Reading mode: Light Dark

print your own photos - is it worth it

Go to last post
P

Pigxel

Well-known member
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Location
CA
Is it ever economical to print your own photos? I find the paper and ink cost too much to do your own printing. Also with inkjets, if you dont use them for awhile they dry out. If you make a mistake, there goes a buck or two.

Any way, is there an economical way to print your own photos? I stopped printing my own a few years ago because of the cost. Costco charges 25 cents a photo or something like that, why would one print their own.

Comments?
 
I think it depends on sizes. I seldom print 4x6. I will print 8x10 for prints because I am in a camera club and I do it for competitions and ones I really want to frame. I have an epson printer which has 6 individual color cartridges so I don't have to replace all the colors because 1 runs out. Bottom line for me is I get better prints then going to walmart or target or wolf camera and for 8x10 prints I think it is overall less expensive. If I was doing a bunch of 4x6s I don't think I would print them myself.

One thing I have found is that if I turn off my printer when not in use the ink head is parked and the ink doesn't dry out on the print head.

For larger prints I use Mpix. It's cheaper then buying a larger format printer for the few times that I need/want them and they do a great job.

Jim
--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.
 
I print my own because I'm often not happy with the color or cropping of the first print or even the second print. The gas going back and forth to the print shop would be much more expensive than just printing my own.

I used to print most of my b/w back when I was using film also.

I even printed my color film a few times.

--
If you think that makes sense, then you must have read someone else's post!
 
I don't think so. I haven't owned a photo printer in forever. (Well, I do have a color laser printer, but I don't try to print productions photos on it.) All my work goes throuh MPix or Elco Color. People are always wowed at thier prints.

Maybe if I were printing large numbers of jobs every day a good photo printer might make sense, but the time and effort spent dealing with getting a print perfect just seems better spent doing other things to me.

I'm also willing to pay to have my oil changed when I am perfectly capable of doing it myself. It's worth it to me.

--
Chefziggy
http://www.pbase.com/chefziggy/lecream

 
Depends how good the printing service is. I have used 'snapfish' in the UK a few times and been unimpressed: they crop the pictures significantly so the tops of heads are cut off, and they seem to have an automatic 'turn up the colour saturation and contrast to maximum' policy to produce prints that are painfully eye-popping. No point in carefully processing a RAW file to get the best highlight detail only to have it wasted by the idiot defaults of some machine.

Maybe I've just been unlucky.

Best wishes
--
Mike
 
I'm considering a 13 x 19 inch printer so that I can use more kinds of paper than I can get at Costco, but I know the prints will cost a lot more.

I'm also considering a 17 inch printer, because prints this size cost a lot no matter where you get them, and there's no commercial lab nearby that makes this size.

For 12 x 18 and smaller, Costco is much cheaper than home printing.

BAK
 
I love printing. I'll likely never give up my pigment printer for the convenience and cost savings that Costco, Target or any other online service can provide.

HOWEVER, with this said, I only recommend that an individual take on digital printing with caution. It's expensive, but more importantly the learning curve is rather steep. One can learn to print fairly well in short order, but most likely digital printing will lead to greater curiosity and desire for higher quality. It's at this point that learning to print well takes some serious independent study.

I've been very rigorously teaching myself to print (actually totally obsessive compulsive) for the past two+ years and I'm just getting to the point where I feel satisfied with my printing skills.

Things to consider. Eric
 
Costco, Costco, Costco.

Last year I did a comparison in my area of the top photo developers: Costco, Walgreens, Eckerd, WalMart, Ritz and Target. I took ten shots of different subjects and colors, b/w images, skin tones, etc. Besides being one of the lowest priced, Costco has the clearest and most accurate photos. You'll have to compare stores in your area, but either way, it's more cost efficient to have someone else print your photos for 12-17 cents per photo than to do it at home.

--
Insert pretentious obligatory quote here...
 
I second Costco. If you go to their website they even give you a link to download print profiles for your local store. Among other things it tells you which model printer they are using.

Also make sure to turn off the setting for auto contrast.

I did a similar test of all my local stores (as well as snapfish and york photo) and my local Costco beat them all. It's also really cheap for 5x7s (.59) and 8x10 or 8x12s are I believe 1.49.

I tried the print at home for a year and had good results till my printer head got clogged up (since I didn't use it on a regular enough basis). Replacing the print head is pretty expensive.
 
Pigxel said:
Is it ever economical to print your own photos?
Click to expand...
Possibly. The main advantage is that you can control the way the print looks.
Pigxel said:
I find the paper and ink cost too much to do your own printing.
Click to expand...
I can help with the paper cost. Buy Kirkland Pro Glossy Paper from Costco. It's quite cheap and is an excellent product! They have it in 2 sizes.
Pigxel said:
Also with inkjets, if you dont use them for awhile they dry out.
Click to expand...
Yep, but this is a characteristic of Epson printers. Get a Canon and leave it on all the time. It won't clog...ever.
Pigxel said:
If you make a mistake, there goes a buck or two.
Click to expand...
With experience, you'll get better. Also, if you are trying something risky, use a small piece of paper first.
Pigxel said:
Any way, is there an economical way to print your own photos? I
stopped printing my own a few years ago because of the cost. Costco
charges 25 cents a photo or something like that, why would one print
their own.
Click to expand...
1. Control over the results.
2. Higher quality results.
3. Fast (instant gratification).

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'
 
My take is I will never print at a lab until the cost delta is much greater. The reason is time and perfection. I can print at home and not have to actually stop anywhere, upload photos, or wait for delivery. Sounds crazy, but on-demand anything is a plus in my book.

Quality is another thing. I have my R800 for 5x7 and 8x10's and a great Picturemate Snap for my 4x6's. I nail every print and at a simple 4x6 cost of about $.25 per print, it's well worth it for me. I'll gladly pay a nickel to a dime more for quality and service.

Most everyone who sees even simple snapshots always comments about how can they get such quality prints at home?

I'll never go back.
Pigxel said:
Is it ever economical to print your own photos? I find the paper
and ink cost too much to do your own printing. Also with inkjets, if
you dont use them for awhile they dry out. If you make a mistake,
there goes a buck or two.

Any way, is there an economical way to print your own photos? I
stopped printing my own a few years ago because of the cost. Costco
charges 25 cents a photo or something like that, why would one print
their own.

Comments?
Click to expand...
--
-tim
NW Columbus/Dublin, Ohio
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp
 
E Slagle said:
I love printing. I'll likely never give up my pigment printer for the
convenience and cost savings that Costco, Target or any other online
service can provide.

HOWEVER, with this said, I only recommend that an individual take on
digital printing with caution. It's expensive, but more importantly
the learning curve is rather steep. One can learn to print fairly
well in short order, but most likely digital printing will lead to
greater curiosity and desire for higher quality. It's at this point
that learning to print well takes some serious independent study.

I've been very rigorously teaching myself to print (actually totally
obsessive compulsive) for the past two+ years and I'm just getting to
the point where I feel satisfied with my printing skills.

Things to consider. Eric
Click to expand...
And consider this everyone thinking about home printing should. If you don't want to spend time and money to develop your skills, pay someone who already has those skills. Costco, Sams's, et al are not who I am talking about. Find a good lab, online is fine, and make some test prints. Once you get your color management system worked out, you can reliably print to the same pro lab over and over and get consistent results.

The overall cost will be much less in the long run. Turn around time might be a little slower, but standard shipping from a good lab should be two or three days with rush service available for overnight if you really need it that quick. And if you do have a local lab with upload service, then it's often same day.

Just my humble opinion.
--
Chefziggy
http://www.pbase.com/chefziggy/lecream

 
Some printing services offer a "no adjustment" option, often at a cost saving, for photographers who adjust their own images the way they want them and don't want someone else also adjusting them..
mike703 said:
Depends how good the printing service is. I have used 'snapfish' in
the UK a few times and been unimpressed: they crop the pictures
significantly so the tops of heads are cut off, and they seem to have
an automatic 'turn up the colour saturation and contrast to maximum'
policy to produce prints that are painfully eye-popping. No point in
carefully processing a RAW file to get the best highlight detail only
to have it wasted by the idiot defaults of some machine.

Maybe I've just been unlucky.

Best wishes
--
Mike
Click to expand...
 
Because of the economy, I am inclined not to print at home (don't own a home printer). It is more expensive to print at home. Last I checked, 4x6 paper is more per print than actually buying a comerical print, let alone the ink and the upfront cost of the paper. I think 8x10s are probably cheaper to do at home, depending on ink costs (they tend to be 3-5 bucks at most labs, a sheet of paper is more like a buck). As for why you would print at home, there are a few reasons.
1. Convenience- you get it right away
2. Control- some people like the ability to have total control over the process.

3. Subject matter. Doesn't apply to me, probably doesn't apply to you, but some folks take pictures that, ahem, they'd rather have nobody else see. If you do it at home, they are always in your control. I work part time in a camera shop with a lab, and we get these from time to time. We'll do tasteful nudes, but it is up to the discretion of the lab person what is acceptable (and some things aren't).
 
therickman said:
Costco, Costco, Costco.

Last year I did a comparison in my area of the top photo developers:
Costco, Walgreens, Eckerd, WalMart, Ritz and Target. I took ten shots
of different subjects and colors, b/w images, skin tones, etc.
Besides being one of the lowest priced, Costco has the clearest and
most accurate photos. You'll have to compare stores in your area, but
either way, it's more cost efficient to have someone else print your
photos for 12-17 cents per photo than to do it at home.

--
Click to expand...
The big variable is who is running the machine, as pretty much everybody has similar gear (either Fuji Frontiers or Noritsu). Locally, at least one of the ritz's in town is better than costco, costco is better than any target or walgreens I've seen. Personally, I send all my stuff to whcc.com. Still the same (more or less gear) but more stringent quality control and better prints, but a little more expensive and alot more hassle (a couple days turnaround via upload and UPS rather than 1 hour)
 
For 4x6 it’s not worth printing yourself. Now, for exhibition or selling your work - definitely. Then there is the in-between - if you are a serious hobbyist, then yes, especially if you spent a bundle on a good DSLR and lenses and enjoy print output even if its only for yourself and gifts and such.

If you get to be a real serious shooter and print fairly regularly (not even daily), there is a tipping point where you need to seriously consider printers that support roll paper and larger ink sources even if the printer cost seems initial high - the media is where all of the cost truly exists over the course of a year.

And then there is simply the joy of printing yourself - not unlike the joy of the darkroom of the yesteryear; priceless.

Regards,
Mike
 
E Slagle said:
I love printing. [...] It's expensive, but more importantly
the learning curve is rather steep.
Click to expand...
I agree. It is great fun, and I would not give it up because it is fun. It could not come close to being cost-effective unless your volumes are very high - especially if you include the cost of all the prints you throw away as you move up the learning curve.

I prefer to think of it as paying for the fun - in which case, as these things go, it is fairly inexpensive - and getting the prints for free. Bargain!
 
poliscijustin said:
8x10s are probably cheaper to do at home, depending on ink costs
(they tend to be 3-5 bucks at most labs, a sheet of paper is more
like a buck).
Click to expand...
If you go to Sam's or Costco, you can buy great gloss 8.5" x 11" paper for less than $0.20. That makes it even less expensive.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'
 
Reading this thread has been very helpful for me. Now I have some dumb beginner questions:

1. When you all mention Costo or Sam's, are you physically taking the something to one of those places? What is it you are taking -- the camera's memory card, a CD to which you've downloaded the photos from the hard-drive of your PC, something else?

2. Online places - how do these work? Does one sign up and then e-mail photos to the place?

3. Which are the best online places in terms of photo quality?

Thanks very much.

(Background: I've had a digital cameras for several years, but the way I have been "developing" photos is to take the memory card over to the local photo lab -- just like I used to take the 35mm film to them -- and they give me back pictures. I realize that the decade has passed me by...)
 
Pigxel said:
Is it ever economical to print your own photos? I find the paper
and ink cost too much to do your own printing. Also with inkjets, if
you dont use them for awhile they dry out. If you make a mistake,
there goes a buck or two.

Any way, is there an economical way to print your own photos? I
stopped printing my own a few years ago because of the cost. Costco
charges 25 cents a photo or something like that, why would one print
their own.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Hobbies rarely make economic sense. I enjoy printing my own.

--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top