Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: re: photo labs
Message-ID: <9668@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 15:53:40 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9668
Posted: Mon Apr  1 15:53:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 10:34:36 EST
References: <3879@mit-eddie.UUCP> <140@mit-athena.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 16

> background (a mossy log).  The Kodak prints came back printed
> so that the exposure was correct "on the average" across the
> shole picture.  In other words, they overexposed it badly to
> try to bring out the background, and the foreground came out
> white.  I argued for a while, but the only answer I could get
> was "That's the way we do it; your picture is underexposed."
> 
Hmm, first, I don't deal directly with Kodak, I always talk to my
friendly neighborhood camera store (I don't even know if it's possible
to deal direct with Kodak).  I've never had any complaints about redoing
pictures that came back exposed or color balanced funny.   I had some
sail boats with a background of half water and half sky that looked
just fine on the slide that came back too dark.  The store just noted
my complaints and sent the photo back, it came out OK in the end.

-Ron