Boots will only print your pics if ........

[Crankarm]

....... you are a crap photographer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-print-photography-students-snaps--GOOD.html

 

[darkstar]

Can someone copy the text from the article into a post, I never visit the Daily Mail website, don't want to help them out in any way

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Usual Daily Wail non - story. There doesn't seem much point in Boots having such a policy if they print pictures they think may breach it. The woman seems to me to be making a big deal out of very little. Surely she can print them off somewhere else and post them to her friend? That's what I'd do if it were me; I certainly wouldn't go to the newspapers.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Can someone copy the text from the article into a post, I never visit the Daily Mail website, don't want to help them out in any way

Surely if someone hasd to visit the website to copy the text, that's the same as you visiting it anyway?

 

[darkstar]

Surely if someone hasd to visit the website to copy the text, that's the same as you visiting it anyway?

Not if it's someone who was visiting anyway!

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I've already read it, so were I to visit it again solely to copy it for you ... exactly. But you're not missing much, it's just the usual Daily Wail hysteria about something trivial.

 

[Slowgrind]

All looks a bit odd to me?
The photographer is holding a film camera in the image of her stood holding a camera.
If she handed a roll of film in to Boots they must have developed it to see what imiges were on the film. If they were digital imiges then she could have them printed off on one of those instant print out gizmos that most Boots stores have?
Bit of free publicity for both parties?

 

[tyred]

I wouldn't let Boots anywhere near my photographs anyway. I've had a bad experience there a while back and even if you have what should have been good photos, they will be rubbish by the time they've buggered up the negatives.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Can't see what the fuss is - it's not as though Boots destroyed the original images. They're acting as though if Boots don't make the prints no-one will. It is the Daily Wail though...

 

[automatic_jon]

As a photography student she really should have known better than to go to Boots for printing. Unless she likes the green cast that they always seemed to add to prints.

Copyright is a sticky wicket to be stuck on as a printer, but to turn away business when someone is proving that they are a photographer id silly, unless they have so much work they don't need customers. In that case I'd be inclined to take my money elsewhere.

 

[Crankarm]

As a photography student she really should have known better than to go to Boots for printing. Unless she likes the green cast that they always seemed to add to prints.

Copyright is a sticky wicket to be stuck on as a printer, but to turn away business when someone is proving that they are a photographer id silly, unless they have so much work they don't need customers. In that case I'd be inclined to take my money elsewhere.

+1.

It won't be long before Boots throws in the towel processing and printing 35mm film. In the few times I have been in their stores recently their huge colour negative Fuji processing machines which they presumably invested a fortune in have been silent.

The processing and printing of 35mm and other formats of negtive role reversal film will soon die out as there is simply not the demand. The places that remain offering the service will be niche labs who cater for the professional end of the market. The cost of processing and printing will rise to reflect this. Don't understand why the photography student didn't use a pro lab? Still doesn't excuse Boots' treamtent of her.

Why not take digital images and use some one like blurb.com to print them?

 

[Andy in Sig]

According to the link she took the pics to the store on a USB stick.

 

[downfader]

+1 Andy.

Personally i get my prints from Jessops if its just a quick print, or go to Bedford Place here in Southampton and get the guy there to do some decent Fuji prints.. as he callibrates the machine properly.

For developing film (and I've used 35mm, 120 and 5x4 sheet) I send them off to Peak Imaging.Since I bought the D3 though I'm rather sad to say I havent used the larger formats. Always wanted a proper field camera though.

 

[Andy in Sig]

I love 5 x 4 colour slides. The problem is overcoming my idleness to lug the camera and tripod around.

 

[rossbarney2003]

I can see where Boots is coming from. I am a Student and also work for Asda part-time. I am trained to work in the photo-shop and we were basically told during training that if we think any pics that are being printed may be copyrighted we can ask for proof of copyright to cover ourselves, since if we do actually print off copyrighted photo's without the proper permission we can personally get fined on the spot.

I have refused to print pictures a few times in the past, but it has usually just been people scanning obvious professional photo's etc.