Daddy Clanger (imc) wrote,
Daddy Clanger
imc

Jessops are still muppets

So anyway, the Thursday before last I think it was, when I took the CDs back to Jessops to complain that they hadn't done the `high resolution' ones which I requested. It was a fairly long wait, but eventually an assistant came out of the back of the shop to see to the queue that had formed. It is a coincidence that he happened to have the word MANAGER above his name on his little badge. His first reaction when I said we had got Kodak CDs instead of high resolution Jessops CDs was `oh, I didn't even know that we did Kodak CDs'. He was happy to take them back, though, and send them away again to be turned into Jessops CDs.

I also mentioned the two photos that hadn't been printed, and he explained this by saying that it is done by a machine which uses contrast to try to find the correct frame, and the pics were clearly far too dark for the machine to see them. He said that he could get it done, but it had to be done separately as it meant sending the negatives to a different lab. So I settled for just having the CDs done.

The following Monday I collected the CDs back, but when I mentioned these two photos the assistant said that even if he sent them to be printed it was almost certain that nothing would come back as they weren't recognisable as exposed frames. Well I didn't really have time to argue so I left it at that.

Meanwhile, the posh Kodak CD cases had gone and were replaced by anonymous jewel cases with plain white CDs in them. When I put one of them into the drive on my workstation, what did I find but a collection of 1500x1000 scans and some proprietory software (possibly exactly the same proprietory software that had been on the original CDs, but I have no way of checking that since I don't use Windows and don't have the old CDs to compare - though I did take copies of the pictures from the old CDs before taking them back).

On looking at Jessops' web site I discover that that is in fact the maximum resolution I should expect without forking out another four pounds for "super" resolution. So the person who originally took my order gave me the wrong information, and the person who took the CDs back to be redone was wrong to do so although he clearly didn't know any better - and now we have anonymous white CDs instead of posh Kodak ones. Bah. On the other hand, the web site does promise that the pictures will be duplicated in about four smaller resolutions, and neither of the sets of CDs had that, so we still haven't had what we should have got (not that we need the smaller versions - it's very easy to make those automatically - but it's the principle of the thing).

And the Clarendon Centre had their Christmas decorations up already. Bah humbug!
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment