Peter Fairless… Who doesn’t?
Dennis Torrance… The days of putting film in then getting film out hoping you have not exposed film to the light. Chemist in town centre dropped film in then waiting days to find out the results black and white I remember how it’s all changed now .
Alan Esdaile… I think we usually waited about a week for the photos to be developed.
Dennis Torrance… The chemists in the town centre was good I remember for time developing but gave me a run in to my photos that did not come out to well with a note and tips apparently in their opinion I was no David Bailey lol Alan .
Sharon Kirby… My Dad used to develop his own black and white photos in our smallest bedroom with the red light bulb. 🤣 We always begged him to do colour ones but he never would as the chemicals were so expensive, needed to be done in total darkness and he didn’t trust me and my little brother to not open the door and let the light in
Kathy Wood… I know those who still do
Patrick Lewis… I still do though I have a digital camera as well.
Joe Knight… Box browny
Sarah Harvey… I never liked the idea of people being able to look through your photos because some of the developers tried to be helpful and put labels on ones that were out of focus or over-exposed etc. etc.. I am not sure in the current climate of data protection that would be allowed.
Arthur Sutherland… I don’t believe this, processors had to look at the end product to be sure it was up to standard and anything wrong was not their doing. That is why they marked up flaws that were down to the photographer.
Pete Fisher… have to admit I got my first digital camera just over ten years ago, which I’m still using (much to all the smartphone people’s amusement)…until then I was using film…still have a lifetime’s worth of photos to scan…
Roger Simmonds… Me!
Jim Breeds… I might try loading these into my film SLR and snapping away to see how they come out. I found them the other day in a camera bag that I never use these days. ISO 400. “Develop before April 2006”!. 🙂 Does Marriott’s still provide this service? Maybe I’d have to send them away somewhere, just like I used to up until (and after) my first digital camera in the 2000’s.
Roger Simmonds… Marriotts still develope film!
Mick O’Dowd… A trip down the chemist to see how many of the 30 shots actually came out ok. You were still charged the same wether it was on or all!
Dave Nattress… For sure!! Progression though little “Instamatics” 126 or 120 film was it, with about 12 frames a reel, to 35mm small compact cameras, 12/24/36 shots a reel. At one time Polaroid instant cameras were popular but expensive and developed the shot in a little aluminium sleeve whicheI think you had to literally stick under your armpit to warm up for a couple of minutes – then tear off one part of the film from another – very costly and crap photo’s. Eventually I got a Praktica MTL3 then a couple of Minolta 7000’s + loads of lenses. The Minolta was the first, (I think) autofocus multi-mode 35mm camera. Still got all the Minolta stuff can’t bear to part with it but worthless. Then onto a Fuji Digital, followed by a little Canon Digital and then a little Nikon Digital, on about the 5th/6th Digital now – Samsung. Used them all for work and some did not last long, but picture quality has become amazing for cheap cameras – and then there are phones!!! How taking pictures for the average punter has moved on is truly amazing.
Jan Warren… I wish it was so simple now?!!
Darren Holmes… Not only do I remember putting film in cameras I also remember helping my Granddad George Gregory develop the photographs in his dark room!!!
Nigel Ford… Hearing it wind on but sounding as if it was chewing it up rather than pulling it round ready for the first shot then wondering “do I open it up to see if it had worked?”, jeopardising a few images, I remember one camera I had to check that the clutch to the drive sprocket had engaged before laying the film in otherwise it would not wind on even though it sounded as if it had. Not as bad as F,,,ing TRUPRINT in the early 80’s losing my film though of loads of big rare tractors ploughing in Lincolnshire that I never had a chance to see again!!! Grrr
Dennis Torrance… True print should have been no print or just true pricks lol 😂 they were crap they must have been blinded by the light 💡 lol
For sure!! Progression though little “Instamatics” 126 or 120 film was it, with about 12 frames a reel, to 35mm small compact cameras, 12/24/36 shots a reel. At one time Polaroid instant cameras were popular but expensive and developed the shot in a little aluminium sleeve whicheI think you had to literally stick under your armpit to warm up for a couple of minutes – then tear off one part of the film from another – very costly and crap photo’s. Eventually I got a Praktica MTL3 then a couple of Minolta 7000’s + loads of lenses. The Minolta was the first, (I think) autofocus multi-mode 35mm camera. Still got all the Minolta stuff can’t bear to part with it but worthless. Then onto a Fuji Digital, followed by a little Canon Digital and then a little Nikon Digital, on about the 5th/6th Digital now – Samsung. Used them all for work and some did not last long, but picture quality has become amazing for cheap cameras – and then there are phones!!! How taking pictures for the average punter has moved on is truly amazing.
Hearing it wind on but sounding as if it was chewing it up rather than pulling it round ready for the first shot then wondering “do I open it up to see if it had worked?”, jeopardising a few images, I remember one camera I had to check that the clutch to the drive sprocket had engaged before laying the film in otherwise it would not wind on even though it sounded as if it had. Not as bad as F,,,ing TRUPRINT in the early 80’s losing my film though of loads of big rare tractors ploughing in Lincolnshire that I never had a chance to see again!!! Grrr