which is cheaper: buy a printer to print photos, or go to the print shop?

Question

and any recommended printer that prints good quality image? thanks.

Answer 1

It really all depends on what you want - convenience or quality.

I have a Canon i9100 that I bought a couple of years ago. It cost about $500 and prints beautiful, glossy or matte 13" x 19" prints. But the cost of the printer is paltry compared to replacement cartridges and paper.

If you are looking to simply print 5x7s or other snapshot sizes, you might be better off going to your local printer. You can even get good 8x10s with the proper resolution.

But if you plan on editing your photos with Photoshop or something else and simply want the best quality prints, there's nothing like a high quality ink jet printer.

It just all depends on what you want for your final product.

Answer 2

In the long run, the home printer is best. If you want to control the size, color, and other parts of the photos, or just have fun with PhotoShop, you have to do that at home.

I have an HP printer I like very much, and the quality is excellent. I have the professional printer, which uses more ink than the cheaper models. The ink for this printer is also more expensive, and you use more of it. Because of that, I recommend keeping your older, cheaper model for other chores that don't matter as much.

Answer 3

Wow, I see that there is a lot of contension when it comes to which is better, the photolab or your livingroom. Personally, I think it is more efficient to print them at home. Maybe not the cheapest, but I am an amateur photographer, I have a couple of photoshop programs on my computer, along with having a canon pixma photolab quality photo printer that also fills in for my all in one printer. I have my monitor calibrated to the printer and the colors matched, so with all that I have invested it wouldn't make any sense to have my photos developed at a photolab when I have my own at home. So, while it may not be cheaper for me, it is my preference to print my own photos. If you don't have photoshop, a stout computer and monitor that is calibrated for color to a photolab quality printer along with photolab quality paper [all of which is a substantial investment], you're better off going to wolfcamera to get your prints done. No big deal.

By the way, this whole debate is a matter of personal preference, always has been. It was the same for film development, when people ran out and made their own darkrooms and bought second hand darkroom equipment. It's always cheaper for a photolab to develop film, they can get developer and other chemicals and equipment at cost while the consumer pays more. But, the difference you pay is in the freedom of doing it yourself. For me, making my own prints is a skill that I have honed and for the most part, learned on my own. I'm proud of that, and I think it's worth an extra .50 cents.

It's up to you.

Peace

Answer 4

It is cheaper to print them in a shop !! Plus the person printing can correct your photo to look the best it can be eg.lightness/darkness, colour correction and contrast. The photos printed in a lab are much better quality as well and guaranteed to last around 100 years !! The prints from an inkjet tend to fade after a while.

Answer 5

If you have a sincere interest in photography and are willing to invest the time and effort in learning digital imaging I would suggest that you buy your own printer. However, if this doesn't fit your profile I would suggest you stick with the print shop as it will not only save you money, but it will save you frusteration as well. Let me dispell a lot of the marketing campains waged by various printer manufacturers, at home printing is not as easy as simply pushing the print button. Certainly they want you to believe it, and there are models which are easy to use, but you still have to maintain these devices from downloading or updating drivers to downloading and installing ICC color profiles for special print media. That is the least of the problems though, for instance it is not uncommon for a printer to get one of its nozzles plugged up causing white streaks throughout your image. Anyhow I don't mean to scare you but if you arent a tech savvy person stick wtih the print shop, it will not only save you money, but it will save your sanity.

Answer 6

It is definitely fun and convenient to have your own printer (a good one is very affordable these days, but ink is costly) so you can print one at anytime you want/need.

However, if you are in the habit of printing everything you take (and that can be a lot of pictures using a large capacity memory card), it is more convenient to just let the shop do it.

A good shop (not every one does it) will also sharpen and fix colors up so your pictures look great (i.e. white is white).

Answer 7

in the long run it's definitely better to have your own printer; you can control the way you want the photos without the (occasional) restrictions from the commercial printers...or the hassle to wait for an hour or whatever...
photo printer brands such as Canon or Epson are pretty good. :D
have fun printing!

Answer 8

It is cheaper to outsource to a printing company they deal in high volumes so they can do it cheaper than you can. If you add in the price of a good color printer then the paper and ink it is to expensive.

You can get prints made from 3x5 inch to poster size and beyond.

I do my uploads on my computer they get delivered to me by mail or delivery service and I get the bill and pay them at my bank.

http://www.snapfish.com
http://www.megaprint.com/
http://www.digitalroom.com/Poster-Printing.html
http://www.largeformatposters.com/

Hope this helps,
Kevin

Answer 9

It is about 4 times cheaper to take them to be printed.

Answer 10

its cheaper and more convenient to buy a printer than go to print shop.. having a printer is just a click away.. while going to a print shop is setting your time, gas, energy, the way you dress etc....