Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barry
From: barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: re: Camera Vibration and Sharpness (photo labs)
Message-ID: <3879@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 14:23:47 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3879
Posted: Mon Mar 25 14:23:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 01:16:53 EST
References: <330@lcuxc.UUCP> <381@wjvax.UUCP> <527@ptsfa.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18

You sure are right about Kodak lately.  Their quality control has really
bitten the dust.

I have worked at many camera stores in the Boston area, and have seen
a great deal of photofinishing come through.  Kodak has lately been
(lately being the past 2 years) scratching negatives, using improper
color balance, using bad chemicals, not focusing enlargements, doing
shoddy copy slides, losing lots of film, etc.  Personally, I sent an
enlargement back 4 times, calling them about it once because the thing had
so much cyan in it it was pathetic.  They told me they couldn't do anything
about it, and sent the identical photo back all four times.  When I told them
I was a photo employee, they said they'd fix it, and again sent back the
identical photo.  I gave up.

Unfortunately, most retail photo labs are as bad, if not worse.  You either
have to take your chances, or spend megabucks for a custom lab.

Mikki Barry