Tweet
These two SCs happened right in a row. Joys.
First was a lady with her wedding photos. Normally this would be a copyright issue but we print the work of the guy that was her photographer, so we could reprint the photo with no issues. The photo in question was an 8x12. Not a standard frame size, but it is the proportional enlargemnent size from a 35mm negative. (Damn the manufacturers who decided to make 8x10 frames) She had an 8x10 frame that she loved. Would not budge that she needed that size. Ok lady - but you're going to lose 1" off each side of the photo - cutting out a bridesmaid and a groomsman. Of course that's not acceptable. Other places might stretch the image to fit the size, but that causes distortions and since funhouse mirror effects aren't desirable in your wedding photo - so we don't do that! Options were...
1) You can find another frame - she wasn't going for it.
2) You can lose the sides of the photo - like explained above, not going for it either. However, explaining to her *why* this would happen - that going from 12" wide to 10" wide without changing anything else means you're going to lose something - was like hitting my head against a wall. She thought that scanners and computers were magical things and *anything* is possible.
3) - the option we went with, I was able to shrink the image down when printing it as an 8x10 meaning it fit side to side and she had about 1/2inch above and below that were blank.
Add to this her insistance that we lighten the photo (the original was dark) but still keep all of the detail in her dress. A fact any wedding photographer is familiar with is that at black bride plus white dress is recipie for disaster when it comes to proper lighting.
The really frustrating thing was she kept switching back and forth between the issues and didn't seem to understand a darn thing I was explaining, despite me saying the same thing (in different ways) about 8 times EACH.
Luckily things did work out in the end, she was fine with the blank filler space and I was able to find the lucky medium in PhotoShop where you could see faces but there was still detail left in the dress. But I was really worried about how things were going to turn out.
Cluless lady #2 had a photo on a floppy disk. For you yougn's that's what we fogeys used before CDs. She freaked out that the kiosk computer took more than 30 sec with "reading images 0" on the display, insisting that there was one photo on there. Ummm lady, it takes more than a split second to find and decode the image.
She needs this photo XYcm by ZWcm (don't remember the dimensions). I tell her that it's not possible, we do standard sizes only. If she wanted, I could set the photo up in PS to print the correct size but digital manipulation of any sort that requires PS is a minim of $10. "But the image is that size!" *sigh* It does not matter what the dimensions of an image are, all that matters is we don't have what is essentially a template for sizes that the images are fit into. "It's already the size I need!"
Round and 'round we go. I finally had to draw and image with her "photo" inside of a standard sized frame with empty space around it saying that this is the only way her photo will print the right dimensions she wants. She finally understands and will get her son to do it.
Kicker? All of this was for an image labeled "passport" that, regardless of getting the image to print the correct way, is highly unlikely to fit regulations. Of course I never had a chance to tell her. All of this to avoid paying $12 for the photo to be taken correctly (the Post Office sends people to us) and printed and cut to the proper size in under 5 minutes. Which is a much shorter time than she tried to argue with me that her photo should print out at the size she needed.
I'm glad I have the next two days off, I don't want to deal with her when she comes back.
First was a lady with her wedding photos. Normally this would be a copyright issue but we print the work of the guy that was her photographer, so we could reprint the photo with no issues. The photo in question was an 8x12. Not a standard frame size, but it is the proportional enlargemnent size from a 35mm negative. (Damn the manufacturers who decided to make 8x10 frames) She had an 8x10 frame that she loved. Would not budge that she needed that size. Ok lady - but you're going to lose 1" off each side of the photo - cutting out a bridesmaid and a groomsman. Of course that's not acceptable. Other places might stretch the image to fit the size, but that causes distortions and since funhouse mirror effects aren't desirable in your wedding photo - so we don't do that! Options were...
1) You can find another frame - she wasn't going for it.
2) You can lose the sides of the photo - like explained above, not going for it either. However, explaining to her *why* this would happen - that going from 12" wide to 10" wide without changing anything else means you're going to lose something - was like hitting my head against a wall. She thought that scanners and computers were magical things and *anything* is possible.
3) - the option we went with, I was able to shrink the image down when printing it as an 8x10 meaning it fit side to side and she had about 1/2inch above and below that were blank.
Add to this her insistance that we lighten the photo (the original was dark) but still keep all of the detail in her dress. A fact any wedding photographer is familiar with is that at black bride plus white dress is recipie for disaster when it comes to proper lighting.
The really frustrating thing was she kept switching back and forth between the issues and didn't seem to understand a darn thing I was explaining, despite me saying the same thing (in different ways) about 8 times EACH.
Luckily things did work out in the end, she was fine with the blank filler space and I was able to find the lucky medium in PhotoShop where you could see faces but there was still detail left in the dress. But I was really worried about how things were going to turn out.
Cluless lady #2 had a photo on a floppy disk. For you yougn's that's what we fogeys used before CDs. She freaked out that the kiosk computer took more than 30 sec with "reading images 0" on the display, insisting that there was one photo on there. Ummm lady, it takes more than a split second to find and decode the image.
She needs this photo XYcm by ZWcm (don't remember the dimensions). I tell her that it's not possible, we do standard sizes only. If she wanted, I could set the photo up in PS to print the correct size but digital manipulation of any sort that requires PS is a minim of $10. "But the image is that size!" *sigh* It does not matter what the dimensions of an image are, all that matters is we don't have what is essentially a template for sizes that the images are fit into. "It's already the size I need!"
Round and 'round we go. I finally had to draw and image with her "photo" inside of a standard sized frame with empty space around it saying that this is the only way her photo will print the right dimensions she wants. She finally understands and will get her son to do it.
Kicker? All of this was for an image labeled "passport" that, regardless of getting the image to print the correct way, is highly unlikely to fit regulations. Of course I never had a chance to tell her. All of this to avoid paying $12 for the photo to be taken correctly (the Post Office sends people to us) and printed and cut to the proper size in under 5 minutes. Which is a much shorter time than she tried to argue with me that her photo should print out at the size she needed.
I'm glad I have the next two days off, I don't want to deal with her when she comes back.