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.

ok by law they cant do that, they can only refuse to print off the ones permitted by there own standards. ok why do i know this , well along time ago i worked there and i worked in the photo studio. I know i'm going to hell but i have boucotted them now . any hoo, the only reason why they wont print the images is because in the elvil couperation of wal-marts eyes this is porn they mostly do this because there are sick bastards out there who take naughty picks of kids, when i worked there i have several rolls of film that were deamed "naughty" and all we can do is process the negs and charge a minimal fee (like $2)but not print any of the pictures that are  "naughty"  So if i was your friend i would go back there and freek out at the manager, because by law this is ILLEAGUAL. and your in Canada right ?

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.

By law in Canada Wal-mart Cant destroy negitives, I worked there once apon atime and in the photo lab too, we often go crazy stuff some times i printed them and some times i didnt , but i  always gave back the negitives. and your friend should have a great case. becaue there is a camera in the lab . I would go back and talk to the manager of the photo lab, not a store manager but the lab manager as the lab is a seperate part of wal-mart.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
WOW !  I have had them hand me the negs back with no prints but never ever destroy the negs !  She needs to talk to an attorney.

ditto....  took some a long time ago and had the same thing.... negs returned with comment that they refused to print them.... when I started developing and printing my own, I just whipped off the prints I wanted...

seems like a criminal act to destroy a customer's property... if WalMart had an issue, they could have called the police, but not taken upon themselves to be judge and jury.

nineandnineteen wrote:
I lived with a guy (ROOMIES...nothing more..)

In this day and age when the media is trying to cram the gay lifestyle down our throats, isn't it a shame that we heteros must always explain ourselves lest we be misunderstood...

Now, had you said something like:
"I was in the hot tub with a guy and we were playing checkers..." That requires explaination.

Or

"I was in a hot tub with a smokin' fine babe and we were playing checkers..." That also requires explaination.

John Jebbia wrote:

In this day and age when the media is trying to cram the gay lifestyle down our throats, isn't it a shame that we heteros must always explain ourselves...

Yes it's a shame we think we have to...

I wouldn't have

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?"

Greetings,

OK! Who else would pay to see this...come on...I can't be the only one...

Take care,
AJ

John Jebbia wrote:

In this day and age when the media is trying to cram the gay lifestyle down our throats, isn't it a shame that we heteros must always explain ourselves lest we be misunderstood...

Now, had you said something like:
"I was in the hot tub with a guy and we were playing checkers..." That requires explaination.

Or

"I was in a hot tub with a smokin' fine babe and we were playing checkers..." That also requires explaination.

LOL...I'm a girl...so saying I lived with a guy people usually think I was sleeping with him...which is 100% NOT the case.

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

Wal-Mart has been doing that sort of thing for YEARS.  They are "protecting the children", after all.

However, if a customer knows there are nudes on a roll of film, he/she really should ask about the store's policy concerning the development of nude pictures.  Seriously, people... Wal-Mart won't put Maxim magazine on their shelves, so what leads you to believe that they would be okay with developing nude photos?

Would getting a lawyer really help?  Probably not.  Wal-Mart Inc. has lawyers up the butt.  Does the customer or the store bear the responsibility?  At best, a lawsuit might bully Wal-Mart to visibly post policy concerning the development of certain types of pictures.

Wal-Mart is evil and needs to die.

nineandnineteen wrote:
LOL...I'm a girl...so saying I lived with a guy people usually think I was sleeping with him...which is 100% NOT the case.

Oh. See what happens when I jump to conclusions!

William Kious wrote:
Wal-Mart has been doing that sort of thing for YEARS.  They are "protecting the children", after all.

I believe in saving the world for our children. But not for our children's children. I don't believe children should be having sex.

Alexei Fomin wrote:
When i worked in a mini lab they said that no matter what the negatives were to be kept in tact. even if it was child porn (in which case we had to call the cops, but save the negs) everything had to be saved.

Yeah.  All evidence must be kept together (no negatives? no case...just becomes hearsay...which doesn't hold up well in court...unless accompanied by other evidence...)

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
If you can prove the photos were destroyed INTENTIONALLY, you probably ahve a case. Might be hard to prove though.

Agreed.

It is 1000% illegal destruction of property and they can be sued for it and and your friend will positively win that case - no doubt.

However ...

They will always have a clause that they are not responsible for "accidental" destruction of negatives.

And sadly, they have more money for lawyers than your friend does...

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
Agreed.

It is 1000% illegal destruction of property and they can be sued for it and and your friend will positively win that case - no doubt.

However ...

They will always have a clause that they are not responsible for "accidental" destruction of negatives.

And sadly, they have more money for lawyers than your friend does...

This is why i brought up about getting the video of the print/developing room before it is lost or destroyed. i would imagine it is pretty easy to tell if someone is physically ripping up photos or negatives or throwing them out versus having a problem with the machine. Could be her only evidence.

EDIT: Maybe it show her making copies for herself and pocketing them, which would help her case ALOT.

photoseen wrote:
It's terrible that your friends negs were destroyed and employees take sensorship into their own hands.

However, the basis of this story does not seem plausible per most 1hr Service is Color, NOT B/W. The 1hr service at walmart would not process B/W. The customer would need to fillout the Dropoff Mailer, and it would sent to the processing plant, like the color film...Except B/W take longer. The main processing plant is probably Qualex, which may subcontract B/W to another plant. Therefore the clerk in walmart would not know anything, unless a note was attached to the envelope or written on the envelope.

could have bean E41 processing b&w there for could be run throw a presser at the store wall mart is the worst place to bring photos to their soooooo stupid

photoseen wrote:
It's terrible that your friends negs were destroyed and employees take sensorship into their own hands.

However, the basis of this story does not seem plausible per most 1hr Service is Color, NOT B/W. The 1hr service at walmart would not process B/W. The customer would need to fillout the Dropoff Mailer, and it would sent to the processing plant, like the color film...Except B/W take longer. The main processing plant is probably Qualex, which may subcontract B/W to another plant. Therefore the clerk in walmart would not know anything, unless a note was attached to the envelope or written on the envelope.

He does not list it being the one hour service for the B&W photos but i could have missed it.

photoseen wrote:
It's terrible that your friends negs were destroyed and employees take sensorship into their own hands.

However, the basis of this story does not seem plausible per most 1hr Service is Color, NOT B/W. The 1hr service at walmart would not process B/W. The customer would need to fillout the Dropoff Mailer, and it would sent to the processing plant, like the color film...Except B/W takes longer (several days). The main processing plant is probably Qualex, which may subcontract B/W to another plant. Therefore the clerk in walmart would not know anything, unless a note was attached to the envelope or written on the envelope.

I was wondering about that too...were they already developed? Or could it have been the idiot clerk messed up and tried to develop BW film in color processing and ruined it? And came up with that lame story to cover their own butt?

David Moyle wrote:
This is just an outrage! People taking their photography seriously trusting their negs to Walmart???

Right on if you are a pro go to a pro lab don't be cheep.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
Yes, you're right...That's why this was posted. The 1hr walmart service was the Implied direction and the thread starter has not denied it. (How can the store clerk know so much if they Did Not process it?)

For those that dont know, B/W process is NOT compatible with C-41 color process. You would screwup the machine.

Meg B wrote:
This recently happened to me I got married last april and put thos elittle disposable cameras on the tables for everyone to take pics with. Well I got the film back and a bunch of the slots are just plain black no pic. How do I know that there was something on those negatives that was nudity or whatever. They could have been really nice pics from my weedding. Next tiem I go I'm gonna find out and see. Don't fuck with a bride and her wedding pics. Lmao but there seriously sucks. They should tell you or have a sign saying it. happy new year everyone. Take some awesome photos! ~meg~

More than likely...the black slots were probably pics that didint' turn out (underexposed from not properly using the camera...)  Disposable cameras in hands of those who don't really know anything about photography will inevitably cause pics that don't turn out. (Say, you NEEDED flash and they didn't...would turn bad...DARK DARK pics...depending on the lighting of the scene...say a dark reception hall?)

JBPhoto wrote:
No one in any lab has to print anything the find offensive or below their  moral standards...and walmart has a huge bug up their ass concerning this.
But being in the business, I know that the film still legally belongs to the customer...and by law has to be returned to them.

you didn't trash my kiss my ass pictures that i sent through that one time, remember. so i guess those weren't below your moral standards

Alexei Fomin wrote:

you didn't trash my kiss my ass pictures that i sent through that one time, remember. so i guess those weren't below your moral standards

Well...it's the only time someone photographed your good side.

nineandnineteen wrote:

photoseen wrote:
It's terrible that your friends negs were destroyed and employees take sensorship into their own hands.

However, the basis of this story does not seem plausible per most 1hr Service is Color, NOT B/W. The 1hr service at walmart would not process B/W. The customer would need to fillout the Dropoff Mailer, and it would sent to the processing plant, like the color film...Except B/W takes longer (several days). The main processing plant is probably Qualex, which may subcontract B/W to another plant. Therefore the clerk in walmart would not know anything, unless a note was attached to the envelope or written on the envelope.

I was wondering about that too...were they already developed? Or could it have been the idiot clerk messed up and tried to develop BW film in color processing and ruined it? And came up with that lame story to cover their own butt?

Illsford and Kodak both make a color process compatible B&W film.

raveneyes wrote:

Illsford and Kodak both make a color process compatible B&W film.

I thought they needed to be processed by a pro-level lab with a sertain type of capabilities myself. Can Walmart do it. And, why would one spend that kind of cash on film to have it processed by Walmart?

David Moyle wrote:

I thought they needed to be processed by a pro-level lab with a sertain type of capabilities myself. Can Walmart do it. And, why would one spend that kind of cash on film to have it processed by Walmart?

No they do not require any sort of special handling that isn't required by color film.  I personally used to take b&w to Motophoto, but not Walmart.

I've no idea why anyone would spend any amount of money on film and then get it processed at walmart, however Illsford and Kodak B&W isn't *that* expensive.

StMarc wrote:
I suspect that the little envelope your friend filled out when she dropped off her film limits Wal-Mart's liability for any and all losses up to and including purposeful destruction to the cost of replacing the roll of film.

M

Their little disclaimers ... just like signing the waivers in the hospitals, won't protect them if you really want to go after them for it. It is there to discourage petty or frivilous  lawsuits. I believe the purposeful destruction of the film is  out of line and I think you probably have a case. I used a mail-order house for much of my bulk work and had them send my my negatives saying they wouldn't print the photos thereon. ..and God help me .. I used Walgreens to develop some of my work ... but I do have my own Color Darkroom and do my own lab work for anything really important. It is, however, a luxury many cannot afford... I look it this way ... some have studios, I do not .. but I have lab instead ... Walmart is an evil evil place. I am not surprised and think you should talk to a lawyer.