But the fact the highlights are all burned out in the print but not the negative is pretty damning. As I said if the print mattered it was my job to insist that it be done over correctly. Also I could have specified "No Corrections" on the envelope. However, I do not expect Wal-Mart to do really high grade prints these images were not intended to put down the lab, but to illustrate the points I made in the text. I only mentioned the girls intense pride in scewing up the photo because I thought it was humorous, in fact I did not mention it to her as I did not want to make her feel bad. The unfortunate thing is many of the so called pro labs do no better, even when you include a gray card in the first frame.
The fact is that really excellent color printers are far and few between. That was so 25 years ago as well as today. The labs would probably do better hiring art students than photo students as universities and colleges still teach mainly B&W fine art photography, while art students presumably learn to work with color.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Graywolf" Subject: Re: Digital profligacy
The young lady at the local Wal-Mart Minilab as so happy. She told me she had a hard time getting all the yellow out of my photo of a tan hat...
Wal-Mart print: http://meanderings.graywolfphoto.com/_images/walmart-hat.jpg
Uncorrected scan of negative: http://meanderings.graywolfphoto.com/_images/my-block.jpg
Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Luckily I only wanted a scan to send to the guy who had given me the hat to show how it had cleaned up.
Both images are uncorrect scans. Note how off the exposure looks in the print. The negative shows that I did better than that. In a way these two images are a pro-digital argument. But bad printing is not a real problem as I could have insisted that they redo the print correctly. If I do not so insist it is my problem, not theirs. It does show how hard it is to evaluate exposure from minilab prints by inexperienced photographers. With digital however it is just as hard. An experienced photographer can read the negative and know who is at fault. How do you do that with digital, there are so many varitables involved before you can see a readable image.
This brings up the interesting concept that the photo finisher should what the inside of your house looks like, and should automatically know what colour things are, given no references regarding it.
Her exposure is off by a couple of buttons (too light), but there is nothing in the scene to tip off the printer regarding what the correct colour should be.
One of the things we deal with on an ongoing basis is the tan wall syndrome. It's not unusual for us to get negatives (especially) that have no colour reference for us to key on to make a colour judgement, so we make a nice looking print, and get accused of being idiots because the walls of the room are the wrong colour.
William Robb
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 5/6/2005
