Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2003 @ 1:40pm

   
   

   No Subject Given

   If you compare the cost of a printer plus cartridge plus paper plus aggrevation, as oppossed to uploading them to wal-mart and picking them up the next day, wal-mart is easier and cheaper. unless yer some kind of perv and are only printing "private" pictures

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2003 @ 2:25pm

   
   

   Wal-Mart is great!

   Well, except for the massive amount of weirdos. I often take my photos to them for printing. I save my edited images back to my CF card, pop it in their machine, and an hour later, I have prints. The quality is excellent and the price isn't bad.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Ollie Tabooger, 18 Dec 2003 @ 2:42pm

   
   

   I'm with the photo labs on this one...

   Costco does prints for $0.19 which is on real photo quality paper. To do it at home, I need the printer, the special paper and ink cartidges (which we all know what a scam they are). And once I start using the ink cartridge, I have to print enough photos before the cartridge dries out. And even if it all works perfectly, it probably won't look as good as from a photo processor. This is a classic economy of scale.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2003 @ 2:56pm

   
   

   Some photo labs are good

   There is a sale at a local photo lab where I can get prints from digital files for $0.15 USD. Unfortunately, this is only a December sale. in January the price goes up to almost $0.40. As long as the price is reasonable I'm with the photo labs. But, when they charge me more for printing from a digitial file than from a negative I stop using their services. The highest price I've seen in Canada is almost $0.60 per print while I've seen reprints from negatives go for less than $0.30. WTF?

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   Beck, 18 Dec 2003 @ 5:45pm

   
   

   Develop Your Own

   You can develop and print your own film photos at home, but no one does it. Why not?

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Beck, 18 Dec 2003 @ 6:00pm

   
   

   Aspect Ratio Questions

   Film photos are 4x6 inches. Digital photos have an aspect ratio of 4:3, which means that the print shop has to cut the top and bottom off of each photo.
   
   How long will it be until the photo processors can print digital photos in 4:3 ratio?
   
   How long until photo albums and frames can handle 4:3 photos?
   
   Since inkjet photo printers are specifically intended to print digital photos, why don't they print 4:3 photos, and why don't they sell 4:3 photo paper?
   
   (Maybe the question should be: why don't digital cameras take photos in the 2:3 ratio used by film cameras?)

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

7. 

   jburst, 18 Dec 2003 @ 6:14pm

   
   

   Re: Aspect Ratio Questions

   Higher-end digital SLRs use 2:3 aspect ratio sensors.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

8. 

   jburst, 18 Dec 2003 @ 6:18pm

   
   

   Outsource, outsource, outsource

   Unless you're so high-strung that you need to have your photos printed immediately, it's much easier and cheaper to bring a disc or card to a photo lab. Costco does 4x6 prints for $0.19 each, and they're real photo process, not some (unknown lifespan) inkjet or dye-sub "prints".

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

9. 

   Thomas Brown, 19 Dec 2003 @ 3:37am

   
   

   retail digital printing

   I take maybe 15-20 pictures a year; some of those related to work; why should I spend money on an expensive digital picture capable printer in my home when Walmart can do it for me? Wake up! Not everyone wants to be an Ansel Adams. I enjoy computers and electronics, got an expensive PC, an Ipaq PDA and Smartphone; I'm just not interested in photography as a hobby.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

10. 

    Chris, 19 Dec 2003 @ 5:19am

    
    

    No Subject Given

    I take hundreds of pictures of year. (we have kids...) It's easier and cheaper to upload the images to ofoto.com and buy prints at .29 each than print at home.

    [ link to this | view in thread ]

11. 

    Beck, 19 Dec 2003 @ 6:41am

    
    

    Re: No Subject Given

    Until recently the only available means to print digital photos was to do it yourself. That doesn't mean it is the best way, and if a better way to do it comes along why shouldn't people take advantage?
    
    As we can see above, there are plenty of tech-savvy people who have the ability to print their own photos but would rather have the lab do it. This doesn't mean they are lazy, it just means that maybe there is a better way than doing it yourself.

    [ link to this | view in thread ]

12. 

    Rootman, 19 Dec 2003 @ 9:01am

    
    

    Why print at all?

    ---

    
    Why I agree with the "better quality paper" and "cheaper than ink" arguments I ask

    Why Print At All?

    I've had a PC hooked to the TV for years, copies of my pics on my desktop, laptop and home server and pretty nifty web based interface to show them from any machine. I've never liked passing pictures around being 2 or 3 behind as the first slow-poke in line get's the explanation of the contents while I guess "now THIS is Uncle Marvin? Or Aunt Melba???". Showing pics on the TV is not only larger but more fun as everyone get's to veiw them at once. Not to mention using a movie maker to make an actual presentation of the pictures - sound, narration - the whole works.

    PC based multi-media centers for the home are getting cheaper and cheaper every day. Heck even a lot of PDA's will show the picture in a more "mobile" format.

    ---

    [ link to this | view in thread ]

13. 

    Chris, 19 Dec 2003 @ 10:44am

    
    

    Re: Why print at all?

    I do that too. I make a DVD retrospective of the year and putit in my wife's Christmas stocking each year. WE are multi-media in my family, electronic and print :)

    [ link to this | view in thread ]

14. 

    Andrew Ling, 20 Dec 2003 @ 10:45pm

    
    

    Costco Digital Photo Print

    Yes Costco photo print is low cost but they becomes very busy already. U have to wait to use the machine to place order because some customers (like me) take slightly longer to figure what they are doing. Sometimes machine also break down or needs service.
    Generally I am satisfied with quality and cost.
    

    [ link to this | view in thread ]

15. 

    Dr. Don Blake, 22 Dec 2003 @ 8:07am

    
    

    foto time is money

    When that young tech savvy generation has a couple of kids, job, house, animals, soccer & music lessons to run kids to, elderly parents to diaper, etc. they'll find they don't have time to run a foto print shop at home. The best thing ever is e-mailing the fotos to the developer and getting them back snail mail. That's been great for our needs ...

    [ link to this | view in thread ]

16. 

    Costco Photo Employee, 3 Feb 2004 @ 2:03am

    
    

    Re: Aspect Ratio Questions

    The aspect ratio of regular 35mm print film is 3:2
    
    Some digital cameras let you shoot with a 3:2 aspect ratio, some don't.
    
    If you shoot at a 4:3 ratio on your digital camera you can save it as a 4x6, 5x7, etc. and burn it to CD that way using a jpeg file format and it will print just fine at a lab like Costco, Wal-Mart, etc.
    
    There are quite a bit of pros that come into Costco to get some work printed. You can go to Drycreekphoto.com and calibrate your monitor to the specs of the location where you'll be going. Therefore, any editing you do with your photos at home using Adobe PhotoShop, etc. will come out exactly like they appear on your monitor (as long as you calibrate it at the afforemnetioned website).

    [ link to this | view in thread ]