>>4368366sometimes that happens, but i've seen many times the case where anon bashes a photo super hard and it's a mediocre novice photo. i guess in either case, the photo is not as bad as the commenter says, but it's not always good either. i think it's essentially random and you kind of need to individually evaluate whether the comment is valid relative to the pic
>>4368378i got a batch of expired film and maybe over time the shadow of the backing paper was exposed onto the film
