RE: Photographer's Formulary vs. Bostick & Sullivan

From: Rocky Boudreaux ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 08/27/04-07:54:35 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Your question is unanswerable as a comparison since both of these suppliers
are excellent. So, it is not an either or situation. They are both good and
I don't just look at cost either. People need to make a reasonable profit or
they go by the wayside then someone ends up with a monopoly and the price
goes up anyway. Actually I like talking to Melody best just because it's
Melody. She's a delight and I guess Kevin's OK on most days (only poking
fun). I am sure there are other good suppliers as well. I dislike talking
to B&H on the phone for regular supplies but like placing my orders via the
Internet. Good prices and good delivery and no one on the other end rushiing
you so they can take the next call. Alt suppliers I have talked with seem to
be less like that.

I advocate the use of local suppliers whenever possible as we need to
support our local business. Again price is not the primary consideration.
Fresh off the shelf products with no freight time and personal
relationships with knowledgeable people adds value. In Houston, Pro Photo
Supply is my choice.

I'm glad they make both chocolate and vanilla ice cream so I don't have to
choose, I can have both and lots in-between. Thanks for variety.

Houston, TX

 -----Original Message-----
From: Schuyler Grace []
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:53 PM
To: Alt Photo Process Mailinglist
Subject: Photographer's Formulary vs. Bostick & Sullivan

My last message may have gotten confused, as I dived into a thread about
printing frames. What I'd really like to know is how the various listers
feel about the service, product depth, pricing, etc. of PF vs. B&S vs. any
other suppliers of alt-photo stuff. I wouldn't say I was unhappy with
either, but I'd like the opinions of others, as well as suggestions for
other quality suppliers (and not necessarily strictly alt-photo suppliers,
either, but good companies that sell quality products we'd use in our

Received on Fri Aug 27 07:57:58 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/14/04-09:18:01 AM Z CST