digital picture cost question
2006-09-01 16:05:21 · 14 answers · asked by walter s 1 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
drug store developing
2006-09-01 16:12:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The REAL Answer is it depends on how many photos or images you take and how often -- me, I like being creative with my Digital SLR -- so for me, having a Photo Printer in my home is worth it for me. If you use your digital camera rarely -- then going to the Local Photo Processing Place may end up more cost effective for you.
2006-09-01 18:48:12 · answer #2 · answered by sglmom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The most important ways that the people can combat global warming is getting rid of their older model cars (1979 Buick) because, older cars emmitt more toxic fumes into the air. Its obvious that the more technological advanced a car is, the less harmful gases it emmitts. A car that was built 3 or 4 years ago will be more economy friendly than a car that was assembled 35 years ago. For high populated cities such as New York, Bus and Taxi companys should replace current vehicles with cars that are powered by hydrogen or electricity. Just think, if every major city used the Toyota Prius as taxi's, there would be a decreased level of pollution, and also taxi fares could be drastically lower as well.
2016-03-27 03:54:35 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Taking them to the drugstore is still a bit cheaper. Longer lasting photos too. Printing at home is fun and convenient at times though. Wouldn't be without a good photo printer.
2006-09-01 16:09:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's cheaper to take your video card with you when you visit Target and print them there. Although, I wasn't extremely pleased with the coloring of what they printed. At home, you can monkey around, sharpen images, use special effects, etc., but your printer isn't likely to be a good as the store's.
2006-09-05 06:17:19 · answer #5 · answered by Scott K 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is cheaper to have them "developed" or "printed" in a store than to do it yourself. Ink, and photo paper is pretty expensive if you are going to print a lot of pictures. Your best bet is to use a digital camera, delete the pictures you do not want to print "or save them to your computer, and remove them from the memory card" then take your memory into walmart, walgreens, or any local photo place that will print them for you, and have them do it.
2006-09-01 16:15:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, I know that it's only about 15 cents to get a print at Walmart, but when I go to pick them up I end up spending $40 or $50 on everything else so for me it's cheaper to print them at home!! But honestly, I do print a lot of photos for my business, and in the long run it's cheaper to have them printed. If I only need one or two, then yes, I will print them at home. But for quantity it's usually better to have them printed at Walmart or one of the other photo places.
2006-09-01 16:12:47 · answer #7 · answered by poppet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Popular Photography did an article on this a few months ago, so check http://www.popphoto.com and see if you find it in their archives.
In addition to taking your photos to a drug store, you might consider using an on-line printing service, such as Shutterfly. These were also reviewed in Pop Photo recently and they are cheaper than you would imagine.
2006-09-01 16:50:03 · answer #8 · answered by Picture Taker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi, I recommand you to try google picasa.
picasa is a Google's photo software. It's what should've come with your camera.
It can Edit , organise and Share you picture and small video flips.
It's very easy to use and is free, just like Google
Download it free in here:
http://www.adcenter.net.cn/google-picasa/
Good Luck!
2006-09-02 04:18:23 · answer #9 · answered by good.picasa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how much you will use the photo printer if you buy one.
2006-09-01 16:15:50 · answer #10 · answered by Answer Key 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋