Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Printing at home versus lab

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 13, 2005 12:04:56 AM

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

Picked up some Epson 6x4" glossy paper today from Jessops. It was £6.49 for
50 sheets and was on offer at buy one get one free.
Never done any digital printing at home before but the offer was on and
thought I would give it a go.
Was unsure as to how the results would be as I have only a cheap Epson C46
printer.

After lots of messing about and about 10 ruined prints due to graininess I
finally tweaked the settings and got excellent results. To the naked eye
they look near perfect to Jessops prints, although I have borders and not
sure if I can get rid of them. Any ideas on that one?

What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50 prints
plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really compare well
to Jessops 50 prints for £5.

So what is the future for home printing? Is paper likely to drop in price
due to digital popularity?
Am I missing out on any good deals for printing paper? The buy one get one
free was great value, but it won't last forever.

--
Beck
http://latenightbreakfast.blogspot.com
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:04:57 AM

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

I am a professional photographer and use the commercial lab for prints for
my customers. I only use my ink-jet (Espon C-62) for printing Word &
Publisher documents as well as previews for clients. I just used some
professional Kodak paper that is very nice. But I like the archival quality
of real prints from a lab.

Craig Flory
May 13, 2005 12:04:57 AM

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

Printing at home offers a few advantages. You not only can get prints quickly,
but if you don't like any prints, you can zoom, crop, correct brightness, etc.
on the spot. In addition, my H.P. printer + H.P. paper + H.P. inks are estimated
to last 73 years; I don't know how long store prints will last. One also has to
keep an eye out for bargains on the materials. As an example, H.P. has a package
with the 2 color cartridges plus 150 sheets of their best 4x6" paper, for the
regular cost of the cartridges alone. I therefore in effect get free paper. For
8.5 x 11" paper, I wait until my local supplier has a sale.
Good luck.

Morton Linder

Beck wrote:

> Picked up some Epson 6x4" glossy paper today from Jessops. It was £6.49 for
> 50 sheets and was on offer at buy one get one free.
> Never done any digital printing at home before but the offer was on and
> thought I would give it a go.
> Was unsure as to how the results would be as I have only a cheap Epson C46
> printer.
>
> After lots of messing about and about 10 ruined prints due to graininess I
> finally tweaked the settings and got excellent results. To the naked eye
> they look near perfect to Jessops prints, although I have borders and not
> sure if I can get rid of them. Any ideas on that one?
>
> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50 prints
> plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really compare well
> to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
>
> So what is the future for home printing? Is paper likely to drop in price
> due to digital popularity?
> Am I missing out on any good deals for printing paper? The buy one get one
> free was great value, but it won't last forever.
>
> --
> Beck
> http://latenightbreakfast.blogspot.com
Related resources
May 13, 2005 12:04:57 AM

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

Beck wrote:

>
> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing.

If you think printing at home is going to save money, you're wrong. It's
about being able to control the process, not about saving money.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:04:57 AM

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

If you're looking to save a lot money by printing at home you'll likely
need to use a Canon printer and refill with compatible ink or compatible
cartridges. using OEM ink in any printer is very expensive. We use
several Canon printers (i9100, i960, N2000, MP780, iP4000) with the
compatible cartridges that cost $1.70 each (except for the N2000) that I
buy from ebay. If you refill your own carts with bulk ink the cost goes
down to about $1 per cartridge. The OEM cartridges cost $10-$12 each.
The i960 is our main photo printer which uses six cartridges so a refill
of a complete set costs $10 compared to $60-$72 for Canon's brand. A
set of carts will easily print 100-150 4x6 prints and sometimes over
200. I prefer Ilford Photo Pearl paper that I can pick up on ebay for
about $35 for 200 sheets. A yield of 150 4"x6" prints per compatible
ink cartridge set has a per print cost of 6.8 cents and paper cost is
17.5 cents for a total price of 24.3 cents per print. This is a little
higher than the mega stores like Walmart, Costco etc. that charge around
17 cent per print and much better than many other print shops.

This low per print cost is hard to achieve with the other brand printers
because Canon's cartridge design is very simple and easy for the
companies that manufacture compatibles to produce. This makes their
price very low. As for print quality using compatibles, I can't tell
much of a difference between them and Canon's carts. I also haven't had
any more clogging problems than when I used only Canon carts either.

Some people complain about print longevity with Canon's dye based ink
but I have not had any issues with fading at all. Most of our prints
are in albums or frames that remain indoors. Besides, all our pictures
are based on a digital photograph that we keep on the computer. If a
print fades after 10 years I'll print another one at home. By then
printing technology will have advanced to the point where print
longevity will probably not be an issue anymore.

Beck wrote:
> Picked up some Epson 6x4" glossy paper today from Jessops. It was £6.49 for
> 50 sheets and was on offer at buy one get one free.
> Never done any digital printing at home before but the offer was on and
> thought I would give it a go.
> Was unsure as to how the results would be as I have only a cheap Epson C46
> printer.
>
> After lots of messing about and about 10 ruined prints due to graininess I
> finally tweaked the settings and got excellent results. To the naked eye
> they look near perfect to Jessops prints, although I have borders and not
> sure if I can get rid of them. Any ideas on that one?
>
> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50 prints
> plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really compare well
> to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
>
> So what is the future for home printing? Is paper likely to drop in price
> due to digital popularity?
> Am I missing out on any good deals for printing paper? The buy one get one
> free was great value, but it won't last forever.
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:04:57 AM

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

Beck wrote:
> Picked up some Epson 6x4" glossy paper today from Jessops. It was £6.49 for
> 50 sheets and was on offer at buy one get one free.
> Never done any digital printing at home before but the offer was on and
> thought I would give it a go.
> Was unsure as to how the results would be as I have only a cheap Epson C46
> printer.
>
> After lots of messing about and about 10 ruined prints due to graininess I
> finally tweaked the settings and got excellent results. To the naked eye
> they look near perfect to Jessops prints, although I have borders and not
> sure if I can get rid of them. Any ideas on that one?
>
> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50 prints
> plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really compare well
> to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
>
> So what is the future for home printing? Is paper likely to drop in price
> due to digital popularity?
> Am I missing out on any good deals for printing paper? The buy one get one
> free was great value, but it won't last forever.
>
My experience is that cartridges, and paper both are INCREASING in
price. If others are getting better prices, I would like to know where...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 13, 2005 1:09:00 AM

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

Craig Flory wrote:
> I am a professional photographer and use the commercial lab for
> prints for my customers. I only use my ink-jet (Espon C-62) for
> printing Word & Publisher documents as well as previews for clients.
> I just used some professional Kodak paper that is very nice. But I
> like the archival quality of real prints from a lab.

Do you think that the costs of printing from home will decrease enough in
the future for it to be worthwhile? Currently its not cost effective if you
compare to the likes of Jessops instore.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:04:53 AM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in
news:3ehnn9F37i1eU1@individual.net:

> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50
> prints plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really
> compare well to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
>
Absolutely correct. If you're doing your own prints because you enjoy it,
or because you want to experiment, or you want fast results, etc. etc.,
then go for it, but it's hard to compete with the lab prices on 4x6 prints.
You may do a bit better if you want 8x10 or larger.

--
Steve Gray
sgray2@cfl.rr.com
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 4:20:14 AM

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

While I have both an ink jet and dye sub printer, when I want something 8x10
or larger, usually 24x36 I send my image to a lab. When looking at the cost
of a printer that will do large size prints plus the added cost of GOOD
quality paper and ink for the dozen or so large prints I have made it is by
far cheaper to go to a lab.

For 4x6 by dye sub cost a bit more than the local shops, but then again you
pay for instant gratification.
May 13, 2005 5:36:04 AM

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

What spoiled folks these digital dilettantes be.
I doubt many writers on this thread have any experience with wet color
darkroom work to comprehend what an absolute bargain the whole digital thing
really is.
While I appreciate the financial constraints that most people have to live
with it seems that many writers in this newsgroup thread do not place much
value on the total control over the photographic process that digital image
manipulation and photo-quality inkjet printing have brought to us massess.
The overall cost is peanuts compared to what do-it-yourself quality printing
used to cost.
In over 30 years of "advanced" amateur photography I have never been able to
get a lab to consistently produce prints of the quality that I can finally
achieve with Photoshop and color managed inkjet printing.
I guess if snapshot quality printing is all you want about there is always
Walmart. You can pick up some cheap microwave popcorn at the same time.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 5:36:05 AM

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

Yes Wal*Mart is .17 per 4x6 print

Sam's Club is .15 per 4x6 print

No way you can do it for that price especially the time you have to spend.
You can upload at a store or take a CD to the store.

Hope this helps.

I do have a printer but only use it when I go over to my folks house in
Montana as the closest Wal*Mart is well over 100 miles.

Gary



"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:8wTge.1852$3%4.1718@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> What spoiled folks these digital dilettantes be.
> I doubt many writers on this thread have any experience with wet color
> darkroom work to comprehend what an absolute bargain the whole digital
> thing really is.
> While I appreciate the financial constraints that most people have to
> live with it seems that many writers in this newsgroup thread do not place
> much value on the total control over the photographic process that digital
> image manipulation and photo-quality inkjet printing have brought to us
> massess. The overall cost is peanuts compared to what do-it-yourself
> quality printing used to cost.
> In over 30 years of "advanced" amateur photography I have never been able
> to get a lab to consistently produce prints of the quality that I can
> finally achieve with Photoshop and color managed inkjet printing.
> I guess if snapshot quality printing is all you want about there is always
> Walmart. You can pick up some cheap microwave popcorn at the same time.
>
>
>
May 13, 2005 10:29:18 AM

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

"Arthur Small" <asmall1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2pSge.17659$eU.6062@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> While I have both an ink jet and dye sub printer, when I want something
8x10
> or larger, usually 24x36 I send my image to a lab. When looking at the
cost
> of a printer that will do large size prints plus the added cost of GOOD
> quality paper and ink for the dozen or so large prints I have made it is
by
> far cheaper to go to a lab.
>
> For 4x6 by dye sub cost a bit more than the local shops, but then again
you
> pay for instant gratification.
>
In Australia I go down to Woolworths supermarket where they have one of
those instant digital printing stations and pay AU 33c per 6x4 print.
Does me.
May 13, 2005 10:31:05 AM

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

and 95c for a 5x7

"Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> wrote in message
news:2PXge.1272$E7.829@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Arthur Small" <asmall1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2pSge.17659$eU.6062@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > While I have both an ink jet and dye sub printer, when I want something
> 8x10
> > or larger, usually 24x36 I send my image to a lab. When looking at the
> cost
> > of a printer that will do large size prints plus the added cost of GOOD
> > quality paper and ink for the dozen or so large prints I have made it is
> by
> > far cheaper to go to a lab.
> >
> > For 4x6 by dye sub cost a bit more than the local shops, but then again
> you
> > pay for instant gratification.
> >
> In Australia I go down to Woolworths supermarket where they have one of
> those instant digital printing stations and pay AU 33c per 6x4 print.
> Does me.
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:34:43 AM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ehnn9F37i1eU1@individual.net...
> Picked up some Epson 6x4" glossy paper today from Jessops. It was £6.49
> for 50 sheets and was on offer at buy one get one free.
> Never done any digital printing at home before but the offer was on and
> thought I would give it a go.
> Was unsure as to how the results would be as I have only a cheap Epson C46
> printer.
>
> After lots of messing about and about 10 ruined prints due to graininess I
> finally tweaked the settings and got excellent results. To the naked eye
> they look near perfect to Jessops prints, although I have borders and not
> sure if I can get rid of them. Any ideas on that one?
>
> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50 prints
> plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really compare well
> to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
>
> So what is the future for home printing? Is paper likely to drop in price
> due to digital popularity?
> Am I missing out on any good deals for printing paper? The buy one get
> one free was great value, but it won't last forever.
I doubt it will ever get truly competitive with lab prints. Here in
Australia 6x4's at labs are around 30-50c depending on where you go and
volume you do. The cheapest home printers are 50c-$1. Some I've calculated
out to be about $2 for 6x4.
I view home printing as good for convenience for the occasional print. You
can print when you want and have almost instant results. The lab is far
cheaper, but you have to prepare the images you want printed, fight queues
of people to get to it, wait an hour to get your photos etc. For volume
prints, lab wins every time. For that one-off, there is still a place for
home printing - especially if you have a photo-quality printer.
>
> --
> Beck
> http://latenightbreakfast.blogspot.com
>
May 13, 2005 11:34:44 AM

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

Justin Thyme wrote:

> I doubt it will ever get truly competitive with lab prints. Here in
> Australia 6x4's at labs are around 30-50c depending on where you go
> and volume you do. The cheapest home printers are 50c-$1. Some I've
> calculated out to be about $2 for 6x4.
> I view home printing as good for convenience for the occasional
> print. You can print when you want and have almost instant results.
> The lab is far cheaper, but you have to prepare the images you want
> printed, fight queues of people to get to it, wait an hour to get
> your photos etc. For volume prints, lab wins every time. For that
> one-off, there is still a place for home printing - especially if you
> have a photo-quality printer.

Yes I think that is the way to go. For something like holiday prints in a
big lot its best to go to a professional developer, but a quick print on the
pc at home maybe after a day out would be adequate.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:54:05 PM

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

>>What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50 prints
>>plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really compare well
>>to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
I don't think anyone would claim home printing to be a cheap option,
particularly if you are doing multiple prints. Its main value, IMHO, is
instant turn around and if you are only doing one or two prints the cost is
not significant (It might also be the only option if you have, ahem, prints
you'd rather not let be seen in public ;) .

I tend not to use 6x4 paper, preferring to print A4 and slice up which, I
think, works out marginally cheaper. The prints are half an inch shorter
but what the heck. At least you don't have to crop them to fit.

My sister just gave me some two-sided photo paper which introduces the
intriguing possiblity of eight 5.5x4 prints per A4 sheet. This is good for
holiday snaps if you have one of those albums with transparent pockets. The
only problem I'm having is that the software package which came with the
printer doesn't allow me to dictate which picture gets printed in which
corner - vital if you want to ensure the correct prints end up back to back.
I've got a photo package I wrote myself which does allow you to do that but
currently produces poor quality prints - my resizing algorithm isn't up to
the job so I need to do a bit more work on it (and before 10 people write in
telling me there are all sorts of ready made packages out there which do it
fine, I develop my own software because I enjoy doing it, OK?).

Some people are concerned about the keeping properties of home prints but
provided you don't lose the original file you can always print them again.
I've not had a home printer long enough to know whether it's an issue. Call
me back in ten years.

Keith
May 13, 2005 2:07:05 PM

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

Steven Gray wrote:
> "Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in
> news:3ehnn9F37i1eU1@individual.net:
>
>> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50
>> prints plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really
>> compare well to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
>>
> Absolutely correct. If you're doing your own prints because you
> enjoy it, or because you want to experiment, or you want fast
> results, etc. etc., then go for it, but it's hard to compete with the
> lab prices on 4x6 prints. You may do a bit better if you want 8x10 or
> larger.

I did quite enjoy printing off my own prints, but it was a very slow
process. I didn't time it, but it was about 3-4 minutes per print once I
had set the optimum print style.
May 13, 2005 2:08:10 PM

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

Stacey wrote:
> Beck wrote:
>
>>
>> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing.
>
> If you think printing at home is going to save money, you're wrong.
> It's about being able to control the process, not about saving money.

Oh I know it won't save me money after working out the costs, but it would
be good for one offs here and there. I certainly will not be printing off
200 holiday prints by myself each time I go away :-)
May 13, 2005 2:16:06 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

>>
> My experience is that cartridges, and paper both are INCREASING in
> price. If others are getting better prices, I would like to know
> where...

Not sure about costs of paper as I have only just bought some, but I reckon
inks are coming down in price. I use recycled ink tanks from an ink
recycling company and 2 years ago they would have been about £10, now they
are about £4
May 13, 2005 2:22:35 PM

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

Keith Sheppard wrote:

> I don't think anyone would claim home printing to be a cheap option,
> particularly if you are doing multiple prints. Its main value, IMHO,
> is instant turn around and if you are only doing one or two prints
> the cost is not significant (It might also be the only option if you
> have, ahem, prints you'd rather not let be seen in public ;) .

LOL reminds of a time when my mum used to work in a chemist. Someone
brought in some pictures to be developed and the pictures were... erm... a
bit too private to be shown to others.

> I tend not to use 6x4 paper, preferring to print A4 and slice up
> which, I think, works out marginally cheaper. The prints are half an
> inch shorter but what the heck. At least you don't have to crop them
> to fit.

Do you used a paper guillotine?

> My sister just gave me some two-sided photo paper which introduces the
> intriguing possiblity of eight 5.5x4 prints per A4 sheet. This is
> good for holiday snaps if you have one of those albums with
> transparent pockets. The only problem I'm having is that the
> software package which came with the printer doesn't allow me to
> dictate which picture gets printed in which corner - vital if you
> want to ensure the correct prints end up back to back. I've got a
> photo package I wrote myself which does allow you to do that but
> currently produces poor quality prints - my resizing algorithm isn't
> up to the job so I need to do a bit more work on it (and before 10
> people write in telling me there are all sorts of ready made packages
> out there which do it fine, I develop my own software because I enjoy
> doing it, OK?).

Nowt wrong in writing your own software if you are able. Nothing beats
being in overall control :-)

> Some people are concerned about the keeping properties of home prints
> but provided you don't lose the original file you can always print
> them again. I've not had a home printer long enough to know whether
> it's an issue. Call me back in ten years.

I want to back up my pictures to disc for the future, but we won't have
compact disc in 20 years, it will be replaced by HD discs or blue ray or
probably something entirely different.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:22:36 PM

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

Beck wrote:
>
> Do you used a paper guillotine?

Those don't work very well. They are good for pre-cutting in half or
quarters but don't expect precision. An exacto knife & metal straight
edge with cork backing is better.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:02:38 PM

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

Photobossman wrote:
> Yes Wal*Mart is .17 per 4x6 print
>
> Sam's Club is .15 per 4x6 print
>
> No way you can do it for that price especially the time you have to spend.
> You can upload at a store or take a CD to the store.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> I do have a printer but only use it when I go over to my folks house in
> Montana as the closest Wal*Mart is well over 100 miles.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> "birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:8wTge.1852$3%4.1718@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>What spoiled folks these digital dilettantes be.
>>I doubt many writers on this thread have any experience with wet color
>>darkroom work to comprehend what an absolute bargain the whole digital
>>thing really is.
>>While I appreciate the financial constraints that most people have to
>>live with it seems that many writers in this newsgroup thread do not place
>>much value on the total control over the photographic process that digital
>>image manipulation and photo-quality inkjet printing have brought to us
>>massess. The overall cost is peanuts compared to what do-it-yourself
>>quality printing used to cost.
>>In over 30 years of "advanced" amateur photography I have never been able
>>to get a lab to consistently produce prints of the quality that I can
>>finally achieve with Photoshop and color managed inkjet printing.
>>I guess if snapshot quality printing is all you want about there is always
>>Walmart. You can pick up some cheap microwave popcorn at the same time.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
That's probably to the closest town, right? Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:10:06 PM

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

Beck wrote:
> Keith Sheppard wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think anyone would claim home printing to be a cheap option,
>>particularly if you are doing multiple prints. Its main value, IMHO,
>>is instant turn around and if you are only doing one or two prints
>>the cost is not significant (It might also be the only option if you
>>have, ahem, prints you'd rather not let be seen in public ;) .
>
>
> LOL reminds of a time when my mum used to work in a chemist. Someone
> brought in some pictures to be developed and the pictures were... erm... a
> bit too private to be shown to others.
>
>
>>I tend not to use 6x4 paper, preferring to print A4 and slice up
>>which, I think, works out marginally cheaper. The prints are half an
>>inch shorter but what the heck. At least you don't have to crop them
>>to fit.
>
>
> Do you used a paper guillotine?
>
>
>>My sister just gave me some two-sided photo paper which introduces the
>>intriguing possiblity of eight 5.5x4 prints per A4 sheet. This is
>>good for holiday snaps if you have one of those albums with
>>transparent pockets. The only problem I'm having is that the
>>software package which came with the printer doesn't allow me to
>>dictate which picture gets printed in which corner - vital if you
>>want to ensure the correct prints end up back to back. I've got a
>>photo package I wrote myself which does allow you to do that but
>>currently produces poor quality prints - my resizing algorithm isn't
>>up to the job so I need to do a bit more work on it (and before 10
>>people write in telling me there are all sorts of ready made packages
>>out there which do it fine, I develop my own software because I enjoy
>>doing it, OK?).
>
>
> Nowt wrong in writing your own software if you are able. Nothing beats
> being in overall control :-)
>
>
>>Some people are concerned about the keeping properties of home prints
>>but provided you don't lose the original file you can always print
>>them again. I've not had a home printer long enough to know whether
>>it's an issue. Call me back in ten years.
>
>
> I want to back up my pictures to disc for the future, but we won't have
> compact disc in 20 years, it will be replaced by HD discs or blue ray or
> probably something entirely different.
>
>
That may be, but if there are optical disk readers, it will likely be
that they can read the old formats. How long has VHS video tape been
around? How about cassette tapes, and you can still buy reel to reel
tape recorders, and turntables for 45rpm records..., even 78 rpm ones.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 13, 2005 3:37:02 PM

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

Beck wrote:
> Picked up some Epson 6x4" glossy paper today from Jessops. It was £6.49 for
> 50 sheets and was on offer at buy one get one free.
> Never done any digital printing at home before but the offer was on and
> thought I would give it a go.
> Was unsure as to how the results would be as I have only a cheap Epson C46
> printer.
>
> After lots of messing about and about 10 ruined prints due to graininess I
> finally tweaked the settings and got excellent results. To the naked eye
> they look near perfect to Jessops prints, although I have borders and not
> sure if I can get rid of them. Any ideas on that one?

Some of the newest printers print to the edge of the paper. Otherwise, you can trim off
the edges. There are some papers that are made for (in the U.S.) two 4X6 inch prints on
an 8.5X11 inch paper, with perforations to let oyu easily tear off the unprinted parts of
the sheet and get edgeless 4X6 prints.
>
> What troubles me though is the cost of home printing. £6.49 for 50 prints
> plus the cost of ink (about £4 per cartridge) does not really compare well
> to Jessops 50 prints for £5.
>
> So what is the future for home printing? Is paper likely to drop in price
> due to digital popularity?
> Am I missing out on any good deals for printing paper? The buy one get one
> free was great value, but it won't last forever.

I don't print a lot of photos; I share them with most friends and family by e-mail and by
slide shows on my Web site. The convenience of home printing is a factor. Another factor
is the time and cost to take my file to somewhere it can be printed, and then either wqait
or go back for the prints. A drugstore nearby offers prints from CDs, but I don't like
their print quality, and there is the cost of the blank CD. I could upload or e-mail
files to an online service, but then there is the cost and delay of postal delivery. Most
of all, I have control over the results.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 4:53:27 PM

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

Birdman, I agree with your comments. Having spent many hours making dye
transfer prints, digital printing is relatively inexpensive. IMHO most are
not purest and a good commercial lab can produce excellent prints.
You know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and remember that "If it
looks good...it is good".
May 13, 2005 6:44:24 PM

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

Paul Furman wrote:
> Beck wrote:
>>
>> Do you used a paper guillotine?
>
> Those don't work very well. They are good for pre-cutting in half or
> quarters but don't expect precision. An exacto knife & metal straight
> edge with cork backing is better.

Thanks. I have a stanley knife and a block of wood :-)
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:44:25 PM

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

Beck wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>Beck wrote:
>>
>>>Do you used a paper guillotine?
>>
>>Those don't work very well. They are good for pre-cutting in half or
>>quarters but don't expect precision. An exacto knife & metal straight
>>edge with cork backing is better.
>
>
> Thanks. I have a stanley knife and a block of wood :-)


The surface below makes a big difference too. Wood grain could make the
blade wander. Self-healing drafting surface is nice or certain kinds of
rubbery flooring like plastic "linoleum".

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 13, 2005 7:29:47 PM

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

In article <3ej9v4F3eerpU1@individual.net>,
Beck <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>LOL reminds of a time when my mum used to work in a chemist. Someone
>brought in some pictures to be developed and the pictures were... erm... a
>bit too private to be shown to others.

I would have assumed this to be a daily occurrance, common enough to go
without comment. Am I wrong? Or are we talking about different things?
May 13, 2005 11:35:27 PM

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

birdman wrote:

> What spoiled folks these digital dilettantes be.
> I doubt many writers on this thread have any experience with wet color
> darkroom work to comprehend what an absolute bargain the whole digital thing
> really is.
> While I appreciate the financial constraints that most people have to live
> with it seems that many writers in this newsgroup thread do not place much
> value on the total control over the photographic process that digital image
> manipulation and photo-quality inkjet printing have brought to us massess.
> The overall cost is peanuts compared to what do-it-yourself quality printing
> used to cost.
> In over 30 years of "advanced" amateur photography I have never been able to
> get a lab to consistently produce prints of the quality that I can finally
> achieve with Photoshop and color managed inkjet printing.
> I guess if snapshot quality printing is all you want about there is always
> Walmart. You can pick up some cheap microwave popcorn at the same time.
>
>
Glad you posted that.
I have almost no interest in taking my photos to the local lab to get 50
6x4's done - even if they were free. First reason is that nobody truly
wants to look through the thousands of pictures that I take - I hate
handing a pile of small prints to someone - I can feel their pain - a
pain I share when people do it to me.
Second reason is that on the occasions that I might want a pile of
copies of the same image in small size - for home made cards etc - it's
easier to do them at say 8 to an A4 page, and slice it up using my
rotary cutter.
If it's a good photo - blow it up to the size you want - spend the time
you need on it. The cost of the inkjet print is nothing.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:35:28 PM

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

Frederick wrote:
> birdman wrote:
>
>> What spoiled folks these digital dilettantes be.
>> I doubt many writers on this thread have any experience with wet color
>> darkroom work to comprehend what an absolute bargain the whole digital
>> thing really is.
>> While I appreciate the financial constraints that most people have to
>> live with it seems that many writers in this newsgroup thread do not
>> place much value on the total control over the photographic process
>> that digital image manipulation and photo-quality inkjet printing have
>> brought to us massess. The overall cost is peanuts compared to what
>> do-it-yourself quality printing used to cost.
>> In over 30 years of "advanced" amateur photography I have never been
>> able to get a lab to consistently produce prints of the quality that
>> I can finally achieve with Photoshop and color managed inkjet printing.
>> I guess if snapshot quality printing is all you want about there is
>> always Walmart. You can pick up some cheap microwave popcorn at the
>> same time.
>>
>>
> Glad you posted that.
> I have almost no interest in taking my photos to the local lab to get 50
> 6x4's done - even if they were free. First reason is that nobody truly
> wants to look through the thousands of pictures that I take - I hate
> handing a pile of small prints to someone - I can feel their pain - a
> pain I share when people do it to me.
> Second reason is that on the occasions that I might want a pile of
> copies of the same image in small size - for home made cards etc - it's
> easier to do them at say 8 to an A4 page, and slice it up using my
> rotary cutter.
> If it's a good photo - blow it up to the size you want - spend the time
> you need on it. The cost of the inkjet print is nothing.

While the cost of ONE inkjet print isn't prohibitive, it can get
expensive when the numbers multiply. One year my wife decided it would
be nice to print calendars for everyone. She designed each month, put
in the birthdays and anniversaries for everyone, and a nice picture on
each page. Then she started printing the 13 pages for each of the 17
people on her list. Three cartridge sets later, she was done, and the
idea didn't have any appeal the next year.... We figured that with
time, paper, and ink those calendars cost us about $17 each! And not
ONE person even said thanks.




--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!