Home Photo Printing vs Store Photo Prints

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vince
  • Start date Start date
Art - You are absolutely right in that a person who would buy a computer and
printer to produce home photos would have to factor all of those expenses
into the mix. Given that I already have a computer that is powerful enough
to deal with my photo interests and would have an inkjet printer and laser
printer anyway, I'm only considering the disposable materials in the cost.
Larger format prints, as you mentioned, are much more reasonable when
printed at home. I don't know what an 8x10 or 8.5x11 costs at a lab, but I
produce them for 15 cents in paper cost plus (I would guess) 10 or 15 cents
in aftermarket ink.

Time is certainly an issue. Fortunately, I have plenty of time and really
enjoy working with the process of going from camera to finished, matted,
framed print with my own hands. As they say, time flies when you're having
fun!

OR if you are Kermit the frog, "Time's fun when you're having flies.."
 
Steven said:
Inkjet photo has a lot more gamut than traditional chemical photos.
So it looks more vibrant. Have you tried to look for Japanese model
photos on the web? Try to download a few and print them. You will be
surprised how good inkjet photos will be.
Click to expand...


Hm... i wonder why would Japanes photos be different...
But, to be honest, i did wonder when i first saw lab photos...are printed
ones more "true" or lab ones...
 
Arthur said:
Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab
prints.

Art
Click to expand...
I'm not Burt but I use same paper and ink in my Canon. I placed
several pictures, unframed, in a window overlooking a shaded yard
about 6 weeks ago. Pics had several bands of heavy paper taped across
them to block out the direct exposure to the sun. When I looked last,
about 2 weeks ago I could not see any banding in either of the pictures.

I think both Burt and I would not say these pictures will have the
longevity of lab photos but they are not fading before our eyes. In
typ indoor viewing, mounted or not these prints more than adequate and
if the need arises, they can be reproduced either at home or any
"photo lab" of your choice.

I've held prints from this paper and ink combination under the faucet,
blotted dry and within a few mins could not see where print was
subjected to the water. This is good enough for me.

Mickey
 
And I would be the last person to argue with this sentiment, as I feel
similarly. However, for the person who is looking for a least costly
and time consuming option, with good results and fairly archival output,
the option of uploading the image to a photo lab makes good sense.

Art
 
Lab prints usually can be washed and dried and become fairly "fresh" again.

Since the learning curve is long and deep with digital printing, not to
mention expensive with the waste involved in the learning, unless you
really WANT to learn the methods, I still suggest people consider
uploading the images to a local shop.

Art
 
Burt said:
news:tu%[email protected]...
Click to expand...

I just bought 125 sheets of kirkland for £20. Considering most want £12.99
for 20 sheets of canon paper pro or £9.99 for £25 epson glossy or even more
for premium glossy or even more for epson colour paper or durabrite i
thought i'd give this stuff a try. Cutting my paper as i do the kirkland
works out at 4 x 6x4 inch prints (500). 4pence per print.+ ink.
www.choicestationery.com do pack of 6 inks for £12. So i should match most
online prices of 10pence each plus £1 to £1.50 for postage and packaging.
 
Burt said:
Art - You are absolutely right in that a person who would buy a computer
and printer to produce home photos would have to factor all of those
expenses into the mix. Given that I already have a computer that is
powerful enough to deal with my photo interests and would have an inkjet
printer and laser printer anyway, I'm only considering the disposable
materials in the cost. Larger format prints, as you mentioned, are much
more reasonable when printed at home. I don't know what an 8x10 or 8.5x11
costs at a lab, but I produce them for 15 cents in paper cost plus (I
would guess) 10 or 15 cents in aftermarket ink.

Time is certainly an issue. Fortunately, I have plenty of time and really
enjoy working with the process of going from camera to finished, matted,
framed print with my own hands. As they say, time flies when you're
having fun!

OR if you are Kermit the frog, "Time's fun when you're having flies.."
Click to expand...

1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty done.
But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online and
walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets myself
and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab prices.
When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it very
competitively.
 
ian said:
1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty done.
But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online and
walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets myself
and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab prices.
When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it very
competitively.
Click to expand...

Not at Costco. Nineteen cents, or on sale,
seventeen cents per picture whether you order one
or several hundred. And It can be a good deal
faster. Last time I had 303 pictures printed. How
long do you think that would take at home? And I
did something else while they were being printed.
 
1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty done.
But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online and
walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets myself
and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab prices.
When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it
very
competitively.
Click to expand...

Not at Costco. Nineteen cents, or on sale,
seventeen cents per picture whether you order one
or several hundred. And It can be a good deal
faster. Last time I had 303 pictures printed. How
long do you think that would take at home? And I
did something else while they were being printed.[/QUOTE]

I've done that, too, at Wal-Mart. Spent an hour shopping, came back to
250 prints ready to go.
 
Burt said:
SNIP

Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents.
Click to expand...
 
Burt said:
Lab prints are probably better but don't do well with water, exposure to
full sunlight, PB and J finger prints, etc, either. My prints are generally
framed under glass or enclosed in albums. God knows what will happen to the
ones I give to friends! With the ability and the economy to produce lots of
prints quickly and inexpensively many of them are of short term value and
will probably be disposed of much sooner than the 1800's
Click to expand...
WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?
 
Art - you are absolutely correct. Anyone who wants the simplicity of
snapping the shutter of a digital camera and obtaining a print in the
simplest way with no need to learn the process on the computer/inkjset
printer would do well to upload their files and get prints from an online
service. Interestingly enough, even that process is beyond the ability of
many people. Equipment such as the Kodak system with a docking station and
very simple software works fine for them as long as they can work from their
own computer with the software installed.
 
None for correction and I used the low end Canon Easy Photo Print software.
Load the paper and hit the print icon. There was no need to baby-sit the
printer other than to add more paper.
 
Back
Top