Why do-it-yourself photo printing doesn't add up

Despite the efforts of manufacturers to convince consumers that printing at home is fast, convenient and fun, the evidence shows that many are tuning out the marketing.
The New York Times

The story "Why do-it-yourself photo printing doesn't add up" published October 8, 2005 at 5:15 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[SpencerLab]

This article's spin seems a little odd...

List price for the HP Custom 95 Series 200-Sheet Photo Value
Pack is 24¢/print, not 28¢, and that's at list price.

SpencerLab's independent testing of a Photo Value Pack showed
that when printing typical consumer photos there is plenty of ink
left over.

Why not write the article saying: Photo printers are great, but
when to use them depends on a few things...
o if you have a lot of 4x6 prints to make and you can wait for
the mail to send them back to you, the on-line services are
feeling the competition and are currently offering cheaper deals;
o if you occasionally print 5x7's or 8x10's or even borderless 8
1/2 x 11" photos, then your home prints will probably be less
expensive as well as being available so much sooner; that's why
home printing has increased 68 percent from the year-ago
period (although on-line digital and especially retail and printing
have grown even faster -- totalling 7.7 billion digital prints
made -- even while on-line sharing has garnered such
popularity);
o if you buy a printer that prints both documents and photos
(like the HP 8750 -- many even copy and fax) the investment
can have a lot of value;
for short-term satisfaction the latest printers offer photos whose
quality is at least as good as and lasts as long as conventional
prints -- in less than a minute;
o if you prefer to print without a computer, there is a strong
trend to facilitate printing directly from your digital camera (by
cable or simply plugging in your memory card);

When you want champagne, perfume is not recommended; when
you want either of them, printer ink is not recommended, and
vice-versa.

[markdoiron]

About Printing w/o Computer

the number one improvement that 99% of snapshoot photographers could do to their images is to get closer to the subject. this has been preached ad nauseum, yet the typical snapshooter still stands too far back.

given that most photographs are taken too far away, then the best corrective action is to crop the image. this is best done on a computer at home (not while being bumped by hoardes of customers at the local store's kiosk). this is also the number one reason that most snapshooters need a bit more resolution from their camera (since they'll likely only use 1 or 2-meg's of the 6-meg senser once cropping is done).

anyway, i think that camera-to-printer prints are a plot by professional photographers to ensure continued lousy photos from millions of snapshooters when the ability to make decent pic's is within their grasp. ;-)

btw: i shoot thousands of images each month and print hundreds of them. i don't have a photo quality printer--i've found the printer mfg's numbers are not to be believed. i use my local walgreen's for .17 (i rx a 10% courtesy discount because my work is for boy scouts). i've found at adorama.com frequent sales for 8x10's at .99 apiece, and 12x18's for $1.99 (a size that's unheard of for a home printer).

mark d.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://members.cox.net/mddoiron" target="_newWindow">http://members.cox.net/mddoiron</a>

[rkadowns]

Kodak

Kodak's system using dye-sub provides outstanding output for 4x6 and doesn't waste. It's a bit expensive like all home printing solutions however for the photo here and there one might want to have in paper form, I have found no better consumer option than Kodak's. I find it interesting that no mention of this tech was made in this article.

I can only presume that this was because for larger prints such as 5x7 or 8x10, ink systems are more economical and 'good enough' for most people who wish to print from home and Kodak addresses only from an online source.