From: Nick David Wright
http://blog.nickdavidwright.net/2010/12/leave-light-on.html
This shot has set in my files since I shot it. It is another example
of why I needed my own scanner. The machine at walmart thought this
photo was a mistake and would make the file so the building was
exposed properly. I tried working with the techs at the lab to get a
better scan but no go. The lit area would scan completely blown out
and the dark building would come back with so much digital noise ...
ugh.
It was horrible. Now, no worries!
Very nicely done. Glad you're able to get the exposure the way you want
it to be.
Technical question - is this a scan from the negative or a scan from a
print?
In defense of the "techs" at the lab at Walmart, the equipment is locked
down pretty tightly in the software, so they don't have much control to
make it do something different than what the machine wants to do by
default. And probably have no training in how to do so if they need to.
I think I could have produced a print with tonality close to what you
show here by scanning your negative on the mini-lab equipment where I
worked, but I had no training from my employer on how to do it.
I barely received instruction on how to turn the systems on in the
morning and how to shut them down at night. Plus how to submit my weekly
inventory of consumables & how to order supplies that were not
automatically shipped. Nothing on how to figure out what supplies I was
actually going to need.
Everything I knew about operating the systems came from RTFM.
I brought to the job a general knowledge of photography, what I had
learned about processes and materials during my first year in
photography school and a trained ability to dig into menus, manuals and
help files to find out what the controls would let me do.
When I was running the lab, I had the highest percentage of up-time and
the lowest percentage of waste prints of any lab in my district. Get it
right the first time and you won't have to re-do the job to satisfy the
customer.
None of this came from the training I received. I had to figure it out
for myself. It was all there in the manuals, and due to my background I
was comfortable looking for it there. I don't think most mini-lab
employees are.
But it seems to me that generally corporations won't spend the money to
train mini-lab operators to the level that allows them to provide
genuine good service to the customer. They see it as an additional cost
to be avoided.
I see it as an opportunity to increase profit by attracting business
from more sophisticated customers. Plus, really knowing & understanding
how the equipment works lowers operating costs by reducing waste. The
extra training will pay for itself in increased profit.
It's a concept that seems to be beyond the grasp of most corporate managers.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
