From: rsmith@pearl.tufts.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:21:41 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

In article <1992Dec16.175731.26907@cello.hpl.hp.com>, jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com
(David Jacobson) writes:

> I tried SFW back in 1982, and got terrible results.  The ad said you
> could get either slides or prints.  I went for slides.  They came back
> with a yucky green cast.  The last frame or two on the roll got
> exposed to light, either during loading into the 35mm cannisters or
> during processing.  And finally, the slides came back numbered 10-33
> instead of 1 to 24.

SFW now numbers their slides and negatives correctly.  I have yet to shoot
a roll which has had film exposed to the light.  I suspect they've improved
a lot since you tried them in 1982.

> The main problem is that the movie
> studio has little interest in tail ends.  Who knows but what it got
> tossed into the trunk of a car in the hot sun or sat around a long
> time before they finally sold it.

True in theory.  My own experience, in shooting perhaps fifty 36-exposure
rolls from SFW, Dale Labs, and Signature is that this isn't a problem.
Maybe I'll get "burned" tomorrow, but quality control seems to be acceptable.
 
> Secondly, it is my understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
> that must movie film is actually tungsten balanced.

I know that SFW *used to* offer tungsten-balance processing, but they don't
advertize that any more.  I wish they would, since it's the only tungsten-
balance film I've ever seen advertized.  [I believe they actually correct
for the balance in making prints or slides.]  I've heard that these films
are daylight-balanced.  Certainly my daylight-exposed shots come back looking
fine, not the blue-cast you'd expect from a tungsten-balanced film.  (BTW,
if anybody knows of a tungsten-balanced negative film, please tell me about
it.  That's much better than losing a couple of stops to a filter.)
 
> Finally, even if you like their basic service then comes the problem of
> reprints.  You have a picture that you like, and you go down to your
> local photofinisher to get, say, Christmas cards made from it.  They
> all come back wierd, since their machine doesn't have a channel for
> the movie film.

Again, this was more of a problem ten years ago than it is today.  Reprints
I had made at a one-hour place in Oberlin, Ohio in 1985 were lousy, but more
recent reprints from a couple of mail-order labs have been fine.  SFW,
Signature, and Dale are now coding their film with bar codes, so newer
machines should have no problem with them.
 
> I wouldn't bite.

I'm not trying to say that Eastman 5248/5296 "MP" film is the greatest stuff
in the world.  I don't feel very strongly one way or another.  I use it mainly
because the labs which process it seem to do consistently above-average work,
at least for labs in that price range.  If you're satisfied with what you're
getting now, I see no compelling reason to switch, but I also see no compelling
reason not to try it if you're curious or dissatisfied with what you're
getting from your current film or processor.

>   -- David Jacobson

					--Rod Smith
					  RSMITH@PEARL.TUFTS.EDU