Found: Seattle FilmWorks Film?

MattKing · Sep 2, 2019

AgX said:
acetic-acid ester base.

This confuses two different things.
The Kodak trade name for it's PET film base is/was "Estar".
The majority of the still films we use are on a different base - cellulose tri-acetate is used rather than PET.
I don't remember whether which of the motion picture camera stock or the motion picture print stock (respectively, the Seattle Film works negatives and slides) were on PET based (Ektar) base.

AgX · Sep 2, 2019

Matt, you are mixing up things. "Estar" refers to the chemical term ester. There are various esters. Both, "Acetate"- and PET-base are esters...

The Seattle works used cine print film for the slides they sent back. In the past these films had an acetate base, since long though they are on PET base.

MattKing · Sep 2, 2019

AgX said:
Matt, you are mixing up things. "Estar" refers to the chemical term ester. There are various esters. Both, "Acetate"- and PET-base are esters...

The Seattle works used cine print film for the slides they sent back. In the past these films had an acetate base, since long though they are on PET base.

Ah, but Estar is Kodak's trade name for its PET based stock, even if ester is a generic term.
And Seattle Film Works returned both projection print stock and camera negative stock - you received both negatives and slides with your prints.

Russ - SVP · Jan 3, 2020

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’s hideous, horrible film. Toss it!

Brad Deputy · Feb 23, 2021

Hey Folks, long-time lurker, first-time poster

I'm in the process of scanning a bunch of my late father's SFW negatives and slides (he has hundreds, if not thousands!)

I found a slide and negative that were processed from 1992, which is on the original cinema film (not C-41). These were scanned on a Plustek 8200i with SIlverFast AI 9.0.1:

I had the brightness of the slide turned up about as high as it would go, without blowing out the rest of the picture. The negative was scanned with essentially default settings. Automatic brightness, and no color corrections. I used the Kodak Pro Image 100 Negafix profile. For the slide, I calibrated the scanner with the provided slide just before scanning.

Not bad for ~30 years, but, the details of the green plants above and the colors in general are more accurate from the negative. Also, the slide is missing a good amount from the edges all around.

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 23, 2021

It's surprisingly good. My cousin who works in the film industry told me that a company buys short ends of film. Too short to use on a shoot, but could be repackaged for 35mm still photography. I'm not sure if this is true, but I've heard the film stock is a bit thicker because it's being shot at 24 FPS.

Brad Deputy · Feb 23, 2021

Here's another try (scanning the slide) after brightening it, but now it blows out the highlights (no more distinction between the outdoor light and the hanging light on the far-right window). Still no details in the green hanging baskets either :/

Soon, I will be working with SFW slides from the 70's and 80s. I sure hope he kept the negatives!

I color-corrected in the expert settings (51, -51, 44).

Here's what it looks like outside of the carrier:

You can see the subtle difference in orange masking (comparing to Kodak Gold 200 of the same year):

It's impossible to tell from a flatbed scanner but the SFW negative lets more light through, with less orange overall.

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 23, 2021

Brad Deputy said:
Here's another try (scanning the slide) after brightening it, but now it blows out the highlights (no more distinction between the outdoor light and the hanging light on the far-right window). Still no details in the green hanging baskets either :/

Soon, I will be working with SFW slides from the 70's and 80s. I sure hope he kept the negatives!

I color-corrected in the expert settings (51, -51, 44).
View attachment 267394

Here's what it looks like outside of the carrier:

View attachment 267395

You can see the subtle difference in orange masking (comparing to Kodak Gold 200 of the same year):

View attachment 267396
It's impossible to tell from a flatbed scanner but the SFW negative lets more light through, with less orange overall.

I think the positives are the same as prints that go to theaters. Correct me if I'm wrong.

MattKing · Feb 23, 2021

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I think the positives are the same as prints that go to theaters. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct - and for that reason weren't made with any attention to whether or not they would be long lasting.

Brad Deputy · Feb 23, 2021

That's what I heard, too. It's mentioned on the wikipedia article for SFW.

I don't know if or when they moved to a different slide stock. I'm curious to see what they look like from the early 80's (or late 70s)! I know I have some; just need to find em.

Yokai · Feb 25, 2021

In the photo of the slide film removed from its mount, the "ERT" printed along the film's edge indicates that these slides were printed on Agfa-Gevaert. They manufactured motion picture film up until around 1995.

As a longtime slide buff, I felt compelled to try Seattle Filmworks in the late '90s. I wasn't too impressed with the slides because they were exposed in a way that basically made them look like washed out prints from an hour photo lab. Pretty much the exact opposite of Velvia.

Regarding longevity, any negative or slide made using repackaged motion picture film purchased after 1983-1984 should use some variety of LPP, regardless of whether it's Eastman, Fuji, or Agfa. (Technically "LPP" stands for Low-fade Positive Print", but the technology that makes it low fade applies to all negative & positive stocks manufactured since the early 1980s.) That said, poor/improper processing practices could cause even LPP stocks to fade.

Found: Seattle FilmWorks Film?

MattKing

Moderator

AgX

MattKing

Moderator

Russ - SVP

Brad Deputy

Mainecoonmaniac

Brad Deputy

Mainecoonmaniac

MattKing

Moderator

Brad Deputy

Yokai

Found: Seattle FilmWorks Film?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency