Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

prices of digital vs. film prints

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 12:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

what would be cheaper:
A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
or
B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
all 4x6
(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:04:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital
images
were not worth printing and they would be deleted. "

dont stick your comments into my question.
assuming I WANT to print 100 digitals.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:15:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 15 Apr 2005 08:10:32 -0700, "Mr.Bolshoy Huy"
<bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>what would be cheaper:
>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>or
>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>all 4x6
>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)

It's impossibel to answer such a question.
Go to your local 1-hour shop and ask them; prices vary.
If you want better quality, prices go up. Find the place you want to
do the jobs, and ask them. They will know the answers.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Related resources
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:18:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113577832.447535.117910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> what would be cheaper:
> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> or
> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> all 4x6
> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)

From the posted prices I have seen at Wal-Mart and Walgreen's, it would be
about the same. However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital images
were not worth printing and they would be deleted.

Ron
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:57:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
> what would be cheaper:
> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> or
> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> all 4x6
> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>
Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
the need to develop the film, and handle it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 6:03:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:

> Ah, this is the digital group. I wonder how many people live by this
> motto in the large format group.
>
> If you take pictures of things that don't move, and especially when
you are
> documenting something, you can make every shot count. This is why
they
> invented through the lens viewfinders, and lightmeters.
>

Odd that National Geographic shoots between 300 and 400 rolls of film
for an assignment, they must not be all that good of photographers.

I photograph a lot of people, their expression's are fleeting and not
every photograph will have what I am looking for. When I am at an
event I photograph everything and then decide on maybe the 10 to 20
photos that will give the feel for the event.

Part of being a good photographer is knowing that it is not only ok to
take a lot of photos it is the right thing to do in most cases.

Do you believe a fashion photographer will only shoot as many photos as
he thinks will be printed?

Sports Illustrated take somewhere around 15,000 photo during a super
bowl, it would be a pretty big magazine if they printed them all.

I have been part of a number of photo shoots where we have brought in a
pro photographer, if he only took as many photos as we needed we would
fire him in heart beat.

Scott
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 8:19:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Bolshoy Huy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> what would be cheaper:
> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> or
> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> all 4x6
> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)

Consider 4 rolls as 24 shots each, it would definitely be cheaper to do
option B.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 8:55:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Recer <ron48@aol.com> wrote:
>
> From the posted prices I have seen at Wal-Mart and Walgreen's, it would be
> about the same. However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
> digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital images
> were not worth printing and they would be deleted.
>
> Ron
>

I believe Walmart charges to develop each roll of film as well,
otherwise the prints cost the same.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 9:24:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 15 Apr 2005 10:04:05 -0700, "Mr.Bolshoy Huy"
<bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
>digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital
>images
>were not worth printing and they would be deleted. "
>
>dont stick your comments into my question.
>assuming I WANT to print 100 digitals.

Wow, you must be the 100% man mentioned in photography legends and
childhood stories. We, humble NG members who often take a few frames
of the same scene with slightly different settings and find many, many
of our shots to be of inferior quality, bow before your amazing
abilities.

With powers like yours, can't you just crush up some Kryptonite and
print them from your armpits?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 9:24:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2005 10:04:05 -0700, "Mr.Bolshoy Huy"
> <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
>>digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital
>>images
>>were not worth printing and they would be deleted. "
>>
>>dont stick your comments into my question.
>>assuming I WANT to print 100 digitals.
>
>
> Wow, you must be the 100% man mentioned in photography legends and
> childhood stories. We, humble NG members who often take a few frames
> of the same scene with slightly different settings and find many, many
> of our shots to be of inferior quality, bow before your amazing
> abilities.
>
> With powers like yours, can't you just crush up some Kryptonite and
> print them from your armpits?
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Not too hard. I took 110 pictures to be printed for my mother in law.
Not that I thought they merited printing, but that SHE wanted them.
You aren't going to argue with my mother in law are you? Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 11:20:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr Bolshoy Huy

I have researched this subject myself in great detail.

However, reading your reply to the below posters reply, you seem like an
arrogant idiot. Therefore, do your own research.




"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113584645.740181.50580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> "However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
> digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital
> images
> were not worth printing and they would be deleted. "
>
> dont stick your comments into my question.
> assuming I WANT to print 100 digitals.
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 11:20:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 15 Apr 2005 08:10:32 -0700, Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:

> what would be cheaper:
> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> or
> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> all 4x6

If the lab loses the originals it probably would be cheaper had
you sent them 4 rolls of film. This type of loss is pretty rare,
but in your case I think the odds of loss would be different.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:51:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:425ff21a$0$613$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Ron Recer <ron48@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > From the posted prices I have seen at Wal-Mart and Walgreen's, it would
be
> > about the same. However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
> > digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital
images
> > were not worth printing and they would be deleted.
> >
> > Ron
> >
>
> I believe Walmart charges to develop each roll of film as well,
> otherwise the prints cost the same.

The original poster stated:

what would be cheaper:
A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
or
B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
all 4x6
(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
have to buy 4 more rolls of film)

I was responding to "just the cost of the prints".

Ron
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:57:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
> Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
> > what would be cheaper:
> > A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> > or
> > B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> > all 4x6
> > (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> > have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
> >
> Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
> the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>
This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7 prints
from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital would
be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7), but
it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens, you
could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs less
to develop and print film.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:04:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <u6uv51tc9qc0tdjbvc50qcja9ki6k3s0np@4ax.com>,
Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Wow, you must be the 100% man mentioned in photography legends and
>childhood stories. We, humble NG members who often take a few frames
>of the same scene with slightly different settings and find many, many
>of our shots to be of inferior quality, bow before your amazing
>abilities.

Ah, this is the digital group. I wonder how many people live by this
motto in the large format group.

If you take pictures of things that don't move, and especially when you are
documenting something, you can make every shot count. This is why they
invented through the lens viewfinders, and lightmeters.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:04:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <u6uv51tc9qc0tdjbvc50qcja9ki6k3s0np@4ax.com>,
> Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Wow, you must be the 100% man mentioned in photography legends and
>>childhood stories. We, humble NG members who often take a few frames
>>of the same scene with slightly different settings and find many, many
>>of our shots to be of inferior quality, bow before your amazing
>>abilities.
>
>
> Ah, this is the digital group. I wonder how many people live by this
> motto in the large format group.
>
> If you take pictures of things that don't move, and especially when you are
> documenting something, you can make every shot count. This is why they
> invented through the lens viewfinders, and lightmeters.
>
>
I took 470 pictures on my Alaskan Cruise. I deleted two of them. About
450 are posted on Webshots. Some are better than others, all document
the trip.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:04:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4TV7e.658$f6.237@fe04.lga...
> Philip Homburg wrote:
> > In article <u6uv51tc9qc0tdjbvc50qcja9ki6k3s0np@4ax.com>,
> > Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Wow, you must be the 100% man mentioned in photography legends and
> >>childhood stories. We, humble NG members who often take a few frames
> >>of the same scene with slightly different settings and find many, many
> >>of our shots to be of inferior quality, bow before your amazing
> >>abilities.
> >
> >
> > Ah, this is the digital group. I wonder how many people live by this
> > motto in the large format group.
> >
> > If you take pictures of things that don't move, and especially when you
are
> > documenting something, you can make every shot count. This is why they
> > invented through the lens viewfinders, and lightmeters.
> >
> >
> I took 470 pictures on my Alaskan Cruise. I deleted two of them. About
> 450 are posted on Webshots. Some are better than others, all document
> the trip.

How many did you have printed?

Ron
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:15:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 15 Apr 2005 08:10:32 -0700, "Mr.Bolshoy Huy"
<bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>what would be cheaper:
>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>or
>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>all 4x6
>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)


Is this something that's really hard to find out on your own? Can't
you just call where you want the work done and ask?
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:16:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:20:00 +0100, "Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Mr Bolshoy Huy
>
>I have researched this subject myself in great detail.
>
>However, reading your reply to the below posters reply, you seem like an
>arrogant idiot. Therefore, do your own research.
>
>

Like it's so hard to just call up and ask.

>
>
>"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1113584645.740181.50580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> "However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
>> digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital
>> images
>> were not worth printing and they would be deleted. "
>>
>> dont stick your comments into my question.
>> assuming I WANT to print 100 digitals.
>>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:47:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1113599007.346932.171490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>
>> Ah, this is the digital group. I wonder how many people live by this
>> motto in the large format group.
>>
>> If you take pictures of things that don't move, and especially when
>you are
>> documenting something, you can make every shot count. This is why
>they
>> invented through the lens viewfinders, and lightmeters.
>>
>
>Odd that National Geographic shoots between 300 and 400 rolls of film
>for an assignment, they must not be all that good of photographers.

'Rolls of film'. Not large format then.

And not just documentation either.

>I photograph a lot of people, their expression's are fleeting and not

Certainly not 'things that don't move'.

>When I am at an
>event I photograph everything and then decide on maybe the 10 to 20
>photos that will give the feel for the event.

>Part of being a good photographer is knowing that it is not only ok to
>take a lot of photos it is the right thing to do in most cases.

Did you ask OP what kind of pictures he takes?

There is no point in assuming that he will need more film than specified.

>I have been part of a number of photo shoots where we have brought in a
>pro photographer, if he only took as many photos as we needed we would
>fire him in heart beat.

Interesting. You would fire somebody if he delivers what you need.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve Gavette wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
>
>>Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
>>
>>>what would be cheaper:
>>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>>>or
>>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>>>all 4x6
>>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>>>
>>
>>Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
>>the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>>
>
> This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7 prints
> from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital would
> be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
> files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7), but
> it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens, you
> could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
> prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs less
> to develop and print film.
>
>
It doesn't. Just go to the right store. Try Sam's Wholesale Club where
I get prints for $.12 to $.14 depending on which neighborhood I go to.
They roll off the same processor as the 35mm film prints.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:19:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4828e.4$fW.2@fe60.usenetserver.com...
> Steve Gavette wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
> >
> >>Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
> >>
> >>>what would be cheaper:
> >>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> >>>or
> >>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> >>>all 4x6
> >>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> >>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
> >>>
> >>
> >>Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
> >>the need to develop the film, and handle it.
> >>
> >
> > This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7
prints
> > from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital
would
> > be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
> > files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7),
but
> > it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens,
you
> > could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
> > prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs
less
> > to develop and print film.
> >
> >
> It doesn't. Just go to the right store. Try Sam's Wholesale Club where
> I get prints for $.12 to $.14 depending on which neighborhood I go to.
> They roll off the same processor as the 35mm film prints.

There's a Sam's fairly close, I'll have to check it out. Do you know what
5x7 prints go for?
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:36:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:57:45 -0700, "Steve Gavette"
<sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> wrote:

>
>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
>> Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
>> > what would be cheaper:
>> > A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>> > or
>> > B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>> > all 4x6
>> > (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>> > have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>> >
>> Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
>> the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>>
>This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7 prints
>from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital would
>be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
>files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7), but
>it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens, you
>could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
>prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs less
>to develop and print film.
>

Costco is $.17 for a 4x6 making it $4.08 for 24 of them. For 35mm,
they get $4.99 for 24 prints.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:36:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Oliver Costich" <olc-caNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5t8161h09grt532tkq9maecnlm966ik6o4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:57:45 -0700, "Steve Gavette"
> <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> >news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
> >> Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
> >> > what would be cheaper:
> >> > A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> >> > or
> >> > B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> >> > all 4x6
> >> > (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> >> > have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
> >> >
> >> Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
> >> the need to develop the film, and handle it.
> >>
> >This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7
prints
> >from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital
would
> >be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
> >files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7),
but
> >it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens, you
> >could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
> >prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs
less
> >to develop and print film.
> >
>
> Costco is $.17 for a 4x6 making it $4.08 for 24 of them. For 35mm,
> they get $4.99 for 24 prints.

As I said, the smaller prints generally have a smaller discrepency. I'm
surprised it's actually more for film. I've never had 4x6 prints made at
Costco, so I wasn't sure about the price. I know the 5x7s cost half as much
from film as digital.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:36:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Oliver Costich wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:57:45 -0700, "Steve Gavette"
> <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
>>
>>>Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
>>>
>>>>what would be cheaper:
>>>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>>>>or
>>>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>>>>all 4x6
>>>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>>>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
>>>the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>>>
>>
>>This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7 prints
>
>>from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital would
>
>>be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
>>files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7), but
>>it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens, you
>>could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
>>prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs less
>>to develop and print film.
>>
>
>
> Costco is $.17 for a 4x6 making it $4.08 for 24 of them. For 35mm,
> they get $4.99 for 24 prints.

Reasonable, given that the film has to be developed first. Charging
more for digital prints is just charging what the market will bear. Of
course 90% of people I know with digital cameras don't even know you CAN
have the pictures printed at most 1hr. places.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:37:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In my case, the lab wants $0.29 per digital print (chemically
developed).There might be a break after 50, I don't recall.
They want $7.99 for one hour processing for a 24 print roll, or $31.96, so
there is a couple dollars difference. Some non camera store retailers can
print for less, but I have had varying quality with them.

The others do raise a valid point. If I went out and shot 4 rolls and 100
digital images on a weekend, I would probably not be printing all 100 for
the sake of economy (less interesting images may be saved, but not printed.
I usually don't print 10-15% of the images and delete less than 5%.

IMHO, in this aspect of photography, digital wins big time - especially if I
do a lot of shooting.
John



"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113577832.447535.117910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> what would be cheaper:
> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> or
> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> all 4x6
> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:37:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:37:00 GMT, "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:

>In my case, the lab wants $0.29 per digital print (chemically
>developed).There might be a break after 50, I don't recall.
>They want $7.99 for one hour processing for a 24 print roll, or $31.96, so
>there is a couple dollars difference. Some non camera store retailers can
>print for less, but I have had varying quality with them.
>
>The others do raise a valid point. If I went out and shot 4 rolls and 100
>digital images on a weekend, I would probably not be printing all 100 for
>the sake of economy (less interesting images may be saved, but not printed.
>I usually don't print 10-15% of the images and delete less than 5%.

With digital you can be free to try lots of exposure settings and
shutter or aperture combinations because you don't have to print
everything to see what you've got.

For what it's worth Costco pricing for digital is 4x6-17cents,
5x7-69cents, 8x10 or 8x12-$1.99, 11x14 or 12x18-$2.99. For many
Costcos, a Dry Creek Photo enhanced accuracy color profile is
available for download from drycreekphoto.com for the specific
printer/paper used in the store. If you have a correctly color
managed monitor, the results are amazingly accurate.
>
>IMHO, in this aspect of photography, digital wins big time - especially if I
>do a lot of shooting.
>John
>
>
>
>"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1113577832.447535.117910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> what would be cheaper:
>> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>> or
>> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>> all 4x6
>> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:37:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Oliver Costich wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:37:00 GMT, "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In my case, the lab wants $0.29 per digital print (chemically
>>developed).There might be a break after 50, I don't recall.
>>They want $7.99 for one hour processing for a 24 print roll, or $31.96, so
>>there is a couple dollars difference. Some non camera store retailers can
>>print for less, but I have had varying quality with them.
>>
>>The others do raise a valid point. If I went out and shot 4 rolls and 100
>>digital images on a weekend, I would probably not be printing all 100 for
>>the sake of economy (less interesting images may be saved, but not printed.
>>I usually don't print 10-15% of the images and delete less than 5%.
>
>
> With digital you can be free to try lots of exposure settings and
> shutter or aperture combinations because you don't have to print
> everything to see what you've got.
>
> For what it's worth Costco pricing for digital is 4x6-17cents,
> 5x7-69cents, 8x10 or 8x12-$1.99, 11x14 or 12x18-$2.99. For many
> Costcos, a Dry Creek Photo enhanced accuracy color profile is
> available for download from drycreekphoto.com for the specific
> printer/paper used in the store. If you have a correctly color
> managed monitor, the results are amazingly accurate.
>
>>IMHO, in this aspect of photography, digital wins big time - especially if I
>>do a lot of shooting.
>>John
>>
>>
>>
>>"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1113577832.447535.117910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>what would be cheaper:
>>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>>>or
>>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>>>all 4x6
>>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>>>
>>
>

The 5x7 prints are terribly overpriced. Four times the price for only
about 40% more paper!
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:37:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> The 5x7 prints are terribly overpriced. Four times the price for only
> about 40% more paper!

The 5x7 has to be printed on a bigger and more expensive machine that
probably doesn't get used as much.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve Gavette wrote:

> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
>
>>Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
>>
>>>what would be cheaper:
>>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>>>or
>>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>>>all 4x6
>>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>>>
>>
>>Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
>>the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>>
>
> This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7 prints
> from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital would
> be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
> files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7), but
> it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens, you
> could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
> prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs less
> to develop and print film.

Hi...

I don't understand why the difference either; I suspect that
the pricing might be based on what the market will bear...

Anyway, printing the same number of prints (96/100) in my
experience at least isn't quite valid. Said that poorly,
let me try another way. If I take 96 film shots, then I
must develop and print all 96. If I take 100 digital shots,
I likely will print only a small percentage of them.

Ken
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1818e.1031364$8l.674178@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> Steve Gavette wrote:
>
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
> >
> >>Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
> >>
> >>>what would be cheaper:
> >>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> >>>or
> >>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> >>>all 4x6
> >>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> >>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
> >>>
> >>
> >>Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
> >>the need to develop the film, and handle it.
> >>
> >
> > This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7
prints
> > from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital
would
> > be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
> > files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7),
but
> > it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens,
you
> > could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
> > prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs
less
> > to develop and print film.
>
> Hi...
>
> I don't understand why the difference either; I suspect that
> the pricing might be based on what the market will bear...
>
> Anyway, printing the same number of prints (96/100) in my
> experience at least isn't quite valid. Said that poorly,
> let me try another way. If I take 96 film shots, then I
> must develop and print all 96. If I take 100 digital shots,
> I likely will print only a small percentage of them.
>
And I do the same. As one very new to photography, I take a LOT more shots
than I ever print. I just can't understand why develop + print is cheaper
than just a print. Makes 0 sense.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> writes:
> And I do the same. As one very new to photography, I take a LOT more shots
> than I ever print. I just can't understand why develop + print is cheaper
> than just a print. Makes 0 sense.

Think of why a film camera is cheaper than a digicam.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:24:02 -0700, "Steve Gavette"
<sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> wrote:

>
>"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:1818e.1031364$8l.674178@pd7tw1no...
>>
>>
>> Steve Gavette wrote:
>>
>> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> > news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
>> >
>> >>Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>what would be cheaper:
>> >>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>> >>>or
>> >>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>> >>>all 4x6
>> >>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>> >>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
>> >>the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7
>prints
>> > from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital
>would
>> > be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
>> > files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7),
>but
>> > it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens,
>you
>> > could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
>> > prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs
>less
>> > to develop and print film.
>>
>> Hi...
>>
>> I don't understand why the difference either; I suspect that
>> the pricing might be based on what the market will bear...
>>
>> Anyway, printing the same number of prints (96/100) in my
>> experience at least isn't quite valid. Said that poorly,
>> let me try another way. If I take 96 film shots, then I
>> must develop and print all 96. If I take 100 digital shots,
>> I likely will print only a small percentage of them.
>>
>And I do the same. As one very new to photography, I take a LOT more shots
>than I ever print. I just can't understand why develop + print is cheaper
>than just a print. Makes 0 sense.
>


In many cases it isn't.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xll7j2ssd.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> writes:
> > And I do the same. As one very new to photography, I take a LOT more
shots
> > than I ever print. I just can't understand why develop + print is
cheaper
> > than just a print. Makes 0 sense.
>
> Think of why a film camera is cheaper than a digicam.

OK, I thought about it. A digicam costs more to make, so it costs more to
buy. What does that have to do with a drug store charging more to print
digital files than to process and print film?
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> writes:
>
>>And I do the same. As one very new to photography, I take a LOT more shots
>>than I ever print. I just can't understand why develop + print is cheaper
>>than just a print. Makes 0 sense.
>
>
> Think of why a film camera is cheaper than a digicam.

Immaterial to the question at issue.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> writes:
> OK, I thought about it. A digicam costs more to make, so it costs more to
> buy. What does that have to do with a drug store charging more to print
> digital files than to process and print film?

How do you think a drug store prints a digital file, i.e. what happens in
the machine?

What happens when they print a negative?

I'm not asking about possible ways they could theoretically do it.
I'm asking how it's actually done in practice.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xfyxrz37h.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> writes:
> > OK, I thought about it. A digicam costs more to make, so it costs more
to
> > buy. What does that have to do with a drug store charging more to print
> > digital files than to process and print film?
>
> How do you think a drug store prints a digital file, i.e. what happens in
> the machine?
>
> What happens when they print a negative?
>
> I'm not asking about possible ways they could theoretically do it.
> I'm asking how it's actually done in practice.

I don't think I'm following you. First you ask why a digital camera costs
more, and now how a print is "actually made". If you're alluding to the fact
that there may be some precious metal reclamation with film processing, I
can't imagine it would defray the cost of developing, much less printing.
And how it's "actually done" would vary with the equipment being used at any
particular lab.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> writes:
>
>>OK, I thought about it. A digicam costs more to make, so it costs more to
>>buy. What does that have to do with a drug store charging more to print
>>digital files than to process and print film?
>
>
> How do you think a drug store prints a digital file, i.e. what happens in
> the machine?
>
> What happens when they print a negative?
>
> I'm not asking about possible ways they could theoretically do it.
> I'm asking how it's actually done in practice.

The negatives are scanned by laser, and projected onto a print drum,
then chemically printed, which the digitals are just input directly to
the laser. At least that is how it was explained to me. Haven't had
the pleasure of looking into one of the printers...
There is NO EXCUSE except good old fashioned greed, for digital prints
to cost MORE.
Perhaps when stores get the hardware paid for (card readers, kiosks), it
will get cheaper.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> writes:
> I don't think I'm following you. First you ask why a digital camera
> costs more, and now how a print is "actually made". If you're
> alluding to the fact that there may be some precious metal
> reclamation with film processing, I can't imagine it would defray
> the cost of developing, much less printing. And how it's "actually
> done" would vary with the equipment being used at any particular lab.

Nah, I'm talking about the actual prints. Color prints are made with
dyes and the amount of silver involved is trivial or zero. The
difference is that the photo print is made on a fast, relatively
simple machine, sort of a giant version of a film camera. It shines a
light (through a negative) at some photosensitive material (enlarging
paper) for a fraction of a second, then it dips the paper in a series
of chemicals and a print falls out the end. Then it advances to the
next negative and repeats the process so at the end it's done the
whole roll of film with no human intervention. The paper and
chemicals are commodity items that are old technology and dirt cheap.
The machine is often several years old and in any case its cost is
amortized over many years.

Now look at the digital print, which in a low volume shop is something
like a computer printer you'd use at home. It's slow and uses
expensive materials. It often needs human intervention for each
print. It was installed recently and while it cost less than the
photo printer, its cost has to be spread over a shorter period and
lower volume of prints. It's only been quite recently that I've seen
cheap digital snapshot printing at consumer stores. Frankly I don't
understand the purpose. People who want digital convenience prints
with any frequency usually make them at home. People who just want a
print once in a while don't mind paying a few bucks for it instead of
17 cents. People who want high class prints for display aren't likely
to be satisfied with whatever Costco is producing for $2.99 in 12x18".
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:11:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> The negatives are scanned by laser, and projected onto a print drum,
> then chemically printed, which the digitals are just input directly to
> the laser. At least that is how it was explained to me. Haven't had
> the pleasure of looking into one of the printers...

Corner drugstores still use still use minilabs for film which have
something like traditional enlargers inside, and use different
processes for digital. Could be that higher volume operations like
Costco are using the same processes for digital and film printing, and
in fact they are charging about the same amount for either type of
print.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xwtr344hk.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> > The 5x7 prints are terribly overpriced. Four times the price for only
> > about 40% more paper!
>
> The 5x7 has to be printed on a bigger and more expensive machine that
> probably doesn't get used as much.

The Costco I go to only has one machine, the Fuji Frontier. 4x6 prints cost
$.17, or about $.007/sq.in.. Everything else is about $.02/sq.in or more.
5x7s are $.69, and 8x10s or 8x12s are $1.88
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1113577832.447535.117910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> what would be cheaper:
> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> or
> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> all 4x6
> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)

I don't think you can compare prices like that. Usually D&P places
charge for developing the film and provide 'free' or 'low cost' prints -
especially in the UK and Japan.

If you intend to print every one of your digital pictures in 6x4 format,
it's much cheaper in the long run to buy a dedicated printer.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:31:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Color prints are made with dyes and the amount of silver involved is
> trivial or zero. The difference is that the photo print is made on
> a fast, relatively simple machine, sort of a giant version of a film
> camera. It shines a light (through a negative) at some
> photosensitive material (enlarging paper) for a fraction of a
> second, then it dips the paper in a series of chemicals and a print
> falls out the end. Then it advances to the next negative and
> repeats the process so at the end it's done the whole roll of film
> with no human intervention.

No it isn't, and it hasn't been done that way for years. The standard
is the Fuji Frontier, used at every corner drugstore. It cans the
negatives, adjusts them, and prints them digitally.

The only difference between digital prints and prints from film is the
front end.

Info here:
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp...

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:04:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Nah, I'm talking about the actual prints. Color prints are made with
> dyes and the amount of silver involved is trivial or zero. The
> difference is that the photo print is made on a fast, relatively
> simple machine, sort of a giant version of a film camera. It shines
a
> light (through a negative) at some photosensitive material (enlarging
> paper) for a fraction of a second, then it dips the paper in a series
> of chemicals and a print falls out the end. Then it advances to the
> next negative and repeats the process so at the end it's done the
> whole roll of film with no human intervention. The paper and
> chemicals are commodity items that are old technology and dirt cheap.
> The machine is often several years old and in any case its cost is
> amortized over many years.
>
> Now look at the digital print, which in a low volume shop is
something
> like a computer printer you'd use at home. It's slow and uses
> expensive materials. It often needs human intervention for each
> print. It was installed recently and while it cost less than the
> photo printer, its cost has to be spread over a shorter period and
> lower volume of prints. It's only been quite recently that I've seen
> cheap digital snapshot printing at consumer stores. Frankly I don't
> understand the purpose. People who want digital convenience prints
> with any frequency usually make them at home. People who just want a
> print once in a while don't mind paying a few bucks for it instead of
> 17 cents. People who want high class prints for display aren't
likely
> to be satisfied with whatever Costco is producing for $2.99 in
12x18".

Man, you are wrong on so many fronts it is rather amazing.
Any place that has up to date equipment is using the exact same printer
for both digital can film prints. There is in fact a large reason to
get prints does at Costco, they are on photographic paper and both look
great and will last as long as any other photographic prints.

Clearly you have never seen a 12 x 18 inch print from Costco, these
prints are far better then what was available from standard enlarger
print making.

Just what shops to you go to where they are printing digital on one
printer and film on another?

Scott
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:16:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve Gavette wrote:

> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:4828e.4$fW.2@fe60.usenetserver.com...
>
>>Steve Gavette wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>what would be cheaper:
>>>>>A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>>>>>or
>>>>>B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>>>>>all 4x6
>>>>>(just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>>>>>have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
>>>>the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7
>
> prints
>
>>>from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital
>
> would
>
>>>be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
>>>files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7),
>
> but
>
>>>it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens,
>
> you
>
>>>could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
>>>prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs
>
> less
>
>>>to develop and print film.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It doesn't. Just go to the right store. Try Sam's Wholesale Club where
>>I get prints for $.12 to $.14 depending on which neighborhood I go to.
>>They roll off the same processor as the 35mm film prints.
>
>
> There's a Sam's fairly close, I'll have to check it out. Do you know what
> 5x7 prints go for?

Hi Steve...

That's even more bizarre.

Here (Canada) I can have 4x6's for 25 cents each at either
superstore or walmart. So (about) 25 square inches of paper
and ink makes them worth about 1 cent per square inch.
If I want 5x7's I get 35 square inches of paper and ink, but
they charge me 99 cents. About 3 cents per square inch.

Ken
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:21:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> writes:
> Just what shops to you go to where they are printing digital on one
> printer and film on another?

All the stores around here do it that way last time I looked, which
admittedly wasn't all that recently.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:05:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
> Steve Gavette wrote:
>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:4828e.4$fW.2@fe60.usenetserver.com...
>>
>>> Steve Gavette wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ynS7e.781$Gq6.584@fe02.lga...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mr.Bolshoy Huy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> what would be cheaper:
>>>>>> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
>>>>>> all 4x6
>>>>>> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and I
>>>>>> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prints are prints. Your bill for the film would be higher because of
>>>>> the need to develop the film, and handle it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is rarely the case in my experience. When I got 24 exp 35MM 5x7
>>
>>
>> prints
>>
>>>> from Costco, it was about $7.00. The same number prints from digital
>>
>>
>> would
>>
>>>> be over $14. They charge "enlargement" or "reprint" prices for digital
>>>> files. Smaller prints have a smaller discrepency (we always print 5x7),
>>
>>
>> but
>>
>>>> it is almost always less to get film prints. Last I saw at Walgreens,
>>
>>
>> you
>>
>>>> could get a double print set of 24exp 4x6 for $7 and change. 48 digital
>>>> prints would be $13.92 @ $.29 each. I'll never understand why it costs
>>
>>
>> less
>>
>>>> to develop and print film.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't. Just go to the right store. Try Sam's Wholesale Club where
>>> I get prints for $.12 to $.14 depending on which neighborhood I go to.
>>> They roll off the same processor as the 35mm film prints.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's a Sam's fairly close, I'll have to check it out. Do you know what
>> 5x7 prints go for?
>
>
> Hi Steve...
>
> That's even more bizarre.
>
> Here (Canada) I can have 4x6's for 25 cents each at either
> superstore or walmart. So (about) 25 square inches of paper
> and ink makes them worth about 1 cent per square inch.
> If I want 5x7's I get 35 square inches of paper and ink, but
> they charge me 99 cents. About 3 cents per square inch.
>
> Ken
>
>
And an 8x10 (or 8x12) is only about 4 times the square area of a 4x6 and
costs even MORE out of range than the 5x7. Seems a bit strange.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:05:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> > That's even more bizarre.
> > Here (Canada) I can have 4x6's for 25 cents each at either
> > superstore or walmart. So (about) 25 square inches of paper and
> > ink makes them worth about 1 cent per square inch. If I want
> > 5x7's I get 35 square inches of paper and ink, but they charge me
> > 99 cents. About 3 cents per square inch.
> >
> And an 8x10 (or 8x12) is only about 4 times the square area of a 4x6
> and costs even MORE out of range than the 5x7. Seems a bit strange.

Go to a photocopy place and find out how much an 8.5x11 (or A4) copy
costs. Then check how much an 11x17 copy (or A3) copy costs.
It's the same situation. 4x6" prints are made in vast quantity on
optimized machines using 4" wide roll paper. Everything else is
lower volume and costs more.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:24:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3cb9deF6m3jngU1@individual.net...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:425ff21a$0$613$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
>> Ron Recer <ron48@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > From the posted prices I have seen at Wal-Mart and Walgreen's, it would
> be
>> > about the same. However, it is doubtful that you would print all 100
>> > digital photos. A quick review would show that some of the digital
> images
>> > were not worth printing and they would be deleted.
>> >
>> > Ron
>> >
>>
>> I believe Walmart charges to develop each roll of film as well,
>> otherwise the prints cost the same.
>
> The original poster stated:
>
> what would be cheaper:
> A) 4 rolls of film printed at a lab.
> or
> B) lab printing 100 photos from the card?
> all 4x6
> (just the cost of the prints. yes, I know the card is re-used and
> I
> have to buy 4 more rolls of film)
>
> I was responding to "just the cost of the prints".
>
> Ron

But he still has to pay the cost of film development along with the
per-print cost, so "just the cost of the prints" would include that too.

N.
!