The NY Times has an article (bug me not) today on how printing digital photos at home isn’t necessarily a good deal compared to using an on-line service or a local retailer. Printer manufacturers like HP and Canon say their 4×6 printers make prints at a cost of around 30 cents, while folks like Consumers Union says it works out to more like 50.
I’ve done some home printing of photos on my inkjet, and I have to agree that the time and materials aren’t generally worth it, unless I just want to print out one or two pics without leaving the house. The Times article notes that larger pics, like 8×10, can be more economical to do at home (especially if you pick up your paper on clearance).
What I print at home tends to be draft versions of pics that I’ve doctored up in Photoshop, or pics in odd sizes.
But I really don’t print out so many pictures since I share photos online at Flickr. I save printing for the very best ones, or when I want to give photos away.
That said, until recently, I’ve done my photo printing at local stores which tend to charge more like 29 cents a print (I won’t have a Sam’s Club membership, especially not just to get 13 cent prints). So price is often a deterrent.
But recently Walgreen’s started offering 19 cent prints if you upload your pics online then pick them up in a local store.
(Yes, I would prefer use a locally owned shop, but here in Champaign-Urbana there’s almost nobody left. The last true pro photo processor is closing up shop any day now, and that’s where I took my good film, especially black and white.)
I really like this Walgreen’s upload option because it’s cheap, there’s no waiting for snail mail delivery and it saves me a trip, since I don’t have to travel to drop them off.
I do this for film, now, too. Instead of getting prints I just get developing, sometimes along with a CD. Then I can photoshop just the photos that turned out OK and have them printed. The scans I get from the likes of Walgreen’s from film range from decent to poor, apparently depending on who’s working the machine. I just bought an inexpensive film scanner (I only paid $79) that does 1800×1800 scans — about 3 megapixels — and actually turns out better results than what I typically get from Walgreen’s.
Even if you just use the Walgreen’s scans, it costs around $5 to get developing with a CD ($3 for developing alone), whereas it costs closer to $8 for developing and prints, and $10 for prints with a CD. Usually only a percentage of photos turn out well enough to want a lasting print, so you can really save some money over the course of a few rolls by only printing out the ones that you really like — not to mention cutting back on wasted prints that will only end up in a closet or trashcan somewhere.