New answers tagged

0

I worked in a photo developing and printing lab for a very well known photographic brand in the early 1990s, so this answer is based on my experiences and the processes in place then. All film was developed and printed (unless damaged) but the roll of prints (from multiple rolls of films - maybe 70 or more 35mm films) was subject to a manual check after ...


2

Back in the days before digital cameras, I did a little amateur astronomical and scientific photography and then had to get the photos developed. These photos would sometimes be mostly black, and to a casual observer it probably seemed like they were taken with the lens cap on. If they were on the same roll with some shots of my kid's birthday party, the ...


5

I recall in the 1980s having to either tick a box marked "PRINT ALL" or handwrite that on the stub, at the time of submitting the film for processing. When the packet of photos came back, there were several outright failures, but I got a completely white or black sheet of developed photo paper for each one. At my cost of course.


10

"checked the negative, around 6 photos were not developed." If it was roll film, and they were on the negative, then they were developed. They might not have been printed. But printing is a different process that happens after the negatives are developed and uses the developed negatives (though, just to head off drive by comments, there are edge ...


15

This answer is pure speculation: The reason probably is because of automatic system for print which check if the photo is with good exposure and only then print it on paper. And maybe you should ask the lab these questions. As recommendation: let the lab develop the film then you scan it, edit it and print (at home or via other service). Also you can try to ...


Top 50 recent answers are included