>>4481382Err. Depends. If that's supposed to be a print she has then yes. That would be an enlarged exposure which as long as it's already fixed is accurate BUT we don't see anything other than a piece of whatever. It could also be a piece of sheet film that's been fixed and she's inspecting, but if the movie is about a leica that's shooting 35mm then it's definitely a print.
Now the fucky thing is, I've seen plenty of media portray film dev in a darkroom and they fuck it up by leaving that red light on OR not using a changing bag; unfixed film is FUCKED even when exposed to that red light (and any light). If for instance the clip here is supposed to be the "development" step of dev then it's inaccurate because the film would be cooked.
Developing 35mm film takes about 30m-1h of active involvement (spooling, dev, stop bath, fixing, drying, hanging) and then about 24h until it's ready and dry to be either enlarged or digitized. I'm actually not sure if sheet film takes longer.
tl;dr: unsure, need to see longer scene. Probably accurate if showing the end result of an enlarged print.[spoiler:lit][/spoiler:lit]
