Rollei Digibase CR200 - Dwayne's refusal to process

[DBP]

Got a note yesterday from Dwayne's that they would be returning unprocessed the two rolls of CR200 I sent them with my latest Kodachrome batch. They said they couldn't process it because of the polyester base. Does anyone know why that is a problem and who can process it? I really don't want to start doing E-6 at home because I don't do enough to make it economical.

 

[Ian Grant]

Polyester base doesn't break so can damage machinery, Ilford have said they'll never use it for 35mm films again, there were issues with their 72ex 35mm films a few years ago.

It's not advised for normal camera use as damage can be caused to wind mechanisms, motor drives etc, mainly because the sprocket holes won't rip if there's a jam, this is the same with certain types of processor.

Ian

 

[Mark Antony]

PET is indeed tear resistant, this shouln't be a problem with most photo machines as they don't use the sprocket for film transport even roller transports use leaders that move on drive cogs so the film is untouched by the machine drives.
It is possible if they have a roller transport they are worried about the blades cutting the end of the film-not an issue if the blades are sharp.
Anyone with a dip and dunk should be happy to process as will deep tank handline process.
Mark

 

[Bruce Watson]

My understanding is that Dwayne's is the last lab running the K-14 process (Kodachromes).

 

[marylandphoto]

My understanding is that Dwayne's is the last lab running the K-14 process (Kodachromes).

Rollei Digibase CR200 is E6 IIRC.

 

[DBP]

Rollei Digibase CR200 is E6 IIRC.

Yes. Only reason I sent it to Dwayne's was that I was sending them Kodachrome anyway and it was easier to post one package.

 

[DBP]

Polyester base doesn't break so can damage machinery, Ilford have said they'll never use it for 35mm films again, there were issues with their 72ex 35mm films a few years ago.

It's not advised for normal camera use as damage can be caused to wind mechanisms, motor drives etc, mainly because the sprocket holes won't rip if there's a jam, this is the same with certain types of processor.

Ian

Are people having problems with normal motor drives?

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Dwaynes use a motion picture processor for their Kodachrome line, maybe they're running a similar thing for E6. How it works with the kodachrome is that all the rolls are spliced together and run through the machine as a continous roll. If you were to get some a jam in a machine like that with a polyester based film, you'd be looking at some problems.

I've used plenty of polyester based films in my 35mm cameras (with motor drives) and have never had a problem. I've never heard one story on APUG of a camera fault chalked up to a polyester based film either. And there's enough of us here...Remember, Kodak HIE and EIR were on a polyester base too. It's not just those nasty folks from Rollei.

Take it to another lab and be up front about the fact it's polyester based and ask if they would have any problems with that. Apparently Dwaynes do, and that's good to know. My local lab doesnt.

 

[ntenny]

Must be a fairly recent change---they processed several rolls of CR200 for me a year or so ago. Maybe they actually had something go wrong.

-NT

 

[nickandre]

Or maybe Joe was clearing the film instead of Fred. Try calling them. Or just send them back again. They might run them.

 

[Ian Grant]

Are people having problems with normal motor drives?

Most people with motor drives don't use films like this anyway, they buy film designed for camera use by the major manufacturers.

Ian

 

[clayne]

PET is perfectly fine for manually driven cameras and some motor drives. Its not going to tear the back off the camera. Stop the FUD.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Dale Labs will take it for sure. www.Dalelabs.com They are a great lab.

 

[AgX]

PET is indeed tear resistant, this shouln't be a problem with most photo machines as they don't use the sprocket for film transport even roller transports use leaders that move on drive cogs so the film is untouched by the machine drives.
It is possible if they have a roller transport they are worried about the blades cutting the end of the film-not an issue if the blades are sharp.
Anyone with a dip and dunk should be happy to process as will deep tank handline process.
Mark

I have never heard of problems related to PET base with continuous transport processors.
Furthermore DR5chrome state that they use for E-6 processors from italian Technolab. To my understanting they only made film processors of the dip-and-dunk principle.

 

[Mark Antony]

I have never heard of problems related to PET base with continuous transport processors.
Furthermore DR5chrome state that they use for E-6 processors from italian Technolab. To my understanting they only made film processors of the dip-and-dunk principle.

Neither have I, but if someone is rufusing to develop PET films they must be worried about something. BTW isn't this Dwanes we are talking about not DR5?

I don't know if this could be an issue but I remember a processor that had IR film sensors at the edge for repeleshment if PET is used they might have a light pipe issue.
Unlikely though- I think Dwanes are being Über careful.

EDit I think Fleath had the best explaination, the most logical one anyhow.

 

[Ian Grant]

PET is perfectly fine for manually driven cameras and some motor drives. Its not going to tear the back off the camera. Stop the FUD.

Ilford were quite emphatic (on factory tours) that PET films can damage conventional camera wind mechanisms, and why they'd never use it again for 35mm. The films coated on PET are usually used in specialist cameras with slip clutches or other safety mechanisms that prevent damage in case of a film jam.

For this reason the major manufacturers don't normally use PET base for films made for conventional camera use.

The issue is more of stripped gears in wind mechanisms because the film doesn't break or the perforations tear. Some cameras are far more robust than others but many of the low to medium priced cameras made in the last few years don't have the build quality of similar cameras made in 70's & 80's.

Ilford's comments were because there has been damage to cameras, so it wasn't scare mongering, it lead to their rapid withdrawal of their 72ex 35mm film, so they know what they were talking about.

Ian

 

[patois]

I also have had my digibase returned by Dwaynes and it is sitting on my dresser waiting to find a place to send it. I was going to send it to york's but they send their c41 to dwaynes.

 

[lxdude]

Samy's store in Santa Barbara does dip and dunk E-6. $5 a roll plus return postage.

www.samys805.com/monthly-specials/

 

[railwayman3]

Ilford were quite emphatic (on factory tours) that PET films can damage conventional camera wind mechanisms, and why they'd never use it again for 35mm. The films coated on PET are usually used in specialist cameras with slip clutches or other safety mechanisms that prevent damage in case of a film jam.

For this reason the major manufacturers don't normally use PET base for films made for conventional camera use.

The issue is more of stripped gears in wind mechanisms because the film doesn't break or the perforations tear. Some cameras are far more robust than others but many of the low to medium priced cameras made in the last few years don't have the build quality of similar cameras made in 70's & 80's.

Ilford's comments were because there has been damage to cameras, so it wasn't scare mongering, it lead to their rapid withdrawal of their 72ex 35mm film, so they know what they were talking about.

Ian

I was on one of the same trips to the Ilford factory and recall the discussion, which, when I was there, included the Chairman and the Sales director. There was a real concern of damage to cameras, and IIRC mention of someone like NASA having issues?

One only has to think of a over-vigorous manual winding-on when No 36 or No 72 has been reached (I've torn conventional film that way before I knew better), and you have a problem when the film stays put! Clearly Dwaynes have similar concerns...maybe overcautious, but they know their equipment, and I wouldn't be very pleased if my film were damaged because of someone else's PET film being spliced in the same reel.

 

[nickrapak]

Poleyester film has the distinct possibility to damage auto-winding systems, depending on the force exerted by the winder, and where the force is exerted on the film. As for manual winding cameras, as long as you don't force it, it will be okay. The problem is that most people's reaction to a stuck wind lever will be to push it more, which will damage the mechanisms before the film.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

Most people with motor drives don't use films like this anyway, they buy film designed for camera use by the major manufacturers.

Ian

This film is made by one major manufacturer, Agfa, and they offer PET-based films in 70mm DP (typeII), as well as in type 135.

Not long ago Kodak offered at least two PET-based films in type 135 too.
(Among them the Technical Pan.)




(By the way: my excuses for mixing up Dwaynes with DR5.)

 

[fschifano]

My understanding is that Dwayne's is the last lab running the K-14 process (Kodachromes).

That's true, and not for much longer. Dec. 30, 2010 is the last day they'll do it.

 

[likemarlonbrando]

Techlab Photo in Baltimore Will run it. I take mine there.

www.techlabphoto.com

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Dale Labs will take it for sure. www.Dalelabs.com They are a great lab.

I know for a fact that Dale Labs uses Noritsu leader-card machines similar to the type you'd see for a minilab.

They use a sprocketed card about a foot by a half a foot (30x15cm) to advance the film through each processing tank not the sprockets on the film or the film base itself.

And since you can only do two rolls per card, and the rolls of film are separate, there's a pretty good chance they'd do it for you.


Best to call first though, as the drying temperatures of polyester and acetate may be different. I know the driers on Noritsus change temperature for 1- and 220 film because of the different thickness of that material, even though it uses the same acetate as 35mm.

 

[streondj]

I'd just like to say, that polyester films are great for their longevity,
and slides are important in particular.

To me the fact that the film will store the memories for my great grand children to see,
is much more important than a camera.

Acetate slides can degrade after 40+ years, and convert back to vinegar,
but polyester slides will be around for centuries 1000+ years.

If there is a genuine issue about the film at the end of a roll, breaking expensive cameras,
then it would probably be better to make the material that keeps the film on the roll brake.
meanwhile can simply use cameras that are either hard to brake, or you wouldn't mind braking.
For instance, plastic camera's are really cheap, and some of the most durable, since they are so simple.

Also in terms of developing being "economical",
if you factor in the amount of money spent on backing up archives,
then it's economical to get it done properly the first time,
so the original will be available.

Even if you only have to backup your archive once in a lifetime,
it'll still be at least double the cost.

knowledge is all we can take with us at death,
so of course, learning to develop yourself,
is always a valuable skill set to have,
a potential talent for your next life.
maybe can review those polyester slides also ;-)