P3D Re: Some Observations Top10

[Dave Williams <davidrw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

George Themelis wrote:
> 
> > 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? 


Dr. T,

I do see this on occasion, and in my experience it is usually from the
high speed mass production run processors from the big labs like Fuji or
Qualex.  The prints are being made so fast that sometimes the exposure
is made while the machine is letting go of the film so it can advance to
the next frame.  I've never seen that problem with mini lab equipment. 
Also, if you were to get singles, this particular problem wouldn't
occur.

Again, it is the exception, not the rule.  Your statement was simply
"bad prints are from bad processing!"  That is a generalization that
just isn't true.  Your experience is just that - your experience. 
Experience is the worst teacher, not the best.  It convinces people that
their limited events and outcomes are the world standard.

> 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.

So you've had some bad luck with processing, that still doesn't mean ALL
bad prints are ALWAYS from bad processing.  And I'll bet that if you
were to sit down with all your bad prints with a good capable printer,
he just might be able to point out where at least an occasional one was
helped along by the photography.  Even the best of us slip on rare
occasions.  

> 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."

Again, I know there are a lot of poor printers out there.  But that
doesn't make it the rule, an absolute.  There's a "Pro" lab in our area
that I tried after my regular lab sold off its portrait division.  They
messed up my order each of the three times I tried them.  The printing
was OK, they just printed the wrong neg, or left something out.

But my regular lab, Custom Color Corp., here in Kansas City, has never
given me a bad print or slide, or an incorrect order in the 20+ years
I've used them.  Oh, I've had some bad pictures, but a quick glance at
the negative told me it was my fault.

> 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.

The average consumer hasn't got a clue what is good or bad.  I can't
tell you how many little old ladies have told me their 110 camera takes
better pictures than any of "these new fangled 35 mm cameras".  In my
area, the camera of choice is the one time use, and the cheaper the
better.  I'll show someone a set of dark, green, grainy, lousy pictures
while trying to figure out how to explain to them why they are grossly
underexposed, and before I can say anything, they'll say Oh, these are
so good...

>  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!

I'll agree to this one!  That was poor customer service.  If one of my
associates treated someone that way, we'd have a serious "Come to Jesus
meeting" about customer service standards.  A second time and she'd be
promoted to customer.  

On the other hand, to be fair, sometimes the "demanding an explanation"
part can set the sales clerk on the defensive.  Sometimes experienced
photographers and pros, or people who fancy themselves as such, come to
the counter with an attitude, usually based on assumptions like your bad
print statement.  A polite, "may I speak to your manager" might have
been much more productive. 

Dr. T, I have followed your teachings (which is what I consider your
posts to be!) for a few years here on P3d, and I have nothing but the
greatest respect for you. You have taught me much about stereo
photography and multiplied my enjoyment and understanding of the craft. 
This discussion is simply a reaction to your one statement that I felt
was an erroneous generalization.  Maybe your bad prints were due to poor
processing, and I would certainly consider you knowledgeable enough to
know.  But there are countless people who respect your words as I do who
may not be that capable in photography.  When they bring underexposed or
poorly exposed negatives to be printed, I don't want them to assume the
problem is my printing, just because "Dr T says bad prints are due to
bad processing"!

When you hold a position of leadership and authority in a field, as you
do in the 3d community, generalizations can be harmful.  Especially when
based in personal experience.  Isn't attempting to broaden an attitude
based on personal experience just what you were doing in the case of
"saving" Mark Shields?

There is a lot of poor processing out there.  I agree with that, and it
hurts the industry as a whole in my opinion.  In my lab, I have made it
my "crusade" to raise the standards of mini lab processing.  I also am
not alone.  There are a lot of lab managers who are trying to make up
for the lousy ones.

When a customer brings film to me that another lab has messed up (I have
a reputation in this area for fixing things like this)  I usually redo
the prints for no charge.  With that in mind, if you would send me some
(or all!) of your bad prints and negs, with notes as to what you feel is
wrong with them (so we see the same bad in them), I would consider it an
honor to print them over for you, of course at no charge.  I'm no air
headed chick at a counter, but a 50 year old professional with 30+ years
photo finishing experience.

It's been an honor disagreeing with you!


Dave Williams
4122 NE Davidson Road
Kansas City, MO 64116