How many people here regularly print their photos?

I'm curious as to how many people still print the photos they share with other people.

Do you mostly share prints or do you mostly share "web quality" versions of your shots?

If you mostly share electronic versions of your shots do you give people the full size image or do you reduce it to a fraction of its out of camera size?

I have a nice Epson A3 size printer that I formerly used to print large prints. But lately that's gone by the wayside, and if I do 5 A4 or A5 prints a month, that's a lot. When I do print these days, it's mostly monochrome -- for which a grander printer with 3 blacks would be better (theoretically). But I generally tone my prints now, so that's not quite the big deal I once thought it was.

The rest of what I do is viewed on a monitor -- either mine or that of a tolerant friend. And still, every time I see a camera that has more DR or more resolution or a brighter lens, I'm either sorely tempted or I just go for it. That doesn't make much sense, does it? I'm trying to reinvent myself as a P&S person. And with some tentative success. I have two m43 bodies and five lenses for them, and I've set myself a challenge to get rid of all that gear by the end of this year. Not a solemn promise, mind you, just a challenge.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

That's kind of what I was wondering.

I hardly ever make prints in more. My Epson 1270 has been donated to Goodwill. Family frequently ask me to give them lower resolution pics even as my gear gets better and better resolution. I always reduce the size of my images for sharing on social forums because no one views full size images. For many people, they never look at an image larger than what will fit on the screen of their phone. For all practical purposes the only person all that extra resolution matters to seems to be me and my fellow camera lovers.

It's like we're obsessed with buying ever faster cars as speed limits get lower and lower...

My printer has been out of ink for a year and I haven't missed it once. I reduce my photos to 1600 X 900, using a the highest-quality level of re-encoding and everything is sent out electronically. I used to print everything I shot and saw and had reams of useless prints that few people ever bothered to view. Life is much simpler and cheaper now and more people see my photos. For the few people without computers, a blank photo DVD costs about 25 cents.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

That's a great question. I hardly ever print now, preferring to send my pictures off to a chain store that offers print service for as little as $0.05/print (for 5X7). If I take a trip and want to share my pictures with someone who doesn't "do" computers (my mother!) I'll put together a little booklet of photos that way or perhaps have a calendar or two made for presents at Christmas time. Otherwise it's all electronic.
--
"Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it." - Winston Churchill

I've printed few of my photos for my own use at Costco, but my viewing is on a monitor normally. I set up the screen saver on my home and work computers to allow me to enjoy whatever I'm in the mode for, or just manually view them. When I send them I reduce the size because I know the recipients are not savvy enough to know how to view them outside of their email program, and I know they are not pixel-peepers anyway I also post images on Facebook, which is fine for the intended audience.

Nick

My wife hates the technology required to share photos electronically and likes printed photos to pass around. I have a dedicated icon on the compter screen that will take her to all photos but she hates it. I've at least got her to use her iPod Touch to view photos, but ensuring the right photos are on it is always a challenge - especially with its 32 GB memory filled up with music and apps.

The Galaxy S III phone is intriguing, with its AllShare Cast feature that wirelessly beams content to a television for sharing - but my wife also refuses to have a cell phone. The Cloud requires technology and an interrnet connection and is too slow for her, so that doesn't help much.

I just use my Canon for printing text these days, the
cartridges have all gone wonky anyway so it is not
good enough for hi-res colour photos.

The high price of OEM cartridges is outrageous, Walmart is offering
a Canon All-in-One printer for $29.99, the replacement cartridges are
more than the printer.

After about 2 thousand digital pictures, I have not found a reason to print. Since the digital revolution I've scanned 5,000 old photos and slides from the good old days. My entertainment centers at home are really big monitors with quiet computer/DVR's attached. I really prefer the built in slide shows from last few versions of Windows. I keep pictures, videos and music on a central server.

I don't know if Lumix still supplies MediaImpressions software with the latest cameras, but I found a neat utility in it for resize. For 'real' photo editing I use Gimp, but for a quick look and very small changes I use MediaImpressions. You can select any number of pictures and batch the resize process. You can configure it to output to another folder so you don't bomb your current full size pictures. I keep a small spreadsheet of the common sizes that are the same scale as the originals in case I use a program where the scaling isn't automatic.

For technically savvy relatives I'll zip together the relevant full resolution jpgs and send them a download link. Sometimes I'll put the files on a stick if I'm going to see the person I'm going to give the files to shortly. If I'm giving photos to my parents, I will choose a relatively small subset of the images and have them printed. Typically I'll have batches printed up twice a year or so.

For those few pictures that I really care about, I still make 4 x 6 prints and put them in an album. I'm one of those people who almost always reads before they go to sleep. So I keep the albums next to my bed and quite frequently will scan through the pictures.

Just an old habit that I find quite comforting and don't plan to give it up. It costs me more money this way, but at least I have complete control over the final image. Naturally like everyone else I look at my pictures on both the TV and the computer monitor. But I have never found this method altogether satisfying. For me at least, It's all so transitory, and lacks intimacy.

I know the iPhone and its spinoff copies, are all the rage. But I have not got in the habit, and don't plan to.

As a good example of what I refer to as iPhone mania, my youngest daughter loves her iPhone. She is always taking quicky pictures of her children and sending copies of them to us via e-mail. The quality is so poor that I cannot make acceptable copies of these pictures. If she catches a "precious moment" and it's a very poor muddy picture, it is quite frustrating to me as I cannot make a good print of it. She has an excellent Canon Elf camera but never uses it nowadays. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned, I cursed the iPhone.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

I almost never print my own pics, although I edit my brother's and he likes to print them 6x4. Bearing in mind he mostly takes landscapes/architecture this infuriates me. Why not do them bigger? (Because he's always done them 6x4 and hates change!)

Anyway, if I share photos I'll do it by email or occasionally put them up on picasa. usually full-size although if I've a lot to send someone and quality is not critical I might resize to, say, 1600x1200 or a bit smaller. 640x480 is too small imo unless they're already low quality phonecam pics.

Photos usually look better on screen in my experience although of course you can't make them fit your decor that way (which does alter things, as does nice framing/mounting).

eagle, oh my days, we were on staff night out on Saturday and the venu was quite dark. Many of the people present own digicams yet the only pics taken on the night were by phone cams, usu low-mid range HTC ones. Resulting quality: awful - blurred, grainy, highlights blown. And then they go and plaster them on Facebook!!! Er why put up blurred pics? Why when you have a proper digicam do you make do with terrible mobile photos? This is a backwards step! The sad thing is I had a compact digi with me and didn't use it cos I stupidly thought oh enough people are taking photos some good ones must turn out!

Russell Fielding said:

eagle, oh my days, we were on staff night out on Saturday and the venu was quite dark. Many of the people present own digicams yet the only pics taken on the night were by phone cams, usu low-mid range HTC ones. Resulting quality: awful - blurred, grainy, highlights blown. And then they go and plaster them on Facebook!!! Er why put up blurred pics? Why when you have a proper digicam do you make do with terrible mobile photos? This is a backwards step! The sad thing is I had a compact digi with me and didn't use it cos I stupidly thought oh enough people are taking photos some good ones must turn out!

Click to expand...

Yes Russell you see what I mean.

It is so sad. So many good cameras available. Some that would give the film Minox ( smallest film camera ever, as I recall) a run for the money, and young folks use there iPhone instead because it is so convent. But one must ask, "Convent for what?"

For me at least, the camera is one of the worlds great inventions. It is the only one I know of that will stop time. And if this stoppage of time is a muddy, blurry, lousy, picture, it is more like a bad dream than a good picture. And think about it. If the capture was one of those great moments and all you have to show for it is this poor excuse of a picture, when there has never in the history of photography been more great cameras at very reasonable prices,.......well.....I am done!

And while I am at it, let me add this thoufgt, since our conversation got off the OP's topic..."do you print."

I print so that I do not need a computer or a TV screen to see my photos. The printed 4X6 picture, in a suitable album, is so much easer to look at in bed or to show to friends and to carry when my wife and I when go to see our grandchildren. I know there all kinds of portable electronic devices to show files, still for me, the printed picture is still the standard for viewing..... most of the time.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

It's that lowering of acceptable photo standards that puzzles me. Surely we should be demanding higher quality? One of the phonecammers put a pic up on FB the other day of her son with two mates. The photo was badly blurred yet people still 'liked' it!

Of course even a proper compact digicam might not give a great picture in very low light but with 'proper' flash at least the pic should be in focus-ish and sharp-ish, good enough to give some room for improvement in PP.

Re the 6x4ers I just think it's too small a size to show off photography. I was only the other day flicking through some of my bro's old pics in a 2-3inch thick album and it is nice to view them presented like that complete with his adjacent notes. I just don't think the size does them justice. I'd maybe prefer an iPad style device in bed but hmmmm although larger and better image quality lacks the tactility and I dunno 'oldschoolness' of an album. Digital photos on screen like digital music files have something taken away from them by their electronicness & intangibility.

dscottsatx said:

I'm curious as to how many people still print the photos they share with other people.

Click to expand...

I print and frame 8x10's and 11x14's frequently -- I use an Epson StylusPhoto dye printer that I've had for years. My wife and I also do coffee-table journals with photos from our various travels. Great collections of memories. I always reduce the size of photos for the web.

--
Darrell

I have permanent exhibits in several different brick and mortar galleries and have had for the past 5 or 6 years.

Most pics are on 17x22 paper and are from Nikon D200, then D700 and coming soon, D800e. I usually print them myself on an Epson 3800. Occasionally I have some printed by a lab when I can't do it myself, for example, 20x30 and larger on aluminum.
I'm pretty picky about print quality.

However, I have sold more than a few images taken with my GF1 / 20mm 1.7 AND the LX3.

The LX3, especially at ISO 80, has no problem producing very nice 11x14 prints, particularly in B&W.

These small Panasonics have amazingly good IQ ---as long as you use good technique and keep the ISOs as low as is practical.

HOWEVER: If I printed just up to 7x10 and only looked at my work on the computer I would dump the Nikons. Really.

Mostly family photos, the streetscapes and landscapes I only use for business on the web.

I visited an elderly couple a few years ago and they had tons of family photos all over the house on the walls, and I remeber vowing to have the same since it felt so nice and homey that way. We have only gotten started, but it's already nice to walk the hall and look at all our pictures so far especially when the wife and kids are travelling and I'm home working.

I don't print anymore. I shoot everything in RAW, convert with Lightroom and keep both originals and converted images. I upload all my converted images to Picasa to share with my friends and family. At home I view (or show) my photos either on my S-IPS 24" monitor or 52" LCD TV which is much more impressive than printed photo.

I only print A4s of exceptionaly good shots, about half a dozen a month, keeps the ink from drying up.