Printing Choices

[rpcrowe]

I had a need to produce 200 4x6 inch prints in support of our dog rescue program, 5-prints each of 40-images. In the interests of expediency, I decided to have them printed at a local discount store: Costco. Here are my comments...

Ease: It was certainly easier to copy the 40 images to a flash drive and stop by the local store for printing. Since we shop quite often at this store, it was not even an extra trip. The printing took about 40-minutes very close to the average time we spend in that store..

Cost: I have not calculated the exact cost because I decided on this manner of printing to save time rather than to save money. However the cost was .13 USD per print or a total of $26 USD for the 200-prints. But, I am sure if I were counting the paper cost as well as the ink cost for my Pixma Pro 9000 II printer that this was either less expensive or quite close to what self printing would have cost.

Quality: Here is the glitch! The quality was not quite as good as I can produce with my Pixma Pro 9000 II printer. The prints did not have the razor sharp quality that my home produced prints have. However, the quality was adequate for the job in hand and it was certainly an easier way to obtain the 200-prints. Other stores might produce better quality prints. This is the first time I used this source for my printing needs.

This brings up a thought. Considering that I did not get the optimum quality I am used to getting with images captured by high-quality lenses; if a photographer is just going to have prints made in that size at the local market or discount store, top-line lenses might be an overkill. This would also be true if the primary Internet uses are to post on Facebook or to send emails to the grandparents.

[DanK]

Richard,

I rarely send photos to a lab, and when I do, I always use Bay Photo, so I have no experience with Costco. However, I have often read that the quality varies from one of their stores to another and that it is very good at some. Perhaps your local one is not one of the better. If you google, there are even posts describing the variety of equipment they use. 0.13 is cheap, compared to labs like Bay Photo.

One issue that has always troubled me about having a lab print my photos is the lack of control over output sharpening. Did you compensate for that? I wonder if you would have had better luck if you oversharpened a bit.

Re the Pixma Pro 9000: I have one as well, and I have been consistently impressed by the quality of the prints, particularly given the low cost of the printer. I think part of it may be the use of dye-based inks, which, while less durable, are more vibrant than most pigment ink. In any event, since I get bored with prints long before they fade, I don't worry about archival ink. I just go the more-or-less replacement model (Pro-100) free with a new camera, but I haven't tried it yet because it uses different ink cartridges, and I have a lot of the old ones to go through yet.

Dan

[rpcrowe]

Dan,

Thanks for replying. I didn't mean to say that the Costco prints were bad, just that they were not up to the results I get from my Pixma Pro 9000 II.

The reasons that I used the Costco Photo Department were convenience, speed and, of course, price. The Costco is a store very close to my home and we shop there quite often, so delivering the flash drive is no extra trip. I can get the prints done in virtually any quantity in record time. This frees us from planning ahead for the print requirements.

As an example, our rescue dogs come and go at a pretty good clip. If I had to plan ahead to order prints for a certain dog, that dog may be adopted by the time I get the prints from a non-brick and mortar supplier.

These prints are designed to be disposable and to be given to people who express an interest in any of our dogs. They have a picture of the dog along with some vital information on the dog and our organization. I have printed these on plain paper before but, we get a better return from those printed on photo paper

The quality of the printing was quite adequate but, I will experiment with various output sharpening (I use NIK). I will also try a local Walmart for their prices and quality. However, just because of the positioning within the store, the Costco Photo Department in the front is more convenient than the Walmart Photo Department which is located at the back of that store,

Price and speed in this case is more important than quality (as long as the quality is reasonable). A extra nickel or dime per print would amount to an extra $10 or $20 in total printing costs. We and all the rest of our volunteers cover all the operating costs for our organization. We are not reimbursed for anything except for vet care of the dogs in our care. We are proud to say that 100% of all the donations to Maltese Rescue California go to that vet care.

[Shadowman]

One other cost aspect you didn't mention was the cost of your time to print, review, etc. Time spent should always be considered when making cost comparison.

[Macmahon]

Richard
I appreciate that for the purpose you had, the solution was good.
One of the aspects that I think many people, who advocate outsourcing printing generally, overlook, is the price of disappointment. My disappointment with prints I've had done commercially in this part of the world has been incalculable. On the other hand the prints I've done myself have paid for themselves a zillion times over in terms of satisfaction.
Cost ain't measured only in $$
Just my 2¢!!!
Tim

[Black Pearl]

This was all that the vast majority of people, including most amateur photographers, did in the days of film. Very few people got wound up about all the 'faults' that seem to become a frenzy these days. Digital, the internet and the ability to pixel peep has produced a swarm of nutters who are obsessed with finite performance and not the joy of taking photographs.

On the flip side it is pushing manufacturers to make better and better products but Richards question still stands"

"if a photographer is just going to have prints made in that size at the local market or discount store, top-line lenses might be an overkill"

[DanK]

This was all that the vast majority of people, including most amateur photographers, did in the days of film. Very few people got wound up about all the 'faults' that seem to become a frenzy these days.

Not entirely correct, at least in my experience, and I think not very relevant.

Very few of the amateurs I knew back in the film days sent black and whites out for printing. I didn't. On the other hand, I don't remember anyone who printed their own color. It's not that they didn't want to; it was simply too expensive and difficult to set up a darkroom for color printing. It was a big disappointment to many of us, because we couldn't maintain control, e.g., even the simple dodging and burning we did by waving pieces of cardboard under the enlarger.

Re relevance: one of the nice things about digital is how easy printing has become, which makes comparisons to the film days uninformative. When I printed in a darkroom, I considered it a very good day if I managed to get two black and white images printed well in the space of a whole evening. By contrast, last night I decided I was bored with two of the prints on our walls and that I would print two recent images that I had already processed. Because I am now quite familiar with my printer, the software I use to print (LR), and the papers I use, I had two 8 x 10 color prints (roughly A4) done in about 10 minutes. They are sitting on my table now, ready to frame tonight. So the balance has shifted; printing is a lot easier and faster now than it used to be.

Digital, the internet and the ability to pixel peep has produced a swarm of nutters who are obsessed with finite performance and not the joy of taking photographs.

Absolutely true, but this has nothing to do with this discussion, unless you are saying that the people posting in this thread are nutters who have lost the joy of photographing.

If I were printing for the purposes Richard posted about, I would do as he did. It just wouldn't be worth the time (for me). On the other hand, I very much enjoy printing for my own walls or to give to others. One other amateur I know put it very well: if printing strikes you as a nuisance or a source of frustration, send out to a good lab, because it won't cost you more. If you enjoy printing, print. Whatever works for you.

[royphot]

On the other hand, I don't remember anyone who printed their own color. It's not that they didn't want to; it was simply too expensive and difficult to set up a darkroom for color printing. It was a big disappointment to many of us, because we couldn't maintain control, e.g., even the simple dodging and burning we did by waving pieces of cardboard under the enlarger.

That's not quite what I remember. Most of the serious printers I knew then, did their own colour printing. Admittedly most of them used Cibachrome which was not as critical about temperature , or colour filtration as colour negative printing. One or two of the very wealthy bods or the Pro Photographers had their own Mini Lab Printers, but most like myself had DIY darkrooms built into the attic. I suspect my experience with printing from Col Neg is why I tend to be a bit more critical, than most, about the colour coming out of inkjets. While it is still a bit difficult to get it accurate with Inkjets, it is very much easier and quicker than in the wet darkroom.

Roy