I've finally resorted to just having the film developed at the expensive
place - $2.29 per roll and then scanning. I either have prints later done
of the few I want or print them on my Epson. This way, film handling is not
bad and price is livable. I used to take my stuff to Sam's, but after
examining negs from hundreds of rolls, the frequency of bad scratches and
chemical spotting is shocking.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: bad processing
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:50:33 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Why are photo labs so determined to make their customers go digital
(filmless)?
> >
> >What saint/temple deity/nature spirit do I need to make an offering to?
Is
> >there a secret handshake I need to learn? A codeword?
> >
> >Dan (slowly banging head on desk) Scott
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> It's all my fault, and others like me, because I buy only the cheapest
> processing.
>
> Anyone who charges more than four bucks per 24-exposure roll for
> processing and 5x7 prints doesn't get my business. So they have to
> automate the process, and hire minwage slaves.
>
> But in my defense, I have gotten just as good (or bad, depending on
> how you view it) processing at Sam's Club for $4 as I have for $23 per
> roll at a dip-and-dunk custom lab, where the owner is the lead
> technician and prime suspect in the bad processing saga.
>
> So since paying a higher price has never significantly improved the
> results I get using print film, I pay the lowest price. And even hold
> them to their "Back in X days or Free" guarantee.
>
> If I was really seriously cost conscious, I would also hold up the
> line at the counter as I reject all the bad prints (most my fault of
> course) and get a reduction in price for each reject (I'd still get
> the negs, which is all I wanted in the first place.)
>
> My sympathies, and respect, to those who do good work in photo
> processing. It is a commodity product, never glamorous at the 4x6 and
> 5x7 print level. It requires the brain be fully engaged, along with
> lots of drudge work performing preventive maintenance. Most folks
> couldn't tell the good from the bad at any price (except even Grandma
> could tell the prints cut in half weren't too good.)
> --
> Happy Trails,
> Texdance
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
