# Print from Home, or Order Prints?



## PhilGarber (Jun 8, 2008)

Hi all,

 When you print your photos do you print from home, or order online? My HP photosmart sucks up ink in like, literally seven photo-paper prints.. it's more cost effective to order prints... right?

Thanks,

Phil


----------



## Garbz (Jun 8, 2008)

I used to print at home but I could match neither the 20c / 6x4 price nor the quality of the local bulk lab. I send everything there, but when I get something back I don't like I send it to another more expensive lab.

I haven't used any truly professional photo printers so I'm not sure if this cost problem exists for them all.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 8, 2008)

I usually print at home.  I haven't kept detailed enough records to figure out what my per print cost is though.  Next time I change an ink tank I'll try to keep track of how long it lasts...


----------



## Battou (Jun 9, 2008)

I never print at home, I tried it once and it looked like sht to put it bluntly. However I don't use sendout services for prints I want done right either. My local drugstore has a publicly available print station for digital image printing. Printing an 8x10 at Rite Aid is $3.00 (USD) cheaper than the sendout services available to me, So I use that when ever I have print needs.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 9, 2008)

Yeah - I have a HP photosmart too...
Reason I bought it - $55 on special versus the $60 to buy cartridges for a canon...
Last Job - people wanted the pics next day. So I went up to buy new cartridges for the canon and saw the HP printer + cartridges at a cheaper price. Well, I started printing them on the HP, and 7 - yes SEVEN A4 size prints later the INK ran out... Sht... So had to go and buy another set of cartridges for the HP... Guess what..?? $66...
Well I had to buy them cos I had a deadline...
I can get 10x8's from my local photomachine for $3 (only hassle is the cropping since my format is 4:3).
Well - the rest of the job I put through the photomachine...
Interesting though - WE pay $60 for 10ml of inks - that does say 7 prints. Add the cost of 7 pcs photo paper, another $10 = $70. So thats $10 a print if you do it at home...
Even MORE interesting - Take the cost of a 6x4 from a photomachine...
0.20 cents each... Okay so TWO at 6x4 is 0.40cents...
Now a 12x8 is exactly twice the size of 2 6x4's - so logically, to print a 12x8 would require twice as much ink as a 6x4... So how come the price of a 12x8 is $6...??? (and not 40 cents...??) (can't be the paper, cos you get two 6x4's if you cut a 12x8 in half...)
Addit: I have tried 'Pro' photolabs in the city - but frankly the small increase in quality did not compare with the large increase in price. Plus it takes 8 days turnaround... And you wonder whether these 'Pro' labs are just using the same processing equipment as the local photomachine guys (Fuji)...
Sorry for the long...
Jedo


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 9, 2008)

I don't think I would buy any more ink for that printer.

I have a Canon iP5200, it seems to do pretty good on ink consumption.  I've printed probably 10 or so 8x10s, and at least 50 4x6s so far since my last refill, and they're still more than half full.

BTW, 12x8 is 4 times the surface area of a 6x4, so 4 times the ink...


----------



## Battou (Jun 9, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Addit: I have tried 'Pro' photolabs in the city - but frankly the small increase in quality did not compare with the large increase in price. Plus it takes 8 days turnaround... And you wonder whether these 'Pro' labs are just using the same processing equipment as the local photomachine guys (Fuji)...
> Sorry for the long...
> Jedo



Many of them (but not all) are, that is one of many reasons I use the local drugstore printer. Only draw back is I am limited to 4x6, 5x8 and 8x10. It does kind of suck to have to print an 8x10 in letterbox format.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 9, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't think I would buy any more ink for that printer.
> 
> I have a Canon iP5200, it seems to do pretty good on ink consumption. I've printed probably 10 or so 8x10s, and at least 50 4x6s so far since my last refill, and they're still more than half full.
> 
> BTW, 12x8 is 4 times the surface area of a 6x4, so 4 times the ink...


 
LOL come to think of it - you are absolutely correct...
Bean-counting was NEVER my forte
Still - why does 12x8 cost $6 and not 4x 0.20cents..??
Jedo


----------



## mrodgers (Jun 9, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> LOL come to think of it - you are absolutely correct...
> Bean-counting was NEVER my forte
> Still - why does 12x8 cost $6 and not 4x 0.20cents..??
> Jedo


Same reason someone who has portraits done by a photographer pays $40 for the 12x8 when it only costs $6 to print......

4x6 is cheap because regular folks take images in from their family outings and vacations and print 4 dozen 4x6 photos, just as they sent rolls of 24 exposure films from their vacations in to York or Majestic to print out 4x6 photos before digital cameras became mainstream.

Who is going to take photos of their kid's birthday party and order 24 8x10 or 12x8 photos?



To answer the question presented in this post......  I have taken 7000 photos since buying my camera in December.  I have yet to take them anywhere to print, but I have many I'd like to have printed out for the wall.  The rising cost of oil prevents me now to do that.  I have to take out loans to heat my house now, so there isn't any extra money left for printing photos.

I ran enough photos off with my little 4x6 photo printer I got for Christmas along with the camera to run out of ink since receiving them.  Again, since it costs me twice as much to get to work this year as it did last year, and because heating my house is going to run close to $1000 per month to heat next year, stuff that I don't _need_ to do, doesn't happen any more.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 9, 2008)

I actually asked my local lab the same question (it costs me $2 for a 8x5 and 25c for a 6x4). Their official line was that the put it through quality control. I.e. actually look at the photos rather than just queue them into the printer. Mind you it did sound somewhat rehearsed so take it with a cubic metre of salt.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jun 9, 2008)

I do both....  I got a little HP photo printer for christmas.... I don't print photo's very often... but I packed it in my camera bag for a weekend trip to the INLAWS.... I was taking pictures of the days events (babies and puppies), editing them with the onboard editing features of the camera (<---never thought I'd use those useless features), and printing them up after dinner.  

I'm a hero!!!!

Instant pictures of Babies + Puppies + Family = Key access to vast Inlaw financial resources PLUS makes up for the times I come home to late from the pub.


----------



## D-50 (Jun 9, 2008)

I print everything at home because Im typically printing on 8.5 x 11 paper at the smallest. First reason I do not like to be bound to 8x10 or 5x7 which are not even in line with the 1:1.5 ratio of most sensors, second prints larger then 8x10 get expensize fast and I found that the quality I get from a discount photo lab pales in compasrison to my Epson r1800.  If I went to a good lab an 11x17 would cost me over $25 and I have to wait a couple days. 

If your printing large photos get a quality 13" wide printer and you will save money, and you cans still go to a drug store for bulk 4x6. As for ink life the R1800 doea very well from a full set of inks (about $100) I get at least 50 8.5 x 11 prints. 

Lastly for everyone here say they rarely print photos.... why are you interested in photography?  There is nothing worse than looking at someone photos online or on their computer, you dont need to print everything but why not print you favorites and start aking albums.  I use use digital because I like its versatility not because I like to look at my photos on a computer screen.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jun 9, 2008)

D-50 said:


> Lastly for everyone here say they rarely print photos.... why are you interested in photography?  There is nothing worse than looking at someone photos online or on their computer



Well that would be your opinion...

My small collection of 10,000 images images are broadcast to the 38 inch LCD TV hanging on the wall in my living room and my 22 inch monitor by way of screen saver.  My guests are addicted to watching these like crack.... they love it!! Small crowds, large crowds eat this stuff up.... they don't care about image quality they care about image content...

I can just image the sighs if I were to bring out milk cartons of photo albums asking everyone to gather around...

I have four or five 8x10's hanging in the house that I change every half year or so... other than that and a handful of 4x6 for the fridge and guests I have no daily use for paper prints...


----------



## D-50 (Jun 9, 2008)

I garauntee if you had a photo album on a table people would be just as interested in it.  Even though your guests are not concerned with quality aren't you.  Printed photos look far better than those viewed on a screen.  

I do think its a cool idea to have then on your screen save and being able to send them to your TV is pretty cool as well, I guess I just love the quality of print.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 9, 2008)

Battou said:


> I never print at home, I tried it once and it looked like sht to put it bluntly. However I don't use sendout services for prints I want done right either. My local drugstore has a publicly available print station for digital image printing. Printing an 8x10 at Rite Aid is $3.00 (USD) cheaper than the sendout services available to me, So I use that when ever I have print needs.




Hi,

  Ok, first off, thank you all. All your responses have been enormously helpful.

  Battou: You mean the self-service printers..right? Anyway.. I've always heard there will be a large drop in quality when using these. But, by reading  these posts I'm finding the opposite. So..whats up?

Phil,


----------



## Haraldo (Jun 9, 2008)

Hey, pretty wild discussion. Thought I'd drop in; only my second post on The Photo Forum. 

Here's my answer: it all depends! I've printed with the following digital printing technologies ($XX says no one can top me ;-):

INKJET: Epson, Canon, HP, Dell, Lexmark, Kodak, IRIS/IXIA, Roland, Mimaki, Mutoh, Xerox Phaser; ELECTROPHOTO:  Xerox Phaser, Minolta; DYE SUB: Olympus, Kodak; DIGITAL PHOTO PRINT: Lambda, Lightjet, Chromira, Frontier, Noritsu, Kodak.

Two advantages of inkjet: (1) best color print permanence (if done on correct combinations), (2) if doing Fine Art, you can print on a myriad of media (paper) that you cannot get with other processes, e.g., 100% cotton rags, bamboo, rice papers, aluminum, etc. 

Bottomline: it all depends on what you're looking for. Good luck!

Harald Johnson
author, "Mastering Digital Printing, Second Edition"
author, "Digital Printing Start-Up Guide"
DP&I.com (http://www.dpandi.com)
digital printing and imaging consultant


----------



## Battou (Jun 9, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> Hi,
> 
> Ok, first off, thank you all. All your responses have been enormously helpful.
> 
> ...



Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The large drop in quality you hear about using these is for the most part user caused. Complaints come when the print does not look like it did on theri screen.....well most of the users here have screens that are calibrated for prints or know their printer well enough to compensate. That is why you are finding the opposite in the replies here. 


It's really trial and error to get to know the printer at hand. I don't know how your local place does it but mine is real good about trial and error, If you get it wrong and don't like what you see they just toss it and you can print anew, even if this means you have to go home and reprocess (this is how I found out I needed to letterbox format my film pictures) and you only pay for the one you keep. That full well justifies the four and a half to five bucks I spend on an 8X10 on top of the security of knowing that I am not going to loose my original media in transit as well as having the print when I want it. 


But, on the otherhand, I don't trust the labs available to me enough to do the job right (I have more than enough evidence to support this in my case) so I Don't have a order service 8X10 to compare to the drugstore 8X10. I resently gave an 8X10 of his car to a gentleman and they where so inceradably impressed the only thing he and his doughter coud say is "are you sure you don't want any money for it"......so those self-service printers can do the job they where made to do well enough as long as you know how to make it print what you want and not let it print what it thinks you want.

When I get home from work, I could scan one of the 8X10s I had done with that machine if you would like, bare in mind that my scanner sucks so the scan won't look as good as the print but it would give you an idea to the results.


----------



## hippyatheart (Jun 10, 2008)

So what do you do for professional pirctures?  Do you send those off?  Surely you are not using the self-service printers, right?


----------



## Haraldo (Jun 10, 2008)

hippyatheart said:


> So what do you do for professional pirctures?  Do you send those off?  Surely you are not using the self-service printers, right?



Pro labs and pro "PSPs" (print service providers) all do "professional" prints. But you can also do them at home on inkjet on top equip. Most of the prints I do are LF (large format), which is 24" wide or more. Lots of photogs do 16x20s, which you can do on C-size (17-18" wide). Others like A3+, which is 13x19". Everything I do smaller than that goes to online providers like Snapfish.

Harald Johnson


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 10, 2008)

Battou said:


> Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The large drop in quality you hear about using these is for the most part user caused. Complaints come when the print does not look like it did on theri screen.....well most of the users here have screens that are calibrated for prints or know their printer well enough to compensate. That is why you are finding the opposite in the replies here.
> 
> 
> It's really trial and error to get to know the printer at hand. I don't know how your local place does it but mine is real good about trial and error, If you get it wrong and don't like what you see they just toss it and you can print anew, even if this means you have to go home and reprocess (this is how I found out I needed to letterbox format my film pictures) and you only pay for the one you keep. That full well justifies the four and a half to five bucks I spend on an 8X10 on top of the security of knowing that I am not going to loose my original media in transit as well as having the print when I want it.
> ...



Thanks man. You are one of the many awesome posters I've met on TPF.:mrgreen:


----------

