greg_miller10

<p>What you have there is a Kodacolor Gold 200 generation 6 film that was manufactured only in 1998 and 1999. If it was kept in a cool place you might be ok with normal processing and get ok prints. A lot will depend on the person operating the printing machine and how much they are paying attention to their preview monitor. The orange mask will have faded and many of the analyzers in these machines rely on that mask to be in the ball park correct. If you get back bad prints or scans it doesn't need necessarily mean that ok ones can't be made from the negative. If in doubt or if it is important to you send it to a specialty lab that deals exclusively with developing old film. If you haven't shot the film then restrict what you are shooting to non essential images. You might get some funky looking distressed color from it or you could just end up with miserable pictures or possibly it might not be too bad yet...that's not the norm for this film now though.</p>

<p>Oh...and those who may be curious...here's some Kodachrome (no suffix) K-11 process film from the early 50s processed into a B&W neg...</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a sample of what a Kodachrome that expired in 2006 looks like processed into a B&W negative....</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I got into this business a few years after that film was discontinued. Unfortunately the Ektachrome 40 film has not stood up well at all undeveloped over the years. </p>

<p>About a year a ago we moved this film into a much safer process that yields a B&W negative instead of a color positive. As a color positive, for years now the image was always very thin and very cyan in color. Virtually no color fidelity at all. It was perhaps a wonderful film when it was fresh but now I would advise if you haven't shot it then don't. </p>

<p>If you are up for some risk (but much smaller) and want to shoot some funky old color stock to get odd and distressed color then the very best film to stick with is Ektachrome 160 process EM-26 (avoid the "process em-25). There are also some Soviet films out there that produce really interesting color fairly reliably but you will end up paying more for processing because they require pre-hardening to processes them properly up to temp. We have about 5 years of this hardner left and are charging a premium for the use of it. It's not all bad though...most films that require this hardner can be more safely processed into B&W at a lower cost. Safe is always best for anything having to do with family archives.</p>

<p>In response to Anna...This is Greg from Film Rescue. I'm not sure who you talked to here but normally if we knew you had all of the elements to process this film yourself we would have advised you to do so. We're not really interested in work we can't do better then other people do. Polachrome film is a real anomaly for us here. With virtually any other vintage film we can find much better approaches to developing them then the recommend process for when the film was new. Not with Polochrome or Polopan.<br>

Bottom line is that if you sent us that film we would be doing exactly the same thing with it as you would with your processing machine. If you could let me know who you talked to here I can make them aware of this regarding this film. We all try to stay up to date on what is what with each film but at this point we have a list of over 400 unique film types and brands. Regardless, if it can be avoided I don't want anyone here telling people that we can do Polochrome better than they can if the have the processing machine. It simple wouldn't be true. If you have the processing pack, the film and the machine...do it yourself - and besides...it's fun.</p>

<p>You should have no problem at all with that film providing it was never in a hot place for an extended period of time. Even if it were color film the issues would be small. <br>

One poster comments about a 20 year old Kodacolor film that turned out just fine with local development. This would definitely be an exception to the rule. If the film was twenty years old and marked "kodacolor" this would be the last generation of color print film (generation 2) with the "kodacolor" designation - Specifically (Kodacolor Gold 400). After that in 1991 it became "Kodak Gold 100" (gen 3). It is not until the late 1990s or perhaps the early 2000s that you can begin to feel safe bringing in film with important images on them for local photo finishing. In that case you may still get discolored pictures but with some care they can be balanced in most circumstances. With great respect, I am not suggesting that it is impossible that the poster did in fact get very usable images from his Kodacolor Gold film but with the experience of processing these vintage films on a regular basis I can say with great confidence that this is definitely an exception to the expect trend for this film.</p>

<p>Greg</p>

<p>Tara, We use the amount of 4.00 per roll when importing and exporting the films that we process. This is acceptable with the customs officials that we deal with and I'm thinking it would also be acceptable to the bankruptcy trustee. </p>

<p>We arrived at this amount after looking not only at what expired film sells for when a local seller becomes overstocked and left with outdated film but also the average price that vintage film sells for on e-bay. Some is very cheap and some very expensive depending on the format. It's a growing trend - people shooting long expired film for the effect.</p>

<p>6 to 12 week...not month. Sorry for the typo.</p>

<p>Kelly...You keep asking who will want to take this work on and I'll explain to you why we would do just that.</p>

<p>Obviously we would not be able to do the work for nothing but we can do the work at a fairly deeply discounted rate to RMFL's and still do a very decent job of it while fully guaranteeing results from the still film and charging a discounted rate for the more labor intensive motion picture film. I don't think the forumla is as simple as you suggest ~ no capital = bankruptcy. We have a staff of between 5 to 9 people depending on what time of the day you happen upon us and our prices and policies are extremely attractive when compared to others doing this work and we survive just fine. While we don't get rich charging the prices that we do, we don't go hungry either. We in turn have very interesting work that allows us a certain degree of freedom due to our 6 to 12 turnaround time. We basically open time capsules for a living...what job gets cooler then that? </p>

<p>So yes...we're really interested in completing this work if given the opportunity. To be clear, to answer your question who is willing to take this on...we are. Beyond the logistics and dealing with angry customers who don't understand that we have no affiliation with RMFL, we are excited about the possibility of this happening. Please before you comment, keep in mind we are not looking for advise on this - we know our business well.</p>

<p>We have a standing offer in with RMFL that is certainly more to their advantage then dumping it in the trash. This offer includes absolutely no kick backs to them should we be charging again for this work. Should RMFL go into liquidation we will be immediately in contact with the bankruptcy trustee to let them know that there are better options then simply throwing this film in the trash. We will likely let them know this even before that happens and also let them know we're willing to travel at a moments notice and can be in Denver in 2 days with a truck and trailer. But right now we feel we need to set ourselves a little bit at arms length in case RMFL is able to reestablish and somehow get these films back to customers who have already paid for their order, without any additional charges. It seems like a long shot but there has to be something beyond what we see on the surface here. The question you should be asking is "why do they want to continue in business" and not "who wants this business".</p>

<p>These films are precious to people and in many cases they represent the last new glimpse a person has of a long lost loved one or simply of a forgotten time in their life. I think that "whining" is not at all an appropriate adjective to be giving people here, whether used universally to describe creditors or not. The bankruptcy trustee would have to be a pretty hard soul should RMFL go into liquidation to not give us the opportunity to contact RMFL clients and ask if they would like us to do the work at a discounted rate. It is not as hopeless as you make it seem. My guess is that one way or another peoples work in the end will get completed and my guess is certainly an informed one.</p>

<p>Have a little faith in humanity...some people do want to do the right thing and its not always entirely about profit.</p>

<p>Yes...overexposing is the way to go with expired film but it is really difficult to say how much. No assumptions can be made based strictly on the age of the film. From brand to brand and from type with in a brand to type within a brand the results are dramatically different. In general the Fuji film undeveloped fades faster and more significantly then Kodak films of the same vintage but there are exceptions such as generation 6 Kodak gold film that has faded quicker then generation 5 which is older. </p>

<p>I think the attitude shooting old film has to be a little bit of simply accepting the results and having fun with what you get. If you want predictable - buy new film. There is no such thing a predictable with expired film. We've been trying to get a handle on that for almost 20 years. We certainly have identified obvious trends with different film types, brands and formats but in the end it's a bit of a crap shoot.</p>

<p>Film Rescue International</p>

<p>Be a little bit careful. Pacific is going to be a rebranded film of another manufacturer. I checked our database that includes rebranded film and there is no "pacific" in the list of around 500 brands and types within a brand so I suspect it was a fairly small film provider. One clue that you do have is that it is a 24 exposure film and not a 20 exposure. Prior to the mid to early 80s films were 20 not 24 exposure for the most part. This is good because you might have a chance of getting something off it with normal development. There is likely other info on the label that would be useful to choosing an appropriate process for it. If this film is of the vintage I'm suspecting it is then normal development is not going to be at all optimal if there might be something important on it. If not then don't worry about it and see what you get back.</p>

<p>Sorry Raul...with all due respect your rule of thumb is not a good one or perhaps I'm not understanding it properly. Yes over developing old film can help improve the image but you're rule is too much basically doubling the developing time for a film that is only 3 years past it's process before date or tripling it for a film 6 year past the best before date. When processing old film you can not at all assume that one brand of film will need the same compensation then another brand. They are all so very different in the way that they age. Some films 40 years old turn out better then others that are only 15- 20 years old. For instance very old Kodacolor-x (1963-74) in roll form is almost always in better condition then a Kodak Disc film Generation 6 from the early to mid 90s. Gen 6 disc are about the newest film we get in that is consistently in terrible shape while the Gen 5s and 7s are often very good still.</p>

<p>As to the APS film. Unless someone has stuck something into the little hole on the cassette that turns the indicator to show at what stage the film is, then you have already developed film. Not impossible but not all that likely. Take it into a good lab and tell them your situation before doing anything. What they should do is go into a darkroom or use a dark bag or tent and snip the tiniest bit of film off so they can check if it is developed or not. It has to be the tiniest of snips though because APS machine are extremely sensitive to anomalies and may reject the film if altered too much. You don't want someone simply sticking it into their APS scanner or printer without checking it because the way the machine decides whether to print/scan the film or not is by the position of this indicator. If someone has turned the indicator to the developed setting and it is not developed, attempting to print or scan it will destroy it.</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

Greg<br>

Film Rescue International.</p>

<p>Hello Kenny<br /> Greg from Film Rescue here. What I'd do first if you're willing to spare a roll is take one into a good reputable lab and tell the technician what your situation is. Often the biggest problem with film of this vintage is that whoever is printing it is not paying close enough attention to what they are seeing on their color analyzer and are not compensating for how the film has faded. When this is the situation you end up with a very magenta colored print. With closer attention better scans or prints are often possible. <br /> If you have different brands of film though, you can not assume that because one brand turned out well the others will follow suit even if they are of the same vintage. For instance we find that Kodak brand film has stood up undeveloped over time much better than Fuji. This is to say nothing about the quality of the different brands but only that over time the Kodak held up better then the Fuji undeveloped well past its process before date. Even within a brand there are differences. For instance a Kodak Gold plus will turn out different than a Kodak Gold Ultra stored in similar conditions.<br /> All this said...your film is getting on the long end of borderline in terms of vintage for salvaging a decent color image. Normally our rule of thumb for our developing not being significantly better to normal developing is 8 to 12 year past its process before date. If it was in a cool place then yes probably you will get some kind of ok color from it with special attention. Processed into a B&w negative is definitely the safe way to go with it but with as much as you have I'd been inclined to test in color first. Not too likely you get nothing at all in color if the film wasn't in heat. <br /> Our color process for this film is not C-41 but instead a high contrast aerial film process called AN-6 which does a lot to put some life back into the negative but it also brings up the film grain. Everything is then scanned, a quick digital fix-up is done and it is then uploaded for you to preview where you can pick and choose the pictures you want. Once you select a picture it is reopened in Photoshop and further worked before burning to disc or burning to disc and printing. Basically we do all we possibly can but depending what you order a single roll of film can get quite expensive when comparing to a local provider. Often what we can do is night and day in comparison but if your film happened to have held up well overtime the differences can be small. I encourage you to test one locally. Even if it's terrible you can later send us the negative and we can most likely improve it a good deal.<br /> Hope that's helpful.</p>

<p>Oh and thanks to those that recommended us. We truly appreciate the referral and really do our best to do this right and not embarrass those who do so.</p>

<p>

<p >In response to Kelly and anyone else that might be interested.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I have mentioned to Joe Kidd, doing the work is not the problem - it's the logistical and administrative nightmare that might be involved in getting this work done.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >We have little doubt that pretty much all of RMFL clients have already made a significant payment to them...it has been duly noted by other posters here that RMFL had received payment from them already. We understand this and have been working out an approach to this work to impact the clients as insignificantly as possible, still manage to cover our costs and do a decent job of it all at the same time. To our advantage and a significant detail on what kind of price we will be able to offer, will be RMFL agreeing to relinquishing their rights, title and interest in their web domain and telephone number as mentioned in Joe Kidd's post. As direct competitors to RMFL this of course will be an asset leaving only Rapid Photo in the USA and Process C-22 in the UK in competition for this work.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Of course anyone that is willing to step into this will be looking for assets and perhaps there will be another company out there that will be interested in not only the existing work but also in the physical assets of RMFL which could be the better deal from RMFL’s standpoint. I have a good deal of confidence in our abilities and experience. I am not aware of another provider that could simply step in and serve the client as well as we will be able to. Before any such deal with another provider is struck, it is our intention to make it public what the client's option would be with us, should we have the opportunity to do this work.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >While we are not yet willing to make an announcement on the price that we will be offering to the Rocky Mountain refugees, at this point it is our intention to be fully guaranteeing the still film work, no detectable image no charge and to have a hugely discounted price for the motion picture clients who’s films do not turn out. In our opinion having these guarantees are essential to having the confidence of the client that we will be doing our best to do this work properly. One caveat to this will be how the film was stored during it’s stay at RMFL. We keep careful records of how each type of film trends in a given process and should these films be significantly out of trend we may have to reconsider our approach to this. Like you said…it could be a real mess. This we don’t deny but making an effort in this could not only be a good thing for us, it’s also the right thing to do.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >All this said, the best case scenario for the client would be that RMFL does manage to reorganize and get this work done properly and out their door at no extra cost to the client.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Film Rescue International enjoys a very good reputation and it is not without reason. Maintaining this reputation through both the negotiations with RMFL and possibly carrying out this work for clients that wish us to, will be a huge issue for us. Our dealings with the Rocky Mountain refugees will be honest and transparent should this come to fruition. </p>

</p>

<p>There's a lot of speculation going on here. Just to clear the air a little bit, there are behind the scene discussions going on and I'm confident that these precious films are not going to end up in a dumpster. One way or another at this point I'm fairly confident someone will be developing these films. It's too early to give details as none have been worked out and there is so much up in the air. I have talked with the Doc family and tossing these in a dumpster is something I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let happen and given the opportunity neither would we.</p>

<p>Greg Miller<br>

Film Rescue International</p>

<p>Of all of the vintage films that we get in to develop, the GAF film is one of the very worst in quality at this point. The chance of getting any kind of anything off of it is only about 30% and though on occasions we get them in in fair condition the trend is poor to very poor. We do not charge if the film is blank so I'm really am not very excited when we get these in. The very worst ones are cassettes (135 and 126) that have a good deal of purple on the label. Roll films are often better due to the nature of how the film is stored tightly on the roll vs loosely in a cassette. This protects it from oxidization.</p>

<p>Greg Miller<br>

www.filmrescue.com</p>

 

<p>For those that are concerned about never getting their film back I can't say for sure one way or another but I know Steve Doc and though we too have had some issues with RMFL, he doesn't strike me as a bad person. I still believe that people will eventually get their film back and I do believe the essentials of his explanation. For what it's worth, we're available to help and are open to ideas. Maybe things could be diffused with as little harm as possible to all parties.</p>

<p>Greg Miller<br /> Film Rescue International<br /> www.filmrescue.com</p>

<p>For what it's worth and we have been mentioned a couple of times here, we process all of the films that RM did and are a member of the BBB in good standing. We understand the importance of these lost and found vintage unprocessed film. The significance of them can be the last new glimpse a family member may have of a long lost loved one. We take that very seriously.</p>

<p>Sorry if this is considered spam. I felt it would be mutually beneficial.</p>

<p>Greg Miller<br>

www.filmrescue.com</p>

<p>I would start as Mendel has suggested and digital ice may be all that you need. Better safe than sorry. Some molds can make the emulsion water soluble which means that a water based wetting solution could be disastrous, though this is unlikely. My experience in cleaning slide in the mount is that you end up pulling a lot of dirt that is built up between the transparency and the mount onto the image itself and end up with a bigger mess then you started with.</p>

<p>For serious slide cleaning this has been my approach. Get yourself a e-6 stablizer. Mix about 3 litres of the solution using distilled water (very important) and divide that equaly into three baths. Remove the slides from their mounts. Submerge the film in bath one and gently wipe the slide with a something like a Kimwipe. A Kimwipe is similar to a very large peice of lens paper. It is lint free and a lot cheaper then lens paper. You can usually find it at a local art supply store. q-tips will work too but they are more prone to shedding. Rinse in bath 2 and then again in bath 3. Hang to dry. I have a tight wire stretched between two wall and use bent paper clips hanging from the wire to hang each piece of film. After the film has hung for about 5 minutes touch a dry kimwipe to the drip on the lower corner to wick away the excess solution. As you move through your slides keep you eye on the cleanliness of bath one. Once it begins to show some obvious signs of not being too clean anymore, dump it, move bath 2 to bath 1 position, bath 3 to bath 2 position and pour a fresh bath 3. It sounds like a big headache but once you get going you should be able to get through several hundred slides in a day.</p>

<p>One other thing you should look at..it's a pdf and I don't know how to link to it but using Dogpile (sorry...I can't find it in a Google search), type "lacquer Kodachrome" and the very first hit is an article that discusses issues with film lacquer on Kodachrome and Ektachrome films. If you are having lacquer problems your job becomes a much bigger issue. Better you read the article then I try to explain it here. The title of the article is "Coatings on Ektachrome and Kodachrome films"</p>

<p>Good luck with it.<br /> Greg Miller<br /> Film Rescue International</p>

<p>Need a quick fix. Tape it lightly down with masking tape from the corners, emulsion side down and do not choose "with film holder" in the professional mode but instead "with film area guide". This focuses the lens closer to the surface of the glass...well enough to give you a pretty decent scan on the V750 at least....i think the 700 has a different focusing system but I'm not sure. It also for the most part prevents newton rings because you are not putting the very smooth surface of the negative directly agains the glass. That said some vintage negs where the base vs emulsion side are barely decipherable you can still get a bit of a herring bone pattern. You will need to do a horizontal flip in Photoshop or the likes because the image will be backwards.</p>

<p>Hope that helps<br>

Greg Miller<br>

www.filmrescue.com</p>

<p>Walter...sorry for the miss understanding. You're right...I did not read enough and what you recommended would be exactly what I would have as well. I saw only the "avoid film rescue" and reacted too quickly to what I thought was misinformation about our company. This company I hold as precious and is a lifes work. Wrong information about our company by people who have never dealt with us, has been posted too often in various news groups and this has been damaging to us. Please correspond politely and privately as I have done with you.</p>

<p>Hello Brian.</p>

<p>Who you want to develop your 110 film depends very much on what you have for 110 film. The only 110 film that we get in that comes out consistantly well in color is "Kodak Gold" (not "Kodacolor Gold" generation 6 (look for a single digit "6" on the cassette). For these Dwaynes photo is likely a good bet - they have enough volume and I know they're careful with maintainance that you can be assured of a "to spec" c-41 process.</p>

<p>With older film and other brands our default process is to do what is safe and develop them into Black and White by not bleaching them, leaving the much more resilient silver image in place though upon consultation with the customer we will develop most anything upon request into color. In most cases then we use what is called AN-6 and not C-41. This is a high contrast color process designed for the aerial film industry...here is a sample of some outdated Agfa 126 in AN-6....a little to punch in this case but cool anyway. No post saturation was done on this.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2666/3932705374_25dc89b35a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Also worthy of note with 110...we're not sure why but the trend with a given type of 110 vs the same type in 35mm is poorer. We suspect that the cassette is less impervious to the transmission of air meaning it oxidizes faster.</p>

<p>If you are buying outdated film try to buy Kodak Gold generation 6 or Agfacolor HDC. While getting a bit vintage, we're also finding that comparatively speaking to other films of the same vintage the 3M is standing up well (though still funky)</p>

<p>Hope that is of some help<br>

Greg Miller<br>

Film Rescue International<br>

www.filmrescue.com</p>

<p>I have a ATL 2000 and a 2300 and had the exact same error message on one of my machines a couple of months ago. I'm not sure how interchangable the info on these machines are with an 800. In the case of my machine i had to dismantle it and find the problem. This turned out to be that a little magnet on a turning cog that lines up with a little sensor had broken off. I couldn't get the part so I used apoxy...so far so good.</p>

<p>Anyway...I'm not sure if this helps you at all but I do have a contact...well sorta..There's a guy that repairs these things in California named Scott Tamiguchi at Image Tech. He will likely be your savior.<br>

The number is 510 238 8905</p>

<p>Here is also the number for Omega who bought the ATL parts line. 800 777 6634</p>

<p>All the best<br>

Greg Miller<br>

Film Rescue International<br>

www.filmresuce.com</p>

 

<p>Hello megan</p>

<p>The difference you are likely to notice between expired film and under-developed film is that underdeveloped film will maintain a healthy looking orange mask (compare it to other good negatives) while expired film has a far less saturated orange mask and may perhaps even be shifting towards a completely different color (green is common). If your film was only a couple of years beyond it's expiry date then it likely should still have come out at least ok. If your film look particularly dense there may be a chance they screwed up on the bleach and or fix step. This is a good thing because most often simply rebleaching and fixing remedies the problem almost completely.</p>

<p>Hope that helps</p>

<p>Greg Miller<br>

www.filmrescue.com</p>

<p>If you have a generation 8 Kodak (look for a single digit number in a small box in the lower right hand corner of the disc cassette) then Dwaynes is a good option for you. This are the last disc films ever manufactured and they generally come out ok in the normal processing that Dwayne's provides. If you have film with other generation numbers and or other brands they are older and can not be relied on to come out well with normal handling. It really comes down to how important the images on there are to you.</p>

<p>Here is a link to our company and our information on processing these films.<br>

http://www.filmrescue.com/still-film-service-details.html</p>

<p>We are more expensive then Dwaynes and also slower but we do use a special high contrast developer on these films (AN-6) and everything is scanned and enhanced before putting the images on-line for customer preview where you can pick and choose what you want. We also don't charge if there are no recoverable images.</p>

<p>Anyway...not to disparage Dwayne's at all...they are a reliable, inexpensive, fast and reputable company. They will process your film in a, to spec, c-41 process and make an optical print off the negative onto light sensitive paper. If your film is in good shape then you'll get good results.</p>