>>3687393That is a good question. I'm not really sure. For example, the look I was expecting I guess is something like
>>3687207's photo. I don't know the lingo used in the business, but "flat" is the best way I can describe my pic related compared to his. I'm not sure if mine is underexposed/underdeveloped, but that's what seems to be the case based on things I've found on google. Maybe I just need to learn how to properly edit a photo, since I hardly touched that one. Cheers for the reply.
>>3687402To be honest, I wish I could tell you. A quick google told me that I didn't wash the film long enough it seems? Apparently that rears it's head in the form of a purple cast on the picture
