Bad experience at Time+Life Photo lab
John Bast
I recently had some prints made from 4x5 negatives at Time & Life Photo Lab.
The prints came back WAY too red. I shot the same scenes on Velvia so I had
transparancies for comparison purposes.
When I went back and complained, the manager asked me if I had provided any
color reference for them to work from. And I said no, because nobody had
asked for any when I dropped off the negatives. Then I showed him the
Velvia and his answer was that if they had been provided with the Velvia up
front they probably would have done a better job. He was totally
unapologetic about the fact that the prints were completely different from
the transparancies (in fact, they are useless).
He said he would be happy to reprint them - at the standard price of $18.50
each. Whereupon he unceremoniously stuffed the bad prints back in the
envelope and opened the door for me to leave. The entire interchange took
about 2 minutes.
Now, am I way off the mark here, or is this guy a graduate of the Taliban
school of customer service? The least this clown could have offered was to
reprint one or two of the prints just to prove that better results were
possible. Now I'm out a couple of hundred bucks and I have 10 useless
prints.
Time & Life is close to where I work, so it's convenient to get to. But not
if all I get is glossy toilet paper for $200.00.
Any thoughts?
-John
Mr 645
contact the lab and ask to speak with the manager. Explain to him why you will
no longer be bringing any film to their lab. I am sure there are other very
good labs in the area.
Jon
<< When I went back and complained, the manager asked me if I had provided any
color reference for them to work from. And I said no, because nobody had
asked for any when I dropped off the negatives. Then I showed him the
Velvia and his answer was that if they had been provided with the Velvia up
front they probably would have done a better job. He was totally
unapologetic about the fact that the prints were completely different from
the transparancies (in fact, they are useless).
He said he would be happy to reprint them - at the standard price of $18.50
each. Whereupon he unceremoniously stuffed the bad prints back in the
envelope and opened the door for me to leave. The entire interchange took
about 2 minutes. >>
ThomasH
>
> "John Bast" <jb...@bestweb.net> wrote in
> news:u05nmtn...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Time & Life is close to where I work, so it's convenient to get to.
> > But not if all I get is glossy toilet paper for $200.00.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
>
> reprinted "correctly" at their cost.
>
> Thanks for the heads up. One more outfit to avoid.
The only problem is that we are running out of outfits not to avoid.
Experiences like that only speedup the transition to a high quality
self made digital processing. A contemporary printer, such as Canon
S800 provides a very pleasing quality with archiving inks, so does a
bunch of Epsons.
I am not a professional, so I am not sure what differences a real pro
might see with ease or discover using a loupe while comparing good
conventional prints and a photo printer output. I see almost none, so
maybe a good scanner such as Nikon LS8000 and such a printer is a money
saver for the middle format over a time, considering the juicy price for
such large prints.
I have also outfits I will never some back to, such as Fuji Labs in
Phoenix, AZ. They regularly cut my slide film and mount in these
linting horror cardboard mounts. As I said them it's enough and send
two certified letters demanding a compensation, they said basically:
sue me if you like, we only give one film ($3) as a compensation
and the "courts consistently confirm that." And I have than basically
a useless SA-30 roll film adapter to my LS-4000ED and a lot of work
to tear apart these cardboards and replace them by my CS mounts.
One I made a picture of myself after such a work: A feet high hill
of removed cardboard mounts. What the picture does not tell, are the
stiff back, hurting fingers, bloody finger nail, lint dusting job
and three-four hours of my life lost again because some moron yet
again ignores my DO NOT MOUNT instruction, highlighted in orange
and pointed to by a green fluorescent arrow. That's America, I really
still can not figure out why slide making is such a horror in this
country.
Well, so I am looking now at the digital cameras more intensely and
soon, real soon 90% of consumers will go digital and they all in such
labs will go looking for a new carrier.
Thomas.
el...@no.spam
<brou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's when I decided it was time to start souping all my own
>again. It's not as fast or convenient, but it certainly is more
>fun than getting stressed out over the incompetents manning many
>photo labs these days. :)
I tried that until one day I blew a couple of rolls due to
developer that was too old (or oxidized). Everything was
green.
Ron Speirs
:>The only problem is that we are running out of outfits not to avoid.
: That's when I decided it was time to start souping all my own again. It's
: not as fast or convenient, but it certainly is more fun than getting
: stressed out over the incompetents manning many photo labs these days. :)
I completely agree. I encountered goofed-up processing 20 years ago, and
I have been souping ALL my film and prints ever since.
The sad thing to see is the poor photofinishing still being encountered by
friends and relatives. I don't have the time or inclination to do THEIR
photofinishing. I have tried to educate them to recognize poor
photofinishing, and how to ask for reprints. The situation isn't getting
any better.
Ron Speirs
Ron Speirs
: Ron Speirs <rsp...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
:>The sad thing to see is the poor photofinishing still being encountered by
:>friends and relatives.
: When one particular relative sees my pictures vs. her pictures, she always
: comments on what a nice camera I have.
: I've yet to get up the nerve to do so, but I keep thinking after a good meal
: at her place, I should compliment the cook on her pots and pans. :)
That reminds me of a story; it is probably legend by now, but I don't
remember the characters.
A photographer was at a social function, and a noted writer complemented
him on his photography. He said, "You must have a very good camera."
Later at another social function, the photographer encountered the same
writer, and the photographer said, "I admire your latest book. You must
have a great word processor."
Ron Speirs