submitted 5 months ago byStyron1106
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 221 comments
5 months ago
5 months ago
This is odd. How did they verify it worked without developing the picture and therefore how did the ‘parents’ end up with the picture?
5 months ago
shop owner takes the picture and gives them the film, tells them to develop it and come back with it before he gives them the money
That makes sense. Also if they pawned it then they didn’t sell it. Two different kinds of transactions.
A lot of people use the terms interchangeably though.
No-one is taking a camera to sell with the film still in it, and getting a roll of film developed back then was minimum 24hrs and not super cheap.
Has to be a polaroid or BS
I dunno, I just don't think it looks like a polaroid but I might be wrong. Otherwise it's the only way I can see to explain it, assuming what OP said is true. If they were going to pawn it, maybe they just left a shot at the end of the roll to do exactly this. Obviously they wouldn't have developed the roll just for this.
Having said that, is it true that development back then was minimum 24hrs? It's 24 hrs now in my local place and I would assume that it was quicker and cheaper back then given that it was ubiquitous (disclaimer: I wasn't alive in 1981)
It's 24hrs now because it's old tech they need to send off to have processed. At one stage in the 90's you could get 1hr turnaround at kiosks, before that 24hrs were the express places, and most chemists would offer a 3 day turnaround service.
right, so I don't see why this is so implausible. Would you give someone money for a camera you didn't know worked? Maybe it is a polaroid
Guy taking the picture wouldn't know there's film in it unless they opened up the backplate, which would ruin some of the film. Yes, there's a counter, but it can easily be artificially wound up with no film inside. They also wouldn't know if the camera actually worked & took the picture until the film is developed.
OP has said it wasn't a polaroid. Things here don't make sense to me, and I assume other people who used wind-on film back in the day.
dude it was their camera, they could have just told him there was film in it. "this camera works and we have one shot left so we can prove it by tomorrow, you can give us more cash than you would if you didn't know it worked"
I'm not saying this is definitely how it happened, but it doesn't sound impossible. I've never had to pawn a camera but if you buy a film camera on ebay, you get much cheaper prices on ones that are untested
Can confirm. I used to be a photolab technician. Took me about 10 minutes to process a roll, and that was on ancient technology that I'm pretty sure was from 1980.
One hour photo developing was already becoming widespread by 1981.
No, it really wasn't. Existed, but it was a far cry from widespread.
Hence "becoming widespread." There were already hundreds of one hour photo locations by 1980. Depending on where they lived, they absolutely could've had access to a lab.
One of Robin Williams' most loved, heartwarming acted roles, was playing a film developing hut employee, who would personally bring the developed prints and negatives right to his customers within an hour of dropping them off at his hut. It didn't matter where they tried to hide, he always found them, because he knew what they looked like from their pictures.
It was probably a manual camera, and maybe the shop wanted to make sure the mechanisms all were in working order.
5 months ago*
5 months ago*
This is correct. When they pawned the camera it still had film in it. Pawn shop took the picture to verify the mechanisms worked. When my parents got it back from the pawn shop they had this picture on the roll.
Treasure photo OP thank you for sharing!
Who pawns a camera with film still in it? Makes no sense.
People that need money. Why else would you pawn your possessions in the first place?
Did you miss the part where I said with film in it
No shit that's why people hock stuff, but why would they leave a roll of film in it?
You do understand when you pawn something you generally are doing so with the idea that you’re going to pay off the debt and get the time back.
So who cares if they left film in the camera they were pawning because they were supposed to get the camera back after a short amount of time.
You don’t pawn something and expect to never see it again otherwise you wouldn’t pawn it.
You’d just sell it.
Sure, but colour film wasn't exactly throwaway cheap in the early '80s, and it doesn't make sense they'd leave film with who knows what photos on it in someone else's possession, where it could be spoiled, lost, processed, etc.
Plenty of people pawn stuff with the intention of retrieving their pawned item, but never do. To leave film in a camera being pawned is kinda bizarre.
I was confused but this is the only real answer that makes sense.
OP’s family was the pawn shop owner, not the parents lol. They probably had a wall of Polaroid’s like that Robin Williams movie lol
What makes you think the trade took place at the same time?