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

[MACollum]

When my daughter asked for the CD back, amazingly the clerk, a young girl who had just started working there a week before, took the CD and snapped it in half, right in front of my daughter.

OMG, can you imagine if she had paid $500 for that CD from a photographer she'd hired? Yikes. Someone would almost certainly be fired for that.

 

[THORHAMMER]

If she paid 500 bucks she would have a receipt.

 

[pbsmoker]

I have had Wal-Mart do the same thing to me. I had my watermark on them with my name, even showed them my ID and they were trying to turn me away. I order all my prints now from adorama.com

 

[Socrates]

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.

It's interesting that you mention the McDonald's coffee case. Have you ever read the details? I would strongly suggest that you experiment a bit. Make a cup of coffee at home and stick you finger in it immediately to get an idea of normal coffee temperature. I was able to hold my finger in the coffee for several minutes with no discomfort. In the McDonald's case, ten minutes after the coffee was brewed (and the coffee had cooled somewhat), the victim suffered 3rd degree burns. Do you honestly believe that such intense temperature is a reasonable expectation?

 

[Socrates]

Yup, those cheap SOB customers.... I have seen prices posted here for say, an 8x10 print, range anywhere from $20-40. Also, have seen posted here of "sitting fees" of $150-300. You can get prints at Walmart for $1.98. Is it any wonder why the customers would want to go to Walmart over coming to the photographer for prints? 10 prints at Walmart for less than $20, but at $20 a pop, it's $200-400 from a photographer? Ridiculous.

I'm not speaking about you specifically, but these are the figures I have seen floating around this forum. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a normal poor US consumer with a camera. I think it is absolutely ridiculous what photographers charge for portraits and think it is absolutely ridiculous that someone does not have the right to print the pictures where ever they choose. The photographer is paid for taking the picture, that is the service. It's the ridiculous laws that allow photographers to rip off the customers like this.

You defend theft because you don't like the price for a legal purchase. Wow!

 

[Silver.Winged.Demon]

one reason why i get my pictures done at Coscos. Cheaper and they just mind their own buisness

 

[JerryPH]

1 - I think that a little inconvenience for a few people is more than worth protecting pro's from having their livelyhood stolen.

2 - Besides what the heck are you doing printing that kind of work at wally-world anyway.

I agree on both counts... their quality sucks irrespective of their good intentions. I think that if a Walmart counter person wanted to stop me from printing my own pics I would laugh. What professional would want their work done at Walmart anyways?

As far as printing "stolen" pictures, what is stopping ANYONE from doing that by ordering online? Future Shop, Best Buy, Costco and many others that give as good or better quality than any Walmart, letting one send pictures online for pickup. No one is going to question those and prices are often much lower too. As an example, the local Costco lets me now order 5 X 7's online for as low as 10 cents each.

 

[mrodgers]

You defend theft because you don't like the price for a legal purchase. Wow!

I wasn't defending anything. Probably 90% of the normal population out there have no idea about photography copyright and don't understand that it is illegal to have prints done. I would think that the majority of the photographer's customers feel that they paid the photographer to take their portrait and that is their (the customer's) photo. So, in their minds, they paid the photographer for the photo, why would they pay again, an overly marked up price of $30-40 for an 8x10 when they know they can go to Walmart and have it printed for $1.98?

If a person was to see an item in one store highly overpriced at $200, then see the same item at another store for $50, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that they would purchase the item at the store that offers it for $50? It's the same as someone (without the knowledge of copyright) choosing to have photos printed for $1.98 at Walmart over having them printed at $20 from the photographer.

I wasn't defending theft at all. In the 2nd part of my post, I was merely disagreeing with the law about the customer not having the right to print the photo they paid for where ever they want. A photographer taking a photo and calling it his photo vs. being paid to take a photo of something is two totally different situations in my eyes. The later, the photographer is being paid to do a service for the customer, supply a photo. Where and by whom it is printed shouldn't matter. If the photographer wants the business of printing it, he should make his prices competitive.

 

[Garbz]

Nope you're getting a photography confused with a service oriented industry. Photography is not one. Since the dawn of film photographers have been the tool to sell their products (the photos they take). I wish the world worked like you think it does but the reality is if you want a product you pay. If you think it's over priced then don't pay and don't get the product. Or option 3 is jump on a forum full of people who work in the industry aned take the approach akin to putting out a small brush fire by dowsing it in gasoline.

Do you go to dell and get them to build a laptop and then take it to china and ask another company to make you 6 identical copies for 1/30th of the price? Unlikely. You $200 vs $50 arguement assumes you can find the item at $50.

Those people who disagree with the prices of photos should have a look at just how many photographers are out there driving porches and ferraris. You can count them on one hand, and they probably inherited them. It is the same as any other product based business. Take your manufacturing costs (the cost of using the equipment and your time), add the markup required (so that you can buy bread and butter the day after), and sell to the customer.

In reality though regardless of what you think or what is in the minds of the customer this is how the industry works. And you can complain about it till you lose your voice, it's not going to change. If you don't like it buy a camera and take your own photos. That is the plain truth.

 

[SpeedTrap]

Yup, those cheap SOB customers.... I have seen prices posted here for say, an 8x10 print, range anywhere from $20-40. Also, have seen posted here of "sitting fees" of $150-300. You can get prints at Walmart for $1.98. Is it any wonder why the customers would want to go to Walmart over coming to the photographer for prints? 10 prints at Walmart for less than $20, but at $20 a pop, it's $200-400 from a photographer? Ridiculous.

Rediculous........I don't think so, I charge that much. You need to consider why that price is what it is. Pros have costs. I can break it down for you;
1) Equipment, High End equpment is expensive, no one is giving it to us we need to make the money to buy it, You need to consider Computers,High end Monitors, Camera, Back up Camera, Fast Lenses, Flashes, Backdrops, Backdrop Stands, Light Stands, Strobes, Soft Boxes, High Capacity High Speed CF Cards, Light Meters, plus always having to replace stuff.

2)Studio Rent, This is not free either

3)Re-Education, I do not know many pros that are not always learning something

4) Transpotration, We have to get around.

Now on top of all that we need to support our families, we have lives too, we need to save for retirement just like everyone else.

 

[Socrates]

The clerk should've been fired on the spot. Period.

Absolutely. No one should EVER be allowed to make a mistake. Fire everybody!

 

[~Stella~]

I don't see that the problem is with this policy. Sure it's a hassle and I can see being frustrated, but it's not an unexpected issue. I'd much rather stores protect my (hypothetical) pro shots than let people get away with what is essentially theft.

Probably 90% of the normal population out there have no idea about photography copyright and don't understand that it is illegal to have prints done. I would think that the majority of the photographer's customers feel that they paid the photographer to take their portrait and that is their (the customer's) photo.

I realize some laypeople aren't aware of the law, but besides the fact that ignorance is no excuse, most of them are well aware - they've seen the signs and they know damn well that what they are doing is illegal. Just like downloading music illegally or copying a DVD from Blockbuster - they know it's illegal, but they just don't consider it a huge sin. After all, those movie studios are making millions off the feature and those expensive photographers are making (the horror) a profit off their life's work. I just can't get upset for anyone who gets caught trying to rip off an artist.

That said, being currently in a 1-income family, I understand how one would like to have elegant baby/child portraits done, but not be able to afford a huge gorgeous package. As Garbz suggested, my personal remedy to this is to purchase a camera and do the best I can myself. I've been pretty pleased with the results so far - they are not pro-quality by any means, but I'm improving.

 

[astrostu]

Absolutely. No one should EVER be allowed to make a mistake. Fire everybody!

That's not just a "mistake." That's destruction of a customer's property. If you wanted to bring your own $500 bottle of wine to a restaurant where they normally allow it (but with a cork fee) and your waiter didn't know this policy, saw you opening your own bottle, and decided to come over and smash it, would you be okay with that?

 

[logan9967]

interesting analogy

 

[astrostu]

Yeah, it actually took me awhile to think of it.