Chuck wrote:
> >I use them too. Yes, they don't always get it right but will
> make it right in the end. Not as consistent as they used to
> be I'm told. Could be training/nel problems adjusting to the
> demise of film. They haven't sent me any complimentary notes
> though.
I had a good chat with one of the account managers and she
addressed this issue right up front. There have definitely been
problems, but they'll jump through hoops to correct it. I can
say from personal experience that all labs have their dark
secrets--it's how they deal with them that makes all the
difference to me. Anytime you have a lab do the color/density
correction for you, you run the risk of colorblind operators
screwing things up. Send out quality stuff to begin with and
things start to stabilize. I'm still at the point of letting
them do the color/density correction as I'm still learning how
they have things calibrated, but will change that in maybe the
next order or two.
> Maybe you haven't blurred your images enough. ;-)
It isn't "quantity" but "quality". ;) Don't forget, we've done
nasty things to the light path for a zillion years to make
people look like $6,000,000 models. It's just that now we can
move eyeballs around a lot easier. (I edited one photograph in
front of a mother and cloned an eyeball into forehead--made for
great comic relief--monobrows are also fun)
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|