Home Photo Printing vs Store Photo Prints

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Has anybody done cost analysis for thier home photosmart printer,
considering the cost of inkjet ink and photo paper ?

I have a HP7350 and a HP4L. Right now, the HP4L needs toner cart. My
needs are more text printing than photo printing. With 4x6 photo
prints of my digicam snapshots going for 17 cents (US), I am wondering
if I should give up on the photosmart printer.
36 answers Last reply
More about home photo printing store photo prints
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Vince" <NoSPAM2THISHAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3h3eh15mnkcser10kof2nveg0odoh82991@4ax.com...
    >
    > Has anybody done cost analysis for thier home photosmart printer,
    > considering the cost of inkjet ink and photo paper ?
    >
    > I have a HP7350 and a HP4L. Right now, the HP4L needs toner cart. My
    > needs are more text printing than photo printing. With 4x6 photo
    > prints of my digicam snapshots going for 17 cents (US), I am wondering
    > if I should give up on the photosmart printer.
    >
    >
    If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the store.
    Jim
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    > >
    > If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the
    store.
    > Jim

    How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some great
    specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements so I can
    correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's. Using
    aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon i960) and
    precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's, my cost per print
    is less than any photo service. The paper cost - 125 sheets @ $19 - is
    about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is a few pennies. Best of all,
    I can shoot pictures and have beautiful custom prints in minutes. I haven't
    calculated the cost of ink for an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all
    together are less than 30 cents.

    "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    news:VOHRe.183599$OM4.10188855@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >
    > "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >> >
    >> If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the
    > store.
    >> Jim
    >
    > How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Vince" <NoSPAM2THISHAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3h3eh15mnkcser10kof2nveg0odoh82991@4ax.com...
    >
    > Has anybody done cost analysis for their home photosmart printer,
    > considering the cost of inkjet ink and photo paper ?
    >
    > I have a HP7350 and a HP4L. Right now, the HP4L needs toner cart. My
    > needs are more text printing than photo printing. With 4x6 photo
    > prints of my digicam snapshots going for 17 cents (US), I am wondering
    > if I should give up on the photosmart printer.

    If you decide to print your own you might want to take a look at some of the
    "Photo Value Pack" bundles. See
    http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/supplies_subcategory.do?landing=printing_supplies&category=paper&subcat1=inkjet+and+all-in-one+paper&subcat2=ink_paper_combos&aoid=9870.
    For your printer there are photo value packs that have print costs of $0.29.
    Depending on the quantity you print and the shipping charges you may find this
    a good option.

    Regards,
    Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some great
    >specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements so I can
    >correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's. Using
    >aftermarket inks
    >

    BIG RISK FOR CLOGGING. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT INK YOU ARE USING BECAUSE
    THE PLACE WHERE YOU BUY THAT LABEL WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT THEY ARE
    SELLING YOU

    > (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon i960) and
    >precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's, my cost per print
    >is less than any photo service. The paper cost - 125 sheets @ $19 - is
    >about five cents per 4 x 6 and the
    >
    POTENTIALLY CLOGGING

    >ink cost is a few pennies. Best of all,
    >I can shoot pictures and have beautiful custom prints in minutes. I haven't
    >calculated the cost of ink for an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all
    >together are less than 30 cents.
    >
    >"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    >news:VOHRe.183599$OM4.10188855@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >
    >
    >>"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>>If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the
    >>>
    >>>
    >>store.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Jim
    >>>
    >>>
    >>How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    If your only criterion is cost, it will be cheaper to get your
    prints done outside. Most of us use our own printers for
    convenience and flexibility, not economy.

    Vince wrote:
    > Has anybody done cost analysis for thier home photosmart printer,
    > considering the cost of inkjet ink and photo paper ?
    >
    > I have a HP7350 and a HP4L. Right now, the HP4L needs toner cart. My
    > needs are more text printing than photo printing. With 4x6 photo
    > prints of my digicam snapshots going for 17 cents (US), I am wondering
    > if I should give up on the photosmart printer.
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:
    > On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    > great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
    > so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
    > Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
    > i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
    > my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
    > 125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
    > a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
    > custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
    > an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
    > 30 cents.
    Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
    cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
    some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab one.
    If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most expensive paper
    available and use original ink, or you will suffer from low quality and
    quick fading.
    Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need a
    couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    > Burt wrote:
    >> On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >> great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
    >> so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
    >> Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
    >> i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
    >> my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
    >> 125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
    >> a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
    >> custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
    >> an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
    >> 30 cents.
    > Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
    > cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
    > some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab one.
    > If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most expensive
    > paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from low quality
    > and quick fading.
    > Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need a
    > couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....

    Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
    there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
    reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
    printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
    and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in communication with
    several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup, who use MIS inks (that
    is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors inks. One of the people who is
    using Formulabs has developed custom profiles to increase the accuracy of
    the colors and uses an expensive, very precise colorimeter to analyze the
    ink/paper combination. To the eye, MIS inks and OEM inks prints almost
    identically and side-by-side evaluation of the Kirkland paper vs. Canon
    photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper, both good papers, show
    virtually comparable results. I've done a very large sampling of OEM and
    MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of matte surface papers and
    compared them in various lighting situations.

    Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5 cents
    worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it as good
    as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most inkjet
    printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as well. The
    best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality film camera -
    the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and the lowest ISO
    film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp, but they both
    provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer will deliver
    which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers loupe, however, the
    best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of ink that make up a
    picture that can look great to the naked eye.

    After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
    what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it is
    simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do this
    for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked out a
    way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    If cost is your main factor, for smaller 4 x 6" snaps, the home printers
    do not compete, especially if you need to buy the printer, and consider
    time at the computer etc. Larger sized prints become more competitive,
    and customizing becomes more of an issue also.

    Art

    Vince wrote:

    > Has anybody done cost analysis for thier home photosmart printer,
    > considering the cost of inkjet ink and photo paper ?
    >
    > I have a HP7350 and a HP4L. Right now, the HP4L needs toner cart. My
    > needs are more text printing than photo printing. With 4x6 photo
    > prints of my digicam snapshots going for 17 cents (US), I am wondering
    > if I should give up on the photosmart printer.
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    And how often do you "need" the prints produced?

    BTW, some companies offer internet uploading and mailing the prints
    back, or you can pick them up next time you go shopping for groceries or
    whatever. May involve NO extra trips at all.

    Further, most of these places allow you to reject prints and have them
    redone, and silver based images are some of the more permanent.

    Art

    CWatters wrote:

    > "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >>If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the
    >
    > store.
    >
    >>Jim
    >
    >
    > How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    One can also do "Photoshopping" on prints before uploading them to the
    photo lab.

    Art

    Burt wrote:

    > On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some great
    > specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements so I can
    > correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's. Using
    > aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon i960) and
    > precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's, my cost per print
    > is less than any photo service. The paper cost - 125 sheets @ $19 - is
    > about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is a few pennies. Best of all,
    > I can shoot pictures and have beautiful custom prints in minutes. I haven't
    > calculated the cost of ink for an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all
    > together are less than 30 cents.
    >
    > "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    > news:VOHRe.183599$OM4.10188855@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >
    >>"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >>
    >>>If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the
    >>
    >>store.
    >>
    >>>Jim
    >>
    >>How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
    stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab prints.

    Art

    Burt wrote:

    > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    > news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    >
    >>Burt wrote:
    >>
    >>>On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >>>great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
    >>>so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
    >>>Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
    >>>i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
    >>>my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
    >>>125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
    >>>a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
    >>>custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
    >>>an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
    >>>30 cents.
    >>
    >>Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
    >>cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
    >>some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab one.
    >>If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most expensive
    >>paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from low quality
    >>and quick fading.
    >>Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need a
    >>couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
    >
    >
    > Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
    > there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
    > reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
    > printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
    > and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in communication with
    > several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup, who use MIS inks (that
    > is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors inks. One of the people who is
    > using Formulabs has developed custom profiles to increase the accuracy of
    > the colors and uses an expensive, very precise colorimeter to analyze the
    > ink/paper combination. To the eye, MIS inks and OEM inks prints almost
    > identically and side-by-side evaluation of the Kirkland paper vs. Canon
    > photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper, both good papers, show
    > virtually comparable results. I've done a very large sampling of OEM and
    > MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of matte surface papers and
    > compared them in various lighting situations.
    >
    > Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5 cents
    > worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it as good
    > as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most inkjet
    > printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as well. The
    > best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality film camera -
    > the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and the lowest ISO
    > film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp, but they both
    > provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer will deliver
    > which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers loupe, however, the
    > best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of ink that make up a
    > picture that can look great to the naked eye.
    >
    > After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
    > what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it is
    > simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do this
    > for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked out a
    > way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
    >
    >>
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:
    > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    > news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    >> Burt wrote:
    >>> On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run
    >>> some great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop
    >>> Elements so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am
    >>> printing 4x6's. Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink
    >>> for my Canon i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy
    >>> paper into 4x6's, my cost per print is less than any photo service.
    >>> The paper cost - 125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6
    >>> and the ink cost is a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot
    >>> pictures and have beautiful custom prints in minutes. I haven't
    >>> calculated the cost of ink for an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper
    >>> and ink all together are less than 30 cents.
    >> Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you
    >> use, the cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo.
    >> And if you buy some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your
    >> photo with a lab one. If you want to make really good photo, you
    >> must buy the most expensive paper available and use original ink, or
    >> you will suffer from low quality and quick fading.
    >> Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you
    >> need a couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation
    >> here....
    >
    > Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of
    > the US there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo
    > paper. It is reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent
    > results with Canon printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per
    > 8x10 sheet is 15 cents and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am
    > in communication with several people, some of whom post to this
    > newsgroup, who use MIS inks (that is the one I use), Formulabs, or
    > Hobbicolors inks. One of the people who is using Formulabs has
    > developed custom profiles to increase the accuracy of the colors and
    > uses an expensive, very precise colorimeter to analyze the ink/paper
    > combination. To the eye, MIS inks and OEM inks prints almost
    > identically and side-by-side evaluation of the Kirkland paper vs.
    > Canon photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper, both good papers,
    > show virtually comparable results. I've done a very large sampling
    > of OEM and MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of matte
    > surface papers and compared them in various lighting situations.
    > Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5
    > cents worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is
    > it as good as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as
    > most inkjet printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than
    > others as well. The best lab prints, in my estimation are still from
    > high quality film camera - the larger the format, the best lighting
    > and exposure, and the lowest ISO film the better. My digital cameras
    > are only 4 and 5 mp, but they both provide very good prints up to the
    > largest size my printer will deliver which is 8.5x11. Under 8x
    > magnification with a jewelers loupe, however, the best looking
    > digital prints still show the "dots" of ink that make up a picture
    > that can look great to the naked eye.
    > After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as
    > that is what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first,
    > whether it is simply cropping or a more complex series of
    > adjustments. While I do this for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I
    > also enjoy that I have worked out a way to do it economically without
    > sacrificing quality.

    Well, lucky you... here best is original Canon paper.
    And, sure, if you make any adjustments, it's easy to see as youcan print and
    see immediately what you made. Also i noticed that printed photos are more
    bright and of more contrast than lab ones. it's just longevity...some will
    do a lot about it, myself...i really don't care much, since when (or if) a
    photo will fade, i'll just print another one.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Inkjet photo has a lot more gamut than traditional chemical photos.
    So it looks more vibrant. Have you tried to look for Japanese model
    photos on the web? Try to download a few and print them. You will be
    surprised how good inkjet photos will be.


    SleeperMan wrote:
    > Well, lucky you... here best is original Canon paper.
    > And, sure, if you make any adjustments, it's easy to see as youcan print and
    > see immediately what you made. Also i noticed that printed photos are more
    > bright and of more contrast than lab ones. it's just longevity...some will
    > do a lot about it, myself...i really don't care much, since when (or if) a
    > photo will fade, i'll just print another one.
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Arthur Entlich wrote:
    > And how often do you "need" the prints produced?
    >
    > BTW, some companies offer internet uploading and mailing the prints
    > back, or you can pick them up next time you go shopping for groceries
    > or whatever. May involve NO extra trips at all.
    >

    yep. this is the case here. I just upload pics and they will mail them to me
    for a very small fee. In fact, i can order as little as 10 pics and it's
    already cheaper including postage)


    > Further, most of these places allow you to reject prints and have them
    > redone, and silver based images are some of the more permanent.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > CWatters wrote:
    >
    >> "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >> news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >>
    >>> If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use
    >>> the
    >>
    >> store.
    >>
    >>> Jim
    >>
    >>
    >> How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <LNhSe.51$h6.14022@news.siol.net>,
    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

    > > BTW, some companies offer internet uploading and mailing the prints
    > > back, or you can pick them up next time you go shopping for groceries
    > > or whatever. May involve NO extra trips at all.
    > >
    >
    > yep. this is the case here. I just upload pics and they will mail them to me
    > for a very small fee. In fact, i can order as little as 10 pics and it's
    > already cheaper including postage)

    I buy from Winkflash; they've kept up with the times, currently at 12
    cents/print (previously 16 cents), and they have a flat shipping charge
    of 99 cents.

    I buy a lot of prints; when the postage label on their envelope says
    $3.85, I know I'm coming out ahead.

    AND, they offer the options of border/no border and glossy/matte, so my
    wife gets what she wants.

    Home prints are down to 29 cents on something like a modern $250 Epson
    4x6 photo printer, and that's not bad. But 12 cents and cheap shipping?
    Wow.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Those are still printed on traditional photo paper, except they are
    printed digitally by printers such as Fuji Frontier printers. Still
    you won't get the vibrancy of colors of inkjet photos. Frontier printers
    by default is usually set at lower resolution. So you will not get the
    best resolution as you can by printing yourself on an inkjet printer,
    especially if you want 8x10 or bigger photos.


    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

    > I buy a lot of prints; when the postage label on their envelope says
    > $3.85, I know I'm coming out ahead.
    >
    > AND, they offer the options of border/no border and glossy/matte, so my
    > wife gets what she wants.
    >
    > Home prints are down to 29 cents on something like a modern $250 Epson
    > 4x6 photo printer, and that's not bad. But 12 cents and cheap shipping?
    > Wow.
    >
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Art -the instant gratification counts for a lot when I can hand my wife or
    daughter a photo within minutes of snapping the shutter. I also enjoy the
    ability to experiment with different adjustments to files and see the
    results on which I can base additional adjustments. This is part of the fun
    of photography for me. Before digital cameras, computers and printers, I
    spent hours in the darkroom for the same reason.

    "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:h2bSe.359272$5V4.139148@pd7tw3no...
    > One can also do "Photoshopping" on prints before uploading them to the
    > photo lab.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >> On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >> great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements so I
    >> can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's. Using
    >> aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon i960) and
    >> precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's, my cost per
    >> print is less than any photo service. The paper cost - 125 sheets @
    >> $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is a few pennies.
    >> Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful custom prints in
    >> minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for an 8x10, but I'd guess
    >> that paper and ink all together are less than 30 cents.
    >>
    >> "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    >> news:VOHRe.183599$OM4.10188855@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >>
    >>>"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>
    >>>>If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the
    >>>
    >>>store.
    >>>
    >>>>Jim
    >>>
    >>>How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Lab prints are probably better but don't do well with water, exposure to
    full sunlight, PB and J finger prints, etc, either. My prints are generally
    framed under glass or enclosed in albums. God knows what will happen to the
    ones I give to friends! With the ability and the economy to produce lots of
    prints quickly and inexpensively many of them are of short term value and
    will probably be disposed of much sooner than the 1800's and early 1900's
    posed portraits that were not numerous, were probably relatively expensive,
    were taken by photographers as very few people had their own cameras, and
    had a different kind of "value" placed on them. (I should add that most of
    these prints are severely faded after having been stored in drawers or boxes
    for decades.)

    I guess what I am saying is that for me this is an extension of the
    explosion of contemporary visual media that is fast moving and quickly and
    sequentially replaced, image after image. The enjoyment of the image is
    more fleeting and is followed by another image to enjoy, ad infinitum. The
    prints that I frame are in photo frames that permit me to replace a print
    with a new one in a few minutes. With only so much wall space to devote to
    photos I continually replace older images with new ones.

    "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:5gbSe.68656$Hk.54746@pd7tw1no...
    > Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
    > stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab
    > prints.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    >> news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    >>
    >>>Burt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >>>>great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
    >>>>so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
    >>>>Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
    >>>>i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
    >>>>my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
    >>>>125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
    >>>>a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
    >>>>custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
    >>>>an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
    >>>>30 cents.
    >>>
    >>>Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
    >>>cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
    >>>some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab
    >>>one. If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most
    >>>expensive paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from
    >>>low quality and quick fading.
    >>>Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need
    >>>a couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
    >>
    >>
    >> Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
    >> there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
    >> reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
    >> printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
    >> and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in communication with
    >> several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup, who use MIS inks
    >> (that is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors inks. One of the
    >> people who is using Formulabs has developed custom profiles to increase
    >> the accuracy of the colors and uses an expensive, very precise
    >> colorimeter to analyze the ink/paper combination. To the eye, MIS inks
    >> and OEM inks prints almost identically and side-by-side evaluation of the
    >> Kirkland paper vs. Canon photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper,
    >> both good papers, show virtually comparable results. I've done a very
    >> large sampling of OEM and MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of
    >> matte surface papers and compared them in various lighting situations.
    >>
    >> Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5 cents
    >> worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it as
    >> good as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most inkjet
    >> printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as well.
    >> The best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality film
    >> camera - the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and the
    >> lowest ISO film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp, but
    >> they both provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer will
    >> deliver which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers loupe,
    >> however, the best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of ink
    >> that make up a picture that can look great to the naked eye.
    >>
    >> After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
    >> what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it
    >> is simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do
    >> this for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked
    >> out a way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
    >>
    >>>
    >>
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Art - You are absolutely right in that a person who would buy a computer and
    printer to produce home photos would have to factor all of those expenses
    into the mix. Given that I already have a computer that is powerful enough
    to deal with my photo interests and would have an inkjet printer and laser
    printer anyway, I'm only considering the disposable materials in the cost.
    Larger format prints, as you mentioned, are much more reasonable when
    printed at home. I don't know what an 8x10 or 8.5x11 costs at a lab, but I
    produce them for 15 cents in paper cost plus (I would guess) 10 or 15 cents
    in aftermarket ink.

    Time is certainly an issue. Fortunately, I have plenty of time and really
    enjoy working with the process of going from camera to finished, matted,
    framed print with my own hands. As they say, time flies when you're having
    fun!

    OR if you are Kermit the frog, "Time's fun when you're having flies.."

    "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:2%aSe.359253$5V4.323129@pd7tw3no...
    > If cost is your main factor, for smaller 4 x 6" snaps, the home printers
    > do not compete, especially if you need to buy the printer, and consider
    > time at the computer etc. Larger sized prints become more competitive,
    > and customizing becomes more of an issue also.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > Vince wrote:
    >
    >> Has anybody done cost analysis for thier home photosmart printer,
    >> considering the cost of inkjet ink and photo paper ?
    >>
    >> I have a HP7350 and a HP4L. Right now, the HP4L needs toner cart. My
    >> needs are more text printing than photo printing. With 4x6 photo
    >> prints of my digicam snapshots going for 17 cents (US), I am wondering
    >> if I should give up on the photosmart printer.
    >>
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Arthur Entlich wrote:
    > Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
    > stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab
    > prints.
    >
    > Art
    >
    I'm not Burt but I use same paper and ink in my Canon. I placed
    several pictures, unframed, in a window overlooking a shaded yard
    about 6 weeks ago. Pics had several bands of heavy paper taped across
    them to block out the direct exposure to the sun. When I looked last,
    about 2 weeks ago I could not see any banding in either of the pictures.

    I think both Burt and I would not say these pictures will have the
    longevity of lab photos but they are not fading before our eyes. In
    typ indoor viewing, mounted or not these prints more than adequate and
    if the need arises, they can be reproduced either at home or any
    "photo lab" of your choice.

    I've held prints from this paper and ink combination under the faucet,
    blotted dry and within a few mins could not see where print was
    subjected to the water. This is good enough for me.

    Mickey
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Steven Polgar wrote:
    > Inkjet photo has a lot more gamut than traditional chemical photos.
    > So it looks more vibrant. Have you tried to look for Japanese model
    > photos on the web? Try to download a few and print them. You will be
    > surprised how good inkjet photos will be.
    >


    Hm... i wonder why would Japanes photos be different...
    But, to be honest, i did wonder when i first saw lab photos...are printed
    ones more "true" or lab ones...
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    And I would be the last person to argue with this sentiment, as I feel
    similarly. However, for the person who is looking for a least costly
    and time consuming option, with good results and fairly archival output,
    the option of uploading the image to a photo lab makes good sense.

    Art


    Burt wrote:

    > Art -the instant gratification counts for a lot when I can hand my wife or
    > daughter a photo within minutes of snapping the shutter. I also enjoy the
    > ability to experiment with different adjustments to files and see the
    > results on which I can base additional adjustments. This is part of the fun
    > of photography for me. Before digital cameras, computers and printers, I
    > spent hours in the darkroom for the same reason.
    >
    > "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:h2bSe.359272$5V4.139148@pd7tw3no...
    >
    >>One can also do "Photoshopping" on prints before uploading them to the
    >>photo lab.
    >>
    >>Art
    >>
    >>Burt wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >>>great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements so I
    >>>can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's. Using
    >>>aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon i960) and
    >>>precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's, my cost per
    >>>print is less than any photo service. The paper cost - 125 sheets @
    >>>$19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is a few pennies.
    >>>Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful custom prints in
    >>>minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for an 8x10, but I'd guess
    >>>that paper and ink all together are less than 30 cents.
    >>>
    >>>"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    >>>news:VOHRe.183599$OM4.10188855@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:6AERe.3568$v83.48@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>If all you need are 4x6, it certainly makes economic sense to use the
    >>>>
    >>>>store.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Jim
    >>>>
    >>>>How far away is your store and how much gas does the car use?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Lab prints usually can be washed and dried and become fairly "fresh" again.

    Since the learning curve is long and deep with digital printing, not to
    mention expensive with the waste involved in the learning, unless you
    really WANT to learn the methods, I still suggest people consider
    uploading the images to a local shop.

    Art

    Burt wrote:

    > Lab prints are probably better but don't do well with water, exposure to
    > full sunlight, PB and J finger prints, etc, either. My prints are generally
    > framed under glass or enclosed in albums. God knows what will happen to the
    > ones I give to friends! With the ability and the economy to produce lots of
    > prints quickly and inexpensively many of them are of short term value and
    > will probably be disposed of much sooner than the 1800's and early 1900's
    > posed portraits that were not numerous, were probably relatively expensive,
    > were taken by photographers as very few people had their own cameras, and
    > had a different kind of "value" placed on them. (I should add that most of
    > these prints are severely faded after having been stored in drawers or boxes
    > for decades.)
    >
    > I guess what I am saying is that for me this is an extension of the
    > explosion of contemporary visual media that is fast moving and quickly and
    > sequentially replaced, image after image. The enjoyment of the image is
    > more fleeting and is followed by another image to enjoy, ad infinitum. The
    > prints that I frame are in photo frames that permit me to replace a print
    > with a new one in a few minutes. With only so much wall space to devote to
    > photos I continually replace older images with new ones.
    >
    > "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:5gbSe.68656$Hk.54746@pd7tw1no...
    >
    >>Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
    >>stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab
    >>prints.
    >>
    >>Art
    >>
    >>Burt wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    >>>news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Burt wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >>>>>great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
    >>>>>so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
    >>>>>Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
    >>>>>i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
    >>>>>my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
    >>>>>125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
    >>>>>a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
    >>>>>custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
    >>>>>an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
    >>>>>30 cents.
    >>>>
    >>>>Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
    >>>>cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
    >>>>some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab
    >>>>one. If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most
    >>>>expensive paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from
    >>>>low quality and quick fading.
    >>>>Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need
    >>>>a couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
    >>>there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
    >>>reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
    >>>printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
    >>>and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in communication with
    >>>several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup, who use MIS inks
    >>>(that is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors inks. One of the
    >>>people who is using Formulabs has developed custom profiles to increase
    >>>the accuracy of the colors and uses an expensive, very precise
    >>>colorimeter to analyze the ink/paper combination. To the eye, MIS inks
    >>>and OEM inks prints almost identically and side-by-side evaluation of the
    >>>Kirkland paper vs. Canon photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper,
    >>>both good papers, show virtually comparable results. I've done a very
    >>>large sampling of OEM and MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of
    >>>matte surface papers and compared them in various lighting situations.
    >>>
    >>>Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5 cents
    >>>worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it as
    >>>good as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most inkjet
    >>>printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as well.
    >>>The best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality film
    >>>camera - the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and the
    >>>lowest ISO film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp, but
    >>>they both provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer will
    >>>deliver which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers loupe,
    >>>however, the best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of ink
    >>>that make up a picture that can look great to the naked eye.
    >>>
    >>>After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
    >>>what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it
    >>>is simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do
    >>>this for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked
    >>>out a way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
    >>>
    >>>
    >
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:ar4Se.885$pt.365@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
    > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    > news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...

    I just bought 125 sheets of kirkland for £20. Considering most want £12.99
    for 20 sheets of canon paper pro or £9.99 for £25 epson glossy or even more
    for premium glossy or even more for epson colour paper or durabrite i
    thought i'd give this stuff a try. Cutting my paper as i do the kirkland
    works out at 4 x 6x4 inch prints (500). 4pence per print.+ ink.
    www.choicestationery.com do pack of 6 inks for £12. So i should match most
    online prices of 10pence each plus £1 to £1.50 for postage and packaging.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:hTlSe.1010$pt.165@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
    > Art - You are absolutely right in that a person who would buy a computer
    > and printer to produce home photos would have to factor all of those
    > expenses into the mix. Given that I already have a computer that is
    > powerful enough to deal with my photo interests and would have an inkjet
    > printer and laser printer anyway, I'm only considering the disposable
    > materials in the cost. Larger format prints, as you mentioned, are much
    > more reasonable when printed at home. I don't know what an 8x10 or 8.5x11
    > costs at a lab, but I produce them for 15 cents in paper cost plus (I
    > would guess) 10 or 15 cents in aftermarket ink.
    >
    > Time is certainly an issue. Fortunately, I have plenty of time and really
    > enjoy working with the process of going from camera to finished, matted,
    > framed print with my own hands. As they say, time flies when you're
    > having fun!
    >
    > OR if you are Kermit the frog, "Time's fun when you're having flies.."

    1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty done.
    But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online and
    walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets myself
    and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab prices.
    When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it very
    competitively.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    ian lincoln wrote:
    > "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:hTlSe.1010$pt.165@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Art - You are absolutely right in that a person who would buy a computer
    >>and printer to produce home photos would have to factor all of those
    >>expenses into the mix. Given that I already have a computer that is
    >>powerful enough to deal with my photo interests and would have an inkjet
    >>printer and laser printer anyway, I'm only considering the disposable
    >>materials in the cost. Larger format prints, as you mentioned, are much
    >>more reasonable when printed at home. I don't know what an 8x10 or 8.5x11
    >>costs at a lab, but I produce them for 15 cents in paper cost plus (I
    >>would guess) 10 or 15 cents in aftermarket ink.
    >>
    >>Time is certainly an issue. Fortunately, I have plenty of time and really
    >>enjoy working with the process of going from camera to finished, matted,
    >>framed print with my own hands. As they say, time flies when you're
    >>having fun!
    >>
    >>OR if you are Kermit the frog, "Time's fun when you're having flies.."
    >
    >
    > 1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty done.
    > But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online and
    > walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets myself
    > and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab prices.
    > When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it very
    > competitively.
    >
    >

    Not at Costco. Nineteen cents, or on sale,
    seventeen cents per picture whether you order one
    or several hundred. And It can be a good deal
    faster. Last time I had 303 pictures printed. How
    long do you think that would take at home? And I
    did something else while they were being printed.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <CuMSe.10198$qY1.2973@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    "George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > > 1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty done.
    > > But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online and
    > > walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets myself
    > > and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab prices.
    > > When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it
    > > very
    > > competitively.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Not at Costco. Nineteen cents, or on sale,
    > seventeen cents per picture whether you order one
    > or several hundred. And It can be a good deal
    > faster. Last time I had 303 pictures printed. How
    > long do you think that would take at home? And I
    > did something else while they were being printed.

    I've done that, too, at Wal-Mart. Spent an hour shopping, came back to
    250 prints ready to go.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    news:elmop-8F8326.21450304092005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
    > In article <CuMSe.10198$qY1.2973@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    > "George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >> > 1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty
    >> > done.
    >> > But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online
    >> > and
    >> > walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets
    >> > myself
    >> > and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab
    >> > prices.
    >> > When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it
    >> > very
    >> > competitively.
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >> Not at Costco. Nineteen cents, or on sale,
    >> seventeen cents per picture whether you order one
    >> or several hundred. And It can be a good deal
    >> faster. Last time I had 303 pictures printed. How
    >> long do you think that would take at home? And I
    >> did something else while they were being printed.
    >
    > I've done that, too, at Wal-Mart. Spent an hour shopping, came back to
    > 250 prints ready to go.
    >

    My daughter did the same thing. She took a CD with about 400 pictures to
    Sam's for processing. The prints were ready in a little over an hour and it
    "only" cost her $116+tax IIRC. At the time prints were 29¢ each, the same
    amount now would be $76.00. She was also very disappointed with the results
    and thought her digital camera was to blame. I reprinted the entire batch
    for her on my Canon i950 using Easy Photo Print. The results were far better
    than from Sam's and at a total cost of less than $25 for paper and ink (I
    refill).
    --
    Ron
  30. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <4kSSe.309$zq6.195@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
    "drc023" <d+r+c+0+2+3@sbcXXXglobalYYY.ZZZnet> wrote:

    > My daughter did the same thing. She took a CD with about 400 pictures to
    > Sam's for processing. The prints were ready in a little over an hour and it
    > "only" cost her $116+tax IIRC. At the time prints were 29¢ each, the same
    > amount now would be $76.00. She was also very disappointed with the results
    > and thought her digital camera was to blame. I reprinted the entire batch
    > for her on my Canon i950 using Easy Photo Print. The results were far better
    > than from Sam's and at a total cost of less than $25 for paper and ink (I
    > refill).

    You do have to be careful about it. I caught a Sam's Club when they had
    just opened their photo area, and all the equipment was new. Comparing
    it to another Sam's across town, where the equipment was a couple years
    old, was like night and day.

    I don't think Sam's keeps their gear up.

    If she didn't like the results, she should have gone right back and
    gotten her money back.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    >news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    >
    >
    > SNIP
    >
    >Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
    >there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
    >reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
    >printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
    >and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents.
    >

    >SNIP
    >
    >
    >
    >After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
    >what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it is
    >simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do this
    >for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked out a
    >way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >Lab prints are probably better but don't do well with water, exposure to
    >full sunlight, PB and J finger prints, etc, either. My prints are generally
    >framed under glass or enclosed in albums. God knows what will happen to the
    >ones I give to friends! With the ability and the economy to produce lots of
    >prints quickly and inexpensively many of them are of short term value and
    >will probably be disposed of much sooner than the 1800's
    >
    WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?

    >and early 1900's
    >posed portraits that were not numerous, were probably relatively expensive,
    >were taken by photographers as very few people had their own cameras, and
    >had a different kind of "value" placed on them. (I should add that most of
    >these prints are severely faded after having been stored in drawers or boxes
    >for decades.)
    >
    >I guess what I am saying is that for me this is an extension of the
    >explosion of contemporary visual media that is fast moving and quickly and
    >sequentially replaced, image after image. The enjoyment of the image is
    >more fleeting and is followed by another image to enjoy, ad infinitum. The
    >prints that I frame are in photo frames that permit me to replace a print
    >with a new one in a few minutes. With only so much wall space to devote to
    >photos I continually replace older images with new ones.
    >
    >"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    >news:5gbSe.68656$Hk.54746@pd7tw1no...
    >
    >
    >>Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
    >>stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab
    >>prints.
    >>
    >>Art
    >>
    >>Burt wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    >>>news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Burt wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >>>>>great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
    >>>>>so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
    >>>>>Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
    >>>>>i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
    >>>>>my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
    >>>>>125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
    >>>>>a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
    >>>>>custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
    >>>>>an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
    >>>>>30 cents.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use, the
    >>>>cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if you buy
    >>>>some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with a lab
    >>>>one. If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most
    >>>>expensive paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from
    >>>>low quality and quick fading.
    >>>>Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you need
    >>>>a couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the US
    >>>there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It is
    >>>reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
    >>>printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15 cents
    >>>and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in communication with
    >>>several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup, who use MIS inks
    >>>(that is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors inks. One of the
    >>>people who is using Formulabs has developed custom profiles to increase
    >>>the accuracy of the colors and uses an expensive, very precise
    >>>colorimeter to analyze the ink/paper combination. To the eye, MIS inks
    >>>and OEM inks prints almost identically and side-by-side evaluation of the
    >>>Kirkland paper vs. Canon photo paper pro and Epson glossy photo paper,
    >>>both good papers, show virtually comparable results. I've done a very
    >>>large sampling of OEM and MIS prints on all these papers plus a range of
    >>>matte surface papers and compared them in various lighting situations.
    >>>
    >>>Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5 cents
    >>>worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it as
    >>>good as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most inkjet
    >>>printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as well.
    >>>The best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality film
    >>>camera - the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and the
    >>>lowest ISO film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp, but
    >>>they both provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer will
    >>>deliver which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers loupe,
    >>>however, the best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of ink
    >>>that make up a picture that can look great to the naked eye.
    >>>
    >>>After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that is
    >>>what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether it
    >>>is simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I do
    >>>this for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have worked
    >>>out a way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
  33. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Art - you are absolutely correct. Anyone who wants the simplicity of
    snapping the shutter of a digital camera and obtaining a print in the
    simplest way with no need to learn the process on the computer/inkjset
    printer would do well to upload their files and get prints from an online
    service. Interestingly enough, even that process is beyond the ability of
    many people. Equipment such as the Kodak system with a docking station and
    very simple software works fine for them as long as they can work from their
    own computer with the software installed.

    "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:u3ASe.366631$5V4.227258@pd7tw3no...
    > Lab prints usually can be washed and dried and become fairly "fresh"
    > again.
    >
    > Since the learning curve is long and deep with digital printing, not to
    > mention expensive with the waste involved in the learning, unless you
    > really WANT to learn the methods, I still suggest people consider
    > uploading the images to a local shop.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >> Lab prints are probably better but don't do well with water, exposure to
    >> full sunlight, PB and J finger prints, etc, either. My prints are
    >> generally framed under glass or enclosed in albums. God knows what will
    >> happen to the ones I give to friends! With the ability and the economy
    >> to produce lots of prints quickly and inexpensively many of them are of
    >> short term value and will probably be disposed of much sooner than the
    >> 1800's and early 1900's posed portraits that were not numerous, were
    >> probably relatively expensive, were taken by photographers as very few
    >> people had their own cameras, and had a different kind of "value" placed
    >> on them. (I should add that most of these prints are severely faded
    >> after having been stored in drawers or boxes for decades.)
    >>
    >> I guess what I am saying is that for me this is an extension of the
    >> explosion of contemporary visual media that is fast moving and quickly
    >> and sequentially replaced, image after image. The enjoyment of the image
    >> is more fleeting and is followed by another image to enjoy, ad infinitum.
    >> The prints that I frame are in photo frames that permit me to replace a
    >> print with a new one in a few minutes. With only so much wall space to
    >> devote to photos I continually replace older images with new ones.
    >>
    >> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    >> news:5gbSe.68656$Hk.54746@pd7tw1no...
    >>
    >>>Not attempting to be a contrarian, but wishing to know how the prints
    >>>stand up to handling and time/light fingerprints, versus regular lab
    >>>prints.
    >>>
    >>>Art
    >>>
    >>>Burt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    >>>>news:tu%Re.41$h6.10318@news.siol.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Burt wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>On line photo services are quite cheap for 4x6's. Ofoto has run some
    >>>>>>great specials. I prefer, however, to print from Photoshop Elements
    >>>>>>so I can correct and improve my prints even when I am printing 4x6's.
    >>>>>>Using aftermarket inks (bulk refilling with MIS ink for my Canon
    >>>>>>i960) and precutting Costco Kirkland photo glossy paper into 4x6's,
    >>>>>>my cost per print is less than any photo service. The paper cost -
    >>>>>>125 sheets @ $19 - is about five cents per 4 x 6 and the ink cost is
    >>>>>>a few pennies. Best of all, I can shoot pictures and have beautiful
    >>>>>>custom prints in minutes. I haven't calculated the cost of ink for
    >>>>>>an 8x10, but I'd guess that paper and ink all together are less than
    >>>>>>30 cents.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Hm...i could hardly agree with you. No matter what cheap ink you use,
    >>>>>the cost of paper itself is more expensive than one lab photo. And if
    >>>>>you buy some cheap paper, then you can't really compare your photo with
    >>>>>a lab one. If you want to make really good photo, you must buy the most
    >>>>>expensive paper available and use original ink, or you will suffer from
    >>>>>low quality and quick fading.
    >>>>>Home printing is not to be cheaper, but rather for fun, or when you
    >>>>>need a couple of photos quickly etc. There is no calculation here....
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Sleeperman - In my area (San Francisco) and in most urban areas of the
    >>>>US there is a Costco store that carries Kirkland Glossy Photo paper. It
    >>>>is reputed to be made by Ilford and gives excellent results with Canon
    >>>>printers. As I mentioned in my post, the cost per 8x10 sheet is 15
    >>>>cents and it yields 3 4x6's for a cost of 5 cents. I am in
    >>>>communication with several people, some of whom post to this newsgroup,
    >>>>who use MIS inks (that is the one I use), Formulabs, or Hobbicolors
    >>>>inks. One of the people who is using Formulabs has developed custom
    >>>>profiles to increase the accuracy of the colors and uses an expensive,
    >>>>very precise colorimeter to analyze the ink/paper combination. To the
    >>>>eye, MIS inks and OEM inks prints almost identically and side-by-side
    >>>>evaluation of the Kirkland paper vs. Canon photo paper pro and Epson
    >>>>glossy photo paper, both good papers, show virtually comparable results.
    >>>>I've done a very large sampling of OEM and MIS prints on all these
    >>>>papers plus a range of matte surface papers and compared them in various
    >>>>lighting situations.
    >>>>
    >>>>Bottom line - I can do an excellent custom adjusted 4x6 print for 5
    >>>>cents worth of paper and a few cents for the bulk MIS refill ink. Is it
    >>>>as good as a lab print? I don't know. I think it is as good as most
    >>>>inkjet printers can deliver. Some lab prints are better than others as
    >>>>well. The best lab prints, in my estimation are still from high quality
    >>>>film camera - the larger the format, the best lighting and exposure, and
    >>>>the lowest ISO film the better. My digital cameras are only 4 and 5 mp,
    >>>>but they both provide very good prints up to the largest size my printer
    >>>>will deliver which is 8.5x11. Under 8x magnification with a jewelers
    >>>>loupe, however, the best looking digital prints still show the "dots" of
    >>>>ink that make up a picture that can look great to the naked eye.
    >>>>
    >>>>After trips I print as many as 600 images, most in 4x6 format, as that
    >>>>is what my wife prefers. Most of the images are improved first, whether
    >>>>it is simply cropping or a more complex series of adjustments. While I
    >>>>do this for fun and esthetic satisfaction, I also enjoy that I have
    >>>>worked out a way to do it economically without sacrificing quality.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>
  34. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    How many hours did you send correcting and printing?

    Art

    drc023 wrote:

    > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    > news:elmop-8F8326.21450304092005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
    >
    >>In article <CuMSe.10198$qY1.2973@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    >>"George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty
    >>>>done.
    >>>>But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online
    >>>>and
    >>>>walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets
    >>>>myself
    >>>>and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab
    >>>>prices.
    >>>>When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it
    >>>>very
    >>>>competitively.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Not at Costco. Nineteen cents, or on sale,
    >>>seventeen cents per picture whether you order one
    >>>or several hundred. And It can be a good deal
    >>>faster. Last time I had 303 pictures printed. How
    >>>long do you think that would take at home? And I
    >>>did something else while they were being printed.
    >>
    >>I've done that, too, at Wal-Mart. Spent an hour shopping, came back to
    >>250 prints ready to go.
    >>
    >
    >
    > My daughter did the same thing. She took a CD with about 400 pictures to
    > Sam's for processing. The prints were ready in a little over an hour and it
    > "only" cost her $116+tax IIRC. At the time prints were 29¢ each, the same
    > amount now would be $76.00. She was also very disappointed with the results
    > and thought her digital camera was to blame. I reprinted the entire batch
    > for her on my Canon i950 using Easy Photo Print. The results were far better
    > than from Sam's and at a total cost of less than $25 for paper and ink (I
    > refill).
    > --
    > Ron
    >
    >
  35. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    It can also be the print technician that can cause night versus day results.

    Art

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

    > In article <4kSSe.309$zq6.195@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
    > "drc023" <d+r+c+0+2+3@sbcXXXglobalYYY.ZZZnet> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>My daughter did the same thing. She took a CD with about 400 pictures to
    >>Sam's for processing. The prints were ready in a little over an hour and it
    >>"only" cost her $116+tax IIRC. At the time prints were 29¢ each, the same
    >>amount now would be $76.00. She was also very disappointed with the results
    >>and thought her digital camera was to blame. I reprinted the entire batch
    >>for her on my Canon i950 using Easy Photo Print. The results were far better
    >>than from Sam's and at a total cost of less than $25 for paper and ink (I
    >>refill).
    >
    >
    > You do have to be careful about it. I caught a Sam's Club when they had
    > just opened their photo area, and all the equipment was new. Comparing
    > it to another Sam's across town, where the equipment was a couple years
    > old, was like night and day.
    >
    > I don't think Sam's keeps their gear up.
    >
    > If she didn't like the results, she should have gone right back and
    > gotten her money back.
    >
  36. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    None for correction and I used the low end Canon Easy Photo Print software.
    Load the paper and hit the print icon. There was no need to baby-sit the
    printer other than to add more paper.
    --
    Ron

    "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:oLeTe.107117$Hk.608@pd7tw1no...
    > How many hours did you send correcting and printing?
    >
    > Art
    >
    > drc023 wrote:
    >
    >> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
    >> news:elmop-8F8326.21450304092005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
    >>
    >>>In article <CuMSe.10198$qY1.2973@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    >>>"George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>1 hour service costs more. Especially if you have less than fifty
    >>>>>done.
    >>>>>But you are in no rush and wish to do at least 50 at a time then online
    >>>>>and
    >>>>>walk in shops are good. Using kirkland bulk paper, cutting sheets
    >>>>>myself
    >>>>>and using third party ink I can beat the small quantity 1 hour lab
    >>>>>prices.
    >>>>>When you factor in auto enhancement and red eye removal etc I can do it
    >>>>>very
    >>>>>competitively.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Not at Costco. Nineteen cents, or on sale,
    >>>>seventeen cents per picture whether you order one
    >>>>or several hundred. And It can be a good deal
    >>>>faster. Last time I had 303 pictures printed. How
    >>>>long do you think that would take at home? And I
    >>>>did something else while they were being printed.
    >>>
    >>>I've done that, too, at Wal-Mart. Spent an hour shopping, came back to
    >>>250 prints ready to go.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> My daughter did the same thing. She took a CD with about 400 pictures to
    >> Sam's for processing. The prints were ready in a little over an hour and
    >> it "only" cost her $116+tax IIRC. At the time prints were 29¢ each, the
    >> same amount now would be $76.00. She was also very disappointed with the
    >> results and thought her digital camera was to blame. I reprinted the
    >> entire batch for her on my Canon i950 using Easy Photo Print. The results
    >> were far better than from Sam's and at a total cost of less than $25 for
    >> paper and ink (I refill).
    >> --
    >> Ron
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Photo Photosmart Peripherals