I've had it, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

Premium Member Joined: 17 May 2005 Posts: 950

I think there is something amiss in this digital printing affair. I'm sure many folks will have their own take on this and I would love to hear more. Anything besides my own "one sided opinion". So, let'er rip yall.

Here's what happened to me this last week and it ticked me off , to no end . . .

I personally do not own a color ink jet, and at this rate I doubt if I ever will . . . but, my daughter ask me if I could take some of her digital photos to Wallymart to have them printed. I agreed, and we went. At the counter I ask to drop off the CD to have some 4x6 prints run off. They said, "Nope" . . . you have to put your CD in that machine over there, and do it yourself . . . or if you like, you can put them in this mailer and send them to us. Note: This is a HUGE Wallymart. I said, "You mean I need to stand in this line?". Meanwhile, not less than 5 customer service people were standing behind the counter doing absoloutely nothing. I told my daughter there is no way in heaven I was going to accept this "Mediocrity", and so we moved on and did some shopping. 15 minutes later we passed by the machine and the same customer was there fooling around with his pictures on the system monitor. I told my daughter, "See there, this is a big crock of @#$%^&*&^@".

We then proceeded to Wallygreens and had them printed immediately for 23 cents each. All of this drove me to price out the "lowest cost" color printer, ink cartridges and photo paper, and do the math (just for grins). Once I divided the costs, it would cost me 3 times the amount paid at Wallygreens to do the same prints at home.

I think the current system is driving us to print our own photos at home. So, why would anyone print their own if it's going to cost triple? Sounds to me like both sides of this marketing strategy are going to lose. Either "customer inconvenience" or "heavy costs", you can choose. I'll choose neither, Thank you.

Seems to me if color ink prices were brought down to, lets say $5.00 a cartridge (surely it costs less that a dollar to make one) nearly the whole world would slip into digital overnight and everyone would print at home.

"Ramblings of a deranged amateur photographer".

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:23 pm

When I lived on Long Island they used to have fist fights at the Kodak printer and had to call the police on a couple of occasions. They set time limits at the machine.

When I was 11 or 12 years old my mom sent me to Bambi Bakery to pick up some baked items. I rode my bike there and you had to "take a number". A woman found a tag for a "used number" that allowed her to cut ahead on line. A man who saw her do it flipped out and started choking her. Other patrons pulled him off and he was arrested.

Impatience is not a new phenomenon.

If you are not a "I need it now" person, you drop it in an envelope and pick it up the next day. No problem.

This is a good way to teach your daughter (and perhaps yourself) the value of patience.

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:27 pm

Yep i would agree, here in the UK if my wife wants some happy snaps prints I go and use the kodak booth at our Boots the Chemist.. I only print out large (up to 40*30cm) at home on my HP9300.. All of the adverts for home printing units do not mention the cost of the consumables etc etc etc..

ALanC

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:55 pm

I've posed the question on here about 'is it cheaper to print your own?' and the response I got was 'No... it is not, but it gives the photographer total control over the outcome of their pic.' From what I understand... to get really good quality on your own, you need a good 'photo printer' and high quality paper, of which neither are cheap. So, I think it comes down to several questions... 1) Do you want high quality prints? If so, then you either find a professional lab you can upload to via your computer OR invest in a photo printer and good paper and print your own 2) Do you want them IMMEDIATELY? If so, then invest in the photo printer/paper or inkjet printer if you're not that concerned about quality OR stand in the long line and wait patiently. You've got to decide what's important to you.
My local camera shop where I use to get my printing done was 39 cents each for 4x6 size. I was referred to www.mpix.com by several on here and I'm very impressed. They do very good work on professional paper and they are very efficient. I could upload some pics to their website and place an order on a Sunday afternoon or even on Monday morning and they usually arrive on Wednesday. That's pretty good in my opinion. They may not be hardly as cheap as Walmart or Walgreens, but they are MUCH cheaper than my local camera shop... and do excellent work. Well worth the 3 days wait in my opinion.

Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 184 Location: Florida

I submit my pics online for the one hour printing from wal mart. Sometimes it takes them 2 hours, but I find it is still much easier this way.

Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 287 Location: Birmingham, UK

I rarely print pic's for myself so that makes digital very cost effective.

But I get my ink for about £4.00 for a complete set which will see me through 100-200 A4 prints. My paper will be about 40p per sheet so it's not so bad.

If I want a batch though, I'll go elsewhere. ;)

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:35 pm

A few things to consider...

When I did the math of all the consumables it is approximately the same price to print digitals at home (per photo) as it is to buy film and have it developed... but then you have the startup costs of a printer and digital camera. I have a relatively inexpensive Canon iP6000D photo printer that works quite well... I believe these now sell for about $150 retail. The more prints you make, the cheaper they become (assuming you depreciate your printer over the course of a certain expected life... I choose the warranty period). What is also an advantage here is the cost per WANTED print. With film, you get back an entire roll and you pay for it no matter how many of them you like, with digital, you only print the ones you like (unless you're strange). Then there's the convenience of never having to wait in line and deal with the POS machine at Wally-whatever.

Some people I know are still shooting film... they became so disgusted with the shoddy prints from wally-whatever (both of the afore mentioned), that they decided that from now on they would only have their prints developed at the camera store... even though it costs 3x as much. But now they get prints they are satisfied with.

Personally, one of the reasons I went digital was because I don't want a sh*t load of 4x6's that I have to store, and will never look at. I store my photos on the computer and on CDs, and have them flip through as desktop images... This way I actually LOOK at the photos I've taken.

The only time I really find myself printing photos is when I'm making a gift for someone, or framing something for myself or to sell.

Here's the kicker in all this... You've got to have a printer anyway, right? Well, to get a really cheap printer is still about $50-100... so the "photo" part of the printer really only costs $50 more.

P.S.- I also have an Epson Photo 1280 that I inherited and never use because it's slow and unpredictable... as I understand it, though, it is a MUCH better printer than my Canon.... go figure

EDIT: I also REALLY doubt if the wally-whatevers got together with the printer manufacturers to say... how can we screw people? Having worked in marketing of a technology company... everyone is out there saying, "how can we make our stuff easier to use so that people will buy it?"... not "how can we piss people off so that they're forced into our product?"... If you as a consumer were forced into a product, the first time one of my competitors came up with something easier/better, I would loose you as a customer forever. <- not a good strategy if I want to stay in business.

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:31 pm

Printing at home using an inkjet is by for the most expensive way to produce prints but as has been said it is the only way to have total control of the output.

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:45 pm

I had figured the cost of consumables to be about $0.29 / 8x10.... but the more efficient way is 2 4x6s on a sheet of 8.5x11... therefore print at home price is half... about $0.15.

and someone has to own printing equipment... make it pay for it's startup cost by selling some, or making gifts with it (just as good as selling because you don't have to buy someone a gift).

Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 1814

I probably only print 1 or 2 pictures out of every 100 taken so I am not that worried about the cost. I would like to buy a better photo printer, I use a HP 940C now, mostly I am happy with the printer but the speed is terrible by todays standards. I like the looks of the Epson R1800 for several reasons including larger prints and a firewire connection that should make for speedier print jobs. This morning I printed two pictures (8x10) at best quality and it took longer than it took me to shave, shower, brush my...... Unfortunately I just bought ink so I will have to wait until I use those supplies.

Gerhard

P.S. My sister in-law wanted some pictures from a family gathering and I found it easier to upload them to Kodak and have them send them to her. They charged 19 cents per print plus $2.00 shipping. If you use a Mac and iPhoto to organize your pictures there is a button in the program that allows you to upload selected pictures for printing. I have a credit card linked to my Apple account so it is as easy as clicking the button and entering your password and pictures are ordered.

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:07 pm

ChrisL wrote:

Printing at home using an inkjet is by for the most expensive way to produce prints but as has been said it is the only way to have total control of the output.

If you are shooting portraits or weddings, there are professional labs that will consistently do a first rate job of getting good skin tones.

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:24 pm

packard wrote:

ChrisL wrote:

Printing at home using an inkjet is by for the most expensive way to produce prints but as has been said it is the only way to have total control of the output.

If you are shooting portraits or weddings, there are professional labs that will consistently do a first rate job of getting good skin tones.

Yes there are and I use one constantly for weddings and portraits but for my landsape and B&W work I perfer to do it myself.

Joined: 16 Aug 2004 Posts: 158 Location: west Texas

Sounds to me like a lazy crew.

I don't have that problem with our Wal-Mart but the Wal-Mart Supecenter is sometimes like that. One gal at the supercenter told me they could only print .jpegs off a Kodak disk. They use Fuji equipment.

Printing an 8x10 at home runs me roughly $1.50 (ink and paper). I use an Epson R300 ($179.). I have total control over the color and cropping, etc. 4x6's, 2 to a sheet, can get expensive.

I buy the Kodak Ultima Paper when Office Max or Office Depot have it on sale 2 for one. That brings the price down to about 35 cents a sheet plus about 35 cents to 50 cents for ink.

Considering the cost of gas printing at home might be cost effective, not to mention no hassels.

P.S. I did speak with the manager with regard to the gal about the Kodak .jpeg. Guess she found herself a new job with less stress.

Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 545 Location: KS - USA

Gerhard wrote:

I probably only print 1 or 2 pictures out of every 100 taken so I am not that worried about the cost.
..... My sister in-law wanted some pictures from a family gathering and I found it easier to upload them to Kodak and have them send them to her. They charged 19 cents per print plus $2.00 shipping.

I too print only a handful out of every 100 or so, for the rest, I make DVD slideshows to view on TV for the family. Easy to copy for another family member. Also easy to mail. If all you're going to make are 4x6" prints, then you might want to consider a photo DVD slide show (add your own music or commentary! Relive the days of those unending family slide shows at Uncle Rufus'!). There aren't many in the USA who don't have a DVD these days - and if a family member doesn't - buy them one. You can pick these things up for $29 on sale, $39 normal price.

If I need to print an entire "roll", I'll take them to Sam's, WallyWorld or Walgreen's (unless I have a coupon from Kodak). I find the Kodak/Ofoto quality much better than the Sams/WallyWorld/Walgreens quality.

This still probably doesn't measure up to the better processors, but better than the local variety.

So, I actually print very few pics. The only ones I will print are ones I think I might send off to get processed, and I want to have my wife look them over before printing (usually 8x10, 11x14 or 16x20). Many times, if I question "what's it going to look like at 16x20", I'll just print portions of a image on the same 8.5"x11" paper at the size they would be when enlarged to 16x20 (or whatever), to see what the quality will look like.

Printing your own pics on an inkjet makes no sense (economically) unless you have a Continuous Ink System (CIS). These kits will replace your current print head, and have tubes running over to 4oz or larger ink bottles. Currently, these really only exist for Epson printers, a couple of Canons, and no HP printers. With CIS, it may make more sense to print your own, from an economic point of view.

Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Calgary

One of my co-workers told me the other day that we can't take cds because of the liability issue. Apparently if we lose it we can get sued. Although I don't know what its like down in the states.

Those kodak machines do get crazy-busy. Expecially in the middle of the day. I've seen people stay on them for as long as 3 hours. I find more and more people are doing them online now. We do an online turn around of 24hours. Not bad, although if you want the lab to touch up your photos, online isn't the way to go. I don't know about other stores but in our store they just print out right from the system we have no control over what they look like.

I used to always print out my own pictures. The ink is what got to me. Expecially since it tends to clog up then I waste half my ink just trying to clean it. Ugh. I turned to companys like Ink Island to refill my ink, which cuts costs in half. Now that I'm working in a photolab I really have no need to print my prints at home.

Anyways, I'm rambling now. Thats it.