[jtkratzer]

I have an unused roll of this stuff that's been in my freezer for who knows how long. Over 20 years, at least. Didn't realize it could still be processed. Now I guess I need to ask if it's worth the hassle.

jtktratzer, that first shot of yours gave me a start. It looks like a disembodied dog's head on a carpet. I guess its body is hiding behind its head, eh? I sure hope so. I like the other two shots, though. Good sharpness with both, it looks like.

Perspective changes everything. Yes, her big head is hiding the rest of her. Most of the pictures are quite grainy, like really really grainy. Not sure if that's the development and editing after the scans or not. I didn't know it was expired or so old. Just thought it was some odd brand of C-41. It was 400 speed film and I shot it as such. Rating it as 50 or 100 might have given better results as quite a few were underexposed as well.

I remember you could mail away for a free roll of Triple Print brand film.
The catch was only they could process it, and it was not cheap.

Chris

Between mailing it out, processing, scanning and return shipping, it was a bit over $22 for a 20 exposure roll. I got at least four to six images I'm happy to have from it. I'd certainly like a better keeper rate than 20-25%, but that's life and learning.

[goatsNdonkey]

Try converting the grainy color scans to black-n-white. You might get that 1960-70s Tri-X look out of them!

[jtkratzer]

Try converting the grainy color scans to black-n-white. You might get that 1960-70s Tri-X look out of them!

I didn't with one that was particularly underexposed and grainy. Pretty rough on the grain, but it comes with the territory, I suppose.

[Jeff Lopez]

I have an unused roll of this stuff that's been in my freezer for who knows how long. Over 20 years, at least. Didn't realize it could still be processed. Now I guess I need to ask if it's worth the hassle.

jtktratzer, that first shot of yours gave me a start. It looks like a disembodied dog's head on a carpet. I guess its body is hiding behind its head, eh? I sure hope so. I like the other two shots, though. Good sharpness with both, it looks like.

I hope its doesnt pop out as a FB meme..I thought the same too

[p38arover]

I made the mistake of listening to a friend who suggested we do this back in the '70s.

All the colour positives made from the negs have faded - lost the cyan as mentioned earlier.. I still have the processed negatives in a sealed film roll tin. I have been planning to open it and scan them.

[Ms.Tee]

I sent the roll off to The Camera Shop in St Cloud, MN and received the scans and negatives back today. Brutal grain, likely needed to set the 400 speed film to 100 or even 50. A lot of underexposed images. Doesn't look like the best scan quality either, but it is what it is.

jtkratzer Im sad that The Camera Shop in St Cloud, MN is not a great place for developing. I just talked to them & it is 10 per roll just to develope them, I just found 4 rolls (1 - 400 & 3 - 200) I want to find some where in Indianapolis that can do them. Do you know anyone else who does them

[Racer X 69]

The company settled the claims out-of-court, and promised to give 900,000 free rolls of C-41 film to its customers within one year and 300,000 rolls to customers that did not qualify as part of the first group but who requested a roll in the following six months.

So with 1.2 million rolls of film passed out by a company that foundered and then folded means there are likely still thousands of rolls of this film lying about.

[jtkratzer]

jtkratzer Im sad that The Camera Shop in St Cloud, MN is not a great place for developing. I just talked to them & it is 10 per roll just to develope them, I just found 4 rolls (1 - 400 & 3 - 200) I want to find some where in Indianapolis that can do them. Do you know anyone else who does them

I'm sure they did the best they could with the film I sent. Being as old it was, I severely underexposed it by shoot it at box speed. The scan resolution was lower than I prefer, but nothing from my roll is going to get blown up.

I'd just google the process your rolls need. Maybe there are others. I wasn't really worried about it with only one roll. I wouldn't mind shooting another roll and metering it properly for its age, but then again, it's considerably more expensive than shooting film I already know I like.

[murrelet]

I should have read this thread before picking up a roll at a photo fair. I'll never see that $2 again!

[c.perkins]

Back in the late 80's to early 90's I went through dozens of rolls of that film in my K1000.
My experience was very good.
Great photos and the price was not that bad either since you got a free roll of film per roll developed.
Still have all the photos and negatives.

Clarence

[Wheatfield]

Found a roll from who knows when, likely came in the bottle of a bag from an eBay purchase. Never heard of it and didn't bother looking it up. Turns out it has a specific processing - SFX-XL. What will happen running it through C41? I've read this stuff didn't have a long shelf life. No idea how it was stored and the fact Seattle FilmWorks changed names around 1999, little to no optimism about how this roll turns out, but would like to see. There are a few places that still do SFW-XL, just wondering if it's even worth the money or if a local C-41 spot would give me something weird in an unusual cross processing. Any thoughts or ideas?

Toss it out. It wasn't worth using when it was current, and it certainly isn't worth using now that you can't get it processed.