How to

>>2720941
It's an underexposed photo on color film.

>>2720948
Does that mean that color film has no true blacks? Surely the darkest color cannot be THIS bright?


(Not that guy. Just noticed, onderes, and only used to digital.)

>>2720956
probably a poor scan, also expired film has color shifts

>>2720941
The colors remind me of Lomo 400 color film. Also looks a bit underexposed like >>2720948 said, and most likely shot on a Diana or similar shit camera.

That being said I really like the colors on the lomo 400, if properly exposed it looks neat.

Thanks for explainig it to me, any suggestion on a camera to make this photos?

>>2720941
Shoot film or fuck with the curves

>>2720977
Any film camera. The effect comes from the film you choose to put into it.

>>2720956
what part of underexposed did you not understand

>>2721070
the part where the final product looks bright, obviously. Do you honestly believe that you're a benefit to the board acting this way?

>>2721085
It was probably pushed in development/printing.

There are three "exposures" to consider when talking about film photography
>what happens in the camera
>development
>printing
At any one of these steps, an image can be under or over exposed.