Printing vs Photofinishing

[picopir8]

It has been over 6 months since I last saw this discussion and since several
new inkjets have been released, I was wondering what people thought was the
better option. Here are my observations

Printing
======
Cost - about $0.25 for a 3x5 figuring cost of paper/ink

Advantages
+Convenient (available anytime)
+Instant gratification (especially for the holidays, make immediate prints
for family to take home)
+Low cost for specialized printing (t-shirts, etc.)

Disadvantages
-Paper absorbs oils from fingers so fingerprints are more visible photolab
paper
-If you screw up you pay for wasted paper and ink
-Printer not likely to be color calibrated.
-Added initial cost of buying a photo-printer
-Your PC is tied up while printing photos and you are also spending your
time which could be used for other purposes
-Depending on printer/paper, inks can run if wet or can scratch easily
-You may have to drive somewhere to get new paper/ink.

Photofinishing
==========
Cost - $0.20 for a 4x6 at Sams Club or $0.25-39 through www.shutterfly.com

Advantages
+Machines are color calibrated on a regular basis
+Prints are put on same paper as film prints which we have relied on for
many years now.
+Paper is durrable
+Print and forget (you just upload your images and the technition takes care
of everything)
+Some services will have prints in <1 hr which may be faster than you can
print at home if you have lots of prints.
+Some services will deliver your prints to your home so you dont even need
to leave your house.
+Ability to make prints bigger than what your printer can do
+You have the option to edit your photos with their system so you dont need
to buy your own photo software.
+You can get prints while still on vacation w/o having to lug around a PC
and printer

Disadvantages
-If you go to the photolab, you have to work around their business hours
-You may have to drive to order or pick up prints
-You may have to wait in line to use the kiosk or the kiosk may be
unexpectedly out of order
-Your prints may be delayed if there are a lot of orders ahead of yours.


Thats about all I can think of. Personally as far as quality goes, I think
printing and photofinishing are nearly equal but photofinishing has a slight
edge (but perhaps I just need a better photo printer). I pretty much use
the best tool for the job. If I have only a few prints or have something
that I need printed fast then I print it myself. However if I have a lot of
prints or have something I want a print that I know will stand up to the
test of time then I go to the photolab. If injet speeds go up, prices come
down, and their durrability gets better, inkjet could become the only way to
print. But for now I think photolabs still serve a valuable purpose.

 

[cc0112453]

I haven't seen the home inkjet photo printer yet that is water and light
resistant. Some printers are claiming to have "light fast" inks but you
have to buy special paper for it to work and it is expensive. I use a
product called LumiJet that you spray on a finished inkjet print. You can't
tell that there is anything on the print surface but it protects prints from
moisture and UV rays. It claims to cover 60 8x10 prints with three coats.
A friend of mine was doing some pictures for a customer and had all but one
back from the photo lab. He didn't have time to wait so he printed it out
himself and sprayed it with the Lumijet. It was a nice summer day so he had
set the photo on a table in his back yard to spray and dry it. As luck
would have it, a bird crapped on it. He figured it was ruined but tried
wiping it off with a damp cloth. It came clean and the day was saved.

I think that until they come up with better inks that some of us are going
to have to do both home printing and use the photo lab. The picture quality
is definitely there just not the durability.

Doug

 

[Don Coon]

I haven't seen the home inkjet photo printer yet that is water and light
resistant.

My "old" Epson 870 is more than water resistant almost bordering on water
proof. And the latest Epson inks are much more light resistant than before.

That said, I find printing at my local Wal-Mart for 24 cents to be a much
better option. I do notice that the Fuji kiosks are getting busier so if I
go there in busy times I burn the images to a CDRW and give them to the
attendant. I wouldn't think of using the CF card direct from my camera to
get prints. I offload them to my computer, crop and adjust and burn them to
CDRW or write them to a 128MB CF card I use for non-camera purposes.

One exception is if I want to scan, modify and reprint a "copyrighted"
print. Most print shops won't take them. Heck, Wal-Mart hesitated when I
submitted images from my home studio; quite a compliment : )

 

[Bill]

I haven't seen the home inkjet photo printer yet that is water and light
resistant.

My Canon i850 using Atlanticinkjet ink and Office Depot paper is about
as water resistant as you can get - I've tested it by soaking a print
under running water without any ill effect.

As for light fastness, direct sunlight exposure will affect the prints,
but since 90% of prints are put in photo albums, it doesn't matter for
them - they won't fade. The other 10% of prints that are not put in
albums, are either put on the fridge away from direct sunlight, or put
in frames under glass which dramatically reduces the fading effect.

I have yet to see or hear of anyone actually complaining about any of my
prints fading or smudging in the last year. Maybe 20 years from now, but
not yet.

I think that until they come up with better inks that some of us are going
to have to do both home printing and use the photo lab. The picture quality
is definitely there just not the durability.

Except for extreme situations, I think todays resin papers and ink
quality is very good for making your own prints. I mention paper because
it is actually the determining factor in water resistance. Ink is still
a part of the equation though, and the right combination of ink and
paper produces excellent photos that are quite durable.

I print 100% at home now for LESS than what it costs to go to any
photolab, and everyone is surprised when I tell them the prints came
from my own "mini-lab" at home.

 

[stan]

I haven't seen the home inkjet photo printer yet that is water and light
resistant.

Than again, that's true of most professionall printed images too. Epson
does make the 2200 printer and with Durabrite ink and archival paper,
it is light and water resistent.

 

[RustY ©]

It has been over 6 months since I last saw this discussion and since several
new inkjets have been released, I was wondering what people thought was the
better option. Here are my observations

Printing
======
Cost - about $0.25 for a 3x5 figuring cost of paper/ink
Photofinishing
==========
Cost - $0.20 for a 4x6 at Sams Club or $0.25-39 through www.shutterfly.com

Thats about all I can think of. ............................

How about : Printing - Lots of time / messing about to get your pics.

Photo lab: Back next day better than any of my friends home made prints.

 

[Don Stauffer]

Be aware that not all stores, kiosks, and online services use a screen
(CRT) printer. Some use laser printers, dye subs, or even inkjets.
Only the screen recorder or screen printer actually is photo paper
(silver chemistry). So if you really want silver process, be sure you
check with anyone you are thinking of doing your printing.

 

[Joel]

How about : Printing - Lots of time / messing about to get your pics.

Photo lab: Back next day better than any of my friends home made prints.

I don't know about the other but here Wal-Mart and SAM's Club you will
get your prints in about 1 hour. Couple times I printed 200-300 photos
and had to wait for 2-3 hours, else about 1 hr.

 

[xNokia3390x]

It has been over 6 months since I last saw this discussion and since several
new inkjets have been released, I was wondering what people thought was the
better option. Here are my observations

Just yesterday I found out how easy it is to have your pictures printed at
Costco. They have three or four little machines setup with a touch screen.
It's very easy to get your pictures printed... Only problem is that I have
to wait a day for it, as well as wait in line if they're crowded. I
*thought* it would be 1-hour, but she told me to come back today (which I
didn't have time to do).

So for now, I'll continue to print some pictures at home - instant
gratification, and no waiting in line/driving back is great. For bigger
print jobs (I'd say 15 or more pictures) I will be going to Costco.
$0.19/4x6 is insanely cheap. For my Canon, paper alone is $0.17/4x6. On my
HP it's even worse - $0.20 to $0.25/4x6. Ink on my HP will run me about
$0.40/4x6 = expensive. But still worth it IMO for smaller print jobs.

 

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:41:36 -0600, Don Stauffer wrote:

=>Be aware that not all stores, kiosks, and online services use a screen
=>(CRT) printer. Some use laser printers, dye subs, or even inkjets.
=>Only the screen recorder or screen printer actually is photo paper
=>(silver chemistry). So if you really want silver process, be sure you
=>check with anyone you are thinking of doing your printing.
=>
=>picopir8 wrote:
=>>
=>> It has been over 6 months since I last saw this discussion and since several
=>> new inkjets have been released, I was wondering what people thought was the
=>> better option. Here are my observations

I prefer photofinishing because I can't afford the the
quality of digital camera that yields pictures equal to my
Nikon AF. I occasionally scan photos and e-mail them, but
very rarely print them.

IMO the only two issues in printing vs photofinishing are:
a) colour rendition
b) durability

a) Most photofinishers give superior colour rendition
compared to consumer level photo-quality printers. Reason
seems to be that it's much more difficult to calibrate
match the colours seen on the monitor with the colours
actually printed. And the quality of the scanner also has
an effect.
b) Until recently, inkjets simply didn't have durable
enough inks. That's changed. However, the vast majority of
inkjets on offer still do not use the high-durability inks.

The cost differences are minor compared to the quality
differences IMO.

 

[Joel]

Just yesterday I found out how easy it is to have your pictures printedat
Costco. They have three or four little machines setup with a touch screen.
It's very easy to get your pictures printed... Only problem is that I have
to wait a day for it, as well as wait in line if they're crowded. I
*thought* it would be 1-hour, but she told me to come back today (whichI
didn't have time to do).

So for now, I'll continue to print some pictures at home - instant
gratification, and no waiting in line/driving back is great. For bigger
print jobs (I'd say 15 or more pictures) I will be going to Costco.
$0.19/4x6 is insanely cheap. For my Canon, paper alone is $0.17/4x6. On my
HP it's even worse - $0.20 to $0.25/4x6. Ink on my HP will run me about
$0.40/4x6 = expensive. But still worth it IMO for smaller print jobs.

He he everytime I bring my CD to Wal-Mart or SAM's Club then their
employees will be busy for awhile as I usually have 100-300 photos for
them to print. Few times, I had to use their on-line (web page) and
even had to buy extra space to store around 1000 photos (4x6 and 8x10)
for my friends or relatives from other state's to order their prints
(wedding photos).

Here both Wal-Mart and SAM's do 1 hour, but if I have few hundreds
photos to print then I will have about 2-3 hours waiting. I also have
all the size, color, and everything taken care of (using Photoshop) so
they don't need to do anything but keep on printing.

 

[Ray R]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:41:36 -0600, Don Stauffer wrote:

=>Be aware that not all stores, kiosks, and online services use a screen
=>(CRT) printer. Some use laser printers, dye subs, or even inkjets.
=>Only the screen recorder or screen printer actually is photo paper
=>(silver chemistry). So if you really want silver process, be sure you
=>check with anyone you are thinking of doing your printing.
=>
=>picopir8 wrote:
=>>
=>> It has been over 6 months since I last saw this discussion and since several
=>> new inkjets have been released, I was wondering what people thought was the
=>> better option. Here are my observations

I prefer photofinishing because I can't afford the the
quality of digital camera that yields pictures equal to my
Nikon AF. I occasionally scan photos and e-mail them, but
very rarely print them.

IMO the only two issues in printing vs photofinishing are:
a) colour rendition

How do you measure colour rendition? I had many photos
done at Wal-Mart and was dissatisfied with the color. They
appeared muddy. As a test I made a test print with PhotoShop
that consisted of 6 pure colors RGBCYM. My printer did
a pretty good job. Wal-Mart as measured on my scanner
were way off.

 

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:36:02 -0800, Ray R wrote:

=>How do you measure colour rendition? I had many photos
=>done at Wal-Mart and was dissatisfied with the color. They
=>appeared muddy. As a test I made a test print with PhotoShop
=>that consisted of 6 pure colors RGBCYM. My printer did
=>a pretty good job. Wal-Mart as measured on my scanner
=>were way off.

Well, if you use Walmart, what do you expect? Shop
around for quality, not price, and you'll find a reliable
photo finisher, I'm sure.
For reliable colour rendition, you must now play around
with monitor settings as well. I find it's the matching of
monitor and printer colours that's most difficult,
especially when you vary the paper on which you print - see
the thread about changing colours. But, yes, you're right -
it's possible to get very good colour with an inkjet. It's
just that in my experience, it's not reliably so. You need
high quality equipment, software, and lots of time. For
_most_ people, that means the photofinisher is a still the
better bet.

BTW, did you scan the printer output, and the reprint it?
You'll find that the scanner introduces its own colour
variations, which is why all current scanners permit
adjustment of the colours, gamma, etc by the scanner
itself.

 

[Jerry Schwartz]

We use the local drugstores, which have both their own processing and Kodak.
The Kodak premium processing costs more and takes a couple of days, but the
quality is much better. (We're talking about film processing, here, not
digital.)

It should be noted that the "average person" (who is probably not well
represented in this forum) is not very picky. I will spend a long time
tweaking a photo that I've done (scanned, printed) digitally; my wife
doesn't notice the difference. She did, however, notice the difference I
mentioned first and insists on Kodak processing for her film.

 

[Ray R]

-) Shop
around for quality, not price, and you'll find a reliable
photo finisher, I'm sure.

This thread was originally a comparison between low cost
photofinishers and inkjet. I think if I shop around I can find
a high price photofinisher that can produce pictures as good
as my inkjet. Why bother?

For reliable colour rendition, you must now play around
with monitor settings as well. I find it's the matching of
monitor and printer colours that's most difficult,
especially when you vary the paper on which you print - see
the thread about changing colours. But, yes, you're right -
it's possible to get very good colour with an inkjet. It's
just that in my experience, it's not reliably so. You need
high quality equipment, software, and lots of time. For
_most_ people, that means the photofinisher is a still the
better bet.

My printer with my paper produces accurate colors. My
monitor does not produce the same colors as the printer.
This is the same problem whether the prints come from
my inkjet or from a photofinisher. Why would the color
rendition change if the ink and paper are held constant?

BTW, did you scan the printer output, and the reprint it?
You'll find that the scanner introduces its own colour
variations, which is why all current scanners permit
adjustment of the colours, gamma, etc by the scanner
itself.

The purpose of the scanner was to verify what I see with
my eyes. It was to measure how pure the colors were
printed. This was done on the raw output with no
compensation.

 

[Mini Moebius]

Do you have a Sams Club in your area? Their kiosks have a 1 hr turn
around. Granted, its probably not worth getting a Sams Club
membership if you already shop at Costco.

What machine does Costco use? Sams uses the Fuji Aladin. You can
bring in your photos on CD, memory card (I think all types are
supported), floppy disk (pointless?), or scan prints using the flatbed
scanner. All 4x6 prints from the Aladin are $0.20. You also have the
option of uploading your images from home via the web but costs an
extra $0.05 a print.

My rule of thumb is:
1-5 prints = print out at home
6-20 prints = upload images and pick the prints up next time I go to
Sams
21+ prints = burn images to CD and take them to Sams and wait around
for an hr.

 

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:35:31 -0800, Ray R wrote:

=>My printer with my paper produces accurate colors. My
=>monitor does not produce the same colors as the printer.
=>This is the same problem whether the prints come from
=>my inkjet or from a photofinisher. Why would the color
=>rendition change if the ink and paper are held constant?

Which colours? The ones you saw when you took the picture?
The ones you recall seeing when you took the picture? The
ones recorded in the negative (assuming you are scanning
negatives)? The ones recorded by the digital camera? The
ones in the scanned print? Etc. Colour rendition is a very
subjective thing, right?

What I hear you saying is that you like the colours you get
with your software + printer + paper. Good for you! Stay
with it, and you'll be happy. Many people haven't found
that combination (and many never will, because they keep
varying one or another of the factors, usually ink and
paper, because they believe that they can get good quality
at el cheapo prices.)

 

[Ray R]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:35:31 -0800, Ray R wrote:
Which colours?

The primary and secondary RGBCY and M

The ones you saw when you took the picture?

The ones you recall seeing when you took the picture? The
ones recorded in the negative (assuming you are scanning
negatives)? The ones recorded by the digital camera? The
ones in the scanned print? Etc. Colour rendition is a very
subjective thing, right?

Yes, but having the ability to produce good clean primary
colors is a good starting point. The photofinishers I tried
could not. Have you tried my experiment?

 

[Joel]

My printer with my paper produces accurate colors. My
monitor does not produce the same colors as the printer.
This is the same problem whether the prints come from
my inkjet or from a photofinisher. Why would the color
rendition change if the ink and paper are held constant?

I don't see any problem here. Your monitor is for viewing, your
printer is for printing, and the ink to print color on paper etc. they
either work well together or not depending on your setting, your knowing
how well they work together.

1) Different monitor will give you different displaying.

2) Different ink's (from different manufacture's) may give you different
color

3) You may see color different than other.

4) Different paper may give different color.

5) Your printer is different than the Wal-Mart or any photolab, and
different Wal-Mart may use different printer or different setting,
different operator etc.. So, if you want to print at Wal-Mart then
you may need to learn to adjust your photo to Wal-Mart printer

Example, if the color isn't dark enough then make your photo darker,
if it isn't red enough then put more red to the photo etc..

I know SAM's and Wal-Mart own by the same man, and they have different
price on the 4x6 and 8x10, and the output are different than each other,
they use different paper too. IOW, if I decide to print at Wal-Mart
then I may have to set my photo different than SAM's.

 

[xNokia3390x]

It has been over 6 months since I last saw this discussion and since several
new inkjets have been released, I was wondering what people thought was the
better option. Here are my observations

Well... I decided to try Costco's digital pictures printing thing - first
time. So today (three days later) I go back to pickup my pictures.
Apparently they've lost my pictures. How nice... And I already paid up
front BEFORE getting the pictures back and they taped the receipt to the
pictures envelope. Not a good experience. She said to bring my pictures
back and they'll reprint it. Now I'll really have to think if it's worth it
to go to Costco - convenience wise. I figure my pictures at home are
costing me $0.35-$0.40 per 4x6. Double the cost of Costco yes, but still
more convenient.