Seattle Film Works--Any experiences?
Woodard Springstube
ISO and one 400 ISO) from Seattle Film Works. Has anyone had any experience
with either their film or processing?
Thanks much,
Woodard R. Springstube
ACodron748
>ISO and one 400 ISO) from Seattle Film Works. Has anyone had any experience
>with either their film or processing?
Woodard,
I got the same deal about a year ago and tried them out. Shot basically a test
roll as I did not want to take a chance on anything important. The results were
crap. If you like green slides and borderline acceptable prints this place is
for you. If you want quality, go somewhere else. Stay away!!!!
Art
John Shafer
Seattle Film Works film. Unless something has changed, they get it from the
ends of rolls of movie film. It's only made for projecting in movie form. It
doesn't look good all by itself, and it is impossible to print well.
John Shafer
jo...@photographyreview.com
www.photographyreview.com
www.consumerreview.com
ACodron748 wrote in message
<19990729163559...@ng-xc1.aol.com>...
khof...@flash.net
<spri...@jumpnet.com> wrote:
>Just got a deal in the mail yesterday. Two sample rolls of film (one 200
>ISO and one 400 ISO) from Seattle Film Works. Has anyone had any experience
>with either their film or processing?
>
>Thanks much,
>Woodard R. Springstube
I had the same offer about a year ago. I was not keen on their film,
but I was interested in downloading the finished product and having
them in my computer. I sent them several rolls of Kodak film for
processing. That part worked OK, but with the price of scanners, it
became less expensive to buy a scanner and make copies of what I
wanted from a local processor. I thought the results they sent on
disk as a follow up were of a poor quality - as compared with the
actual prints which arrived.
I also had the experience of a local processor refusing to process
SFW's film.
Kent
Kent Hoffman
San Antonio, TX USA
Ben Brockwell
The reason why the quality is so crappy and local labs refuse to process the
stuff is because the film is NOT C-41, K-14 (Kodachrome) or E-6. They call
it "process SFW-XL" film (go ahead and look, its right on the side of the
cans that come in the mail). The reasons for this are one, they make their
own film, and two, they get some film from the ends of movie reels. This
film is different in emulsion and thicker than C-41, K-14 or E-6. This is
why you can get either prints or slides from their film. Their basically
fake prints or slides because they don't use either normal process. They
have to develop their own film with their own special developing process. A
local lab (based in a video rental store) in my town actually does develop
process SFW-XL film in-house, which is rare, but if you look around hard
enough you may be able to find it. Even if you do, though, its not worth it
because the quality of the film sucks to begin with and therefore will
produce shitty (no other adjective to describe it) results.
-ben
Two23
film. It's only made for projecting in movie form>>
It's now mostly very very cheap grade Agfa film, and is C-41. Very brittle
and prints look like 1960's technology. Better off buying the dollar a roll
film at Walmart or Fuji HG budget film.
Kent in SD
Two23
stuff is because the film is NOT C-41, K-14 (Kodachrome) or E-6.>>
Not true, not true, not true. They USED to use movie film with an
anti-halonation coating, but the EPA banned further manufacture of that film
several years ago. The current Seattle film is very very cheap Agfa (even says
Agfa by the sprockets) or sometimes another very cheap brand.
<<A local lab (based in a video rental store) in my town actually does develop
process SFW-XL film in-house, which is rare >>
They could develop it because it IS now C-41 and they have figured that out.
There is a little code number i the crease of the lip that designates which
are old non-C41 and which are new cannisters (C-41.) I used to work for a
large regional Fuji TruColor Lab, and know what I'm talking about.
Will agree that quality is probably the poorest of any film available since
the early 70's.
Kent in SD
Woodard Springstube
Thanks for the info. I will trash the "free" film and assorted mailers. I
may keep the little plastic cans that the film comes in; because they are
useful for storing small screws, nails, etc. I had not loaded the stuff
since I had some AGFA HDC+ already in the camera.
Now for another question. What do you think of HDC+ versus Optima, etc? I
do like the better grade Agfa films for the color rendition. I have never
used Fuji, but have used some Kodak that I thought was a bit too enhanced
with respect to color saturation. Of course, with B&W I have only used
Plus-X and Tri-X.
Woodard Springstube
Two23
enhanced with respect to color saturation. Of course, with B&W I have only
used
Plus-X and Tri-X.>>
Fuji Reala is a very good print film; one of my 2 favorites (in addition to
the new Portra 160VC.) For b&w my favorite is still Ilford Pan F+, although
Plus-x is quite good also.
Kent in SD
Jim Miller
> It's now mostly very very cheap grade Agfa film, and is C-41.
I thought cheap grade and Agfa were one in the same...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures of Iceland - http://www.mwr.is/~sierrap/miller/iceland/index.htm