In article ,
"dooey" writes:

Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he
normally takes good underwater shots.

True, but underwater shots aren't exactly hard to spot -- at least, not
by a human. After all, how often do you see fish floating in midair down
the street? ;-) This is true whether or not a given customer frequently
takes such pictures; whether or not they know that a customer takes such
pictures doesn't make their ability or inability to handle them properly
any better or worse. If such shots pass through the lab looking
unacceptable, then that means that the lab's quality control isn't very
good, or at the very least isn't prepared to deal with unusual subjects.

I was simply trying to say that you
shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in
unusual circumstances.

I can certainly agree with that, although some mistakes are inexcusable,
even on the first visit. Not having seen Mike's photos, I can't say
whether his fall into this category or not, but probably not -- after all,
his negatives are OK, so as you said in a bit that I snipped, the prints
can be redone.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking