If there was only one thing that photo labs should do, it is to employ at least one person who knows what he’s doing.
Because one day, a geek may be very unhappy with the service provided.
And this geek may be a blogger.
Because a pissed off blogger does not bode well to your shop’s image.
This pissed off blogger is yours truly.
And this is my story.
Warning: Long post ahead. Get your work done first, and when you feel like taking a break, grab that cup of coffee and start reading.
Warning 2: Although I try not to, this post might get a bit technical. Readers who don’t understand what’s going on but want to know more can read up on JPEG compression in photographs. Just scroll down a bit on that page to get to the example pictures.
You see, I had been keeping 8 frames unused in the roll of film inside my SLR. This was the leftover from my latest photo-taking session. I thought I didn’t want to keep it for too long lest the roll got damaged, so I decided to have it developed.
Usually I go to the one a few blocks away from my house, but it is quite a distance and it is unlikely I would go there anytime soon. As I would be busy at work, I thought it would be wise to have the roll developed at Ngee Ann City, where I work. I thought that I could pay the extra premium (the fees would definitely be higher) for the convenience of it being near to where I would be most of the time.
So I went to the Fujifilm outlet at Basement 2 of Ngee Ann City, just next to the Takashimaya food court. I had intended to put the photos in a CD, so that it would be easy for me to share. I didn’t opt to print the photos, since I realised that it’s much more convenient to have the digital form instead. The lady there was very nice, and when I asked what resolution would they scan the photos as, she told me that she wasn’t sure. But she picked up the phone, and was about to call the guy who knew when she told me that it would be good enough to print on 4R size, which in turn was good enough for me.
So I parted with my $11.90 and collected the film and the CD a few hours later.
What I saw when I popped the CD in my computer at the office was the most horrible thing you could imagine from a supposedly-reputable photo lab.
Click on the picture to view the full resolution.
Now this is one of the unedited pictures that the photo lab gave me. Even at the low-resolution thumbnail, you can clearly see the colour bands on the sky. You might just be able to see the patches on the sand, which is much clearer when you view the picture at the full resolution.
I checked the file size of the pictures, and geez, it was the most horrifying thing I had ever seen the whole day.
Some genius in the lab had decided that it would be a good idea to save the pictures at an average file size of 90 KB. The picture above is 46.7 KB.
90 KB for a freaking 1831 x 1240 pixels picture!
That is a humongous JPEG compression, at the expense of the quality as you may be able to see. FYI, most of the other pictures have similar quality with similar bands and patches. As a comparison, my trusty old digital camera with slightly-lower resolution (1600 x 1200 pixels) can crank out JPEG files of an average size of 400 KB.
In other words, I had been ripped off. I had paid $8.90 for a CD filled with crap. $3 was for developing, which was fair and square.
I wasn’t amused at all. As a photographer-wannabe, my ego was hurt to see my photo mutilated like that. So after work, I decided to pay the store a visit.
This time, the friendly lady wasn’t there anymore. In place, there were two ladies, who didn’t seem to know what they were doing either.
So I told them about my story that the JPEG quality was too low, and kindly asked them to redo the scanning for me. Please…
But what they said next just proved that they were clueless. They said that if I want a better quality, I had to scan at a higher resolution.
Strike one.
Bad mistake, this was a geek they were talking to.
So I told them that the mistake had nothing to do with the resolution. They just had to set the machine to save at a higher JPEG quality to appease me.
And what they did next almost enraged me to the point that I would have shouted at them if I were so violent.
One of the ladies took out the film from the sleeve, and held the negative in between her thumb and forefinger, right in the middle of the frame! If there was anything to damage a developed negative, that would be to touch the surface of the negative, leaving your greasy fingerprint on top of the frame. And she didn’t just merely touch it, she freaking held my negative by holding the frame in between her thumb and forefinger!
Strike two.
Then they started telling me that it was the negative’s problem, that actually the pictures were quite dark in the first place. They even made an excuse saying that the film I was using was ISO 200, therefore the low quality of the picture.
Then I told them that I was happy with the colours. I was happy with the resolution. I wasn’t happy with the JPEG quality.
But they didn’t seem to understand, so I asked them to load the CD in a PC so I could show them the full resolution to see what I meant.
They nonchalantly put the CD in a machine meant for you to select pictures for printing (you know, those self-help printing machines). The machine couldn’t view much more than an enlarged thumbnail, but the ladies insisted that it was the full resolution. So I insisted back that they showed me the pictures on a REAL PC.
They finally relented and used the PC at the cashier to see the pictures. Then came the next thing that proved their idiocy.
Somehow another genius at the lab decided to be funny and set the double-click delay to be very short. Basically, in effect it made it very hard for you to open the Explorer window by double-clicking on the icons. After half a minute of unsuccessful double-clicking of the My Computer icon, I suggested that she pressed the Enter key instead. Then she pointed to the mouse and told me “You try la”.
Strike three.
Well, it didn’t take long for me to press the Enter key and browse to the correct folder containing the pictures.
So I showed them in full resolution what I meant by pointing out the bands and patches.
They. Still. Didn’t. Understand.
They still insisted that it was because of the original negative was too dark and that if I want a better quality, I had to scan at a higher resolution.
By then I was frustrated and asked the lady if there were any person with any technical knowledge that I could speak to.
The lady quickly said no.
Strike four.
And so I tried explaining to them one more time that it wasn’t the colour or the resolution that I was talking about. I was talking about the JPEG compression/JPEG quality. I tried explaining to them that I have been doing this for many years, and other branches never gave me that problem. I told them that usually a CD can only be filled with 5 or 6 rolls of film.
Then one of the ladies quickly said no, one CD can be filled with 8 rolls.
In my mind I was wondering whether she knew what she was saying in the first place.
So I told her OK, fine, 8 rolls. And one CD you can fill about 600 MB.
She said no, 700 MB.
Wonderful.
So I asked her to calculate how much space a roll should take. 700 MB divided by 8 rolls would give 87.5 MB per roll.
So I told her to check how much space the entire roll, including thumbnails, took up in the CD.
She selected all the files, checked the size, and lo and behold, it was 2.74 MB. Freaking 40x smaller than the supposed size.
Strike five.
I told her that it was clear that there were some error in the settings of the scanning machine, and she finally said that there was nothing she could do, and it was the machine’s fault. Even if she redid the scanning, the machine would give the same error.
So I asked her if she acknowledged that it was the shop’s fault. She did, and I told her that as a customer I wasn’t happy with the service. She merely restated that there was nothing she could do.
She offered to refund me $3.90, which she claimed she had to pay from her own pocket, costing her a plate of chicken rice. In other words, she offered me to pay $5 for a CD filled with crap, on top of the $3 developing fee. She claimed that she had to pay for the chemicals and the CD. Honestly, this was the first time I heard scanning needed chemicals, and a CD costed $5.
Obviously, I refused and asked her how much would the developing without the CD be. She said if I had developed only without the CD, it would have costed me $4. So I made a deal with her, I don’t want the CD anymore, and insisted that I paid a maximum of $5 in total. Take it as I made a loss of $1 for handling fees for nothing.
She finally relented and refunded me my $6.90, and I walked out the store with just the negative in my hands, feeling quite satisfied that I had somewhat recovered some money I might have lost.
***
Mummy told me not to make enemies.
But mummy never told me not to get back at terrible service staff.
It was quite an experience though.
I had to thank my lack of sleep, otherwise I would have been nicer and given up already.
And I think I really have to sleep now. Good night.
Moral of the story: Don’t mess up with a geek blogger.
