Re: PHOTO-3D digest 2197

[P3D Farfl's house <lederman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 8:38:03 -0500
> From: P3D Chuck Field-ECF004  <Chuck_Field-ECF004@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Receipt Notification Requested)
> Subject: RE: Problem Lenticulars
> Message-ID: <"Macintosh */PRMD=MOT/ADMD=MOT/C=US/"@MHS>
 I pulled out my light table and magnifier and examined the negatives. 
It
> appears that all of the damage appearing as lines or streaks, were cause by
> scratches on the negative.  I don't see how this could be my fault, as the
> film is loaded into the cameras at manufacture, and Image Tech was the lab
> that did the processing, too!
>   I talked about a white, curl shaped mark at the top edge of many photos.
> This "curl" does NOT show up on any of the negatives.  Another processing
> errror?
>    It seems that Image Tech also crops off quite a bit of the top or bottom
> of each view.  I have a picture of Nelson's Column - sans Nelson!  Can't
> they process them in a size that fits the whole view???
>    Man.  I'm really disappointed, now.
>    I emailed Image Tech, and asked what they could do to help me out.  I've
> received no answer, yet, but I only sent the message yesterday.
> 
>   Thanks to Gregory for advice on how to check the negatives.
>   Thanks to Gabriel for advice on how to mount reprints for viewing in my
> old stereoscope.
>    Thanks to anyone else I may have forgotten.
> Chuck

Well, Chuck;
what you describe above does not surprise me in the least; before I
"discovered" that people were still shooting Realist format, I opted at
trying an Image Tech camera during our last San Francisco trip. Much to
my dismay, I found that when I took pictures indoors, the flash was
defective. I had already taken a number of pictures outdoors, and so I
did not want to return the camera. I purchased a SECOND one, marking
them as "IN" and "OUT", and when I had finished all of the exposures on
the "IN" camera, I sent it in for processing. I received my prints, and
except for some of the scratching you describe, I was happy. I decided
to order additional prints. I took out the negatives and tried to find
the exposure I was looking for. After a few minutes of fruitless
searching, I realized THEY SENT BACK THE WRONG NEGATIVES....!
Needless to say, mine were long lost. For my troubles I received a new
disposable camera and pre-paid mailer. No response to my letter about
the defective flash.
When I got back from San Francisco, I found John Saddy's auction on the
Internet, rediscovered the Realist, and have never looked at another
lenticular again.  The new disposable camera they sent is going to be
given to a friend. That particular couple likes the cheesy, kitschy
aspect of lenticular photos, regardless of whether or not the Company
cares about repeat business from less-than-satisfied customers. 
Sympathetically,
Steven


------------------------------