Found: Seattle FilmWorks Film?

[JimEG]

Thanks for the reply, MattKing.

A bit embarassing - I pushed the release button and rewound the film. It's been a really long time.... Thanks for the tip.

I just popped the film out and it is Seattle Film Works. I am very curious about what is on the film. Any chance of developing it somewhere?

Here is the canister -

 

[abruzzi]

Try these guys:

http://www.thecamerashop.com/imagecenter/seattle.html

 

[JimEG]

Try these guys:

http://www.thecamerashop.com/imagecenter/seattle.html

Got it. Thanks abruzzi.

 

[CMoore]

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.

Pardon my interest in all things trivial, but....... do you mean (literally) just ONE theater.?
That is to say, the movie would go to theater XYZ, be shown for 3 weeks (or however long) and then just sent back to the distributor and maybe tossed out.? ....... or whatever they did with the returned films.
Thank You

 

[MattKing]

Pardon my interest in all things trivial, but....... do you mean (literally) just ONE theater.?
That is to say, the movie would go to theater XYZ, be shown for 3 weeks (or however long) and then just sent back to the distributor and maybe tossed out.? ....... or whatever they did with the returned films.
Thank You

Correct - or at least close to it.
Those big cans of film were expensive to handle and ship.
This story is about even older films, and an even more distant location, but it still highlights how movies were handled: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...ry-of-the-king-tuts-tomb-of-silent-era-cinema

 

[Russ - SVP]

A horrible, crappy film!

 

[railwayman3]

A horrible, crappy film!

Up-to-a-point ? I think it was a good idea (prints and slides from one film) which didn't work very well in practice, perhaps because the necessary quality control and individual attention needed for consistently good results didn't equate with mass production.

OTOH, Kodak, in the UK, used to offer a service for 35mm slides from Kodacolor negs, which I know my Father used at times for making lecture slide sets for use in his work. I still have some of these, which still look good after 40+ years, with no significant fading. I guess they probably used a special "Kodacolor print" film, which had much better keeping qualities than movie stock ?

 

[removed account4]

Have fun with your film ! My friend absolutely loved this film and shot wagonloads of it back in the 90s——Never had troubles. That said sketchy storage and color don’t hold hands well ..

 

[BAC1967]

Up-to-a-point ? I think it was a good idea (prints and slides from one film) which didn't work very well in practice, perhaps because the necessary quality control and individual attention needed for consistently good results didn't equate with mass production.

OTOH, Kodak, in the UK, used to offer a service for 35mm slides from Kodacolor negs, which I know my Father used at times for making lecture slide sets for use in his work. I still have some of these, which still look good after 40+ years, with no significant fading. I guess they probably used a special "Kodacolor print" film, which had much better keeping qualities than movie stock ?

Kodak made Eastman LPP: Stands for "Lowfade Positive Print". It was for movie film prints but I’m sure they could have made slides with it as well. I think it came out in the 1980’s.

 

[railwayman3]

Kodak made Eastman LPP: Stands for "Lowfade Positive Print". It was for movie film prints but I’m sure they could have made slides with it as well. I think it came out in the 1980’s.

Thanks for that info. Presumably the LPP film would have been matched to Eastmancolor movie negative ? Checking back, my late Father's "Kodacolor Slides" (printed on the card mounts "Kodacolor Slide, Made by Kodak") are dated 1974, with the original negs being taken that year, definitely on 35mm Kodacolor. The colours are so accurate that it suggests Kodak might have used a matching positive film made for Kodacolor negatives ? IDK, maybe PE would know ?

I recall sets of "Woodmansterne" colour slides (labelled as "Elfincolor") been sold at many tourist attractions in the UK, these were of excellent quality, most being printed from large-format colour negs. Unfortunately they must have used the older Eastmancolor movie print film, as all that I've seen in recent years have faded to leave just a pink-ish image.

They also sold sets of "Elfinchrome" slides of historic occasions, such as the Queen's Coronation in 1953 and Apollo 11, obviously duplicated from original news slides shot on Kodachrome or Ektachrome, and these have survived the passage of time much more successfully.

 

[BAC1967]

Thanks for that info. Presumably the LPP film would have been matched to Eastmancolor movie negative ? Checking back, my late Father's "Kodacolor Slides" (printed on the card mounts "Kodacolor Slide, Made by Kodak") are dated 1974, with the original negs being taken that year, definitely on 35mm Kodacolor. The colours are so accurate that it suggests Kodak might have used a matching positive film made for Kodacolor negatives ? IDK, maybe PE would know ?

I recall sets of "Woodmansterne" colour slides (labelled as "Elfincolor") been sold at many tourist attractions in the UK, these were of excellent quality, most being printed from large-format colour negs. Unfortunately they must have used the older Eastmancolor movie print film, as all that I've seen in recent years have faded to leave just a pink-ish image.

They also sold sets of "Elfinchrome" slides of historic occasions, such as the Queen's Coronation in 1953 and Apollo 11, obviously duplicated from original news slides shot on Kodachrome or Ektachrome, and these have survived the passage of time much more successfully.

If he made the slides close to when he took the pictures then it was probably something else like Ektachrome or Eastmancolor print films. If the slides have been stored under ideal conditions, away from extreme temperatures and moisture, that could contribute to the color stability as well.

A lot of gift shop slides and movies were printed on cheap film stock and have faded badly. I know movie collectors are always on the lookout for films on low fade stock, many were on cheap film that has faded over time. There are filters you can use to help with the color but that can only do so much.

 

[railwayman3]

Pardon my interest in all things trivial, but....... do you mean (literally) just ONE theater.?
That is to say, the movie would go to theater XYZ, be shown for 3 weeks (or however long) and then just sent back to the distributor and maybe tossed out.? ....... or whatever they did with the returned films.
Thank You

I once knew an old-time projectionist who had worked in a small chain of UK cinemas in the 40's through to the 70's. Until the early 60's, when there was little competition from tv, the typical small-town UK cinema showed a two-film programme each evening (main film and a "B"feature) which changed-over mid-week. Usually the main film was a current production, but there was not the same emphasis on showing the latest release which we have now. Sundays were often an ancient horror film or a slightly saucy "X certificate" movie.

Feature films were usually up to a dozen reels, delivered in a heavy metal box box by a company "National Screen Service" who also supplied trailers and still photos for the foyer. Reel changes were about every 10 minutes, so no time to relax, and you had to keep a check on the carbon arcs in the projectors, which wore out quite quickly. Apparently the prints of older films were quite often in badly worn condition.... particularly "Sunday" films and the "B" features which could literally be years old, and, he said "a nightmare of worn perforations and bad splices". Breakdowns were not unusual.....

 

[AgX]

Up-to-a-point ? I think it was a good idea (prints and slides from one film) which didn't work very well in practice, perhaps because the necessary quality control and individual attention needed for consistently good results didn't equate with mass production.

To my understanding at least the slide production was up to industry standard. I assume they spliced incoming films to form a big roll. This then went into a cine-lab were it was processed as ECN or resp. Then the big roll was continuously contact printed onto cine print film which then was processed ECP or resp.
Then slides were cut off and mountred.

The prints would have suffered due to the mismatch cine-camerafilm/still-paper. Furthermore the rest depended on the refiness of the automated printer; as in any industrial lab.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not so sure about the slides, my 2 rolls have all faded as have the negatives. This is the one frame that I scanned several years ago, the slide have faded even more, at this point not even scannable. .

 

[BeyondBeauty]

I know this isn't the best picture but I am trying to figure out if how old this film is, if anyone has a guess? Also as I was reading this forum it seems maybe this is not just pictures but motion slides possibly? Where would someone reccomend getting something like this developed?

 

[AgX]

Not so sure about the slides, my 2 rolls have all faded as have the negatives. This is the one frame that I scanned several years ago, the slide have faded even more, at this point not even scannable. .

With industrial standard I meant the quality when leaving the lab. Cine colour print films still today are not designed for longevity.

 

[BeyondBeauty]

Do you think something this old, however old would possibly show something when printed? Also not sure where to even take it...

 

[CMoore]

I once knew an old-time projectionist who had worked in a small chain of UK cinemas in the 40's through to the 70's. Until the early 60's, when there was little competition from tv, the typical small-town UK cinema showed a two-film programme each evening (main film and a "B"feature) which changed-over mid-week. Usually the main film was a current production, but there was not the same emphasis on showing the latest release which we have now. Sundays were often an ancient horror film or a slightly saucy "X certificate" movie.

Feature films were usually up to a dozen reels, delivered in a heavy metal box box by a company "National Screen Service" who also supplied trailers and still photos for the foyer. Reel changes were about every 10 minutes, so no time to relax, and you had to keep a check on the carbon arcs in the projectors, which wore out quite quickly. Apparently the prints of older films were quite often in badly worn condition.... particularly "Sunday" films and the "B" features which could literally be years old, and, he said "a nightmare of worn perforations and bad splices". Breakdowns were not unusual.....

Fascinating.... Thank You

 

[Mark Gilvey]

I am in the process of archiving my father's photos. He passed away a few years ago. We used to use this film (5247) all the time. I always felt it wasn't quite there though. So, if you are into lomography—this film should be a hit if you can find someone to process it. If you want better results, stick to name brands.

I came across about 10 rolls of it buried in a bag along with my dad's 1950's Kodak Retina. The reason I'm writing today is that as I was cutting up the negatives that he got back along with slides to put them in archival pages. On one roll, about the last 2 feet of it is decomposing. I thought that's weird. Turns out, it's still wet with fixer. This film was processed in 1985 and it's still wet and stinky!

This is so stinky with fixer, I bet you can smell it!

The acetate is completely limp and the emulsion has come off, it doesn't even have the orange negative masking, it's just clear. Feels like skin almost. Ewww. Into the trash and outside!

 

[BAC1967]

I am in the process of archiving my father's photos. He passed away a few years ago. We used to use this film (5247) all the time. I always felt it wasn't quite there though. So, if you are into lomography—this film should be a hit if you can find someone to process it. If you want better results, stick to name brands.

I came across about 10 rolls of it buried in a bag along with my dad's 1950's Kodak Retina. The reason I'm writing today is that as I was cutting up the negatives that he got back along with slides to put them in archival pages. On one roll, about the last 2 feet of it is decomposing. I thought that's weird. Turns out, it's still wet with fixer. This film was processed in 1985 and it's still wet and stinky!

This is so stinky with fixer, I bet you can smell it!

The acetate is completely limp and the emulsion has come off, it doesn't even have the orange negative masking, it's just clear. Feels like skin almost. Ewww. Into the trash and outside!

Are you sure it’s wet with fix or does it have Vinegar Syndrome? If it smells like vinegar then it’s VS and you should keep it away from other film, it’s contagious. This is a common degradation with movie film which is what Seattle Filmworks was rebranding. Improper storage like exposure to heat usually does this. Once it starts it can’t be stopped.

 

[MattKing]

Sounds like Vinegar Syndrome to me.

 

[AgX]

This is a common degradation with movie film which is what Seattle Filmworks was rebranding.

The vinegar syndrom is not restricted to movie films, moreover most movie films cannot even develop it.

It can develop at all kinds of film with a base of acetic-acid ester.
It is dependant on storage conditions.

 

[Arklatexian]

Not so sure about the slides, my 2 rolls have all faded as have the negatives. This is the one frame that I scanned several years ago, the slide have faded even more, at this point not even scannable. .

The experience around here was you got what you paid for. I never knew anyone, who was the least bit interested in "quality", that liked Seattle Film Works slides and prints. Those who were "only" interested in "cheap" were only sometimes satisfied. Which, in my experience, is usually the case. I would suggest to anyone finding, or being given, any Seattle Film Works film, to run, not walk, to the nearest garbage can and dump it. I don't think it would even be justifiable to keep it as a "collectors item"..............Regards!

 

[BAC1967]

The vinegar syndrom is not restricted to movie films, moreover most movie films cannot even develop it.

It can develop at all kinds of film with a base of acetic-acid ester.
It is dependant on storage conditions.

I do hear about it much more often with movie film and that’s my experience as well. Maybe it has to do with the film being wound tightly together like this roll was. Many people say that the film needs to be well ventilated to prevent it so they recommend not storing it in well sealed containers. Also don’t store it wound tightly together. For movie film loosely wound film in cardboard boxes is recommended.

 

[AgX]

Movie film is not movie film. Most movie film today is on PET base.

As I said it can only occur on films on acetic-acid ester base. Part of the mentioned storing conditions is the winding into a spool.
However films on such base can be affected by more trouble. Acetate-base is just not good chemically, still people cling to it.