>>4293698>If those were developed ages ago, maybe. But not the freshly developed.hmmm yeah, they're not old as fuck, but they're not freshly developed
Most of them are from the past 3 or 4 years, when I started shooting more often
But there are some 5 - 9 year old rolls
>>4293707Have you read any of what I've written?
You'll get the cost of home developing and a deal that someone else will be free to use your chemichals
I'm pretty sure it'll be way less than $20/roll
But you're basically an excuse machine, so whatever we say you'll come up with some other trouble
Shoot digital then
>huh but muh tonezthen pay $20/roll
>b-but uh...just quit photography already
are you even shooting anything or just making excuses not to?
You literally feel like picrel
