If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message ... Thanks to everyone who responded. I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS. Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry. The scanned images are just fine. If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. If you have a problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the fact when they pack them. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button, perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they can't or won't put it right. -- Dooey. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message ... Thanks to everyone who responded. I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS. Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry. The scanned images are just fine. If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. If you have a problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the fact when they pack them. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button, perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they can't or won't put it right. -- Dooey. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"dooey" writes: "Mike Jenkins" wrote in message ... Thanks to everyone who responded. I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS. Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry. The scanned images are just fine. If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were using it that way isn't very productive. If you have a problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the fact when they pack them. The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control, but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button, perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they can't or won't put it right. I don't agree. To take an extreme hypothetical example, if prints come out with lime green skin tones, the operators should certainly at least check their calibration, whether or not they've ever met you. If they don't double-check the results, or if they find that they erred but don't run the prints through again before you ever see them, then they qualify for the adjective "poor," IMHO. If they give you the green-skinned prints *AND* refuse to reprint them, that just makes them poor at customer service, too. Put another way: If I have to come back to a lab to have them redo half the shots on every roll, time after time, they won't earn any praise from me, even if they happily redo every print I ask to be redone. This hypothetical lab does a poor job at printing, even if it's good at customer support. That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the prints. -- Rod Smith, http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"dooey" writes: "Mike Jenkins" wrote in message ... Thanks to everyone who responded. I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS. Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry. The scanned images are just fine. If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were using it that way isn't very productive. If you have a problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the fact when they pack them. The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control, but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button, perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they can't or won't put it right. I don't agree. To take an extreme hypothetical example, if prints come out with lime green skin tones, the operators should certainly at least check their calibration, whether or not they've ever met you. If they don't double-check the results, or if they find that they erred but don't run the prints through again before you ever see them, then they qualify for the adjective "poor," IMHO. If they give you the green-skinned prints *AND* refuse to reprint them, that just makes them poor at customer service, too. Put another way: If I have to come back to a lab to have them redo half the shots on every roll, time after time, they won't earn any praise from me, even if they happily redo every print I ask to be redone. This hypothetical lab does a poor job at printing, even if it's good at customer support. That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the prints. -- Rod Smith, http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"dooey" writes: "Mike Jenkins" wrote in message ... Thanks to everyone who responded. I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS. Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry. The scanned images are just fine. If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were using it that way isn't very productive. If you have a problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the fact when they pack them. The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control, but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button, perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they can't or won't put it right. I don't agree. To take an extreme hypothetical example, if prints come out with lime green skin tones, the operators should certainly at least check their calibration, whether or not they've ever met you. If they don't double-check the results, or if they find that they erred but don't run the prints through again before you ever see them, then they qualify for the adjective "poor," IMHO. If they give you the green-skinned prints *AND* refuse to reprint them, that just makes them poor at customer service, too. Put another way: If I have to come back to a lab to have them redo half the shots on every roll, time after time, they won't earn any praise from me, even if they happily redo every print I ask to be redone. This hypothetical lab does a poor job at printing, even if it's good at customer support. That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the prints. -- Rod Smith, http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Rod Smith" wrote in message ... In article , "dooey" writes: This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were using it that way isn't very productive. My point was that the lab made a good job of the processing. Mike says this himself as he made good scans from them. The lab then went on to make horrible prints of a difficult subject. They did nothing that couldn't be corrected. The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control, but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you. That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the prints. Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he normally takes good underwater shots. 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Rod Smith" wrote in message ... In article , "dooey" writes: This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were using it that way isn't very productive. My point was that the lab made a good job of the processing. Mike says this himself as he made good scans from them. The lab then went on to make horrible prints of a difficult subject. They did nothing that couldn't be corrected. The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control, but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you. That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the prints. Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he normally takes good underwater shots. 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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The scanned images are
http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/com.h...ord=30 940834 Your comments have all been helpful and revealing. The developing process went well. The printing process left a lot to be desired. The print of the first photo was monotone. I wanted to share these with the class so I had them developed while on vacation at a 24hr drugstore. It would be costly to return to the lab to have them reprinted at this point. I'm sure a local lab would do them over. Since I got the scanner, this is no longer an issue. Thanks again for the comments. I'm learning something new each day. Mike "dooey" wrote in message . uk... "Rod Smith" wrote in message ... In article , "dooey" writes: This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were using it that way isn't very productive. My point was that the lab made a good job of the processing. Mike says this himself as he made good scans from them. The lab then went on to make horrible prints of a difficult subject. They did nothing that couldn't be corrected. The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control, but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you. That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the prints. Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he normally takes good underwater shots. 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
washed out in photo editors | Pat | Digital Photography | 4 | August 9th 04 06:46 PM |
(update) Photo Exhibition, in images | Daniel ROCHA | General Photography Techniques | 0 | February 4th 04 05:23 AM |
(update) Photo Exhibition, in images ! | Daniel ROCHA | Photographing People | 0 | February 3rd 04 05:17 AM |
WHO Photo Contest "Images of Health and Disability 2003" | Nenad Kostanjsek | General Photography Techniques | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:15 PM |
WHO Photo Contest "Images of Health and Disability 2003" | Nenad Kostanjsek | Photographing People | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:14 PM |