The OTHER Reason for a Photo Printer at Home

[Jason Dunn]

We've had discussions here before on the subject of photo printers, and there seem to be two camps of people: those who print photos at home, and those who use services like Ofoto, or their local Costco to print their images. I'm in the former category - I have a Canon i950 printer and do all of my prints at home, up to 8x11 in size (anything bigger than that goes out to Ofoto). Last night I was putting together a "For Sale" flyer (we're selling my wife's car) and when it came time to print, I used some nice Epson glossy paper and printed it out at the maximum quality that my i950 could muster. It looked amazing, and I was able to have the final output in 60 seconds. It would take me that long to find my car keys and get in my car, never mind the drive to go to a photo printing place.

I was once again reminded of how vital it was that I have a printer capable of high-quality photo output, because you never know when you'll need to print something that looks nice. :-)

[Kevin Jackson]

I'm just starting to look into systems for printing photos. I've finally convinced my wife that our investment in a digital camera will be offset by what we save on purchasing film and the savings from not printing pictures that aren't exactly what we want, plus trying to store tons of photos, etc.

However, I haven't started working on the cost savings of printing our own versus printing via Ofoto or local printing. In short, has anyone calculated the cost breakdown for printing photos at home when figuring things like ink cost, printer cost, paper cost, plus the few "misprints"? How does it compare to "outsourcing" the printing?

[sdhawk]

I recently purchased a Canon i960 and quickly wondered if it was a wise move considering I can go to Sam's Club and get $.20 prints. I've found the perfect use for it is printing contact sheets of my digital photo library. Using iPhoto, I can easily print sheets with nearly 80 pics a piece, label them by month and then stuff them into sleeves in a binder. It's extremely easy to find pictures in iPhoto as it is, but now I don't have drop in a CD/DVD and search it. I can open the binder, find the pic I'm looking for and drop in the correct disc.

I have found that printing individual photos at home is more expensive than local processing. If I need bulk I'll go to Sam's, if I just need a single photo of something I'll print it myself. A good piece of 4x6 photo paper (not including ink, printer, etc...) can cost more than the total per pic developing price. However, if stopping at a local processor is inconvenient or not an option, today's crop of photo printers do an outstanding job.

[rlobrecht]

If you want to do straight cost, printing your own 4x6s is more expensive than $0.29 at Walgreens. We just bought a pack of 100 Kodak 4x6 glossy, and it was about $28 (or $0.28 a sheet.) I don't have a good idea of the ink costs, yet, but its high. And don't forget $200 or so for the printer.

Your big savings is time or convenience.

[James Fee]

If you want to do straight cost, printing your own 4x6s is more expensive than $0.29 at Walgreens. We just bought a pack of 100 Kodak 4x6 glossy, and it was about $28 (or $0.28 a sheet.) I don't have a good idea of the ink costs, yet, but its high. And don't forget $200 or so for the printer.

Your big savings is time or convenience.
That is true, but my "lazy ass" rate (the rate it would cost for me to get out of my chair in front of my computer) is over $80/hour. More than saves me from dealing with Walgreens/Costco (though I do like Costco pizza).

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I was contemplating an A3 printer, but at 8x10s and 12x18s, I'd have to print about 300 of the former and 100 of the latter before I break even. I'll stick to my professional lab for now.

[Gary Sheynkman]

Im in the second camp :wink:

My work flow is this:

Shoot pics---come home and pick out/edit the ones I like--- burn the ones I picked on to a cd--- go to (pick you local photo place) ---pick up next day

[James Fee]

I was contemplating an A3 printer, but at 8x10s and 12x18s, I'd have to print about 300 of the former and 100 of the latter before I break even. I'll stick to my professional lab for now.
Yea a Epson Stylus Photo 2200 would be nice. It is a LOT of money to spend on a printer though, and one you wouldn't use all the time.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I wasn't even looking at the 2200 when I was calculating the breakeven.. was looking at the older Epson 1290.

[dartman]

I like the convenience of printing at home on my Canon I960 for low volume 4x6 and 8x10's.

It's just one of the post processing steps.

For larger quanitities I go to Costco. I'm there buying gas a couple times a week anyhow and it's nearby.

Never tried an on-line service.

dart

[Andy Sjostrom]

The Epson 2200 (or called 2100 in Sweden) is what we use and it is a great printer! Must use custom profile, though, to optimize quality.

Ilford Smooth Pearl or Epson Premium Luster.

Andy Sjostrom
www.ateljemariesjostrom.se (and many more url's)

[Jon Westfall]

Gee, I thought the OTHER reason was so the photo guy at your local store wouldn't make a copy of your photos for himself and begin obsessing over your family and unfaithful spouse in his apartment at night....

Sounds like it would make a good movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265459/) doesn't it?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Haha, yes it would. :wink: and a really good one at that too!