Forums › Life › Photography › Policy of Photo Developing Services?
Over the last year or so I’ve accumulated a LOT of rolls of film and after many months of laziness I’m really keen to get them developed. Just wondered if anyone knows what policy’s the developing companies have in terms of what they will and won’t develop? I know Tesco’s and Boots won’t develop nudity but i have no clue on other stuff. I don’t want them to take the film from me and not return it as there are a lot of good memories and photos i’d like for a blog but there is some nudity, drug use, live graffiti and some other illegal stuffs that i’m worried they won’t develop for me or even worse, take the film and not return it to me.
I’m not sure how many people on here would know about this, but any ideas?
Boots was and I’m sure still is notorious for grassing up anything illegal found in photo films. if anything the paranoia would be worse as they would suspect that kinderporno lot might try to use conventional cameras to elude surveillance. Be aware a pic of a 17 year old girl in a bikini (even if taken by a 17 year old lad) can still come into this category.
When I last used analogue film (over 10 years ago now) the chap running the mini lab was a friend and from our old rave crew himself.
I would have thought places like Bury, Diss etc have independent photo labs still or are these all long gone? if not i suggest finding one and befriending the staff – perhaps shoot a few rolls of inoffensive stuff like ancient buildings, flowers, animals etc so they get used to you being a regular customer and become dependent on your business, so its then pointless sending you to warren hill as they’d be losing out unlike a supermarket which can afford to lose a customer.
I’ve heard a few stories of Kodak staff being very understanding and non-judgemental when developing others photos. I’ve heard stories and personally known people who have had films taken to be developed by Kodak with illicit material contained without a problem. One friend even gave them the wrong film to develop once, thought it was the film of his kids 2nd birthday party.
When he went to collect the staff were all grinning at him, he didn’t understand why until he sat in his car and opened the pack of freshly developed photos. The film he had given them was not in fact his 2 year olds birthday party but was a recent film of a stag do in Amsterdam containing pictures of hookers and drug use lol.
I did consider developing them myself, but its much too expensive unfortunately and probably quite tricky.
I think I’ll try Jessops in Bury and there’s another little independent one i forget the name of. Taking a few inoffensive rolls to be developed to become more of a regular is a great idea actually, hopefully if i gain a bit of relationship with the owners they’ll be more lenient towards my photos.
And thanks for the info Psyentist. I think there might even be a Kodak local to me so i could try that as well.
If they turn you down just be like.. “Look mate its a recession, you need me and I need you, don’t be a nonce”.
photography is generally a liberal art which pushes the boundaries of free expresssion, though it does have a slightly creepy reputation these days due to the efforts of paparazzi and pornographers.
TBH if your shots are all of young adults above age 16 and not sold for commercial gain they are extremely unlikely to arouse suspicion unless it really looks like you are grooming younger people and/or glamourising criminality.
There have been some unpleasant incidents in Eastern constabulary areas of photographers being involved in the grooming and inappropriate phtography of minors for personal gratification or profit but TBH I think the authorities can tell the difference between youthful mischief and genuinely bad acts. I would be very careful though of publishing the graf photos as BTP and Councils do closely monitor these for tags and will arrest people years after the event. There is a time after which it is or was supposed to be impossible to get pulled up for a minor crime or civil wrong (about 5 or 6 years) but thats still a longer period than it may seem.
Minor drug use isn’t even viewed as a serious crime these days but graffiti is seen as costing folk money and that is chased up a lot harder.
@Deez 552753 wrote:
don’t be a nonce”.
in our region thats what the photo shops are worried about…. :laugh_at:
Seriously though it is a big problem here, perhaps bigger than in SE England, and increasingly its not the stereotypical “dirty old man” who is being nicked for it but younger men in their teens and 20s. some practices that were commonplace in 1970s to 1990s photography in the UK and EU are quite simply no longer legal. For instance it was legal for either gender to be a nude model at age 16-18 until the mid 2000s. Nowadays both participants and photographers risk being arrested and at the very least cautioned or given words of advice (but with local records kept) even if domestic age of consent in the country is 16 or below.
That said I don’t think photo shops check the age of who goes in and a teenager is going to be expected to be taking photos of normal teenage activities.
what I would suggest to season
firs he build up a friendly rapport with the photo shop owners so there is no gain in him going to Warren Hill (especially as a teenager going to all the trouble using a film camera in the 21st century is in itself a curious thing that the Press would find “of interest” and the photo shop would get negative publicity too). Then get a single copy of the 36/38 prints on each roll of film and all the negs, inspect each one closely, and make your own judgement as to whether the photo could anyone in trouble (someone might not want a photo of them off their heads on drugs at age 17 circulated to the Internet to catch them when they apply for a job at age 25 or 30). Those can either be hid up or destroyed as seen fit, the rest sifted through for the blog.
depending on how secure your house/room maybe invest in a small digital safe (if anything you want to keep the photos secure as they are your only copy).
These are cheap from places like CPC. Be aware though if the fed do ever visit your house and see such a safe they will be more curious about whats inside it than if the photos were loose (but if you are living that kind of lifestyle you don’t want bait photos around your house anyway). they won’t find anything in mine other than backup CD’s of trance tracks, and other more boring stuff like the accounts database for my work (which has to comply with the demands of other regulators anyway and is 100% above board or just small fiddly items from gadgets that would otherwise get mislaid.
I’ve kept hold of digital photos of raves for 5-10 years before releasing them just so I wouldn’t make it difficult for those featured in such pictures.
@General Lighting 552764 wrote:
in our region thats what the photo shops are worried about…. :laugh_at:
Seriously though it is a big problem here, perhaps bigger than in SE England, and increasingly its not the stereotypical “dirty old man” who is being nicked for it but younger men in their teens and 20s. some practices that were commonplace in 1970s to 1990s photography in the UK and EU are quite simply no longer legal. For instance it was legal for either gender to be a nude model at age 16-18 until the mid 2000s. Nowadays both participants and photographers risk being arrested and at the very least cautioned or given words of advice (but with local records kept) even if domestic age of consent in the country is 16 or below.
That said I don’t think photo shops check the age of who goes in and a teenager is going to be expected to be taking photos of normal teenage activities.
what I would suggest to season
firs he build up a friendly rapport with the photo shop owners so there is no gain in him going to Warren Hill (especially as a teenager going to all the trouble using a film camera in the 21st century is in itself a curious thing that the Press would find “of interest” and the photo shop would get negative publicity too). Then get a single copy of the 36/38 prints on each roll of film and all the negs, inspect each one closely, and make your own judgement as to whether the photo could anyone in trouble (someone might not want a photo of them off their heads on drugs at age 17 circulated to the Internet to catch them when they apply for a job at age 25 or 30). Those can either be hid up or destroyed as seen fit, the rest sifted through for the blog.
depending on how secure your house/room maybe invest in a small digital safe (if anything you want to keep the photos secure as they are your only copy).
These are cheap from places like CPC. Be aware though if the fed do ever visit your house and see such a safe they will be more curious about whats inside it than if the photos were loose (but if you are living that kind of lifestyle you don’t want bait photos around your house anyway). they won’t find anything in mine other than backup CD’s of trance tracks, and other more boring stuff like the accounts database for my work (which has to comply with the demands of other regulators anyway and is 100% above board or just small fiddly items from gadgets that would otherwise get mislaid.
I’ve kept hold of digital photos of raves for 5-10 years before releasing them just so I wouldn’t make it difficult for those featured in such pictures.
I agreed.
Certain two facts on this post unequivocally the best we have all had. You are 100% good here that depending on how secure your house/room maybe invest in a small digital safe.
0
Voices
5
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
Forums › Life › Photography › Policy of Photo Developing Services?
