P3D Re: Some Observations Top10

[CanterMike@xxxxxxx]

In digest 3508 George writes of his photofinishing experiences:

<< 
 
 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?  [snip]

 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!  >>

And that, after all, is the ultimate punishment we consumers can inflict: the 
loss of our business.

I think these problems occur when people try to evade responsibility.  I've 
seen it happen on BOTH sides of the counter.  Although many lazy or stupid 
counter people try to pass off poor quality as the customer's fault, just as 
many lazy or stupid customers blame the lab for every boneheaded thing the 
customer has done prior to handing in the film.  Unfortunately, in our modern 
society, too many people refuse to acknowledge their errors.

Almost every lab that I have worked with (and certainly every one with which 
I have maintained any long term relationship) has been staffed with competent 
people who try (usually pretty hard) to produce the best quality work that 
they can.  Of course, things can (and sometimes do) go wrong.  A person can 
have a bad day, a machine can break down, you name it, it has happened.  That 
is when you separate the wheat from the chaff.

Customers have a right to quality service and a prompt correction of any lab 
errors.  But with each right comes a responsibility.  In this case the 
responsibility includes (as a minimum) a basic grasp of exposure, focus, and 
the correct operation of your camera (it is, after all, your camera).  (Just 
as with driving, sewing, or woodworking, you must know enough about the safe 
operation of your hardware that you don't present a danger to yourself or 
others.)  Unfortunately, photographic equipment has become so user-friendly 
that many morons with point & shoots think they are Ansel Adams.  (This may 
not be a strictly photographic phenomenon: look how many people on the 
Interstate think they are Juan Manuel Fangio!)  The camera manufacturers are 
happy: they are selling cameras to many people who were put off by anything 
more technical.  The film, paper & chemical suppliers are happy, too.  More 
people are out there shooting more pictures than ever before.

You, George (and I suspect many others on this list), have fulfilled your 
responsibility.  You know enough to tell when unsatisfactory photos are your 
fault or lab error, and I think you are mature enough to admit to your 
errors.  Even with your first roll of film ever, you should have been able to 
tell which frames were sharp & which soft.  By now you know how to tell if a 
picture is soft from poor focus or a motion blur.  You can probably tell when 
a motion blur is camera shake or subject movement.  If you shot even one roll 
of neg film for every 10 of slides, you would soon be able to judge a 
correctly exposed neg (and you'd marvel at how often a badly exposed neg 
prints well).  It is too much to expect most people be able to tell when a 
bad neg (too thin or too dense) is caused by processor error (under or over 
development) but here's a hint: poor processing will affect every square 
millimeter of the film (including the leader & the frame numbers). 

Mark's list, and Dave's remarks, are directly related to how many (or how 
few) of their clients have fulfilled and accepted their responsibilities as 
customers.  To rephrase Bill Walsh's remark, "Garbage In, Garbage Out".


Mike Canter