Wal-Mart ever not let you print your own pictures?

[Zatodragon]

Yea, i've never been fond of getting my pictures printed at wall mart. They also have a policy on printing what they thing is right. They will censor any picture they deem wrong. I've tried some artistic nudes, a picture of a sword on display i have and both times wallmart refused to print em.

But yes, i think it's good they look out for the copy-right, but it's back on how something merely looks, not if it actually is or isn't.

 

[Jeff Canes]

---What the!?! Professionals take their photos to walmart? --

Why not, most mini-labs and on-line labs in the US use laser light jet prints that are ran on automatic. So any well-maintained machine should make good prints. I’ve never tried Walmart, but I have done print tests at Costco, Adorama, Mpix, and a local pro lab with similar results. 8x12 are $1.50 at Costco and $8.00 at the pro lab.

 

[Battou]

Why not, most mini-labs and on-line labs in the US use laser light jet prints that are ran on automatic. So any well-maintained machine should make good prints. I’ve never tried Walmart, but I have done print tests at Costco, Adorama, Mpix, and a local pro lab with similar results. 8x12 are $1.50 at Costco and $8.00 at the pro lab.

I think the statement Garbz made is based more on simple logic. When you sit back and think about it, Wal-Mart and drug store in house printing is a secondary aspect of the business as opposed to pro labs with a sole purpose. Often times the in house printers are being run and maintained by regular employees with in house training, where as most pro labs are being run and maintained by employees with more finely tuned and specific training.

At the pro lab the employees are a little more conserned with what goes out the doors and have the training to correct any issues that may arrise. Customer loss can destroy them. At the same time the in house printers often are under the impression that the machine knows best and automatic settings are correct even if the print looks like hell and often times have no ability to properly maintain the machinery. They are less hesitent to let crap go to the customers, after all their photo lab looses enough customers they can just dump it and continue on with the primary function of the store beit grosseries or perscriptions. I believe this is the deturrent Garbz was refering to.


Wile your statement is true, you can full well get acceptable prints from them. The chances of poor prints are far grater with in house printing than they are from dedicated labs. It stands to reason that a professional photographer not only wants but needs it done right the first time and is not likely to risk the chances of poor quality prints.

 

[Garbz]

So any well-maintained machine should make good prints.

You've highlighted exactly my point. I find it hard to believe that a company renowned world wide for their high employee turnover, poor pay, and all around dissatisfaction by the workers could even remotely create a policy of pride amongst the workforce. I wouldn't be surprised if their "well-maintained" policy means calling someone in to fix it when the red error light blinks.

Admittedly I am just basing this off the company's international reputation, and an example of a local company with the same reputation once reproduced. In a moment of desperation I took my photos to a local Big W, and when I came to collect an hour later I didn't accept any of the prints. I could have done better on my inkjet at home. And yes they were running some huge Kodak machine, and not just spitting them out of a cheap printer.

As an aside a few days ago I printed a 12x8" for sale at the local Rabbit Photo Lab (again desperation) they asked if I was a professional, I told them what I was selling that picture for, and they happily handed it over. I just have something against a company which treats its customers like criminals (as evident in this thread).

 

[Battou]

You've highlighted exactly my point. I find it hard to believe that a company renowned world wide for their high employee turnover, poor pay, and all around dissatisfaction by the workers could even remotely create a policy of pride amongst the workforce. I wouldn't be surprised if their "well-maintained" policy means calling someone in to fix it when the red error light blinks.

Admittedly I am just basing this off the company's international reputation, and an example of a local company with the same reputation once reproduced. In a moment of desperation I took my photos to a local Big W, and when I came to collect an hour later I didn't accept any of the prints. I could have done better on my inkjet at home. And yes they were running some huge Kodak machine, and not just spitting them out of a cheap printer.

As an aside a few days ago I printed a 12x8" for sale at the local Rabbit Photo Lab (again desperation) they asked if I was a professional, I told them what I was selling that picture for, and they happily handed it over. I just have something against a company which treats its customers like criminals (as evident in this thread).

In other words, I hit the nail on the head.

 

[Jeff Canes]

--As an aside a few days ago I printed a 12x8" for sale at the local Rabbit Photo Lab (again desperation) they asked if I was a professional, I told them what I was selling that picture for, and they happily handed it over. I just have something against a company which treats its customers like criminals (as evident in this thread).

My issue with the copyright policy that most in store labs have is that it is not uniform enforced. Copyright is not just for Pro’s it applies to all people and equally to all media (digital, film, prints, etc). An equally enforced policy would require asking ever customer if they were the copyright owner or had a release.

 

[Peanuts]

From experience working at a lab (not walmart though! ) it is a really really sticky situation. you would e surprised the amont of 'photographers' who hand over the full res images then stamp a small copyright on the envelope it comes in. The labs hands are tied without having a signed printing release and the customer is usually pretty peeved.

It is a pain in the rear but if we printed it that would be a huge copyright issue.

 

[skieur]

Personally I think that you would need to be out of your mind to have photos printed at in box store photolabs. I think one needs to realize that unlike true photo labs as one radio ad suggested the guy running the photo lab in these kinds of stores may have been handling food in a different department last week and gardening before that. He is often making decisions that lack common sense based on policies that are unclear and over-generalized and are made by other non-photographers.

Copyright of pros is important, but true violations are rather easy to spot and most often rather blatant in store photo lab situations. Photos of framed pictures that actually show part of the frame or are slightly tilted or show a reflection in the glass, what look like pro shots in among very poor quality photos, apparent pro shots that look too soft, perfect compostion but poor exposure, pro looking compositions where even basic postprocessing does not seem to have been done, etc. These kinds of situations and more would make a knowledgeable photographer suspicious about the possibility of copyright infringement.

The proof that these kinds of photo labs are making bad decisions is the number of enthusiasts or advanced amateurs that have been hassled about often just average quality photos.

An article I read several months ago indicated that Walmart called in the police and had a grandmother charged with producing child pornography because they did not like a couple of prints she had done of her granddaughter blowing bubbles while not wearing clothes although nothing inappropriate was showing. The grandmother spent a fortune defending herself and eventually won, but the response from Walmart seemed rather arrogant in indicating that they would repeat the same kind of thing in the future. No apology to the woman.

Assuming photographers are guilty, given the slightest susicion is not the attitude that I want or appreciate from any lab that I would deal with.

Stick to photo labs in camera stores or professional photo labs.

skieur

 

[easily_amused]

Wal-mart has called officials for 'child porn' on MANY occasions.

They class ANY nudity of children as 'child porn,' even innocent family photos. One of my friends had CPS called over pics of her baby's first bath.

 

[gendarmee]

What if one really stole some PRO's pictures, and dumped them the the DCIM folder of the CF card?

 

[ghpham]

I don't see what's the big deal. Many other labs are heading the same direction, not just Wal-Mart. They need to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. They don't really have the professional photographers' interest in mind. It's all a business decision.

 

[skieur]

What if one really stole some PRO's pictures, and dumped them the the DCIM folder of the CF card?

The reality is that intentional theft of pro pictures is NOT going to be caught by an average underpaid clerk in a Walmart photolab. Even the incompetent, ignorant theft of pro photos will only be stopped by those with good photographic and computer knowledge who are likely in more professional photo labs and less likely to encounter such situations.

skieur

 

[skieur]

I don't see what's the big deal. Many other labs are heading the same direction, not just Wal-Mart. They need to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. They don't really have the professional photographers' interest in mind. It's all a business decision.

The big deal is: How would you like to pay out $200,000 to defend a frivolous charge of child porn. brought about by Walmart calling the police over a shot of your child in the bathtub?

If you have the kind of money to waste and don't care about your rights, than you are certainly one of a kind.

As far as copyright is concerned, why should an enthusiast who is in the right place at the right time and wants to get some enlargements made have to try and somehow prove that he/she took the pictures?

As I said before, any knowledgable photographer can spot real potential copyright violations. Harassing everyone is unnecessary and unacceptable.

skieur

 

[mrodgers]

You can blame that completely on the lawyers and the judges. Just like the hot cup of coffee at McDonalds, or the Toyota 4Runner that rolled over because the stupid woman panicked when she drove off the shoulder and cranked the wheel completely to it's stop. The lawyers for following through on stupid lawsuits like this because of the payout to them, and the judges for not throwing out these frivolous lawsuits out the door immediately.

 

[skieur]

You can blame that completely on the lawyers and the judges. Just like the hot cup of coffee at McDonalds, or the Toyota 4Runner that rolled over because the stupid woman panicked when she drove off the shoulder and cranked the wheel completely to it's stop. The lawyers for following through on stupid lawsuits like this because of the payout to them, and the judges for not throwing out these frivolous lawsuits out the door immediately.

Not really! You can blame that on the ultra-conservative, Christian right approaches of some business owners of large store chains.

skieur