This company, Seattle Filmworks, sent out a free roll of film some time ago. I used it at Christmas while at the in-laws. We went to get it one-hour developed, and we were told that it couldn’t be done. Apparantly, Seattle Filmworks uses a different process than every other film in the country. (The store we were at said they could have a 1-2 week turnaround at about twice the price. sign)
Does anyone else use SF film? Is it worth the hassle of using their stores/mail order service? Is their quality any better than Fuji or Kodak?
The Canadians. They walk among us. William Shatner. Michael J. Fox. Monty Hall. Mike Meyers. Alex Trebek. All of them Canadians. All of them here.
I’ve used SF in the past. Like about 10 years ago. In my opinion, it’s just not worth the hassle of sending your film across the country.
I’m not sure what differences their color negative films currently have from the mainstream products, but they used to promote films that were adaptations of motion picture film. Were the SF products better? Not in my opinion. Additionally, if you want enlargements or reprints, you have to go to SF for their specialized processing.
I’ll probably never use them again. www.filmworks.com is their homepage.
What do I believe in? Not much that isn’t explained by logic and scientific experiment. And, you better believe, I want to see the logic and the laboratory equipment.
–P.J. O’Rourke–
I believe there’s a whole pile of these types of places. I’ve seen 'em before. They seem to work by sending you free film, but you have to send it back to them to get it developed. A scam, IMO.
I took a reel of it to a regular photofinishing lab. They took about 10 days to develop it and it looked horrible. I threw the prints away as I do now with any film from them.
I used to use them about 10 years ago too. If I remember right their scam is that you have to send the film to them and it costs more, but they return your prints with a “free” roll of film. (Which you have to send to them for processing, which costs more and the prints are returned with at “free” roll of film.) And so on. You end up using them forever because you can’t bear to “waste” a roll of film. (I think I still have a roll, somewhere!) Didn’t you read the crapload of literature they sent with the film? It’s supposed to be better for some reason, but I don’t remember why now. I don’t believe the properties of the film is the reason why a regular developer won’t develop it, I think it’s because they have a deal with SF that they don’t develop their film for some sort of legal or contractual reason. It’s just regular film as far as I could tell.
Marge: “You know, Homer, it’s very easy to criticize.”
Homer: “Fun, too!”
I ratted around my packing box and found about 5 rolls of the “free” SF film that had been sent on a trial basis. This was on the morning I was taking off for Alaska.
Each time a roll was finished it would be mailed off to Seattle. When I got home most of the pictures were in the my mailbox.
This was a special situation…and there doesn’t appear to be any difference between SF film and Kodak.
My understanding is that Seattle Filmworks and similar companies buy up the leftover film from movie production. It is a Kodak transparency film, so cannot be developed in the normal C-41 process of most labs. Neither is it an E-6 process like most slide film.
So, when you get your film back from SFworks, the slides returned is the film that actually went through your camera. Color prints are made from internegs, a step removed. They offer discs too. Anytime you have a step in between the original film and final print, the quality suffers. I’ve tried to print their internegs on a standard color printer, and it was hard to get a decent copy. And I’m a pretty good darkroom tech.
When SFworks first started up, the film was comparable to color print films on the market. Now, however, other films have far better resolution and color saturation. In my opinion, Fuji makes the best film around now.
Most mail order film companies (York, Clark, Mystic) will develop Seattle Filmworks film, and for less. So you get free film and cheap developing. Just no 1-hour service.
“East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.” – Marx
Elelle has it right, according to my local processor. He told me the Seattle film is “tag ends” left over from 35mm motion picture shoots. The film therefore costs them little to nothing, hence the “free film” aspect of the deal. They make the money on the processing side, and the process is different from the normal slide/print developing cycles that the 1-hour places are equipped to do. However, Seattle DO the processing, they give you your slides/prints, so I don’t think it’s fair to call them a “scam” operation.
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 15 tons.
-Popular Mechanics, 1949
Well, they’re pretty cool now from what I’ve seen. My roommate knocked off six rolls of SF over the holidays, sent them off on the third, looked at them on the 'net (as .jpg files) on the sixth, got the prints on the ninth at ten bucks a roll, plus they replaced the film for free. And the pictures didn’t suck.
And Melanie, I have a wonderful picture of you holding a half-empty bottle of Jim Beam on the beach at Jost van Dyck on New Year’s Eve, courtesy of SF. Unless, of course, there’s someone else out there named Melanie… Nah, couldn’t be.
When I do fieldwork, I take a lot of pictures–and I only shoot slides. Slide film costs a shitload, and the processing isn’t so cheap, either. Plus, since I’d normally only shoot Kodachrome (and avoid the evil, evil Echtachrome), one-hour photo shops are off limits, anyway.
With SF film, I can use their “free” print film and they’ll develop them into slides for me for a relatively cheap price. PLUS, for a little bit more I can get the shots on CD and still pay a lot less than I would to buy Kodachrome and have it processed through normal channels. They’ve sent me some “Seattlechrome” film, but I haven’t tested it out, yet.
Of course, I don’t take especially artsy shots. Mostly pix of my hammer sitting next to rocks.
But: for family pictures, we also use SF for prints. Mostly because film developing in my town is either glacially slow or extraordinarily expensive. I have no problems with their service.
Dunno if this is helpful for you, as I don’t know how universal it is. In Salem, OR, the local Shutterbugs do next day service on SF film. Reasonable price. Haven’t done it myself, so I can’t make any claims about quality.
i use SF. it is distinctly an inferior film to most out on the market, but not horribly so. for vacation pics, it will treat you fine.
what i like about it is a)being able to get slides and prints off the same roll and b)being able to take the photos in one place, drop them in a local mailbox (postage paid in the US) and pick them up when i get home.
compared to my local shops, they are generally a little cheaper. however, i’d definitely shoot other film for any pictures i was truly attached to.