April 25, 2004

We don't live anywhere near Perfect, and we'll keep it that way.
  • I wasn't really that surprised to read that a picture bare chested nipple pierced man wouldn't be printed. I was more suprised to read that his friend didn't get his negatives back with the pictures. Cleveland is a far cry from Perfection.
  • Thats a pretty lame rule. What do people do with their beach, or BB-Q pic's of Dad? Drive out of state to get them developed? I hope that guy gets his picture.
  • Digital cameras, friends and neighbours, digital cameras. As the religious right tighten their grip on the US, you'll need 'em for pictures of your wife's ankles. (And don't even get me started on the kiddie abuse hysteria...)
  • Does anyone know whether photo processors are required to actually look at the photos once they're developed? The process is automated, as far as I know, and they don't seem to make a lot of judgement calls on getting rid of pictures that were just badly shot. Maybe there needs to be an option of "don't check them out, just scoop them up and charge me for all of them." And not returning the negatives does seem draconian. The other option is finding a non-judgemental processor, I guess. Though, I can't believe that a California processor (outside of the Central Valley, maybe) would ban nipple-ring photos, so it must be local, or even individual, option. A bit of hardware doesn't change the fact that bare male chests have been accepted in photos for generations throughout the US. The idea of some photo-processing drone determining what is acceptable and what isn't is disturbing. Should a militant Muslim be able to get rid of pictures of women who don't wear head scarves, etc.? And, it seems to me that the issue of who owns the negatives/photos is important. This action would imply that the processor owns them.
  • The saddest part is the loss of not just the photograph, but the negatives as well. That should not be allowed - I don't care if the place refuses to develop certain pictures, but your negatives should be your property.
  • Deciding what's obscene and what isn't is now left to the person operating the photo-finishing equipment. If a worker is offended by a negative, the photo need not be developed -- meaning something as commonplace as a shirtless man with a piercing could be ruled perverse. We gotta have some lawyers on Monkeyfilter -- isn't that, like, illegal or something? And I agree with Treeboy. At least give the poor guy his negatives.
  • Agree with rodgerd -- monkey, go digital or else learn to develop your own.
  • This is TOTAL fucking bullshit! First of all, if they in fact have a policy that might lose a customer their negatives, they damn well better have it posted right at the goddamn register for all to see. That way, customers have the option of NOT having their photos developed there. That seems like a no-brainer requirement to me. Second of all, if they are going to leave the decision-making up to some dumb-ass clerk whose been taught how to push buttons on the machine, then they fucking well better find out what their religous bent is before hiring them so everyone knows whose gonna be offended and whose not. It's irresponsible to keep things so ambiguous like that. I swear to God, if that happened to me I would hit the roof. They would not hear the end of it until I was 100% satisfied. Shit like that burns me up. Rest assured, I will never, ever have any of my film developed at a Walgreens. *desperately searches for a joint and lovingly caresses digital camera*
  • Does anybody besides me think this country is getting weirder by the minute?
  • Yep. I'm (sort of) looking forward to the Neo-Victorian thing we seem to be heading towards. Mostly because I want to wear a tophat every day without getting funny looks. That and say "toodle pip". Plus there'll be a massive grey market for things that aren't obscene and everyone wants but no-one can be seen to be buying publicly. MD 20/20 will of course be the best seller. Followed closely by pictures of feet,
  • recommend we all photograph our (male) nipples and get them developed by walmart/ walgreens/ etc. on one particular day as a form of protest. "we're here/ we've got nipples/ they're pierced/ <--- optional line get used to it!"
  • MD 20/20 will of course be the best seller. Followed closely by pictures of feet, posted by Pez at 08:25AM UTC on April 26 Jesus! I've got yogurt coming out my nose from that one!
  • This is maddening. Walgreens needs to get sued for the theft of people's pictures.
  • It's been years since I've had film developed (yay digital camera) but IIRC there's a lot of fine print on those film developing envelopes, and there *might* be some text wherein Walgreen's reserves the right to refuse to print images and whatnot. But I suspect that refusal to return the negatives would not survive legal challenge. Back when I was a teenager, a pair of Norwegian girls I knew got drunk and took pictures of each other in their underwear. They dropped off the film at a one-hour place, and sure enough, when it came back, the bra-and-panty shots were missing. The two of them marched right back in to the store and demanded all of their prints, and got them. I think the clerk had been counting on them being too embarrassed to do anything.
  • Two Norwegian girls in underwear? God I hope he was smart enough to print doubles...
  • YES I WAS just kidding...
  • I'm (sort of) looking forward to the Neo-Victorian thing we seem to be heading towards. Vickie!