P3D Re: Some Observations Top10

[George Themelis <gthemelis@xxxxxxxxx>]

> A blanket statement like yours is not only inaccurate, it
> illustrates the very point he was making!

Yeah, explain this:  I am getting double prints. One print is
sharp, the other (identical) is soft.  What if I had gotten
single prints and received the soft ones?  How would I know
that this was the processing and not me?  Because I know
myself and my equipment I can make the statement concerning MY 
work that when the prints do not look good it is the processing 
to blame and not MY photography.  

That's why I have given up shooting negatives.  I believe I am 
not alone.  Go back and read what Alan Lewis (professional 
wedding stereo photographer) has written about photofinishing 
quality.  How many labs he had to change.  How many times he had

to show his stereo prints and say "Look guys, these are not 
sharp... You can do better than that."  

The problem is that the average consumer is satisfied with crap
and most times thinks it is their fault and not the processor's
when something goes wrong.  When I tried to show the double
prints to the girl in the counter, while demanding an
explanation
and my money back, her reaction was "They don't look fuzzy to
me"
That was it!  They never saw me again!

George
===
George Themelis (DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com