Why Do-It-Yourself Photo Printing Doesn't Add Up 414
Ant writes "CNET News.com and The New Yorks Times (no registration required) report that even though the prices of printers have dropped up to 30 percent in the last few months thanks to a savage price war, buyers are going to pay at least 28 cents a print. This is if you believe the manufacturers' math. It could be closer to 50 cents a print if you trust the testing of product reviewers at Consumer Reports.
In the meantime, the price of printing a 4-by-6-inch snapshot at a retailer's photo lab, like those inside a Sam's Club, is as low as 13 cents. Snapfish.com, an online mail-order service, offers prints for a dime each if you prepay. At those prices, why bother printing at home?
Consumers seem to be saying just that. For the 12 months ended in July, home printing accounted for just 48 percent of the 7.7 billion digital prints made, down sharply from 64 percent in the previous 12 months, according to the Photo Marketing Association International, a trade group for retailers and camera makers. The number of photos spewing out of home printers is up quite handsomely, however, because of the overall growth of digital photo printing--up about 68 percent from the year-earlier period - but retail labs clearly have the advantage..."
well.... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, despite it being cheaper elsewhere, if you need a print right away for some reason, I would hate to not have the ability to push one out every 2 minutes.
Re:well.... (Score:4, Informative)
and given my experience with colour lasting over the years, I'd pay MORE to get the laser ones done than crappy inkjet.
Too bad my modpoints expired... (Score:5, Informative)
There are newer pigment based prints that are supposed to last a long time, but I don't really know much about their cost or longevity.
Re:RGB lasers? (Score:2)
Re:well.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in a lab and this is what we have experienced. In Australia, Harvey Norman (consumer electronics) started off as the Computer Specialists, then they went to Digital Camera Specialists and now they are Digital Printing Specialists. When they were the computer and dc specialist, they were pushing that you must have an inkjet printer, but now they are telling you that you must have the photos printed on their Fuji digital labs. People who "specialise" in so many areas are really not specialists at all.
We do quality comparisons in our area by getting a digital file printed from a range of labs to compare quality and really, Harvey Norman's is really just shit. Although the industry has gone to a digital production, the underlying science of chemicals has not changed. Balancing the chemistry and what not is a daily manual job. There is no point creating the printer profile to bring it "back into balance" when the chemicals are so far out of whack.
I can think of only two reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) You need the best possible quality but have no access to a print shop which can deliver it. Reality is that most cheap print shops will not deliver accurate color even if you jump through all the hoops. More expensive print shops can (provided your image meets some criteria) but these can be harder to find. If you're living in Alaska; your may be off a little bit cheaper buying your own printer if you need high quality prints.
2) You print material isn't supposed to be seen by anybody else. Print shops have access to the images and will usually check prints. So if you have, say, private (intimate?) pictures or other material which may be damaging or not intended for public viewing (secret?), a personal printer is essential. This is basically akin to one of the major reasons digicams became so huge; they allowed you to make pictures without any third party ever being able to watch them.
Re:I can think of only two reasons... (Score:3, Informative)
True, and this lets me ask the question - what online print shops *do* allow you to actually use ICC color profiles? I'm sure there are some pro-oriented shops that do, I just don't know which ones. Are there any that are as easy to use/fast/cheap as Kodak (Ofoto), or Shutterfly?
I have used both Ofoto (w
Makes perfect sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Where can I sign up for that?
Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:5, Informative)
Photo Cartridge: $35
Black Cartridge: $20
Number of pictures printed: 68
That's just under a dollar per print. All prints were 4x6. At that rate, it's just cheaper to run up to the pharmacy and get them printed in duplicate. Yes, twice as many pictures and it's still less expensive.
This whole printing from home thing is probably a great thing for people that have to drive 40 miles to the nearest pharmacy, but for the rest of us... yay? The only good thing about printing at home, you ask?
Well, Paris and Paris can take all the nudies they want of each other and never have them leak to the press! That's easily worth $.80 a print!
Re:Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:2)
Re:Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:4, Interesting)
But of course by then the big thing will probably be digital paper with Harry Potter style images that move around and talk.
Re:Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? Who uses those. Use an on-line photo printer. Delivered to your door in a day or two and probably cheaper too (one of them always has a special offer on).
Re:Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:3, Interesting)
So yeah- some of us can get it more conveniently than waiting for the on-line printer delivery.
Re:Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:5, Informative)
I just don't see the benefit of home printing--if you don't print frequently you waste the ink when the printer "warms up". If you need a lot of prints and are in a hurry, then a trip to a costco/drug store is probably faster (20 minute drive each way, 30 minutes waiting for prints=70) which for a quantity of 100 is less than 1 minute per print. Some photoshops do a good job on color--and if you're unhappy with the color balance you can usually ask them to re-run them.
What I don't like about Costco (and most other 1 hour print labs) is that they don't do 4xX's. They resize to 4x6 by chopping off the ends.
Re:Value for Paris, None For Us (Score:2)
I don't want hard copies of my own pictures for myself - however, I might want to give them to my friends or relatives when they're visiting me, most of the time it would be a single pic from here or there...
of course it's going to be cheaper at the place that has a machine made just for cheapness of per picture(along with quality) but wit
First Prime Factorization Post (Score:2, Funny)
There's a reason to print at home and on-line. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a near and dear issue for me. I've eagerly slurped up all the new generations of printer technology each time more amazed than ever at the quality of prints, finally achieving indistinguishable quality from lab prints.
But, a disturbing parallel trend came with each new generation of printer. The printers became:
but at the same time:
I still jump in every generation or so of new photo printer technology but not with rose-colored glasses anymore. I still need to on occasion get a quick print for home or some guest, but that's mostly it. For my serious stuff, I send it out to be done:
I think the costs for high quality prints from services will remain competitive as there are plenty of competent "players" out there. Just read the reviews, sample a few prints yourself before you commit big time to any of them. Also, maintain your storage of prints yourself, lots of services offer storage, but I'd highly recommend if you value your pictures, you keep archives of your own. (Aside from reliability issues, what happens if any of them go out of business? Where do your pictures go?)
Why would I? I'll tell you why... (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to drive twice or wait (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're overlooking two key options:
1) Upload photos to a site, then pick up. For instance, you can upload your photos via Yahoo and then pick them up in as little as an hour from Target (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/thatadamguy/print_
2) Or, if you don't mind waiting a week or so, order photos online via Fotki, Shutterfly, etc.
As for privacy... I suppose there could be some issues, but particularly with mega-printers like Ofoto and Snapfish and such, I just don't imagine that the photos are being seen by many human eyes (perhaps not even by one).
Re:Why would I? I'll tell you why... (Score:5, Informative)
While I don't care too much about this (perhaps I'm not taking the same, uh, genre, of photos you are), there are other solutions.
I'm not sure what service the submitter was referring to exactly, but many stores including WalMart and others have automated Fujifilm or Kodak kiosks that let you input your photos via a large number of interfaces (flatbed scanner, USB, compact flash, SD, etc), view and edit them, and then print them on quality photo paper for 10-25 cents each. My mother who owns a Kodak picture printer does this because not only is it a lot cheaper and the quality of the prints is very good, but she can crop, resize, adjust brightness/contrast/saturation, etc, without trying to learn how to use graphic software.
It prints the pictures instantly along with a UPC you stick to the envelope and pay at the cashier. Nobody really sees them.
Re:Why would I? I'll tell you why... (Score:2)
Let's see... waste an hour cutting the grass... or bill $150/hour on a consulting contract and pay the gardener $50/month? Hmmmm...
Re:Why would I? I'll tell you why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting paid to do work is something I do to support my way of living. Outside of work, I can't imagine having the same mentality. Mowing the lawn is rewarding and enjoyable usually.
.02 is that printing labs are great for batch processing, and that inexpensive photo printer at home is great for t
As for printing, my
Re:Why would I? I'll tell you why... (Score:5, Informative)
I develop all my digital pics at Costco. which happens to also be my primary grocery-buying place. Some clear advantages:
1. New/Better developing equipment. Costco (and probably most other retailers) have developing stations FAR better than my g/f's Epson photo printer. They update their machinery every six months or so, too, so I get excellent color reproduction, high quality print paper, etc.
2. Price. I pay 12 cents a print for 4x6, or something nearly as stupid. Maybe it's 14 cents; who cares? Much less than the costs people are posting here for home photo printers. I like money, don't you?
3. Convenience. I happen to do most of my grocery shopping at Costco (love dem 12-packs of Campbell's Chunky Soup -- mmmm, MSG...). They also do developing in less than an hour, most of the time, so you can develop while you shop. And if you'd rather sit in your jammies, Costco.com will let you send your pics from your home PC for pickup in store, or they'll deliver by mail (like Snapfish, etc.). It's not 3 minutes from concept to wall art, but if you want immediate results you're gonna pay in $$$ and quality.
4. Customer Service. This may be a Costco-only thing, but they'll refund your money if you don't like your pictures FOR ANY REASON. My father (bless his tech-inept heart) once developed all 200 of his pics from Europe. Problem is, he developed the thumbnails. Costco explained his error, refunded his money, and developed the actual pics instead. Try getting Epson to send you a replacement cartridge because you did something stupid.
Of course, home printers have their uses. Off the top of my head, Costco is terrible for:
1. Blackmail/Kidnapping Photos. I'm pretty sure they've got to report this kind of thing. Besides, if you've kidnapped anyone of signifigance, you've got a hefty payday coming. 50 cent prints aren't a big expenditure for you.
2. Pictures of your naughty bits. No need to traumatize the adolescents working the shop at Costco with pictures of your wang. Plus, hard copies are so 1970s. Just post the high-res shots anonymously to craigslist like the rest of us.
Outside of these two, admittedly rare, categories, I just can't fathom why people are spending hundreds of dollars on home-developing. My two cents.
I'm with you. (Score:2)
For the professional or the person that makes a LOT of photos, sure, in bulk you're definately better off with a printing service. But
Re:Why would I? I'll tell you why... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, where you upload your stuff and get it delivered?
I agree there's still the delays involved though.
No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc.. (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, you're paying for 1 thing -- privacy. Scratch that, you're also paying for convienence. How much $$ in gas do you burn driving to the store, then driving back to pick it up? That's a distance * 4 cost if you're doing nothing else. What's the time cost involved? Hey, how much do you make an hour vs. how long you spend driving? There are many advantages to home printing.
Plus, if you're into semi-illegal things, you'll know that the photo clerks are required by law to turn you into the cops if you try to get prints of scary pictures. I'd much rather the people with said prints do not set foot near photo equipment I run -- if I was in their position.
Convience is why 4L of milk (which I can get for 3$ at Wal-mart) is 6$ at the corner gas station. Why is it such a surprise that people use home printers? Hell, most people don't have laserjets! Inkjets sure cost a lot more per page, even though the initial cost is lower.
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, even things that aren't illegal might run you some trouble. I once had a roll of film take weeks to come back (it was panoramic, so it took a bit longer anyway), the store ended up claiming that they had misplaced the pictures in the back of a box. I really don't believe that story though, I think they got investigated before they made it back to me because I had a bunch of pictures of my family's burned out car, which had caught fire while my mom was driving it down the road one day. I think that the clerks saw the pictures, got suspicious, and forwarded it on to authorities. Or maybe I'm just paranoid and they really did temporarily misplace my pictures.
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:2)
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:4, Informative)
That's correct. Julia Sommerville [knightayton.co.uk], a British primetime newscaster, got busted by the cops [forcers.org.uk] after sending prints of her young daughter to be developed by a UK high st chemist (Boots). In some shots the girl was naked in the bath. After the police released Sommerville someone at Boots leaked the story and photographs to the UK tabloid press.
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:3)
The inconvenience, gas, time and so on however is silly. You seem to assume that one can only order photos printed at a bircks-and-mortar store and have to fetch the result there too.
In reality, ordering a copy of a selection of photos is as simple as selecting them in konq, rigth-click and select "Order photos", then fill in what size and what number I want and click Go. All done in maybe a minute, much *quicker* and eas
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm maybe. However, I'd have to drive 600 miles to make up for the cost of just the printer itself.
That said, I have to wonder
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:2)
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:2)
You must not have kids if you think that paper photos are chasing the dinosaurs.
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:2)
I just got back from Hawaii. I had 160 photos printed. It was very convienent not having to wait hours for the job and having to run out for several more ink cartridges. It was cheaper and faster to take in a camera memory card than to pick up a bunch of ink and paper. Double prints are only slightly more than single prints at Costco. The prints were ready when I finished my other shopping, so it was still a single trip.
Convience is letting the printing g
Re:No advantage in privacy, convienence, time, etc (Score:2)
Also, the obligitory story to confirm the privacy worries are real:
My friend's father used to take "dirty" pictures of local strippers. One day a friend of his was walking behind the shopping center where he had h
Re:Semi-illegal things? (Score:2)
A semi-illegal act is an act that, if brought to the attention of the police or the district attorney, would result in ones attorney racking up some billable hours.
My suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My suggestion (Score:3, Interesting)
But, in an ideal situation I would be able to pay for prints via iPhoto and pick them up an hour later at the local 1 hour photo. As of now, I need to wait 24 hours before I get them.
Bugger! (Score:2)
obsolete media... (Score:4, Interesting)
every once in a while there is a new color process created. the current color print film process is c41. the one before that is c22 (i am not aware of any c's from 23-40). besides each process having it's own processing chemicals and steps (boy are you in trouble if you have unprocessed c22), they have their own color balance.
most color printers have several channels with a channel devoted to a particular brand and speed of c41 process film. i took some old (1970s?) negatives in and couldn't get good prints. why? they didn't want to spend the time and paper to create a color balance for a handful of photos. i don't blame them. that was the first c22 stuff they had ever seen. i had to send it to a specialist to get it printed. and it was not cheap.
i also feel sorry for people who have negatives that are not 35mm. there are a lot of labs that can't print from 110, disk, 126 (it's close) and other small sizes.
eric
XXX (Score:2, Funny)
How much ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How much ... (Score:2)
Re:How much ... (Score:2)
Re:How much ... (Score:2)
Re:How much ... (Score:5, Funny)
Simple fact: Longevity (Score:4, Informative)
1) Consumables are horribly expensive especially after you factor in mistakes and cutting.
2) Cutting required buying a paper cutter.
3) After about a year the ink fades.
4) The ink adheres and usually migrates from the paper to the glass/acetate in albums in all cases.
None of these factors came into play with the commercial services. I'm just happy they accept digital pictures and print them on real photo paper.
Re:Simple fact: Longevity (Score:2)
Re:Simple fact: Longevity (Score:4, Insightful)
Which _will_ produce the better print?
The important question is, where is the printer, and who is operating it? You wager on the mini-lab printer in Wal-Mart, run by a minimum wage employee who transfered over from sporting good last week?
I'd wager, speaking from experience, that a photographer that does more than snap family photos, understands all aspects of photography from exposure to print, envisions his end result and adjust his equipment accordingly and uses a decent quality photo printer will get far, far better results.
Cheaper is not always better.
Re:Simple fact: Longevity (Score:3, Interesting)
Then don't take them to Walmart. There is a real camera shop in my area that prints digital to photo paper. Their machines are probably better than the typical minilab, and they are staffed by people who know what they are doing. The results are always excellent. The cost is a bit more expensive than Walmart (I think
Re:Simple fact: Longevity (Score:2)
i thought that was one of the propoganda bullet points as to why ink is more expensive than top of the line dom perignon.
high quality ink = 21st century snake oil.
ink is so cheap, they couldn't give it all away.
1000 gallons for a dime.
and they sell you a 50 dollar cartridge with 50ml that only lasts 100 pages or so if you're lucky.
if you continue to buy extortion priced ink, then you're fueling the corrupt a**holes who are ripping off the public.
never let them sell you the bullshit lies about
Re:Simple fact: Longevity (Score:2)
1: Yes, if you indiscriminately print every photo you take, you'll run up a much larger bill printing at home.
2: My printer does edge to edge printing, don't most others?
3: I haven't noticed any fading at all after 20 months.
4: I had that problem when I was printing on the cheapest glossy photo paper I could find, something from Burlington (the ink never even felt dry). I switched to Epson's paper and haven't had any proble
Something to be said for a chemical process (Score:5, Informative)
Depending on your photo lab, you should get a high, consistent, quality of print that you know will last as long as those shot with negatives, usually decades in good storage conditions.
This is unlike most low-end inkjets where printout lifetimes may be under a decade.
Now, if you WANT archival-quality inkjets, you can buy a printer that uses archival inks, and get matching archival ink and paper. Even then though, you are using unproven technology: You can only hope the vendor's torture-tests accurately simulate the promised 50 years in a photo album or in some cases 200 years in museum conditions. With a chemical process, you pretty much know what to expect.
Re:Something to be said for a chemical process (Score:2)
Re:Something to be said for a chemical process (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Something to be said for a chemical process (Score:2)
what's wrong with that picture?
i know, it's called "business as usual".
get smart and kick those bastards to the curb and demand fair and honest pricing.
honest commerce is about as prevalent as h2o is on the sun.
Re:Something to be said for a chemical process (Score:4, Informative)
You're not "trusting" anything -- ink on paper and exposed to light is just as much a chemical process as a cibachrome. Using non-fugitive pigments on acid-free paper has been tested for several thousand years longer than any photographic chemical. Whether it's applied with an inkjet or a paintbrush really doesn't make any difference.
Unfortunately, people who trust photographic prints should realize that pretty much any current consumer process is guaranteed to make a print that will be worthless in ten to twenty years even if kept in a sealed vault. Your original negative film might last another decade past that.
ink is overpriced (Score:5, Insightful)
If not, consumers are getter better longevity with lab prints since they are done on photographic paper. I know all the statistics about 100 year estimated print life on newer inkjets. There's always the little asterisk about not exposing the prints to air unless this they are inkjet pigment printers. Epson has some but pigment ink cartridges are usually even more expensive. Not to mention clogged heads, smeared prints and all the other problems you get trying to print at home.
Re:ink is overpriced (Score:2)
The best reason to NOT print at home... (Score:3, Informative)
Home printers use ink sprayed onto paper (Unless you happen to have a very high end Dye-sublimation printer) whereas most photo labs will use a standard photo color emulsion on acetate paper process.
Unless you have specially treated paper, your prints are likely to fade and lose color to the oxidation process within 5 to 20 years. Whereas photo prints are typically guaranteed to retain their color for 100 years in moderate to indirect sunlight.
Of course, my favorite, silver emulsion Black & White prints will, theoretically, retain their look forever.
In any event, I've scanned in and restored a lot of photos that were 40 years or older for folks. There is nothing worse than trying to extract a decent image from a faded inkjet print on lousy, or even decent, paper.
-5 Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
Older (dye-based) inkjet printers had fading problems, but more recent models use pigment-based inksets, and the resulting prints actually tend to exceed the longevity of traditional color prints.
The Epson Ultrachromes, for example, are Wilhelm rated [wilhelm-research.com] for over 100 years in good display conditions, and over 200 years in dark storage.
Re:-5 Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the major consumer printers are still dye-based. If you wander into a branch of PCWorld or Staples and pick up a printer from one of the displays, it will probably be dye-based. The pigment ones are still quite a bit more expensive. (I was eyeing up the 8-colour epson pigment printers like the R1800 but I couldn't justify the cost).
Re:The best reason to NOT print at home... (Score:2)
Why print? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, a bit overstated, but I'm serious. Of all the pictures you take, how many actually _need_ to be printed? I'd say those few you want to hang on a wall, or put in a frame. For most people that is a precious few photographs per year; if nothing else, the amount of wall space and kindly relatives to foist the prints off to is very limited.
I take on the order of 10k pictures a year, thanks to the ease of digital photography. Perhaps 1/10, or about 1000, is actually worth saving at all (since it's so easy and cheap, it's usually a good idea to take multiple exposures of any one subject to avoid duds). Of those, maybe 2/3 are purely archival - they are a memento of some event or something, and I'd like to keep it, but they aren't really of any significance. If I lost them it would be a shame but not really a big deal. Of the rest (interesting enough to actually post-process), most of them will end up on Flickr, or emailed to people that may be interested, or simply shown on-screen. The number of images I would actually want to have hanging number in the single digits - and I have yet to go to the trouble to do so.
Re:Why print? (Score:2)
The only pictures needing printing are those hung on the wall. Those are rare and are done for a couple bucks at Wal-Mart (or on Kinko's Tektronix).
I realize some people are old fashioned dead-tree kind
Re:Why print? (Score:2)
that line of reasoning is also why a lot of bad shit happens in the world.
sometimes it's best not to look for "alternatives" but to fix the shit that's going on.
it happens in all walks of life and in all situations.
you overlook the fact that they sell you ink marked up to give them about 15,000% profit (and i'm being extremely conservative). if you think that's ok, then argue that you need to stop printing
Re:Why print? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually a valid argument why home printing isn't that expensive at the end of the day. Since your 80-shot CF card probably contains 5-10 photos worth printing and putting
Simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
1) If it's standard 4x6, print at a lab. You won't be able to beat the price
2) If it's larger - up to A4, print at home on modest priced photo printer that lets you refill individual tanks, and using cheap photo paper (Where I live Kodak's the cheapest and the quality is good enough for my needs - and I consider myself a serious amateur photographer).
3) If you're likely to be printing A3 or A3+ often it's worth buying an A3 or A3+ photo printer. Since they're considerably more expensive (or were last time I looked), you have to be printing A3 at least an item a month to make it worthwhile. (ie one poster a month). Otherwise find a cheap lab.
4) If you're printing larger than A3 the photos get ridiculously priced. A lab is going to be cheaper but not cheap (unless you are a specialised printing firm). Avoid these.
My fav place to get photos printed (Score:3, Informative)
And I swear, they didn't pay me to post this...I just like sharing a good deal when I find one.
Re:My fav place to get photos printed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My fav place to get photos printed (Score:3, Informative)
Costco Photocenter [costcophotocenter.com] online rocks (snapfish's service, developed at your local Costco in an hour). Upload and specify when you want them and go shopping an a couple hours. Plus you can share with your friends and family and they can order and get them at their own local Costco (or they can pay to have them mailed).
I always loved the idea of getting photos developed online, but balked at the shipping costs, especially if I want just a few prints. Now, I do it all the time.
Assertion belies facts (Score:2, Insightful)
At those prices, why bother printing at home? Consumers seem to be saying just that. For the 12 months ended in July, home printing accounted for just 48 percent...
The author appears to be 48 percent deaf.
Misleading (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Misleading (Score:2)
Save color for retailers (Score:2)
You know, I have one simple request... (Score:4, Funny)
Number Two: Inkjets.
Dr. Evil:
Number Two: They're photo-quality inkjets.
Dr. Evil: Are their cartridges refillable?
Number Two: Absolutely.
Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.
All That Assumes... (Score:3, Interesting)
more per ounce than Dom Perignon (Score:2)
one-off prints (Score:2)
Frankly I think hopme photo printing is only useful for one-offp prints like long-lost friends dropping by unexpectedly and you grab a group shot with your digi and ant them to have a copy before they leave. Or if you only have one or two photos you want and the extra 80cents is worth the less hassle or if a photo is needed in a hurry. Perhaps it also has some commercial value in theme parks or cruises when you pay for photos.
Frankly I don't ever see home printing being cheaper than store printing since i
It's not about the money (Score:2)
Mainly because it's fun. Some people like to tinker with their cars. Some like to print their photos at home.
Depends on the printer. (Score:2)
Part of this is, of course, that the Canon uses cheap plastic instead of expensive electronics for ink packaging.
Anyway, a friend of mine bought me a steak to do up some prints once. Why? Because the local photo lab was unable to do a decent job. They brought in a square picture and asked for an enlargement, and got a very nice full-page picture that
simple (someone has to say it) (Score:2)
ink cartridges: ~$50
knowing those pictures of you and your spouse, from that vacation where you never left the bedroom, aren't decorating the employee lounge at WalMart: priceless
Color profiling (Score:2)
However, even machines at costco or walmart now have automatic color profiling. Every morning the machine prints a set of test prints and makes adjustments to keep colors consistent. In addition it is somewhat easier to maintain color accuracy with the
The reason I print at home: quality (Score:2, Informative)
The printers blew away the printing kiosks, which blew away the online services in quality. Seriously, ofoto.com was absolutely terrible. It looked like they resampled my picture to 640x480 before printing it, and
I've realized for years this very story (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy 30 sheets of photo paper at $20, and your sheet cost per large photo is 20/30 = $0.66.
Then with the HP Laser Jet 2550 colour printer, you get about 4000 sheets and ink is about $100 for black, and $100 for each of the three colours, and there's an imaging drum to replace too, so it's at a minium $400/4000sheets, so $0.10/page of ink expenses.
In this example, it's nearly 80 cents per 8"/10" photo page, and that's with the traditionally MORE economical laser printer. A crappy buble jet that HP makes these days, gives you 15mL of ink for your 3 colours, and 13mL for the black, and that costs $35 and might last, well I'm guessing since I'm not rich enough to buy and use one, 25 pages at 8"/10". So with the photo paper that means you'd get about 35/20 for ink + $0.66 for the paper = $2.06 for my example. Compare that to Walmart, and I'm sure that box store is going to kick the pants off of the price for printing at home.
color matching (Score:2)
Today in Economics 101 (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but my only comment to this story is "No duh".
-chris
Geographically disconnected printing... (Score:2)
Stuff like that will surely hurt in-home printing.
There's a place for all technologies (Score:2)
What if you want to print on media that the local printer doesn't support, such as fine art papers (Epson Velvet Fine Art [epson.com], Entrada Fine Art Bright [moabpaper.com], or Canvas [epson.com]?
Also, the color balance of the local mass printers are hit or miss. In order to get decent color out of some of these places, prepare to spend some effort in manipulating your photos to get good quality. If you want good quality, of course... OTOH, at home you can set up your own workflow and get good color on the first print every time.
Otherwise,
Quality... (Score:3, Interesting)
I got rid of the equipment before I got my digital camera, but it just became too expensive with the cost of chemicals, photo paper, bulbs, etc...not to mention it takes up way too much room...
Now, professional photographers (the ones in the phonebook) can probably afford their own digital photolab...and many of them still use large format (which is higher quality than digital right now)...Medium format digitals have just begun to appear...but the "backyard" photographer can't afford that and so the choice you are left with is to print them yourself (with a photo printer) or trust someone like Walmart/CVS to print them for you...
How do the pros do it? (Score:2)
What their costs are, and what volume is neccessary to motivate "professional" printers (whatever that is)?
What technology do they use?
I own a hiti photo printer (Score:2)
Re:I own a hiti photo printer (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_print er [wikipedia.org]
I thought I add this because I see a lot of people bitching about their inkjet printers and the costs - this dye-sub is much cheaper.
I avoid inkjets like the plague - the cost is ridiculous. Laser for text or color printing (laser can do decent, not gre
It has nothing to do with the cost (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have anything to do with cost. It has to do with the time it takes to print. Forget the stats they print, it takes at least a minute for most printers to spit out a picture. When I go to print, I don't have 36 pictures - I have a big fat memory card full of them. I don't want to spend an entire night watching to see that the paper feeds properly or whether or not the ink is full, I want to go online and spend a few bucks to have someone worry about that for me.
That's not to say consumers don't want a photo printer or they'll never print one at home. People want them. It's nice to be able to print up a small amount of photos, or reprint one that's damaged or missing. Or even print up a batch when they want one right away.
But come on now. These things have been around for 6 or 7 years. How many photo printers do you want them to buy? People who want them have them. The technology has changed a little, but even so, it's not like people are picking up USA Today and finding out there is new technology available and they need to buy it. The Photo Printer market is nothing like the PC market. People don't care about stats or features. They want a printer that prints pictures and at least 70% of the photo printers out there will do just that. And after they print their third batch of pictures they'll see a sign at Costco that says they do digital prints and the photo printer will end up getting a lot less usage.
...unless you refill (Score:3, Informative)
I can't tell the difference between prints made with Canon ink and aftermarket ink. In fade tests in sunlight, the aftermarket inks fade about the same as Canon, but last better than Epson (not current generation, I don't do Epson anymore).
You have to buy properly formulated inks, specifically for your brand/type of printer. If the place is selling "one size fits all" ink, stay away, it's crud. I've tried putting that stuff in printers before, and it really screws up the color balance and the stuff fades in a month.
I can fill all the tanks in my Canon for about $5, as opposed to $40 for new tanks.
I found glossy paper on sale a couple of years ago at Office Depot; one of those crazy "nearly free after discounts" sales - something like $5 for 100 sheets. I bought about 20 packs. I might even have to buy paper in another 5 years or so.
IOW, if you're frugal, you can make your own prints for VERY cheap. I think my 4x6's probably cost 5 cents each.
CVS??? (Score:2)
WinkFlash (Score:2)
Re:It still makes sense for some... (Score:2)
Retouch/modify, save them out to your little card of choice, then take THAT to Costco/Walmart...