Possible Rite-Aid anti-gun bigotry


July 14, 2004, 03:36 AM
I developed a 35mm camera the other day, containing photos from a concert and several pictures of my guns. Rite-Aid severly screwed up my order, giving me 5 of someone elses' photos, and not including the photo CD that I paid for. Not only that, I noticed that there were only 20 pictures on my negatives, from a 27 picture roll. I had 7 pictures of my guns. This better not be what I think it is...I'm going back tomorow to fix my order and clear this up.

If you enjoyed reading about "Possible Rite-Aid anti-gun bigotry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
July 14, 2004, 03:45 AM
I'm thinking this is a min wage caused mistake.

Everything should be fine.

July 14, 2004, 04:18 AM
its the big corporate anti gun conspiracy at work:what:

July 14, 2004, 06:18 AM
That's why I have a digicam...


July 14, 2004, 06:36 AM
Did you look at the negatives? That should show where the problem lies.

July 14, 2004, 08:07 AM
Those girls behind the counter aren't exactly photo experts after 15min of training.

We came home from big-K one day with someone elses negatives in our envelope. Never have recovered our own.

Other than instructions to look for possible cases of child abuse I don't believe the photo center staff really cares.

July 14, 2004, 10:08 AM
It's not Rite-Aid anti-gun bigotry.

It's Rite-Aid is the worst excuse for a pharmacy/convenience store/mini market/pig pen on the face of the earth.

July 14, 2004, 10:16 AM
Drug store processing is the WORST possible imaginable. I'm still can't convince my wife that it's just not worth it, even if it is so cheap. She finally relented enough so that I get MY pix's developed in-house at the local camera shop, while she sticks with the drug store cheapies for her shots. And she wonders why my pictures usually turn out so much better then hers....

In short, don't attribute to malice what is likely caused by incompetance.

July 14, 2004, 10:55 AM
I don't credit Rite-Aid with enough competency to engage in orgainzed gun bigotry.

It's possible that the person developing the film is an anti-gun biggot and decided to take things into their own hands, but I doubt there's a broader problem.

It's most likely someone just screwed up.

July 14, 2004, 11:04 AM
Posing for pictures with your weapons then having the pictures developed by photo developers such as Rite-Aid and Costco, etc., can lead to problems. A couple of fellows up around Santa Rosa and Petaluma in the PDRK did so with their SKS rifles and were paid a visit by the Sheriff's SWAT team who put one's family on the floor in handcuffs while they searched for illegal AWs and evidence of terrorist activity.

Some photo developer at Costco decided she was bound to report weapons pictures to police as is normal procedure when developing pictures that suggest child pornography.


J Miller
July 14, 2004, 11:23 AM
I live in the center of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois. This is a verified, top of the heap, gun hating state. I rarely go a month where I don't have pics developed at the local Osco Drug. And almost every roll will have at least one pic of something gun related. Some of the rolls have guns in every negative. Never a problem. And the photo developing quality from this Osco is excellent. Every time I've had a problem with the pics, all I do is check the negatives and there is the problem.

Two weeks ago I took an entire roll of film in that had nothing but close ups of empty .45 Colt cases in it. Not even a comment.

Check your negatives first. Then, if they are good, go back in and get the manager and have the problem fixed.

Otherwise find somewere else to develope your pictures. Avoid Walmarts photo shop. Both of them here have messed up every roll of film we took to them.


Ukraine Train
July 14, 2004, 11:28 AM
I had a roll developed at Best Buy once. When I came to pick it up the tag on my envelope said $0.00, the cashier looked at it and goes, "I guess it's free" lol and I left. The pics came out fine so it's not like they were cutting me a break because they screwed up. I use a digicam now too, though. You figure a couple bucks for a roll of film plus $7 to develop it, it adds up fast.

July 14, 2004, 11:37 AM
I think the quote is, "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence".

July 14, 2004, 12:03 PM
You need a digital camera!

July 14, 2004, 12:25 PM
I second sturmruger's suggestion- GO DIGITAL. The cost of a digital camera and photo paper will pay for itself.

July 14, 2004, 03:16 PM
Never go to a drugstore or superstore for development. Find a local camera shop that does pro quality development, it is well worth the extra 3 or 4 dollars. I finally convinced my wife of this when I took her film to be developed and she noted how impressed she was with the quality. I pointed out that she went to walmart for her development and I went to Southern Photo Supply and that that was 100% of the difference. The camera shops have to be good at it or the pro's won't frequent them. They take care when developing and will take the time to adjust exposure when developing if the camera settings were slightly off when initially taken, end result is phenominal quality. I usually get the matte finish with a white border as they look a little more proffesional and don't get that overly shiny/reflective thing.

July 14, 2004, 03:40 PM
Actually, Wal-Mart can deliver good results if the people in the photo department are somewhat clued in. In many cases, they use better equipment and fresher chemicals because they (Wal-Mart) makes more money via volume and can afford the maintenance. My local Wal-Mart uses a Fuji Frontier minilab and prints onto Fuji Crystal Archive paper. My shots using Fuji NPH are fantastic...if I do my part. I certainly have no complaints about the work they do.

I do take slide film to the local pro lab so I can get them back in a day or two rather than a two weeks.


Standing Wolf
July 14, 2004, 03:47 PM
Find a local camera shop that does pro quality development, it is well worth the extra 3 or 4 dollars.

That's no guarantee.

I used to patronize a camera place in Los Gatos, the People's Republic of California, until it called the cops on me. I'd been working with models, male and female, nude and clothed, for years, and always informed film processing people the models were of legal age and signed model releases were on file. I always put it in writing on the order slip, and made sure the individuals behind the counter were aware what was in my transparencies.

Some self-important little nobody called the cops. The cops—two of them—demanded an explanation. I told them I had a signed model release and had written down the model's driver's license number. The demanded to see the paperwork then and there. I told them it was at home. The junior cop wanted to take me downtown and turn me over to the booking sergeant. The senior cop decided he'd give me 24 hours to produce the paper work.

Naturally, the model was from a state other than the P.R.C., so the senior cop was most unhappy about having to make a call to another state. Not soon, but several days later, he gave me back my transparencies—most of them, anyway.

I've since gone digital. My camera body paid for itself in six months, since I was no longer paying for film and processing, not to mention the hassle of never being able to trust camera shop nitwits. Going directly to Photoshop saves me the additional wasted time and image degradation of scanning transparencies.

If you enjoyed reading about "Possible Rite-Aid anti-gun bigotry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!