Walgreens Film Users Beware! Your Negatives will be Destroyed

[MDR]

Even though I am from Austria and not from the US a thread on RFF with the same title caught my eye. According to the thread Walgreens sends the Film out the Fuji for development and they destroy the negs after the digitalization of the film. You will receive the prints from the negs and a CD but the negs will be destroyed.

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=148139

This is completely nuts imo aside from being very close to illegal unfortunately they seem to have a disclaimer in very very small print informing the customer about the imminent destruction of their negs.

 

[GRHazelton]

Wal-Mart in the Atlanta area does the same thing. Many of the "associates" don't seem to find this a problem, although some of the old hands are disgusted. I imagine that it saves time and therefore money for the store, since the scanned images can be sent on a data line to the store where a CD - of rather low quality - can be burned, and prints made.

 

[MattKing]

Most likely, the reduction in volumes has meant an increase in the relative costs of transporting the developed film back to the store. So someone, somewhere decided that customers would rather give up negatives than pay the extra costs (and experience longer delays?).

It may be that the majority of the customers using the service actually prefer that decision, but clearly not the sort of customers who hang out here.

 

[MDR]

The question is are the customer even aware of destruction of their negs, CD are one of the worst possible storage media for longer term storage. Prints from a quick lab aren't that great either. Negs are still the safest way to preserve images. I know that many people don't care but I find this behavior just to save a bucks disgusting.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Cheap processing has real costs, as this thread makes very clear.

Send your film to a real lab!

It's perhaps a little less convenient than the days when there was a Fotomat in every parking lot - but who shoots film today for convenience?!?

There are still hundreds and hundreds of labs around the globe that take pride in their work and need the support of every film shooter out there.

I understand that many people don't have a proper lab nearby, but most of the best labs have great websites that expand their footprint well beyond their local neighborhood.

MDR makes an excellent point as well about archiving - one that has been getting some press recently as major companies (including Walgreens, probably) are faced with backing up petabytes worth of data that must be stored for an indefinite period of time - and watching their data-center expenses skyrocket. (Oh, and killing the planet a little faster due to all the energy consumption necessary to keep hard drives spinning).

Companies like Piql (http://www.piql.com/) are backing up data on film due to its 100+ year archival rating.

And in case you haven't seen the Hollywood news, Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese are adamantly fighting for film both as an artistic and an archival medium.

(all good news for us here at FILM Ferrania!!)

 

[snapguy]

did you know

The vast majority of silent films have disappeared and the same with early color films and olde tyme radio drama scripts and broadcasts. Early TV shows only have very poor copies shot off a tv monitor -- "kinoscopes." The Japanese have detailed information on Kabuki theatre, the scritps and the sound effects and music. Shakespeare's plays from the same early era has almost nothing. His plays were first published after he was dead. There is no certainty that "Shakespear" really wrote all that stuff, anyway. We are a throw away culture, let us face it. I'm a pack rat, myself, but I am sure my heirs will fill up a big dumpster with all this stuff.
"What is a Beatle? Elvis who? Who cares."

 

[ic-racer]

Is this even an issue? I thought snapshooters that don't know how to print and process film switched to digital many years ago.

 

[BrianShaw]

that

... plus a question (out of curiosity): why not continue the discussion at RFF where the thread originated? Not a criticism but I always wonder why threads propagate from forum to forum.

 

[MDR]

Because many APUG Members are not members of RFF but the issue is/might be relevant to Apug members.

 

[Paul Howell]

Unless things has changed in a week, the Walgreens in Phoenix are still processing C 41 in some of the stores and returning the negatives. I don't know how long out local stores will process in store, not long I expect.

 

[removed account4]

it was noted 2-3 years ago that walmart, sams club and everyone BUT rite aid that fuji picked up as clients
processed, scanned and beamed the images to the store to be printed. often times it is the stores that don't want to
deal with return shipping so they just transport to the lab, and that is it. if it is chrome film, b/w or 120 film, it will go to
dwaynes and the film and prints will be shipped ( or last time i called they told me they would be ) to the stores.
rite aid pharmacy doesn't have the kiosk that beams the images from fuji, and they will still give back the film.
not sure why it is almost illegal, most consumers don't care about negatives, they just want to share their shapshots
on their electronic devices and social media with friends and family.

i realized the lady down the street from me was less expensive than sending to any of the send out labs,
and she does hands-down great work. i send her all my 35mm color work.

john

 

[RPC]

Early TV shows only have very poor copies shot off a tv monitor -- "kinoscopes." ."

Kinescopes are movie films shot off of a tv monitor, but generally made of programs shot with video, before the days of videotape. Therefore, it was the only way to preserve them.

 

[benjiboy]

Cheap processing has real costs, as this thread makes very clear.

Send your film to a real lab!

It's perhaps a little less convenient than the days when there was a Fotomat in every parking lot - but who shoots film today for convenience?!?

There are still hundreds and hundreds of labs around the globe that take pride in their work and need the support of every film shooter out there.

I understand that many people don't have a proper lab nearby, but most of the best labs have great websites that expand their footprint well beyond their local neighborhood.

MDR makes an excellent point as well about archiving - one that has been getting some press recently as major companies (including Walgreens, probably) are faced with backing up petabytes worth of data that must be stored for an indefinite period of time - and watching their data-center expenses skyrocket. (Oh, and killing the planet a little faster due to all the energy consumption necessary to keep hard drives spinning).

Companies like Piql (http://www.piql.com/) are backing up data on film due to its 100+ year archival rating.

And in case you haven't seen the Hollywood news, Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese are adamantly fighting for film both as an artistic and an archival medium.


(all good news for us here at FILM Ferrania!!)

+1 We don't have Walgreens in the U.K, but generally speaking as far as lab services are concerned "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys"

 

[480sparky]

When in doubt, walk right out.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have been storing negatives abandoned over 20 years,, I cannot bring myself around to destroy them..

Kinda of like the shoe maker client walks in after a year or two with a ticket for repair, he forgot about... and the shoemaker states that he will have the order finished the next day.

 

[cmacd123]

Kinescopes are movie films shot off of a tv monitor, but generally made of programs shot with video, before the days of videotape. Therefore, it was the only way to preserve them.

Actually, the Kinesocpes were shot to allow for time shifting. programs were done live on the east coast and a kinescope was made and processed on 35mm film and was ready three hours later to play on the west coast. it was hit or miss if the Kinescope film was kept after this one use. although in many cases there was a 16mm reduction print made to ship to small stations who were not connected to the network (Alaska, Hawaii) for example.

3 hours of Live programing would create 16,000 feet of 35mm film. (programs produced on film would of course just be run twice, although it was sometimes more convienient to have a print at both coasts.

the volume produced would explain why not all the Kinescopes were kept. During those few years, TV used more total film footage than the Movie industry.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...generally speaking as far as lab services are concerned "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys"

This is not limited to lab services. It applies universally.

 

[Jon Buffington]

In a related industry, a former business partner and I used to use a quote. "You can have it good, fast and cheap. But you can only pick 2." Reasoning, good and fast won't be cheap, fast and cheap won't be good, good and cheap won't be fast. Seems to apply to this thread.

 

[Moopheus]

It may be that the majority of the customers using the service actually prefer that decision, but clearly not the sort of customers who hang out here.

I'd guess most people don't really care about the negatives. A few years ago I did some photo restorations for some old family photos, and realized I was the only one in the family who saved negatives. Even when I was a kid, I saved them.

 

[Tamara]

Even though I am from Austria and not from the US a thread on RFF with the same title caught my eye. According to the thread Walgreens sends the Film out the Fuji for development and they destroy the negs after the digitalization of the film. You will receive the prints from the negs and a CD but the negs will be destroyed.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Although the one test roll I brought there, which was mostly just checking an old R4 for light leaks, they told me straight up when I went in to drop off the film; no having to squint at fine print or anything like that.

Not returning the negatives sorta misses the point of using film in the first place. If I didn't want the negatives, I'd have used my 20D.

 

[pdeeh]

We don't have Walgreens in the U.K,

Not quite true - Walgreens bought the largest UK pharmacy chain (Boots the Chemist) late last year (2014) after having been a very large shareholder for some years.

The chances of US-board-driven business policies and practices being migrated into the Boots chain is pretty high, judging by previous US corporate takeovers of UK companies, so watch this space ... or that space, I suppose

 

[Xmas]

Oh dear more bad news most boots have HP5 and XP2 on shelves today...

 

[Tamara]

Oh dear more bad news most boots have HP5 and XP2 on shelves today...

Local chain drug stores give me my choice of 3-packs of 200 or 400 ISO color negative film; Fuji at Walgreens and Kodak at CVS. Also, they both still sell those disposable vacation cameras, so I guess somebody still buys those things. Sigh. We had a big ol' wall of all different kinds of Kodak and Fuji and Ilford (exotica!) at the drug store I worked at back in the day.

 

[BrianShaw]

My mother-in-law loves those disposable cameras. They are getting very difficult to find, and processing is just as difficult too.

 

[Paul Howell]

Well, in the last 2 week Walgreens in Phoenix has gone all inkjet, the Frontiers are gone all long with the C 41 processors. I asked the manager and yes they will send film to Fuji, she did not know that negatives are being scanned and only a CD returned. I guess it will be either send out or take to Tempe Camera.