paper and replacement ink wouldn't it be cheaper to just do it at Walmart or something?
2007-12-28 03:07:35 · 10 answers · asked by Corona 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
It is NOT USUALLY cheaper to do it yourself at home. It can be cheaper if you print a very high volume of pictures of fairly consistent type.
What printing at home can give you is -
1) Very rapid access to finished prints.
2) Personal control over print quality/characteristics
3) Selective printing, only print exactly what you want.
4) The ability to customize prints and try special effects much more easily.
5) Save time waiting for prints or traveling to store to get them.
BTW. I have found that Epson photo printers are generally top quality and give good ink cartridge life.
To compare the costs of various options calculate the "Cost Per Print" by adding the total cost of paper and ink for a
given number of prints (say 500) and dividing that by the number of prints it would give you. Allow about 15% for waste and "re-dos". You also need to factor in the cost of the printer itself over the life of the process.
Hope this helps..
2007-12-28 03:36:39 · answer #1 · answered by Rob Nock 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'd agree with the others who say it's generally cheaper from a store - but it depends on the numbers of images your produce and the sizes.
Industrial printers are obviously more expensive but they offer great speed and most people don't factor in their own time (at all) when they cost out their own printing... then there's wastage and poor QC issues (both serious problems for photographers who sell their images)... time is money and quality is vital (which means you also need to calibrate and profile your monitor, printer and ideally scanners and cameras as well).
So in my experience I'd suggest you only invest in a large format printer if you can justify it. As for smaller formats, inkjets are cheap to buy and providing the ink you use is archival your images should last. On the plus side they are useful for quick prints (when you can't afford to wait for your lab) but lots of online labs now do next day delivery. If you produce LOTS of images then it may well be worth your while to get a fast high quality printer... otherwise I'd stick to the lab!
2007-12-28 06:01:26 · answer #2 · answered by The Violator! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you consider all the poor quality prints, the time it takes to have them printed traveling to the local Walmart and dealing with their people, and everything else involved I feel like it is.
If you do get a photo printer don't settle for anything but a dye sub printer. The quality is superior and a drop or two of water doesn't destroy the prints.
Kodak makes a good little 4 x 6 dye sub and is sold at Walmart. Or click on the link below for a larger format dye sub.
2007-12-28 04:17:33 · answer #3 · answered by boiledcrabs 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's changing as of 2008. Kodak has right now a cheap printer for about $120 (EasyShare 300) and the Kodak ink cartridges / paper kit will be about $20 each for 40 photos -- about 50 cents. Compare that to HP with the 3-color ink cartridge going for about $70. The HP ink is NOT waterproof.
Having a photo printer means you can hand out a photo any time. I happen to notice that Walgreens has .10 cent photos in quantities of 30 or more.
For me, I'd wait to see what Kodak's computer printer will be and have the convenience of a printer and a photo output.
2007-12-28 03:27:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
never... the only way you can get to the point of it being cheaper to print your own is when you are printing thousands of prints per week and can justify investing in the type of printer that labs use... then you can start getting prices down... but I doubt you or anyone you know prints enough photos to make that a reality.
2007-12-28 04:03:09 · answer #5 · answered by IG64 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I tried printing my own portraits for handcoloring and spent a fortune in ink and special paper...it's definitely cheaper to have them done elsewhere.
2007-12-28 04:47:58 · answer #6 · answered by micropreemiemommy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's cheaper to have it done at the store. Ink is very expensive and a single sheet of A4 will eat up 10% of the cartridge's content.
2007-12-28 03:28:38 · answer #7 · answered by reg 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Printing yourself is convenient but if you print a lot of photos, it will generally be less expensive to get them done at walmart, walgreens, etc.
2007-12-28 03:30:40 · answer #8 · answered by Mark B 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes, its cheaper to have them done in a store, but you dont grow a garden to save money either. there is such a thing as pride in doing it yourself, whatever it is.
2007-12-28 03:38:08 · answer #9 · answered by Bill Z 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It ma be more expensive, but it's much more fun and you have far more control over the finished picture.
2007-12-28 03:31:32 · answer #10 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋