Kodak just issued a new Kodak Pro Newsletter with all their Q Labs accessable through a link. If you don't use a Kodak Q Lab -- they have a small sign posted -- you're taking your chances. The streaks are from dirty rollers. Kodak issues a 'must do' list and test materials. At the beginning of each day, the lab runs the test strip and balances the light for all its processors. There is no excuse for a Kodak Q Lab to make this awful mistake. I'm not with Kodak, but I strongly advocate looking for the Q Lab sign whenever I go to a lab for my processing. S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 11:05 AM Subject: Re: HELP! > shy_mel_photo@xxxxxxxx writes: > > > Need help! The wedding pictures I took a few weeks ago came back with > > tiny blue streaks across each and every photo! All I got was a letter of > > apology and a new roll of film from the processor! This means I will > > loose all the money I might have made on the sale. I'm sick to my > > stomach! > > Oh, ICK! I'm very sorry. > > > My questions are: > > What have all of you who have experienced this (or similar) done to fix > > the problem? > > What have you said to the customer and what other options did you offer? > > Is there any way to mask or minimize these lines so they are invisible? > > What other things can be done now and to prevent this in the future? > > (Yes, I will change companies!) > > For those who do not develop their own photos, who is your processor? > > This can be retouched on the negs or on the prints. I'd try to push > the processor to cover the retouching costs. No guarantee they will, > even at a pro lab, but it's a thing to ask for. That's something that > can be done to make it right. Their disclaimer says all they owe you > is the film, but sometimes they'll actually do what they can to make > it right anyway. > > This is why the film-based wedding pros I've worked with make a point > of sending the film in in at least two separate batches on different > days, so they go through the processor at different times. And even > made sure that the really critical photos were split between different > rolls and that those rolls went through in different batches. > > > Please don't tell me I should have used digital. At this point that > > comment would be redundant. I'm still waiting to purchase my > > camera. I do have an old 3.0 PS but still trying to learn how to use > > it. I have aprox. 4 weeks to fix this problem before I call the > > Bride. > > Things can go wrong with digital, too; though not this precise thing > admittedly. Some of them you could spot immediately, and that helps > some. But not all. There's always some way for disaster to strike, > and the digital disaster might be *more* likely to completely eat > every single photo. But at least then there's less worrying; you can > just jump off a bridge and be done with it. > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> > RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> > Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > >
