Filmworks and only once did I decide to take one roll to a regular lab. The prints came out with a strange blue tint... Good they weren't anything important!

They are no longer in business... so, in the odd case you got something out of the roll it may show not only the color cast, but also some additional color shifts or deterioration. I'd wonder if it's really worth paying for...

Take care!
__________________
-Francisco
Check out
My Leica M4-2 Blog and/or
My Nikon D700 Neophyte's Guide
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2011   #3
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
 
hipsterdufus's Avatar
 
hipsterdufus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ferndale, MI
Posts: 883
Found this, if they're still around:

http://xxlab.angelfire.com/
__________________
-Eric K.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2011   #4
JayM
Registered User
 
JayM is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Tucson, AZ
Age: 35
Posts: 296
As I recall Seattle Film Works gave out a free roll of movie film when you sent them film for processing. I found a whole heap of it when digging through an acquaintance's father's camera collection.

I read about it a while ago but don't remember the details. I think trying to have it processed at a regular C41 lab is a mean to their chemicals
__________________
Show me your film leaders and I will tell you what you are.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2011   #5
rjbuzzclick
Registered User
 
rjbuzzclick's Avatar
 
rjbuzzclick is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 393
Just dump it in some Rodinal 1:100 or Diafine, you should get something out of it.
__________________
Reid

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/

"If I had a nickel for every time I had to replace a camera battery, I'd be able to get the #@%&$ battery cover off!" -Me
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #6
HLing
Registered User
 
HLing's Avatar
 
HLing is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 276
Thanks all for your replies!

Hipsterdufus, through your link I found their facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/xxltdlab#!/xxltdlab?sk=info , which had a similar query as mine from Oct 6, but no one from the lab has updated since the beginning of August, so it seems that the flood had taken its toll.

rjbuzzclick, I thought Rodinal and diafine are for B & W only?

Anyhow, in the mean time I've started a roll of Kodak Ultramax 400 for testing the camera. Almost done with it. The mystery roll will be taken care of when the time comes....or not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #7
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,848
I had some and shot it, then looked for the processing type, it seemed to be C-41. I took it to Costco and to Longs (CVS) and neither would touch it, because it didn't have C-41 on it.

But I think I might have been wrong about thinking it was C-41:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_FilmWorks

Last edited by charjohncarter : 10-26-2011 at 11:37.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #8
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
It's rocess-wise usually either C41 or ECN2. Developing ECN2 in a C41 machine does not make the owner happy because the rem-jet antihalation backing of the ECN2 film will leave gunk in the machine. ECN2 movie stock should be recognizable by the smaller, more rounded perforation holes, but I don't know if SFW used the same perforation for their C41 films, too.

Either way, Double Exposure Ltd. (http://xxlab.angelfire.com/) can process it.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #9
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
ECN is close enough to C-41 that you can substitute one for the other and get scannable negatives. Consistency and archival quality might be another matter.

In my experience it is possible to small-tank develop ECN film and remove the remjet (a black antistatic scratch protect back coating) by manually scrubbing the back of your film in between wash cycles. But having it processed by a cine lab or DIY are your only options - C41 labs are generally terrified of remjet coming loose in their processor and embedding as black spots and flakes into the emulsion of dozens or hundreds of films, so they strictly reject ECN film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #10
Midwinter
parkour to you
 
Midwinter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Elmira NY
Posts: 54
Haven't heard that name in a while! Growing up my older brother did design work for SFW. Yes rxmd is correct.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #11
rjbuzzclick
Registered User
 
rjbuzzclick's Avatar
 
rjbuzzclick is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 393
Sorry, I missed that it was color. I have developed color film (both c-41 and K25) in Diafine and been able to get images off of it, not great images, but images nonetheless.
__________________
Reid

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/

"If I had a nickel for every time I had to replace a camera battery, I'd be able to get the #@%&$ battery cover off!" -Me
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #12
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
 
jpa66 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 800
Woah - this brings back memories. I had some of this around 1986 and shot it. If I recall correctly, SFW's appeal was that they could process the film as film, but give you slides of it. I was quite confused at the time ( and still am now at their marketing ) but all I seem to remember is that you had to send it to SFW, as no local labs would touch it.

Sorry I can't be of much help, but I hope all goes well for you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2012   #13
XXLtdLab
Registered User
 
XXLtdLab is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1
Hello: No, "the flood hasn't taken its toll." That was an incident that affected us for several weeks all the way back in July 2011.

There are a lot of "unanswered questions" on our Facebook Page because we message customers with their answers directly.



I can assure you we are very open for business, and have just posted on our page that our first ECN-2 processing run of 2012 is on for sometime next week.

I know it's tempting to contribute information on a thread. But please reserve speculation when you have no basis in fact and you are affecting someone else's business.


By the way, I don't know what it is, but we love to talk on the phone. We run into quite a few people who are completely unwilling to use anything but e-mail to communicate. This if fine for a lot of things, but after a dozen of them back and forth sometimes, I really wonder if someone of these people are just trying to eat up our time.

Direct realtime contact solves so many problems and questions instantly, we're very surprised how hesitant some mail order customers are to use it.




As to ECN-2 and C-41 being "similar enough" I can assure you that's not true either. We've gotten rolls that were incorrectly labelled and crossed film processes both ways, and the colors are still printable but there's severe color shifts and I doubt the speed is optimal or the color curves. Probalby crossover in a lot of the work.

Even the CD agents aren't the same. I want to say that ECN-2 uses the same one as color paper (RA-4), so I wouldn't recommend anyone trying cross processing if you want to get A box speed, and B no color crossover or sub-standard results.


For experimentation, it's fun to try new things, however I can tell you its practically impossible to remove remjet evenly by hand.

Please "leave it to the pros," as we make little if anything on processing anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:49.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.