PDA

View Full Version : The camera you bought arrived with film in it. Do you process it?


IK13
01-28-2008, 12:51
Two of the five cameras that went through my hands in the last six months had film in it....

So there's the question - do you ever process the film that came with your new (old) camera?

feenej
01-28-2008, 12:58
Yeah. I've got interesting pics that way inlcuding this one. This was in a Voitlander RF for what must have been several years. I got some real neat family pics from the mid-seventies one time.

ebolton
01-28-2008, 13:00
No. With my luck, there would be an image on the film that would get me arrested.

feenej
01-28-2008, 13:01
I do the color in Rodinal so I don't have to worry about a phone call from the minilab, ha. Pretty unlikey anyway.

crawdiddy
01-28-2008, 13:05
I never have received a camera with film in it.

But I would process it, if presented with the situation.

Why wouldn't I? Doesn't cost much. I would consider it a bonus.

foto_fool
01-28-2008, 13:25
Only happened to me once. Nothing interesting - mostly looked like the seller was just trying to make sure everything worked on the camera. I did feel a little weird - sort of voyeuristic, but for no real reason. Maybe a bit more like opening someone else's mail.

Edit: I sent the roll to a pro lab with the disclaimer that it came in the camera and for them to throw it out if there was anything unsavory on it. I wonder what they would have done if it actually had?

BillBlackwell
01-28-2008, 13:37
No. I would either return the unprocessed film to the original owner or use it as a (loading) test roll.

rxmd
01-28-2008, 13:39
I guess I'd ask the previous owner if he wants it back, then if he says he doesn't I would process it.

MartinP
01-28-2008, 13:40
I once got a Bulgarian-market Zenit for the cost of developing and printing the old roll that was inside, and returning the results to the family. I ticked 'yes' in the poll because of this.

Lukino
01-28-2008, 13:43
I'm waiting for a 126 film sent to lab I've found in an old ferrania hanging in the house. It might come from my family, but nobody seems to remember where that camera comes from.. anyway it is so old that probably will only develop purple.

chikne
01-28-2008, 14:11
If it is B+W then I would do it myself. I don't think I could feel comfortable sending a roll like this to a lab...

Teus
01-28-2008, 14:13
in a Rolleicord I bought, there's a roll of Ektachrome, E-4 process IIRC. no clue what I should do with it..

rtphotos
01-28-2008, 14:13
I guess I'd ask the previous owner if he wants it back, then if he says he doesn't I would process it.

I'd do the same.

There is a fellow who goes by "Gene M" who makes it his hobby to process found film. He often posts on the nelsonfoto.com "found film" forum.

Also take a look at his website:

http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm

Wouldn't it have been a shame if all these found memories were never recovered?

rt

rogue_designer
01-28-2008, 14:18
I was digging through my grandmothers things once she passed, and found a bag with several cameras my grandfather owned. (He died the year before I was born).

Several had partially shot rolls still in them. I processed the film, and had prints made of the images for my father and his brothers. There were some very interesting portraits of them and of my grandmother. Not good photos in and of themselves, but a good historical record.

I've also enjoyed Gene's found film website.

rxmd
01-28-2008, 14:20
There is a Polish photographer called Jerzy Lewczyński who made an excellent exhibition from pornographic negatives on film found in a dumpster in New York ("Negatywy znalezione w N. Y.").

bmattock
01-28-2008, 14:34
I did, until I got back some photos obviously taken in the 1960's of a woman recovering from some form of brain surgery. That cured me. :eek:

chikne
01-28-2008, 14:49
I'd do the same, although I have yet to find a roll yet.

There is a fellow who goes by "Gene M" who makes it his hobby to process found film. He often posts on the nelsonphoto "found film" forum.

Also take a look at his website:

http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm

Wouldn't it be a shame if all these found memories were never recovered?

rt

From this website:

"These photographs are copyrighted by the webmaster. Permission must be granted for their use."

Amazing, I don't think this is actually quite right...

bcostin
01-28-2008, 14:53
I'd process it. That's only happened to me once, though. It was a point-and-shoot I purchased at the Goodwill store. It turned out to be some fairly boring photos of what looked like someone's vacation, except a couple of the people in the photos were albinos.

I just took that roll to the minilab. Today I'd probably develop it in Diafine at home, just in case. (Though I have my color stuff done develop-only, so it'd take a fairly sharp-eyed technician to notice anything untoward while handling the negatives.)

Rob-F
01-28-2008, 16:50
Hmm, obviously an ethical issue. I would return the film unprocessed, for fear of violating someone's privacy. But let me ask my wife. She teaches ethics.

EDIT: She says, send it back without looking. Reason: privacy, and also, you didn't pay for the film, it wasn't part of the deal, and it isn't yours.

bsdunek
01-28-2008, 16:52
Happened to me two years ago - I took it to a lab. The next day when I went to pick up the photos, the manager wanted to see me. I had the same fears as some of you. Result was, the film was blank and the manager thought they messed up and wanted to explain to me how careful they are. I then told him what the film was and we had a good laugh. :cool:

RayPA
01-28-2008, 17:52
Great question. I've been in this situation. I DIDN'T process the film. I was more worried that there might be something on the film that could be falsely attributed to me. I know... paranoid, huh?

I voted No.

foto_fool
01-28-2008, 17:58
Reason: privacy, and also, you didn't pay for the film, it wasn't part of the deal, and it isn't yours.

That's not necessarily true, particularly if the terms of sale specify "as-is". If there is a take-home message in this thread, it seems to me it is "check your camera for film in it before you sell it". :)

Matthew Runkel
01-28-2008, 18:15
If the situation arose, I certainly would not be worried about finding child pornography on someone's random old roll of film. Think through the likelihood that the creator of such images would fail to keep close tabs on them.

RayPA
01-28-2008, 18:21
If the situation arose, I certainly would not be worried about finding child pornography on someone's random old roll of film. Think through the likelihood that the creator of such images would fail to keep close tabs on them.

There are hundreds of different things that could be on a roll of film that I would not want attributed to me. Most likely the content would be harmless and mundane. However, it's not my 'harmless and mundane,' so I don't want someone else's 'harmless and mundane' attributed to me either. :p :)





.

ebolton
01-28-2008, 18:25
Great question. I've been in this situation. I DIDN'T process the film. I was more worried that there might be something on the film that could be falsely attributed to me. I know... paranoid, huh?

I voted No.

That's carefull, not paranoid. Paranoid is when you realize they deliberately put the film with the bad images in there so you would be arrested or sent to Gitmo.

RayPA
01-28-2008, 18:36
... Paranoid is when you realize they deliberately put the film with the bad images in there so you would be arrested or sent to Gitmo.

LOL! No that's when you're f*ked. :)


.

dazedgonebye
01-28-2008, 18:38
Actualy, I have a roll on my nightstand right now from an old camera I bought.
I developed one roll and it had pictures of a small town fire truck parade.

projectbluebird
01-28-2008, 18:47
I would certainly develop it, just to exercise my development skills if nothing else.

When I was in school, the lab monitors (of which I was one) had drawers to keep their stuff in. One month I built up quite the backlog of undeveloped film, and there was one roll specifically shot for an assignment. In the course of looking for that roll, I developed everything I had. I never found that roll, but there was one in my drawer that wasn't mine, nor did it belong to anyone else.

No one knew the people in it, including the instructors.

It was an odd series, some sort of dramatic gothic romp through a cemetery. I like to think that my roll is waiting to pull a similar stunt sometime in the future, though as I recall it was a rather boring assignment.

RayPA
01-28-2008, 19:21
The guys at Flatiron in NYC once complimented me on my photos and I've been somewhat neurotic about what I submit ever since. The way I see it, kudos from the guy who monotonously scans the Fuji Frontier all day are probably more sincere than compliments from anyone else. (Of course it's possible that he was only greasing my wheels.) At any rate, there's no way I'd risk my minilab cred, whether real or imagined, over some pictures of another guy's cat. ;)

LOL! exactly! :)

landsknechte
01-28-2008, 19:50
In all honesty, only if it were an old roll. The historian in me drools at such an opportunity.

Modern film, unlikely. I had my fill of looking at other people's bad photographs when I worked at a minilab as a freshman in college.

iamzip
01-28-2008, 20:01
I recently purchased a Zeis Ikon 521/16 off of eBay and it had an old roll of film in it - on metal spools! The seller was not the original owner, he had picked it up at an estate auction and had no idea what was on the film. So I had it processed, and it came back with a number of decent images, surprising since I would estimate that they were taken no later than the 60's! Pictures of kids at Christmastime, and also a baby. I asked the seller if he had any idea about the previous owner, since I'm sure they would love to have them, but haven't heard back yet.

jarski
01-28-2008, 21:21
I would have probably opened the back of camera, not knowing there is undevelopped film inside, and ruined the film unusable :P

but I answered: Yes

Mr_Flibble
01-28-2008, 22:17
I've only found film in one of my acquisitions before. It was a Kodak Medalist I . It had an exposed roll of Belgian PAN film in it.

I emailed the seller if she wanted this film returned to her. She said the camera had belonged to the grandfather of the people she was selling it for and they would love to have it returned. So I shipped it back.

So far the answer would've been NO on the poll I guess...Otherwise I would've shipped it to Gene M.

kingjon
01-30-2008, 02:25
The only camera I've ever purchased that had film in it was from an estate sale. I was just starting to soup my own so I developed the roll of Tri-X and got a few nice pictures of the late owner's spaniel.
Jon

oftheherd
01-30-2008, 03:46
I recently bought a camera at a thrift store, and it had a roll of color film in it. I thought about having it processed, then thought the same as others here have said. Suppose it was of child porn. Nope, not going that route. However, I might try cross processing it myself out of curiosity, as someone else mentioned. I have never tried that before.

If there was any clue about a camera's owner I would try to contact the owner, but in this case, no way unless one of the photos contained unmistakable evidence of the real owner; like a photo with a name and address on it. As others have said, from a thrift store or ebay, not worth the effort unless the seller states they are the owner.

rxmd
01-30-2008, 06:03
In this case I don't understand the whole child pornography craze.

Firstly, you're protected by statistics. Let X be the number of unprocessed rolls of film floating around in the world. Let p be the percentage of X that contains child pornography, and let q be the percentage of X that is forgotten in cameras that are sold to thrift stores. Both p and q are rather low obviously. Your likelihood of hitting child pornography is at the most X * p * q. Probably less, because child pornographers are careful people who tend not to forget film in cameras.

Secondly, I don't know what countries you live in, but isn't there something like the "benefit of the doubt" or something, that if you can prove that you bought a camera at a thrift store that had film in it (to which the thrift store owner can testify because he saw you open the camera at his shop), and if you have this roll of film that is as old as yourself, that it's quite unlikely that you were the person who took this? On the contrary, I guess if there was child pornography in there, I guess police etc. would be quite grateful at the opportunity of getting some evidence for a 20-year-old case.

And if you're that paranoid about the country you live in, you can always get a C41 processing kit and use the film as an excuse to start processing at home.

Philipp

rxmd
01-30-2008, 06:04
I recently bought a camera at a thrift store, and it had a roll of color film in it. I thought about having it processed, then thought the same as others here have said. Suppose it was of child porn. Nope, not going that route. [...] If there was any clue about a camera's owner I would try to contact the owner, but in this case, no way unless one of the photos contained unmistakable evidence of the real owner; like a photo with a name and address on it.
How do you know if there's unmistakable evidence of the real owner if you're, excuse me, too damn afraid to even have it processed?

Philipp

Dogman
01-30-2008, 06:16
Never had this happen. I did rent a car once ("Rent-A-Dent Deluxe") that had the trunk full of empty soda bottles and a Marlboro cigarette package under the front seat that contained five joints. This was back in the days of deposits on soda bottles so I cashed them in. I was too chicken to try the joints.

I'd process the film.

Stu W
01-30-2008, 06:40
Classic Camera magazine had an interesting article a couple of years ago. "A Leica for Rasmussen" was about an auction Leica that had a roll of fiml in it from the early 1930's. Anyway, it was developed and the roll documented an Arctic expedition. Stu

I answered Yes.

peterc
01-30-2008, 06:53
If it is possible to locate the previous owner, I'd make an effort to return the film unprocessed. Otherwise, process it and see what you got. I got six or seven (badly exposed) shots of a field full of cows once.
I also got a used digital camera with a memory card that had someone's holiday pictures on it. No way to trace it back to the owner.

ableforensics
01-30-2008, 07:12
Return it to the owner or in the alternative trash it. The downside risk far outweighs the upside potential.

KoNickon
01-30-2008, 07:19
Definitely. I did this recently and I think the guy was pleased to get the slides back. Only works if you know who might have taken them, of course.

The other day I got a camera with half the roll already exposed. Being cheap, I figured I'd test the camera with what was in there already. Turned out the frames that had already been shot were blank -- someone must have just been fiddling with the camera to be sure it wound correctly (but you don't need film for that).

Recently there was a highly publicized situation hereabouts of child porn turning up -- only in this case the new owner of a house was remodeling and uncovered a closet filled with thousands of images. The previous owner (now deceased) was a doctor who'd faced charges for this, but no one knew he had a stash of slides. Now lots of adults are coming forward, believing they might be in some of these slides that the good doctor took while he was examining them.

crawdiddy
01-30-2008, 07:57
In this case I don't understand the whole child pornography craze.

Firstly, you're protected by statistics. Let X be the number of unprocessed rolls of film floating around in the world. Let p be the percentage of X that contains child pornography, and let q be the percentage of X that is forgotten in cameras that are sold to thrift stores. Both p and q are rather low obviously. Your likelihood of hitting child pornography is at the most X * p * q. Probably less, because child pornographers are careful people who tend not to forget film in cameras.

Secondly, I don't know what countries you live in, but isn't there something like the "benefit of the doubt" or something, that if you can prove that you bought a camera at a thrift store that had film in it (to which the thrift store owner can testify because he saw you open the camera at his shop), and if you have this roll of film that is as old as yourself, that it's quite unlikely that you were the person who took this? On the contrary, I guess if there was child pornography in there, I guess police etc. would be quite grateful at the opportunity of getting some evidence for a 20-year-old case.

And if you're that paranoid about the country you live in, you can always get a C41 processing kit and use the film as an excuse to start processing at home.

Philipp

I agree 100%, Phillipp. These people are paranoid.

...sort of makes me wonder if they're not guilty of the offenses they're afraid of being accused of....

fidget
01-30-2008, 08:51
In the last year I bought a vintage Ilford Envoy camera. This is a bakalite 120 job from the late 50s. It had a film in it which looked like it had been wound up. i dev'ed it in ID11, the throw-away used part after developing a couple of my own films, so it didn't cost much in materials.
It did have a few images on it and was fun to see what it might have had. It's not a good lens on this so the poor image quality might not be entirely due to age.
Surprisingly, this looks to be from the late 50's to early 60's so is a real testament to the films abilities to keep an image...

i did ask the seller if he wanted it, he said it was part of a job lot purchase and didn't want it...
So I voted yes, but not if it were colour and i had to pay for the development........

Oh, if this is you in the picture, I've got yer dad's camera :D

Spider67
01-30-2008, 09:08
I would do it! Lst time I did not have the chance as the film in the camera - a Zorki 4 with engraved speeds - had no cartridge!
Just a word to paranoia....strange things can happen to you even if you lead yor social life by the book, so develop them have them developed or return them....I manage to find relinquished negatives all the while (on the street, in rubble containers etc.)

luketrash
01-30-2008, 09:48
I always develop them. 90% of the time the films are ruined from light or age. A lot of times the more recent thrift store cameras will have C-41 in them that I just develop in Diafine. Usually pictures of birthday parties, vacation, prom, etc...

Graduation Day, 196x?? From an Agfa Chief 620 camera:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/253820990_b718ffea05.jpg



You could just right 'naughty pics' on the canister in black Sharpie and put the undevleoped roll on ebay as a grab bag. They usually get up to about 30 dollars thanks to peoples anticipatory perversions.

rxmd
01-30-2008, 10:55
The downside risk far outweighs the upside potential.
Risk of what?

Philipp

BJ Bignell
02-02-2008, 17:28
In this case I don't understand the whole child pornography craze.

Firstly, you're protected by statistics. Let X be the number of unprocessed rolls of film floating around in the world. Let p be the percentage of X that contains child pornography, and let q be the percentage of X that is forgotten in cameras that are sold to thrift stores. Both p and q are rather low obviously. Your likelihood of hitting child pornography is at the most X * p * q. Probably less, because child pornographers are careful people who tend not to forget film in cameras.

Secondly, I don't know what countries you live in, but isn't there something like the "benefit of the doubt" or something, that if you can prove that you bought a camera at a thrift store that had film in it (to which the thrift store owner can testify because he saw you open the camera at his shop), and if you have this roll of film that is as old as yourself, that it's quite unlikely that you were the person who took this? On the contrary, I guess if there was child pornography in there, I guess police etc. would be quite grateful at the opportunity of getting some evidence for a 20-year-old case.

And if you're that paranoid about the country you live in, you can always get a C41 processing kit and use the film as an excuse to start processing at home.

PhilippI strongly agree with you, Philipp.

I am very surprised about the number of people who have written that they are afraid of finding such objectionable material. Why so much fear, boys and girls? Do you really, truly believe that you'd find child pornography on a long-forgotten roll? And do you really, truly fear yourself enough that you need to worry about such an infinitessimally small chance of having this type of bad luck? Honestly, ask yourself these questions.

:confused:

arbib
02-04-2008, 13:44
YES :D :eek: :o

Terao
02-16-2008, 04:45
I always develop them. 90% of the time the films are ruined from light or age. A lot of times the more recent thrift store cameras will have C-41 in them that I just develop in Diafine. Usually pictures of birthday parties, vacation, prom, etc...

Graduation Day, 196x?? From an Agfa Chief 620 camera:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/253820990_b718ffea05.jpg



You could just right 'naughty pics' on the canister in black Sharpie and put the undevleoped roll on ebay as a grab bag. They usually get up to about 30 dollars thanks to peoples anticipatory perversions.

Blimey, they could use that shot as a scene reference for the next Hollywood psycho slasher movie :D

Terao
02-16-2008, 04:50
I recently developed an old roll of 127 found in my Mum's old Brownie. She had no idea what was on there, fortunately it wasn't anything "candid" between her and Dad :rolleyes: and turned out to be shots taken by my late grandfather c.1970. Cool to find as he's been dead for almost 20 years.
Personally I'd always develop a found film, but them I'm an inquisitive soul who also buys the romance of film. Certainly couldn't toss it.
The paranoia is interesting, good basis for a movie script a la Blowout :)

David Goldfarb
02-16-2008, 06:02
I love Gene M.'s found film stories. I've never bought a camera with old film in it, but if I did, I'd absolutely process it (myself of course).

M. Valdemar
06-29-2008, 08:59
I buy lots of digital cameras on eBay, flea markets, and I also buy used memory cards too quite often. Most of the cameras have memory cards in them.

On a Mac, there's a freeware program called "EXIF Untrasher" that will recover 99% of jpgs erased from a card.

I always run it to see what can be seen.

You would not believe, and I would not even mention or post here, some of what I've found. Some was so bad I secure erased it from my hard drive and triple erased/wiped the card.

The big lollapalooza was a bunch of used Mini-DV tapes I bought for a buck apiece from a guy selling at the flea market. He had hundreds of tapes, marked with dates from 1997 to 2003, and I bought ten.

Someone almost all of you would know was on three of the tapes. Holy Moly! Not even erased. I tossed those in the trash after smashing 'em up. No need for me to wake up one day in Guantanamo.....

M. Valdemar
06-29-2008, 09:12
In this day and age, bringing unknown film into a lab to be processed is a dangerous proposition.

Paranoia and snitching is encouraged by the powers that be. One could easily imagine oneself embroiled in a nightmarish Kafkaesque situation that spins wildly out of control should something even mildly questionable be found on the film.

There have been recorded incidents in the news of grandparents being investigated when a 21 year old clerk decides that totally innocent naked baby pictures on a roll of film are "objectionable".

The post 9/11 world is a bizarre world.

I strongly agree with you, Philipp.

I am very surprised about the number of people who have written that they are afraid of finding such objectionable material. Why so much fear, boys and girls? Do you really, truly believe that you'd find child pornography on a long-forgotten roll? And do you really, truly fear yourself enough that you need to worry about such an infinitessimally small chance of having this type of bad luck? Honestly, ask yourself these questions.

:confused:

payasam
06-29-2008, 09:22
It would seem like an invasion of privacy. Besides, if the earlier owner couldn't be bothered, it's probably not worth it.

pesphoto
06-30-2008, 05:26
Someone almost all of you would know was on three of the tapes. Holy Moly! Not even erased. I tossed those in the trash after smashing 'em up. No need for me to wake up one day in Guantanamo.....


You're gonna leave us hangin'?

M. Valdemar
06-30-2008, 05:57
Yes, the whole affair is now dead and buried, as far as I'm concerned.


You're gonna leave us hangin'?

literiter
06-30-2008, 06:42
If I were to find a very old camera, perhaps from the '30s, '40s, or even the '50s I'd most certainly process the film, purely out of curiosity.

I did purchase a nice old Olympus XA a few years ago with film in it. I pitched the film because I really didn't care what was on it.

Then a friend found me 6 Mini DV cassettes at a garage sale for a buck (at the time they were $25.00 each at the store). He let me have them for my video camera. One contained some really naughty stuff. It would have been a little problematic if the same material were on a roll of film that the nice ladies at the local lab had processed for me. They'd never look at me the same.

Mr_Flibble
06-30-2008, 07:15
I got a Kodak Medalist with an exposed roll of 620 in it. Asked the seller if he wanted it back. And he did. So I shipped it.

I got my Zeiss Super Ikonta with a partial roll in it. Asked the seller. He couldn't be bothered so I finished the roll and had it processed. There were some boring test shots on it the seller made to see if it worked.

I recently picked up an Agfa Clack at a jumble sale with a partially used roll of Kodacolor II in it. No way to get back in contact with the seller...hmmm.
What to do with it....?

blw
06-30-2008, 10:16
I have done it twice and would probably do it again.

The last time was some Kodak Gold and the contents were anything but (gold).

The first time however was interesting. It was a finished roll of 120 in my TLR I won on fleabay. I had it developed at a nearby hospital's photo lab. The contact sheet had 3 or 4 semi-nudes (presumably of the prior owner and spouse?) and some other less interesting shots around the house. The couple were in their 40s or 50s so I obviously didn't have to worry about the kiddie police crashing my door. If I can find the contact sheet, I might have to scan and post it.

narsuitus
06-30-2008, 13:16
I rarely receive exposed film with used cameras I obtain. I voted “yes” because my normal policy has been to develop the film myself if it is black & white and I don’t know or cannot find the owner. If it is color film, I will trash the film if I don’t know or cannot find the owner. If I know the owner or can find the owner, I will return the film undeveloped.

However, earlier this year, one of my wedding customers gave me her late husband’s camera outfit. One of the cameras had a partially exposed roll of color film in it. I have not yet returned the film to her because I have been toying with the idea of developing the film and giving her prints. The only thing stopping me is that she will re-marry this fall and I will be photographing her wedding. I do not want to do anything to offend her or her new husband.

Morca007
07-02-2008, 06:30
There was an exposed roll of ilford in the tlr I just bought. I threw it out.

KameraKev
07-06-2008, 17:35
I once developed a roll of bw that was in an Agfa zone focus camera that I bought at a thrift store. The images I got were of a bunch of creapy looking hillbillies with lots of guns standing in front of a school bus in the woods somewhere. I would never send a found roll into a lab.

AshenLight
07-07-2008, 04:55
I voted no. I'm not paranoid about what might be on the film, I just tend to be a very private person and extend the right of privacy to others. Please don't think that this is a dig against anyone who voted yes or said they would develop a roll found in a purchased camera though.

Concrete Island
07-07-2008, 12:49
I was in this situation two weeks ago. I had bought an Olympus XA2 from Ebay which had a roll of generic colour negative in it which I didn't know about until I opened the back, the roll must have been only a small way through. I was really curious to see what was on the roll but to cover myself I just used to rest of the roll of film in a double exposure roll with redscale pinhole over the photos, thankfully it came back innocent enough with bits here and there of streets or objects, I'd covered up most of the subject matter with redscale.

I would definatly do it again though, soon enough I'll be able to do my own colour development as well as black and white so I have the security of judging what is or isn't bad without any repercussions from anybody else.

There's something a bit magical about discovering old photographs that nobody, not even the photographer themselves have seen!

Gumby
10-15-2008, 06:40
Does anyone know where in the US this might be?

Possibly Tehachapi CA.

Chaser
10-15-2008, 10:30
Best find ever. A friend of mine agreed to help one of his friends develop a roll of photos that had been sitting in a brownie that she bought at a junk store. In the end, he got some pretty amazing civilian images of the bombing of pearl harbor. So I don't always think the risks out weigh the potential finds.

jan normandale
10-15-2008, 10:48
About a year ago I bought a Nikon N90s from the US ... I don't have any lenses for it and haven't got around to getting any yet but noticed there was a roll of film in it ... half used. It was Fuji Velvia but I wasn't about to pay for E6 processing on the off chance there might be something interesting on it so I ran it through some Xtol which gave me some pretty grainy black and whites but at least I got to see what was on the film.

The first shot appears to be a mine of some sort ... this shot was repeated about ten times with the wagons further along the track. A few shots of some very dry looking hills and a few shots of what appears to be a windfarm. Does anyone know where in the US this might be?

Keith the second image is a wind farm. Where I'm not sure, however there wouldn't have been power generation windfarms in the US prior to the 1960's This should help in a search on the internet. The first image is a mine with hoppers and a train. I'd bet the mine wouldn't be more than a day's drive from the wind farm. So not more than 350 mile radius and probably less when I see the topography which looks similar to the wind farm.

A fun problem to solve 'Mr Internet Detective'! ;D

blw
10-15-2008, 15:55
I'm on the East Coast of the USA, but I'd go along with Gumby on this one. Those look very much like the brown hills I saw east of San Francisco I drove through once on my way to Ripon CA to skateboard. And yes, there was a wind farm along that route too.

blw
10-15-2008, 15:56
And yes Chaser...I'd have to say that is one of the best finds ever. I'd love to see some of those photos, as I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.

mabelsound
10-15-2008, 16:30
Best find ever. A friend of mine agreed to help one of his friends develop a roll of photos that had been sitting in a brownie that she bought at a junk store. In the end, he got some pretty amazing civilian images of the bombing of pearl harbor. So I don't always think the risks out weigh the potential finds.

Holy crap!!!

Krosya
10-15-2008, 19:51
I'd develop it - imagine if it turns out some A-list celeb's private pics? ;) You could buy all Leicas you want and than some . hehe. ;)

eli griggs
10-15-2008, 19:53
I voted yes but there are times I won't process other peoples forgotten film. Just in the last month or so, I've taken film from two old cameras. One was from a Kodak Tourist 12.5 taken from a passed relatives' home during clean up. Early 1960's Plus-X was in it, most likely when my Uncle left both his family and camera behind for greened pastures. Knowing the pain it would cause other family I did not process it.

The second roll was from a Yashica M42 mount SLR that a nurse from the Salisbury, NC V.A. mailed me, with some lenses, after she saw me carrying my Leica IIIC during a recent V.A. visit. When she found out I liked old film kit, she insisted I should have this camera. It arrived with old film in it and I didn't process it because I saw it as a possible intrusion against someone who did me a favor.

I have processed the film from several cameras that i bought online or at flee markets, including an eBay Iskra from Ukraine and a Minolta 16. The Minolta had Tri-X in it and was mostly too dark office stuff and blown out street shots of a business district, nothing too interesting by someone who didn't know how to take a picture.

The Iskra film was of a bunch of old guys in big suits, including one that looked like for all the world like Khrushchev, looking bored as some other guys in uniforms showed them the insides of what looked like a rocket factory. The soldiers looked pretty happy and a few even posed for the camera while holding up various missile parts. All and all, pretty prosaic stuff, at least for the Soviet Union.

I sell 8x10 prints from this roll to anyone whom asks, along with new title deeds to vintage bridges in Brooklyn for the low, low price of a new M8.2 with lens.;)

Seriously, all that was on the Iskra roll was a few snaps of some guys' wife or girlfriend sitting around in the kitchen. The film was badly fogged and I was surprised I got anything off it at all after processing it like Plus-X in HC-110.

True Story; the most interesting roll of a strangers film I ever processed did not come from a camera but was handed to me.

In 1977, I was 18-19 and stationed at Ft. Lewis, WA. where I was really getting into darkroom work. The base had a pretty good set-up and I liked that it was open fairly late into the evenings. One night I was working alone on some prints when a older, uniformed Special Forces Sgt. came in and started to make some prints of his own. I didn't pay any attention to what he was printing on the other side of the room and while we talked it was mostly about his being in transit to somewhere else. I was use to Rangers on base, they billeted up the hill from my unit, but Green Berets were a rare item and I was more curious about his recent travels in Central America, at least the little he'd share, than his photography.

After about 45 minutes we were joined by a young woman I knew from around the darkroom, who happened to be an officers wife. She started to set-up on the enlarger next to the Sergeant but suddenly tensed up and left the room. It turned out the Sergeant was printing some rude nude pics and she had caught a glimpse.

Gathering his stuff up, he was out of there in about two minutes flat, however before he left, he pressed an undeveloped roll of 120 film on me, a 'gift' and quietly told me to soup it when I had a chance to do it alone. I never saw him again. As I was doing my film processing in my spacious NCO room with its own bathroom, a room I shared with no one, I developed it the next day.

It turns out that Sarge had a real talent for racy photography. The roll was all of a good looking, semi-nude woman, black hair, black leather, high boots and a whip, in various poses on and beside a bed that was hung from the celling by chains.

It looked like a scene out of a magazine or movie and I got the impression that room was a set for customers that paid to make photos like this. If this was a good example of what he was printing, I can see why he hit the road when that officers wife fled the darkroom, if she summoned the MPs or her husband, it would have taken a lot of explaining, even for tough old warrior like him.

Sarge, if you're out there on the forum somewhere, Thanks, those pics really were a kick.

I know that some people are frightened of sending film to the lab that might have something bad on it, but if something like kid porn was found, IMO that would be worth the serious bother with the police on the off chance that the people doing it might get caught and the kids are helped.

Cheers

ben_m
11-29-2008, 01:31
I bought a Robot II (F serial, German military) from a woman in the US, who had been given in by a family friend who was in the USAF in the early 1940s. The film in the camera was very, very fogged, but had 50 or so photos on it. Some of them appear to be in post-war Japan. I only have a couple scanned so far:

tvagi
11-29-2008, 12:22
I managed today to open the back of a PENTONA II,with the help of a RFF member,ZeissFan,and inside i found an ORWO Color NC21 waiting for me!
i really would give a try proceeding the film.i think that this kind of film is much earlier than the camera.so it is interesting seeing until when this camera was used and by whom!

kbg32
03-15-2009, 17:06
No. I would throw it out.