William, I have to laugh. I am seeing similar problems anytime I go into the lab. They have the Agfa D-Labs and people bring in digital work for them. I can't begin to count the number of times that someone has emailed a small image (600X400) and then asked for an 8X10 print. It goes on and on. Most of them are pretty clueless. The most common problem is to set their camera to greatest compression and sometimes smallest image size so they can fit more on the card. Then they wonder why the pictures look so poor.
The biggest problem I see with this is the lab who is doing the service is seen as the bad guy rather than the real culprits (user and manufacturer of the camera. Bruce Wednesday, December 18, 2002, 5:31:47 PM, you wrote: WR> I'm spending this week working in a lab that has digital to WR> photo paper printing capability. WR> What a gong show. WR> First, there seems to be no standards in the industry, and we WR> are being asked to support 3 different memory card styles, plus WR> microdrives, plus floppies and CDs. WR> The people don't seem to have a sniff that they have to have WR> minimum file sizes to make prints or that it would be nice to WR> have the work in a common format. WR> One clever sot actually asked us to make prints from a bunch of WR> GIF images today. I guess thats how photodeluxe saves them WR> The there was the moron that buried the files he wanted printed WR> about 6 levels down from the root directory of his full CD, and WR> didn't know the exact filenames for a search. WR> Anyway, the people who make this stuff need to do some more WR> market research. Maybe try to make digital photography easy. WR> Film users can literally aim and shoot, and expect reasonable WR> results, with no knowledge base. WR> Digital users seem to need a course in rocket science to get WR> pictures. WR> William Robb
