photiesto wrote:
So, a friend of mine took an old roll of black and white film into Wal-Mart to be developed, and it turns out there were a few tasteful nudes on the roll, and the rest were nudes that didn't show anything, as they involved props and what not.When she went to pick them up, walmart had printed 4 of the images, and destroyed her negatives. When the clerk hander her back her photos, she said "we don't dont do pornography".

She's mad, but if it was me, I would have gone nuclear! Can they even do that? To me, it's destruction of private property, and at minimum, they should have returned her negatives if they weren't inclined to print them.

I realize people might say "she shouldn't have gone to Wal-Mart in the first place", but she's not a professional and can't develop her own film.

Anyways. I just think it's horridly bastardly of Wal-Mart to due, and if it happened to me, I'd seriously go in there and start breaking things. And at 7'1" and 240 pounds, I can do a good job of it.

Actually something similar happened to me about a year or so ago. I took a roll of film (roll of 36) that had one shot that showed a nipple and when I came back to get them an hour later, they said their machine "ate" the film. I was quite livid since it was an out of state model who flew in just for me and left the same day for Cali. I take my stuff to Costco now, cheaper and quicker.

wolff wrote:
I cant believe it !!!  Thats Horse SH__ !!

She was probably bitter cause she wasn't chosen for Playboy's Women of Wal Mart edition. For those who don't know, Playboy did actually do a layout like this. And Women of Home Depot, and Women of McDonalds

R. Olson (RO) wrote:

Actually something similar happened to me about a year or so ago. I took a roll of film (roll of 36) that had one shot that showed a nipple and when I came back to get them an hour later, they said their machine "ate" the film. I was quite livid since it was an out of state model who flew in just for me and left the same day for Cali. I take my stuff to Costco now, cheaper and quicker.

I can't believe you would fly in a model do a whole shoot and then take the film to a bargain basement joint to get developing done.
I guess that's another undoccumented advantage of MF. You can't get it done at Walmart, or Costco, or any other of that genre that I know of

fashion industry inc wrote:
Usually when you take your film to develop to any of these (generic) labs, the best thing to do is ask to talk with the manager and say you're gonna develop some explicit shoots to see if they are ok with that or not, best ed

Yep, I'd definitely agree with that...but a few years ago, I shot some nudes at a cabin on a campground, we went into town to a little one-hour photo developer. I asked if they developed nudes, and the kid behind the counter said, "Sure!!"

When we went back, the three guys working in there had clearly made sets for themselves and were standing around looking at them. They had mine in a different envelope, but I know they were looking at my shots by the look on their faces.

Hooray for digital!!

lll wrote:
WalMart is now the guardian of so-called morality?  That's news.

Ditto the above comments.  Why do you have films developed at WalMart/Costco?  There is no prolab in the area?

If they admitted that they intentionally destroyed the negatives, I think you have good legal recourse...

There is one near me but I dont like spending $20 a roll just to get the negatives and a CD of the images. Waste of money in my eyes.

R. Olson (RO) wrote:
There is one near me but I dont like spending $20 a roll just to get the negatives and a CD of the images. Waste of money in my eyes.

I guess that depends on the value of the images.  $20 is worth it for 1) quality control (chemical and machine maintenance), 2) no judgement on your work and 3) kind of linked to 1, consistency of results.

I would never, ever trust some barely trained people on a general machine with my negatives, forget it.

lll wrote:

I guess that depends on the value of the images.  $20 is worth it for 1) quality control (chemical and machine maintenance), 2) no judgement on your work and 3) kind of linked to 1, consistency of results.

I would never, ever trust some barely trained people on a general machine with my negatives, forget it.

Actually the reason I go to Costco is that a photographer who helped me start out recommended them and actually worked on their machines. Well the $20 isnt fit right when you spend $5 per roll for purchase to begin with. If I got more paid work, it would be different. But I see your point

photiesto wrote:
So, a friend of mine took an old roll of black and white film into Wal-Mart to be developed, and it turns out there were a few tasteful nudes on the roll, and the rest were nudes that didn't show anything, as they involved props and what not.When she went to pick them up, walmart had printed 4 of the images, and destroyed her negatives. When the clerk handed her back her photos, she said "we don't dont do pornography".

She's mad, but if it was me, I would have gone nuclear! Can they even do that? To me, it's destruction of private property, and at minimum, they should have returned her negatives if they weren't inclined to print them.

I realize people might say "she shouldn't have gone to Wal-Mart in the first place", but she's not a professional and can't develop her own film.

Anyways. I just think it's horridly bastardly of Wal-Mart to do, and if it happened to me, I'd seriously go in there and start breaking things. And at 7'1" and 240 pounds, I can do a good job of it.

Absolutely get a lawyer.  Even if the content was illegal, it would stupid of them to destroy them as that would be evidence.   Can you imagine if you had written a book and the only copy you had was torn up by the publisher because they didn't feel it was printable.  This is horrible!!

IsabelAurora wrote:
I already can't stand the little heffer that works at the photo center...just let her give me one tiny reason to start swinging and I will be over that counter before you can say "would you like doubles?"

Go girl!

photiesto wrote:
So, a friend of mine took an old roll of black and white film into Wal-Mart to be developed, and it turns out there were a few tasteful nudes on the roll, and the rest were nudes that didn't show anything, as they involved props and what not.When she went to pick them up, walmart had printed 4 of the images, and destroyed her negatives. When the clerk handed her back her photos, she said "we don't dont do pornography".

Oh yeah, real photographers shoot digital.

Yes, yes, I said it!!!

photiesto wrote:
So, a friend of mine took an old roll of black and white film into Wal-Mart to be developed, and it turns out there were a few tasteful nudes on the roll, and the rest were nudes that didn't show anything, as they involved props and what not.When she went to pick them up, walmart had printed 4 of the images, and destroyed her negatives. When the clerk handed her back her photos, she said "we don't dont do pornography".

She's mad, but if it was me, I would have gone nuclear! Can they even do that? To me, it's destruction of private property, and at minimum, they should have returned her negatives if they weren't inclined to print them.

I realize people might say "she shouldn't have gone to Wal-Mart in the first place", but she's not a professional and can't develop her own film.

Anyways. I just think it's horridly bastardly of Wal-Mart to do, and if it happened to me, I'd seriously go in there and start breaking things. And at 7'1" and 240 pounds, I can do a good job of it.

Those photos are worth millions!  Since the negatives where destroyed...who is wal-mart to say otherwise????????  I hate to sue people...but she needs a good lawyer.  They have every right to refuse her business and NO right take her property.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Oh yeah, real photographers shoot digital.

Yes, yes, I said it!!!

I shoot digital myself. It's cost effective, and I can don't have to rely on someone else to put as much care and concern into my property as if I would if I was in control of the  development process. In addition, I've found I learn alot faster, as I can set the camera, take the shot, and see the results, rather than forgetting what I was doing by the time I get my prints back a few days later. And let's not forget, I can spin the whole "digital saves the environment by not using chemicals" and what not.

Thanks to everyone for their input, I will forward this thread to Alania via e-mail.

John Jebbia wrote:
Your friend probably has a pretty good case.

7'1"??? What the hell you doing photography for! Get on the basketball court! Damn!

No way. I get tired just watching them on TV. I'm a hockey man, myself.

Besides, I'm not terribly athletic, unless being terrible at athletics counts.

Zach Watkins wrote:
i've worked at a walmart and a wallgreens. i would print out anything and everything. got some freaky stuff on the weekends. they're not allowed to destroy anything! and its only supposed to be considered porn if there is penetration or fluid exchange and even then they still have to return your property. if the machine destroys it they are supposed to show you the damaged roll and replace it with a roll of unexposed film. really they're not even supposed to be reviewing your photos. they cant colour correct on the machine. just inserting the negs and wlaking away to start another roll.  the only thing that is reported is child porn.

and beasteality(sp?)