Quality of Photography QM2 vs QE2

[Katyany]

I just found some QE2 photos from 2003 (with Captain McNaught in fact) and not only were they 100% more flattering than any I've had on QM2, but obviously much better quality. I was wondering why I suddenly looked terrible in photographs when I started doing the crossings on QM2. Now I realize, comparing photos from both ships, that the quality of the QM2 photos is pretty bad---lots of tacky looking flash.

 

I called Cunard and they said the only way to make a comment about this would be to write a letter. Letters written to the Princess CEO may be read, and your ideas even used, but they will not acknowledge this or answer you. (Typical US corporation?!)

 

I wrote with many suggestions about another issue a while back. They took all my ideas, and changed their policy, but the administration took credit for them. Who are we but the miserable masses called customers anyway? They (on Mount Olympus) would not deign to acknowledge our measly existence outside of the perimeters they've delineated.

 

And hey this is America, if you don't make legal claim to your ideas, or if your not working for that company (and even then)---tough sh...,finder's keepers. So, been there, done that; I'll wait for the suggestion box on the ship.

[MollyBrown]

I think the quality of the photography on QE2 was better. Well then, at least we know we don't really look as bad as we thought---it's just the :eek: unflattering flash photography.

[Vic The Parrot]

Funny ... I haven't noticed anything bad about the quality of the photos taken on QM2. Am I missing something here ?? :confused:

 

 

But I'll be more than happy to give a full report in 6 weeks. :D

[FranKes2000]

I just found some QE2 photos from 2003 (with Captain McNaught in fact) and not only were they 100% more flattering than any I've had on QM2, but obviously much better quality. I was wondering why I suddenly looked terrible in photographs when I started doing the crossings on QM2. Now I realize, comparing photos from both ships, that the quality of the QM2 photos is pretty bad---lots of tacky looking flash.

 

I called Cunard and they said the only way to make a comment about this would be to write a letter. Letters written to the Princess CEO may be read, and your ideas even used, but they will not acknowledge this or answer you. (Typical US corporation?!)

 

And hey this is America, if you don't make legal claim to your ideas, or if your not working for that company (and even then)---tough sh...,finder's keepers. So, been there, done that; I'll wait for the suggestion box on the ship.

 

There may have been a change in photographers between 2003 & now but I had a problem on QV last year & contacted the company with the contract, my problem was solved. I doubt the could do much for you now, except explain any differences, but, here is the e-address for Images, the company with the contract.

gnusser@imsgesservices.com

Good luck

[Katyany]

I made a mistake regarding the date of the QE2 photos. They were taken in 2004 (I didn't even travel in 2003), just before QE2's final official transatlantic. Therefore, perhaps they were taking more trouble with the photography at that time because these were her final days, so to speak.

 

I guess I'm being a bit grumpy in my original post (about corporations and all that). These days I usually try to be philosophical about life, and to remember that so many things just aren't worth ruffling your feathers about. Oh well ( I guess you can't edit your own posts after a certain time?).

[pepperrn]

I couldn't see any difference in quality between pictures taken by the ships's photographers on QE2 and QM2 in 2007 (and I had only a few weeks between voyages).

 

They were all equally over-priced.

 

 

Quality wise, there was, as I said, nothing to choose between them, that I could see. They were good "studio" pictures. If you noticed a change, is it possible that cameras were upgraded? Nothing stands still and digital photography improves all the time. This is what you could have seen, better cameras.

 

Hope this helps.

[philippeb]

If you noticed a change, is it possible that cameras were upgraded? Nothing stands still and digital photography improves all the time. This is what you could have seen, better cameras.

 

Hope this helps.

 

I'm not 100% sure that I want them to have "better" cameras that make me look worse. :-) There's only so much "better" that they could get before I resembled the Hunchback of Notre Dame. :D

[Colin_Cameron]

Could it be that the QE2 photogs were still using film and "processing" the pictures, and the on QM2 they were using digital cameras and "printing" the pictures?

 

I have no real knowledge, just wondering out loud.

 

Regards, Colin.

[FranKes2000]

I did not care for the QE2 photos last Autumn. I know that not every photo comes out well but mine were so bad I bought none but I bought them on the Winter crossing. I blame the photographers, they were quite rude on the Autumn Colours cruise, they did not seem to care.

[nfcu]

The price of photos on the QM2 are a rip-off! $27.50 (this is not a misprint) for a 5"X7" photo is a joke. I'm sure they end up throwing away a lot of photos. What a waste.

[ovccruiser]

The price of photos on the QM2 are a rip-off! $27.50 (this is not a misprint) for a 5"X7" photo is a joke. I'm sure they end up throwing away a lot of photos. What a waste.

 

The volume of photo paper they buy, probably only cost a few pence/cents each, just a bit more waste paper.

 

Back to original post, it could, as already suggected, developing as opposed to digital and maybe throw in the use of not such good photo paper, bad inks etc etc

[Winchester]

All the ship board shooters are digital these days. BUT the price per print is totally NUTS !!! But that isn't a Cunard thing. Seems to be the same on a variety of lines.