Found: Seattle FilmWorks Film?

PGraham3 · Feb 2, 2019

Within a box of used cameras that I had bought, there were two rolls of unused Seattle FilmWorks 200 & 400 film. I had never heard of this film brand, and apparently they went defunct in the early 2000s. In short, after being sued, they were forced to give something like 900,000 rolls of free film to customers over a one-year period.

It makes me wonder if these rolls of film that I have here are a few of those rolls that were given away. If they were, it may mean they are within 15-20 years of age and may be usable (if had been kept at a reasonable temperature).

Any of y’all heard of this film? Any chance any of you might know if this looks like the film they had given away during the early 2000s?
Thanks!
-Paul

Arklatexian · Feb 2, 2019

PGraham3 said:
Within a box of used cameras that I had bought, there were two rolls of unused Seattle FilmWorks 200 & 400 film. I had never heard of this film brand, and apparently they went defunct in the early 2000s. In short, after being sued, they were forced to give something like 900,000 rolls of free film to customers over a one-year period.
View attachment 216260
It makes me wonder if these rolls of film that I have here are a few of those rolls that were given away. If they were, it may mean they are within 15-20 years of age and may be usable (if had been kept at a reasonable temperature).

Any of y’all heard of this film? Any chance any of you might know if this looks like the film they had given away during the early 2000s?
Thanks!
-Paul

It was always my understanding that they spooled 35mm color negative movie film into 20 exp cartridges for still cameras. After shooting, you returned the film to Seattle Film Works where they processed the film, made color prints and slides and returned these with an unexposed roll of film, all for a price. From what I saw, it proved to me that, once again, "you get what you pay for". Don't waste your money!. I never heard of them or anyone else "giving anything away".......Regards!

MattKing · Feb 3, 2019

What you have there is most likely actually motion picture film spooled into 35mm cameras. The sort of film that commercial motion pictures were shot on, in large 35mm movie cameras.
It is/was designed for a different process than the standard (C-41 and before then C-22) still 35mm negative colour film of the day. The current version of that process is ECN - I can't remember whether the designation was the same back then.
It was lower contrast than the standard C-41/C-22 film.
Seattle Film Works' business model was that they would provide you with a free film. You would expose it and send it for developing by them. They would send you back your negatives, slides that were printed from those negatives, colour prints from those negatives, and another Seattle Film works film.
The slides were actually printed on the projection stock used to distribute motion pictures and show them in theatres. The potential quality was good, but the longevity was poor. Most of the movie prints in those days were expected to last not much longer than a single theatre run.
As the negatives were inherently low in contrast, the colour prints weren't wonderful, but they were often okay.

btaylor · Feb 3, 2019

I never heard about the lawsuit, but there were a few companies that spooled Kodak motion picture negative, 5247 in particular, into 135 cassettes and did, as Arklatexian states— return slides, negs and prints with a replacement roll. I used a company in Hollywood and got good results. The slides were printed to Kodak mopic print film so they had the contrast and color of movies of the day. The film is probably quite unusable now.

DWThomas · Feb 3, 2019

I had a brief try of the Seattle stuff somewhere back in the last century. I was drawn by the promise of getting slides and prints in one pass. I vaguely remember having trouble coming up with a way to get good prints AND good slides. I couldn't seem to optimize both. Combine that with the PITA of shipping to the opposite coast for processing, and quality that seemed so-so, I gave up on it after a few tries. I think at one point they were sending multiple rolls out to lists of people saying "here, try it." I remember having a bunch of rolls sitting around for several years which I finally trashed.

In addition to a different process, I'm thinking it had the Remjet backing to so it would not lend itself to handy use even as B&W. (But I may be miss-remembering.)

MattKing · Feb 3, 2019

DWThomas said:
I'm thinking it had the Remjet backing

Yep - and for that reason it was hated by the operators of "regular" labs.
All it would take is for one roll to get into their machines by mistake, and they would have to discard chemistry and do a meticulous cleaning of everything.

shutterfinger · Feb 3, 2019

You can process it C-41 at 85 degrees F, higher temperatures reduce the contrast. There were at least 2 different brands of film being used. The process is/was SFW-XL. I think the film brand is on the cassette, one brand was an Italian motion picture film if I remember correctly. It dries with a heavy orange-magenta cast that may be removable while wet after processing.
I inherited some and have 6 rolls unopened with expiration of 2001 and 2002. Play with it if you like tinkering otherwise its Hi Ho, Hi Ho, its off to the trash it goes.

Paul Howell · Feb 3, 2019

I shot a few rolls in the 70s, all the slides have faded, have not looked at the negatives in decades, might have held up better. Although the price point was rather good for both prints and slides the results were so poor I did bother to shoot the replacement film I was sent, just tossed them out.

gorbas · Feb 3, 2019

Maybe film processing was so-so but they had very good cartridges. Bought 20-30 of them that somebody nicely repainted but you can still see under layer of paint "Seattle film works"

bsdunek · Feb 3, 2019

I used some of that in the 70's also. Never was very happy with it. As TWThomas said, it was hard to get a good balance so both prints and slides looked good. I decided it was easier to use Ektachrome and then have prints made of the ones I wanted. I have never heard about the law suite, but then, I lost interest in them.

glbeas · Feb 3, 2019

Might try developing b&w and wash the remjet off with a borax solution. Might be good for a grungy effect.

dmr · Feb 4, 2019

glbeas said:
Might try developing b&w and wash the remjet off with a borax solution. Might be good for a grungy effect.

I've had good luck getting rid of the Rem Jet on Vision 3 by soaking the developed film (prior to stabilizer) in a baking soda solution for a few minutes and carefully manually rubbing in a sink of warm water.

AgX · Feb 4, 2019

Such concept of selling type 135 cassettes filled with cine camera fim and providing slides on cine print film, as well as prints on regular colour paper was not uncommon and applied by some businesses as early as the 70s.

I know of such such film being marketed via ads even in Germany in the 80s.

dmr · Feb 4, 2019

AgX said:
Such concept of selling type 135 cassettes filled with cine camera fim and providing slides on cine print film, as well as prints on regular colour paper was not uncommon and applied by some businesses as early as the 70s.

Were the slides from the negatives clean and crisp? Contact printed maybe? I know that the "Kodacolor Slides" made from color negatives in the 1970s always seemed mushy in comparison to Ektachrome and such.

railwayman3 · Feb 4, 2019

dmr said:
Were the slides from the negatives clean and crisp? Contact printed maybe? I know that the "Kodacolor Slides" made from color negatives in the 1970s always seemed mushy in comparison to Ektachrome and such.

I have some sets of "Kodacolor Slides" taken by my late Father in the 70's and early 80's for his work, taken on Kodacolor negatives and printed onto slides by Kodak. He needed several identical sets of each, and they have survived very well after 40+ years. However, they are mainly shots of factory scenes and machinery and, while satisfactory for their purpose, I can see that the negative-to-slide system would not have been as good as original reversal slides for more demanding or pictorial subjects.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 4, 2019

I found a roll of 2001 400 speed film back in 2017. And while I never officially tried scanning the film, the results weren't bad for film its age.
I know blue moon camera can develop this film, but I sent my roll here: http://www.thecamerashop.com/imagecenter/seattle.html

Bill Burk · Feb 4, 2019

I used 5247 with a similar lab RGB from 1976 to 1979 or so and yes they made the slides on movie print film, all faded except one I kept under glass.

The negatives were returned in plastic sleeves, and they are all fine.

Besk · Feb 4, 2019

Paul Howell said:
I shot a few rolls in the 70s, all the slides have faded, have not looked at the negatives in decades, might have held up better. Although the price point was rather good for both prints and slides the results were so poor I did bother to shoot the replacement film I was sent, just tossed them out.

The slides faded so badly that I was unable to salvage images from them. The images were very important to me - and gone. I learned a valuable lesson.

BAC1967 · Feb 4, 2019

I got sucked into the Seattle Film Works scam for a while. I got free rolls of film but the processing was so expensive it didn’t make much of a difference. Unfortunately I always had a roll of film around so I ended up using it instead of going to the store and getting something better. Eventually I broke the cycle, I think I still had a roll somewhere until a few years ago, can’t remember what I did with it.

Bill Burk · Feb 4, 2019

Bob Eskridge said:
The slides faded so badly that I was unable to salvage images from them. The images were very important to me - and gone. I learned a valuable lesson.

I’m sorry, I know it sucks. I was lucky and kept the negatives.

This is an example from those days...

btaylor · Feb 5, 2019

Bill- that image has survived very well! Nice color and palette,looks like 5247. I also used RGB in the 70’s, it was a little storefront on Sunset Blvd, no doubt they must have had a deal with one of the motion picture labs in the area to develop the negs and print to mopic print film. I haven’t looked at the “slides” in years so I don’t know if they have survived. Makes sense though, the neg should be archival but print film is not, prints have a limited life until they are worn out.
Nice pic of “Lucky” Baldwin’s place at the Arboretum, I think that’s where they filmed the intro to “Fantasy Island.”

Agulliver · Feb 5, 2019

It wasn't a scam as such, you got what you paid for. I used them when I lived in the states because they were one of a small number of companies in the late 90s who could process film, provide prints *and* scans on a floppy disc, and who would handle adult material. The "free" films were of good quality anyway so I wasn't bothered. I knew full well what the origin of the films was.

The law suit I recall was to unlock the scan files they sent when you requested scanning....they were in a propitiatory format which required SFW software to read and couldn't easily be converter to JPEG, BMP or other common formats. When SFW went under they were required by courts to provide free software to allow people who had the discs to freely convert their SFW scans to JPEG files.

Chan Tran · Feb 5, 2019

MattKing said:
Yep - and for that reason it was hated by the operators of "regular" labs.
All it would take is for one roll to get into their machines by mistake, and they would have to discard chemistry and do a meticulous cleaning of everything.

Yup it happened to the one hour lab I managed once. The rem jet came off only partly. I could clean the film up and made prints from it. It sure did ruin our chemicals and had to clean the C41 processor up. Filled it with fresh chemical and going thru the process of getting the processor in good control. It was hell.

AgX · Feb 5, 2019

MattKing said:
Yep - and for that reason it was hated by the operators of "regular" labs.
All it would take is for one roll to get into their machines by mistake, and they would have to discard chemistry and do a meticulous cleaning of everything.

I assume that all of these films were sold processing included, first as it was a non-consumer process and as they wanted to make the profit from processing and printing themselves.

Chan Tran · Feb 5, 2019

AgX said:
I assume that all of these films were sold processing included, first as it was a non-consumer process and as they wanted to make the profit from processing and printing themselves.

Back in the early 80's (it was when I got one of these rolls into our C41 processor) the film were given away as per request. You would then send the film to them for processing for a fee then they sent you back negative, slides, prints and a roll of fresh film. That was the reason why one of our customers got these free film and instead of sending to them he gave it to us for developing.

Found: Seattle FilmWorks Film?

PGraham3

Attachments

Arklatexian

MattKing

Moderator

btaylor

DWThomas

MattKing

Moderator

shutterfinger

Paul Howell

gorbas

bsdunek

glbeas

dmr

AgX

dmr

railwayman3

TheGreatGasMaskMan

Bill Burk

Besk

BAC1967

Bill Burk

btaylor

Agulliver

Chan Tran

AgX

Chan Tran

Found: Seattle FilmWorks Film?

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency