Undeveloped Film from a Soldier in WWII Discovered and Processed

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/16/31-rolls-undeveloped-film-soldier-wwii-discovered-processed/

by benbreen • 12 years ago

255 125 12 years ago

userbinator2• 12 years ago

This makes me wonder if photos left on an SD card now would still be readable in 70 years... considering the relative fragility of modern flash memory (guaranteed retention specs are at less than a decade now), I'm not so optimistic.

EToS• 12 years ago

reading articles like this where SD cards have survived being boiled, trampled, washed and dunked in coffee or cola, makes me think its not impossible for certain SD cards stored in the right conditions to last possibly centuries

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3939333.stm

DanBC2• 12 years ago

It's great they're so robust.

That article is a bit irresonsible and might lead people to think they don't need a back up or an archive store.

AshFurrow• 12 years ago

The SD cards may hold the data that long, but I don't think it's likely that it will be accessible. To computer enthusiasts with legacy hardware/software maybe. I shoot on film and I know that even my negatives will eventually fade. Photography has taught me to enjoy life because everything eventually ends.

ars2• 12 years ago

To computer enthusiasts with legacy hardware/software maybe.

All you need is one person that can access it. Do you know of any technology that we can no longer access?

They are lots of great stories about the hard work people had to do to access them (the video scans of the moon for example) but none that I know of that failed.

userbinator2• 12 years ago

SD cards are a simple serial interface that is well-documented at the block-device layer; the filesystem will likely be some variant of FAT, and I doubt the JPEG standard will be entirely forgotten, so while hardware like SD card readers may not be produced commercially anymore by then, anyone with the right knowledge can still make one.

This is, of course, supposing that the rather scary situation of heavily-locked-down devices and completely-restricted access to knowledge has not occurred...

aaronbrethorst2• 12 years ago

Fwiw, a properly fixed, permawashed, and archival washed silver gelatin fiber print should outlast our grandchildren.

skwirl• 12 years ago

This is something I worry about regardless of the specific storage media type.

I have all my photos on my hard drive backed up onto a two drive mirrored NAS device and uploaded to a third party cloud based backup service. Many of them also have low resolution versions posted on Facebook and Flickr. But I still worry that in 70 years no trace will be left of these photos.

Printed photos sitting in a photo book with each photo in its own plastic sleeve that is stored in a dry location away from light won't last forever, but it will probably last 70 years. My digital photos have to constantly be backed up and copied over time. Cloud backup services and social media websites will go out of business. Both the drives in my NAS will eventually fail, along with the drive in my PC. For these photos to survive, someone has to perpetually do work to keep them around.

Sometimes I wonder if, despite the fact that camera phones means we take an absolutely immense amount of pictures relative to other periods of time, if in 100 years there will be more photos from 1985-1995 than 2005-2015, just because the older photos were printed and stored in photo books.

At some point I should probably print my most important photos.

Swizec• 12 years ago

Printed photos sitting in a photo book with each photo in its own plastic sleeve that is stored in a dry location away from light won't last forever, but it will probably last 70 years.

Funny you should worry about 70 years when we have ink-on-paper things that have lasted hundreds of years and are still readable. According to this list of oldest surviving documents[1], preserved copies of a newspaper from 1609 exist. Oldest known book (but not sure if paper or not) is over 900 years old.

So yeah, barring direct physical damage, 70 years is nothing.

[1] http://listverse.com/2013/11/10/10-oldest-surviving-document...

lmm• 12 years ago

How long was the "guaranteed spec" on this film, do you think?

SD cards easily survive the kind of rough handling that would destroy a film; I can imagine the contacts corroding to the point where you'd have to replace them to read it, but the plastic casing is close to indestructible, and the stored data should be inert. Of course many will be lost or destroyed, but I would happily bet on any random SD card outlasting any random piece of film from the same era.

pjc50• 12 years ago

Never mind robustness, they're horribly easy to lose. I put a blank microSD card on my coffee table the other day and lost it instantly.

Re: photos, I think that long term security requires long term care, prioritisation of the important few for printed copies, and reviewing every few years. All of which take time and effort. :(

delinka6• 12 years ago

The overlapped images: are these simply because the film didn't wind a fill frame?

Also: "Copyright of All Images On This Website is Owned By The Rescued Film Project."

I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain? It seems to me that the photographer holds the copyright unless the copyright was properly transferred. Simple discovering the film and processing it does not a copyright holder make.

EDIT: there form for donating unprocessed film contains the following: "By donating your rescued film to The Rescued Film Project […] you agree to release full print and publish copyright of all images recovered from the film to The Rescued Film Project and it’s proprietor(s)."

This suggests to me that someone else may have obtained and donated the film to TRFP.

jacquesm14• 12 years ago

I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain? It seems to me that the photographer holds the copyright unless the copyright was properly transferred. Simple discovering the film and processing it does not a copyright holder make.

I'd say you are 100% in the right here, the problem will be to find the person or their heirs to assert their claim.

I definitely do not think that finding the film is enough to stake a claim this broad.

see: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-monkey-self...

Which has an interesting take on images with doubtful copyright status (selfie taken by a monkey, owner of the camera tried to assert copyright).

Thinking about it a bit more, if the original maker of the images or their heirs were to be nasty they could likely file for infringement of their rights.

Personally I think what the guy did was great, they're amazing images but asserting copyright goes one step too far. Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights?

Edit: another relevant bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier

Heading 'legal challenge'.

delinka6• 12 years ago

"Personally I think what the guy did was great..."

Indeed. I'm glad we now have this additional snapshot of history. And I'd be happy to donate to cover some costs here. But I'm also wary of the copyright claim such that my donation would be contingent on clarifying the claim-- provide an explanation as to how copyright was obtained; step the notice down a bit; etc

larrys7• 12 years ago

"Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights?"

As I mentioned in one of my comments they also developed the film which if not done correctly would result in images that wouldn't look the same as they do now. [1] The film without development has no creative appeal other than the appeal of a film canister.

[1] As anyone who has done photography with a darkroom knows (I have and development is part of what you get just like picture composition is.)

shawn-butler10• 12 years ago

False.

Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author. Undeveloped film is arguably not a tangible medium suitable for communication and this film is obviously not being developed by its author. The development process of film renders it suitable for copy.

"A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission." [0]

Also this would essentially be abandoned property. You can abandon copyright just like any other property right. Trademarks can also similarly be abandoned.

Would you claim that all the "abandonware" games still belong to their original owners and deny people the right to use them as well?

[0] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

nkurz4• 12 years ago

I definitely do not think that finding the film is enough to stake a claim this broad.

In the absence of case law, I wouldn't be so sure. In the US there was a case that was decided last year that might imply otherwise. A somewhat "famous artist" (Richard Prince) used a photo by a relatively "unknown photographer" (Patrick Cariou) and "transformed" it by printing it much larger, splotching the subjects eyes with paint, and superimposing a guitar: http://newsgrist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c66f153ef01157010d2...

On appeal, it was concluded that this was fair use, there was no copyright infringement, and that Cariou had no claim against Prince or right to collect royalties:

http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richa...

It's not the same, but I wouldn't want to bet that a court would have decided otherwise if Prince had started with Cariou's negative and had done the work in the darkroom rather than on the easel. Which would imply that it's not even necessary for the film to be lost or abandoned, and that mere access could be enough. And the parties settled the case after the appeal, so there is no chance that the Supreme Court will clarify it further until something else similar makes it to them.

rhizome• 12 years ago

Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights?

As we learned in the SCOX vs. Novell trial, copyright can never be transferred without a full description of the items and rights being transferred in writing.

prawn• 12 years ago

Finding Vivian Maier is a great Kickstarted film for anyone looking for something to watch or interested in photography.

ncza3• 12 years ago

AFAIK it does. It's how museums make money with reproductions. I might be wrong on this though.

teddyh3• 12 years ago

Yes, museums like to claims this to make money. This does not make them right.

schrijver• 12 years ago

Museums in most cases do not own the copyright to the works in their collections, yet they often pretend they do to be able to charge higher processing fees.

http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/06/27/copyright...

Of course they can ask money for the cost of for example photographing, scanning etc., it is just not correct to say it is for copyright licensing.

larrys7• 12 years ago

I think what they are referring to is the presentation of the photos (for lack of a better way to put it). Best way to describe it is that it's similar to the copyright that a company (back in the day) that created what is known as a reverse phone directory. That's where you could find someone's phone number by address (or address by phone number). The point being that even though all the info is public (anyone can input same info from a free phone directory) the act of organizing it and displaying it in a certain way (reversed by address as only one example) gives you copyright over the presentation of the material. So you can't grab that wholesale.

Another example that I can think of is dnjournal.com which publishes a list of domain sales which they gather primarily (but not exclusively) from easily available info from other sources (like sedo.com). So you are free to do the same from the same sources. However you can't take the list they created, that is lift it from their site, and publish it without violating their copyright.

There may of course be some other principle involved obviously but off the top the above seems possible.

Edit: Appears what I am referring to is possibly a version of "derivative" work:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works...

I think this also goes under "the golden rule" meaning he who has the gold rules. The film was undeveloped so someone could argue that that act was instrumental in making the pictures able to be seen (seems like a scotus grade discussion). The original owner took the pictures but he never created the image which people see. The image was created by the person who now claims copyright. Without the developing there are no images. May not win but perhaps most importantly a leg to stand on.

delinka6• 12 years ago

But they claim copyright on "all images" on the site. This would have the implication that simply pulling the images off the site (and not using their web site presentation) for use anywhere else would be infringement. Does their scanning of the photos add such a transformative element that they hold copyright on these images? Perhaps it could but I don't believe that it does in this case.

As to the phone number lookup examples, lists of facts cannot be protected under copyright. My understanding is that this extends to indexes of facts as well. Though there may indeed be a presentation or transformative element (which may have copyright protection), the underlying facts (and their indices) do not have copyright protection. I've seen many websites attempting to make this claim with lists, and they make it technically non-trivial to copy the data from their site, but should such a case actually make it to court, I don't think the claim would hold water.

legulere2• 12 years ago

The barrier of copyright is extremely low. Simply reproducing copyright free works is already covered again by the copyright.

delinka6• 12 years ago

Not exactly.

A newly typeset and printed copy of Alice in Wonderland does have copyright protection. The presentation has transformed the (public domain) text enough to qualify for protection. Someone chose fonts, letter sizes, line lengths, book size... You can't go making photocopies of that particular work and sell them without infringing.

You can, however, take the original text, which is now in the public domain, and typeset and print your very own Alice in Wonderland book. And now you hold a copyright on a presentation of Alice in Wonderland.

nkurz4• 12 years ago

You are correct to have doubt. While it is criminally illegal to falsely claim copyright, there is almost no chance of prosecution. And the only entity able to sue under civil law would be the heirs of the photographer, who are unlikely to know that they hold the copyright. The public, while potentially deprived of the the ability to make use of the work, is not deemed to "have standing".

The seminal paper on the topic calls this "copyfraud":

  Copyfraud
  Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law
  Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 40 
  New York University Law Review, Vol. 81, p. 1026, 2006 

  Abstract:      

  Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on 
  modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's piano 
  scores, greeting card versions of Monet's Water Lilies, and 
  even the U.S. Constitution. Archives claim blanket 
  copyright in everything in their collections. Vendors of 
  microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert 
  copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which 
  are often accompanied by threatened litigation for 
  reproducing a work without the owner's permission, result 
  in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce  
  works that are free for everyone to use. 

  Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for 
  copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty 
  for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. 
  There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who 
  wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for 
  permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to 
  use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is 
  technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions 
  are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud 
  on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public 
  domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out 
  every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be 
  made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of 
  reproduction and undermines free speech. 

  Congress should amend the Copyright Act to allow private 
  parties to bring civil causes of action for false copyright 
  claims. Courts should extend the availability of the 
  copyright misuse defense to prevent copyright owners from 
  enforcing an otherwise valid copyright if they have engaged 
  in past copyfraud. In addition, Congress should further 
  protect the public domain by creating a national registry 
  listing public domain works and a symbol to designate those 
  works. Failing a congressional response, there may exist 
  remedies under state law and through the efforts of private 
  parties to achieve these ends.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=787244

nsajko• 12 years ago

Whitelisting public domain works doesn't seem like such a good idea...

potatolicious• 12 years ago

"The overlapped images: are these simply because the film didn't wind a fill frame?"

Yes - it's hard to appreciate how far camera tech has come since the 40s, and presumably also a typical soldier isn't bringing a high-end 35mm camera into the field.

More specifically, if there's play in the gears of the winding mechanism then you'll get a lot of variance when it comes to inter-frame space.

"I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain?"

It doesn't have to be nefarious - they can assert copyright over the scans of the film without asserting copyright over the original images themselves (though in this case it does look like if you donate film they want the whole shebang).

It's like recording a cover - your recording itself has a separate copyright regardless of the copyright status of the song upon which it is based.

Like a cover song there could be some legal issues between the scanner and the copyright owner of the original film images, but presumably they sort this out between themselves.

galago• 12 years ago

More specifically, if there's play in the gears of the winding mechanism then you'll get a lot of variance when it comes to inter-frame space.

NO! This is old 120 format film--just a roll of film with paper backing. On his camera, you probably just looked through the red window on the back at the frame number. If you forgot to wind, double exposure. The Holga toy camera from Lomo still works this way today.

primelens• 12 years ago

On medium format film - I can't tell if this is 120, 220, or 620, or something like 616 - many cameras can take pictures of varying width. For example, on a camera that makes 6x9, or 6x7 pics, you might be able to put in a masking attachment and make 6x6 pictures. If you forget to put the attachment, you might think you're shooting 6x6 shots and advance the film accordingly, but you'll actually make wider shots which overlap at the edges.

ars2• 12 years ago

they can assert copyright over the scans of the film without asserting copyright over the original images themselves

No they can't. Scanning a photo is not a creative work subject to copyright.

lisa_henderson• 12 years ago

About this:

"Copyright of All Images On This Website is Owned By The Rescued Film Project."

They are almost certainly making the claim under the various Orphan Work acts that several nations have passed recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with those laws, there is no question that these images fit the classic description of an orphan work.

yaddayadda3• 12 years ago

If I'm reading the information on your provided link correctly, then no, the photographer can not claim copyright - precisely because they are orphaned works. In the U.S. there have been bills, but no legislation to change this.

yaddayadda3• 12 years ago

To add to the copyright conversation, assuming the work is covered under U.S. law [1] then wouldn't it be covered under the Copyright of 1909 law [2]? This law only granted copyright for 60 years, which means copyright would have expired no later than 2005.

[1] Because the photographer was a U.S. soldier. If he took some of those photos in other countries there may be other laws in effect. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909

anigbrowl7• 12 years ago

Any pictures taken in the course of carrying out military service on behalf of the US might automatically be in the public domain for copyright purposes, I think, as the person would be an employee of the US government by definition. I don't know exactly how this plays out for military personnel but I'd imagine you waive a lot of private citizen rights when you set off on a tour of duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the...

ncza3• 12 years ago

Direct link instead of "relevant third-party content rehosted in a company blog": http://www.rescuedfilm.com/

TomGullen• 12 years ago

Great project, and fascinating to see them: http://www.rescuedfilm.com/#!rescuedwwii/c1d05

What I like about them is they are obviously taken by an amateur (I don't profess to be any good myself!). Things like wonky horizon lines stand out to me and help bring a bit more or a human connection to these photos and events depicted I otherwise feel quite disconnected from.

They remind me of photos for example my family and friends take on holiday, and make me realise it's just pure luck that it wasn't me, my family or friends who found ourselves in those difficult years.

rquantz• 12 years ago

Yay Hacker News. Top thread: what is the legality of who owns this film? Second thread: debating the longevity of flash memory. Third thread (no responses): direct link to content. Last thread (no replies): the only person who directly engages with the content of the linked article even remotely.

wingerlang• 12 years ago

I really don't understand these comments pointing this out. Generally these "issues" tend to iron themselves out after some time. Now you could add "One comment completely ignoring the topic at hand" (referring to your comment).

insin• 12 years ago

And one thread saying exactly what I was thinking.

markbnj3• 12 years ago

I've read about this project before. This isn't the first collection of film from a soldier's belongings that he has located. The most melancholy thought, for me, is that there is likely only one reason why the images were never developed by their creator.

whizzkid• 12 years ago

..Which makes the story more interesting actually. I wonder if he had had any chance to write down his plan/thought of his journey while taking photos. Another interesting part is, how they saved the rolls during the war, how it is transferred back to USA..

yaddayadda3• 12 years ago

how they saved the rolls during the war, how it is transferred back to USA

If he was killed or seriously injured in action, then any possessions he had with him would have been returned to his family in the U.S.

foobarian• 12 years ago

For me those photos really help breathe life into that period of time, making it appear as more than just a series of abstract Wikipedia articles. Look at the contrast of those soldiers waiting next to a railroad against the fine architecture of the downtown. Today some of those folks are someone's feeble old grandpa telling stories of the old days, but look at how young and full of life they were in those pictures.

I'm a little disappointed that the top comment chain consists of belaboring the finer points of copyright statutes.

Normati• 12 years ago

No need to be melancholy. That glorifies killing. Do you have the same sad feelings for the Paris gunmen that were killed? There's no fundamental difference between them. Remember of course what the purpose of the allies in WWII was - "to preserve our way of life" or so we won't "all be speaking German". It's not clear that tens of millions had to be be killed for that aim - only to end up with more tens of millions killed by the communist states that became successful as a result.

markbnj3• 12 years ago

You, sir, have a very odd view of the world.

coldtea• 12 years ago

I think this is artistically fitting to the story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNwC8ETa0pg

dghughes• 12 years ago

Hey! I know that clicky clicky sound well as you ratchet on the film onto the wheel I even have a similar style developer tank only a bit smaller.

I really miss doing that it's been I get 20 years since I've developed any film it's amazing how time flies. Digital photography just doesn't have the soul of actual film photography it's missing the physical connection. Although I don't miss the stink of the fixer.

It's 120 rollfim too for medium a format camera which would give a nice image since it quite a bit larger and has more surface area than a 35mm negative.

For such old film I figured this would have been done in a lab not in a kitchen I'd be concerned with water temperature with such old film. Maybe even soak the film in water to let it hydrate a bit maybe since he indicate they rolls may stick they've been rolled up for so long.

I do wish I had a better method to scan my old negatives and skip the printing part I did try it without much success in the mid 1990s with my first flatbed scanner.

Interesting stuff! It makes me want to pick up the old cameras again.

sharkweek• 12 years ago

I know this sounds a bit "get off my lawn" even for only being in my late 20s, but I REALLY enjoyed darkroom time in high school photography classes and photography personally lost some of its magic to me when I switched. I was a senior just as digital was making its moves, but nothing was quite as satisfying as the trials and tribulations of meticulously processing film in that tiny little room.

Nothing quite as cool as dropping what seemed like a blank piece of paper into some chemicals and watching it transition into an actual photograph.

aaronbrethorst2• 12 years ago

I'm 32, re-discovered film photography only about 12 months ago, and almost exclusively shoot film today. You should check out a website I built a couple months ago that has a fairly extensive list of public darkrooms and photo labs that can still process film: http://www.ishootfilm.org/businesses.

ghaff2• 12 years ago

Yeah, on the other hand, I never had easy access to a good darkroom after leaving school and pretty much ended up shooting color slides for a number of years--which meant, in practice, that I pretty much just shot slides on some vacations.

The combination of digital photography and the ease of sharing really got me back into doing photography as a more routine thing. And the capabilities of modern digital gear are just so amazing. I still remember all the chemical manipulations I would go through to get decent results from B&W at ISO 1600 or maybe a little faster. Today, I can easily surpass that in color with the twist of a dial.

59nadir• 12 years ago

You know no one is disallowing you from using whichever tools and methods you want, right? Just as people are welcome to write assembler code, you are allowed to go back to oldschool photography. There is a reason, however, people generally will move on to more convenient things.

Zaheer• 12 years ago

The clicky clicky sound triggered my memories of B&W film development as well (although it was only 5 years ago) :)

justincormack• 12 years ago

Unfortunately good negative scanners for 35mm and 120 are hard to get now. A modern flatbed of good quality will probably give decent results though.

pmcjones• 12 years ago

My Epson Perfection V600 Photo scanner (for $199) does a pretty good job for 35mm and 120 (6cm).

scoot• 12 years ago

"Although I don't miss the stink of the fixer."

Oh, wow! Those words triggered an immediate visceral recall of that very smell from some 25 years ago. I'd forgotten about it, and wouldn't have thought of it until you brought it up.

Oddly, since I associate it with good times and fond memories, I don't find the smell offensive, but the accuracy with which your words triggered its recall is fascinating!

jacquesm14• 12 years ago

Smell is an extremely powerful memory trigger.

pdardeau2• 12 years ago

Digital photography just doesn't have the soul of actual film photography it's missing the physical connection.

Indeed! I just recently bought a couple of old 35mm SLR bodies and lenses to get back into film photography. With film, photography is certainly more deliberate and slower-paced. I also enjoyed darkroom work (years ago) as much, if not more, than taking photos. The darkroom was a nice, quiet place that was very relaxing.

ghaff2• 12 years ago

I do wish I had a better method to scan my old negatives and skip the printing part I did try it without much success in the mid 1990s with my first flatbed scanner.

You can get this done for you relatively cheaply (about 25 cents per frame). I actually have a slide/neg scanner that's out on loan but I decided a while back to just send my scanning out. It was never going to all get done if I waited until I got around to it.

jordanpg• 12 years ago

The recovery of these images is a great story to be sure, but the WWII photos remind me of the kind of photos that I usually take: terrible ones. Mostly just pictures of uninspired landscapes, buildings, and nondescript groups of people. Glad to know that ineptitude with a camera began long before they became ubiquitous.

shawn-butler10• 12 years ago

The shot of the men at the railroad tracks waiting is universal.

Another 500 years will pass and soldiers will still be waiting in line for something or other.

bdunbar• 12 years ago

Waiting for chow, waiting for a range, waiting for the trucks to come back .. and waiting .. and waiting .. but nobody told any _drivers_ they needed to make a second run to pick up twenty marines and a small mountain of gear.

Then it started raining. Too bad the tents were in the first load.

CamperBob2• 12 years ago

Irony: Site called "petapixel.com" posts images in glorious 1989-era VGA resolution.

As someone else mentioned, these images were basically stolen from http://www.rescuedfilm.com/ , where they can be viewed at higher quality.

jdnier• 12 years ago

It pains me to see him unwrapping paper-backed rolls of film in room light, then using a strobe to document the appearance of the the roll (before developing). The fogging you see at the top and bottom edges of some rolls is from light leaking around the edges of loosely-rolled spools; it happens even with modern 120 roll film. There's a good chance he's fogging some of the rolls due to his handling.

Amarandei• 12 years ago

I was actually watching him do that and I was thinking the same thing. I don't know anything about developing but I was thinking that if the casing has even a tiny crack then the camera flash would ruin at least one photo. The nice thing to do would be to send him a friendly email and tell him about it. Maybe he just doesn't realize it.

Undeveloped Film from a Soldier in WWII Discovered and Processed

Related Stories