harpergetsfannish replied to your photo
Oct. 19th, 2017 12:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/2x5Xrle:harpergetsfannish
replied to your photo “I… I think this film is… a little out of date. Just a little though.”
If it’s used go ahead and process it the pictures may be salvageable. If it’s unused take pictures of like flowers and develop them you can get cool effects.
Oh– yes, this was at work. I work in a camera store / photo lab. This isn’t the oldest roll of film I’ve processed, but it’s up there. (photos and stuff behind the cut, though I can’t find my best examples.)
This lady sent in 38 rolls of film– 36 still in disposable cameras– from her mother’s house. Via Etsy, so she mailed them from California! $38 to send Priority Mail.
Protip for anyone who sees this and has old disposable cameras that haven’t been processed yet: you don’t have to send the whole camera in for processing. We don’t have a special tool to get the film out. Just make sure you’ve advanced the film past 0 (you want the >>>> symbols to make sure the leader’s back inside the cartridge), then turn it over and pry that fucker open with a flathead screwdriver. That is literally the tool we the professionals use.
(if you can’t see, in the image, the black plastic flap of the disposable camera has an image embossed on it of the camera being pried at with a flathead screwdriver. I am prying the embossed flap up with a flathead screwdriver.)
It is WAAAYYY cheaper to mail film cartridges than whole-ass disposable cameras. This lady could have saved, like, $30 in postage if she’d just busted those suckers open herself. But people don’t believe us when we say “seriously just go at it with a screwdriver”, so I’ve mostly given up trying.
Somewhere I have examples of how severely age-fogged film looks when developed. It’s always worth trying! Often something great comes out. Sometimes, you get art.
Alas, I don’t have any of those photos handy. WAIT maybe I do. *goes to look*
I mean, this is not a great image, but that is age-fogged film as it goes through the big (chemical) film printer:
Can you see what that says? It says “2000″, down in the lower corner there– the photo was taken at Disney World’s millennium celebration. I developed and digitized it in December of 2015. That’s what that looks like.
So, 1997 is a bit older, but should be about the same.
Sometimes if people send in disposable cameras and there are frames left we’ll take pictures of stuff, but I generally only do that if they’re just getting prints so I know I can go through and pull those out. I don’t want to risk sending photos of my coworkers back to some customer on their CD of negatives. But, from those experiments, I can say that photos newly taken on old negatives look much different than photos that were latent exposures that aged on old negatives.
I’ve never had success with anything older than the early 90s actually giving results, but it is possible.
replied to your photo “I… I think this film is… a little out of date. Just a little though.”
If it’s used go ahead and process it the pictures may be salvageable. If it’s unused take pictures of like flowers and develop them you can get cool effects.
Oh– yes, this was at work. I work in a camera store / photo lab. This isn’t the oldest roll of film I’ve processed, but it’s up there. (photos and stuff behind the cut, though I can’t find my best examples.)
This lady sent in 38 rolls of film– 36 still in disposable cameras– from her mother’s house. Via Etsy, so she mailed them from California! $38 to send Priority Mail.
Protip for anyone who sees this and has old disposable cameras that haven’t been processed yet: you don’t have to send the whole camera in for processing. We don’t have a special tool to get the film out. Just make sure you’ve advanced the film past 0 (you want the >>>> symbols to make sure the leader’s back inside the cartridge), then turn it over and pry that fucker open with a flathead screwdriver. That is literally the tool we the professionals use.
(if you can’t see, in the image, the black plastic flap of the disposable camera has an image embossed on it of the camera being pried at with a flathead screwdriver. I am prying the embossed flap up with a flathead screwdriver.)
It is WAAAYYY cheaper to mail film cartridges than whole-ass disposable cameras. This lady could have saved, like, $30 in postage if she’d just busted those suckers open herself. But people don’t believe us when we say “seriously just go at it with a screwdriver”, so I’ve mostly given up trying.
Somewhere I have examples of how severely age-fogged film looks when developed. It’s always worth trying! Often something great comes out. Sometimes, you get art.
Alas, I don’t have any of those photos handy. WAIT maybe I do. *goes to look*
I mean, this is not a great image, but that is age-fogged film as it goes through the big (chemical) film printer:
Can you see what that says? It says “2000″, down in the lower corner there– the photo was taken at Disney World’s millennium celebration. I developed and digitized it in December of 2015. That’s what that looks like.
So, 1997 is a bit older, but should be about the same.
Sometimes if people send in disposable cameras and there are frames left we’ll take pictures of stuff, but I generally only do that if they’re just getting prints so I know I can go through and pull those out. I don’t want to risk sending photos of my coworkers back to some customer on their CD of negatives. But, from those experiments, I can say that photos newly taken on old negatives look much different than photos that were latent exposures that aged on old negatives.
I’ve never had success with anything older than the early 90s actually giving results, but it is possible.
