Darkroom classes

On 7/7/2014 12:59 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:56:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And makes my point completely, which is
limit your liability. If that is not your idea of smart business, wallow
in your ignorance.

i never said anything to the contrary. you just want to argue.


Sorry I thought it was you who was complaining about receiving a roll of
film as compensation when a lab screws up. my mistake. /end sarcastic tag

because it's insulting.

they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but
here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.'

if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be
particularly careful about not screwing up.

Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more
than $3.


He thinks most people ave the same work ethic as he does.

--
PeterN

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:35:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but
here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.'

if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be
particularly careful about not screwing up.

Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more
than $3.

a pro lab might be concerned about reputation, but a drugstore won't,
especially since they sell all sorts of other things than photo
processing.

I tend to avoid a store once it has given me a raw deal on any
product.

Even if it only hits their film processing machine, they didn't get
that for nothing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but
here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.'

if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be
particularly careful about not screwing up.

Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more
than $3.

a pro lab might be concerned about reputation, but a drugstore won't,
especially since they sell all sorts of other things than photo
processing.

I tend to avoid a store once it has given me a raw deal on any
product.

many people do, but a drugstore has a wide variety of customers who
*aren't* there for photos, so if they lose a few customers for ****ty
processing, they'll still be in business.

plus, the staff doesn't stay there very long anyway, so six months from
now, someone entirely different might be running the machinery and it
could be better, or it could be worse.

that's nothing at all like a pro lab, where the employees are likely
photographers themselves, where they want to retain customers because
if they don't, they won't be in business for long.

Even if it only hits their film processing machine, they didn't get
that for nothing.

doesn't matter. while you're there dropping off the film, you might buy
shampoo, snack food, batteries, oxycodone and who knows what else.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be
particularly careful about not screwing up.

Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more
than $3.

He thinks most people ave the same work ethic as he does.

if only they did.

i don't do **** work. unfortunately, that ethic is not shared by most
companies.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And makes my point completely, which is
limit your liability. If that is not your idea of smart business, wallow
in your ignorance.

i never said anything to the contrary. you just want to argue.


Sorry I thought it was you who was complaining about receiving a roll of
film as compensation when a lab screws up. my mistake. /end sarcastic tag

because it's insulting.

they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but
here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.'

if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be
particularly careful about not screwing up.

You said that. Repeating doesn't make you right.

it was correct all along.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:58:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but
here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.'

if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be
particularly careful about not screwing up.

Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more
than $3.

a pro lab might be concerned about reputation, but a drugstore won't,
especially since they sell all sorts of other things than photo
processing.

I tend to avoid a store once it has given me a raw deal on any
product.

many people do, but a drugstore has a wide variety of customers who
*aren't* there for photos, so if they lose a few customers for ****ty
processing, they'll still be in business.

plus, the staff doesn't stay there very long anyway, so six months from
now, someone entirely different might be running the machinery and it
could be better, or it could be worse.

that's nothing at all like a pro lab, where the employees are likely
photographers themselves, where they want to retain customers because
if they don't, they won't be in business for long.

Even if it only hits their film processing machine, they didn't get
that for nothing.

doesn't matter. while you're there dropping off the film, you might buy
shampoo, snack food, batteries, oxycodone and who knows what else.

If I feel I've had a bad deal from them, I won't be there to buy
shampoo, snack food, batteries, oxycodone or anything else. I'll be
somewhere else.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens