Topic: LC-69 Process Film

[jharr]

Remember the old Seattle Filmworks film? Remember that the only place that would process it was Seattle Filmworks? Well I got a roll from a related mail-in company recently and since the company is out of business and it would cost upwards of $40 to get it processed by a specialty lab, I went ahead and processed it in regular C-41. What's more, I did it at room temp a la Reinhold. Do I love grain? Why yes... yes I do.

More HERE.


K1000-LC69-012 by James Harr, on Flickr

[Bryan]

I have an expired roll of that stuff, was it a different process than C41 or did they just say that?  I never liked that film much even when it was new but that may have had something to do with having to send it to them for processing rather than my local drug store.  I think the film was cheap but the processing was expensive, that's where they made their money. 

[Francois]

That and the fact that the first Seattle Filmworks films were respooled cine film but later, they went to regular C-41 and didn't change the packaging so that people would continue to send it to them... or something like that.

[jharr]

There isn't a lot of info about processing it out there. I did read somewhere that it was a movie stock, but I did a rem-jet removal step and didn't see anything come out in the wash. So either it was there and came off in my developer or it wasn't and I found the one piece of misinformation on the interwebz. I know the drug stores and photomats wouldn't touch the stuff, so there is probably something different about it. It looks cross processed to me, but that could also be the effect of being stored in the bottom of a camera bag for a decade. Ah well, it was a one of a kind, so just something fun to try.

[Bryan]

This is from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_FilmWorks

Seattle FilmWorks sold movie film stock that cannot be developed at standard high street processing facilities because it must be processed in ECN-2 chemistry. Color movie film stock incorporates rem-jet, a black carbon backing on the film base that must be removed before the film is developed.[8] ECN-2 also differs from C-41, the standard color negative stock for stills photography, because it uses a different color developing agent. Seattle FilmWorks designated the process as SFW-XL.

In the mid '90s, Seattle FilmWorks began to re-package standard C-41 processed films, while keeping the SFW-XL process designation—these films were able to be processed at all C-41 capable photo labs, however because of the SFW-XL designation many would not unless they were willing to inspect the film and verify that it did not have the ECN-2 rem-jet backing (which cannot be processed on C-41 equipment without damaging the entire batch of film in the machines). Seattle FilmWorks also offered "prints and slides from the same roll", using cinema print film to create slides from the original negatives. These slides fade quickly when not properly stored, and are generally of inferior quality when compared to standard E6 or K-14 processed slides.

It sounds like they were misleading people as to the processing when they switched to C-41 but continued to call it SFW-XL.  They tried to keep sucking you back in by sending a free roll of film with your prints.  I think the roll I have is one of the free ones they sent me that was just thrown into a box years ago.

[Francois]

If you didn't see any remjet, it's probably simply because it wasn't there.

[jharr]

If you didn't see any remjet, it's probably simply because it wasn't there.

NOOOOO! I can no longer implicitly trust everything I read on the webxorz!!

[Indofunk]

I've stumbled upon (and shot) both types of Seattle Filmworks films. I could tell the difference after the initial dev step if remjet came off or not. Dev'd them all in C41, and was not particularly enamoured of any of them. Might have been my poor skills, not denying that at all But enough so that I avoid any film batches that contain those films

[John Robison]

Decades ago I got a couple of free rolls from them. They sat around until just last year when I was cleaning out photon related junk. Went straightaway into the garbage. This stuff was the rim-jet stuff. Until just a few years ago Kodak or Fuji color neg film could be had so cheap I saw no reason to fool around with movie stock. Well not entirely true, I use Eastman Double-X in 16mm single perf in my Minolta 16 cameras but that is a special case and the film developers in any standard B&W chemicals.