printing photos

[chrbb]

Does anyone print their own or school photos themselves? I mean on photo paper a decent enough quality for a photo album rather than a4 photos for displays that are to last half a term.

 

I've printed a few test photos off on our school HP970 which were decent quality but I can't find any info on cost per print to compare with the cost of taking a memory stick up to our local ASDA and getting prints from there.

[enjay]

I generally print my own (on a Canon Pixma IP3000 or IP4600) - cost per print is vastly more than going to Asda/Boots/etc, I can't even buy the paper for what they charge per print! As I only do a few, I don't really mind the cost difference (the convenience of DIY is worth it for a single shot), but if I was doing a whole album I'd get them done some place.

[elsiegee40]

If I have a lot to print, I use PhotoBox

 

We use them at school too. For a few one-offs we use an Epson inkjet at school (can't remember the model offhand - but it wasn't my choice and I don't like it!) - it'll do up to A3 size. At home I use my Canon i965

[dhicks]

I've printed a few test photos off on our school HP970 which were decent quality but I can't find any info on cost per print to compare with the cost of taking a memory stick up to our local ASDA and getting prints from there.

 

I bought an HP 8600 and a continuous ink system from our very own Contink and charge the school 50p for photo-quality A4 prints and £1 for A3, which is around about the cost of ink and paper plus a bit to pay for some card-backed A4/A3 envelopes for children to take them home in. That compares well with what you can get online, although for smaller prints you really are better off going to Boots or Asda.

 

--

David Hicks

[contink]

In all honesty there's absolutely no point in printing off photos in school unless it's for a one off or you're only expecting them to last for a few months.

 

A lot of work has gone into various photo printer based discussion and research on user forums and the like and the net result was pretty much that unless you wanted the to have the photos instantly it was seriously over expensive. About the only benefit is speed and convenience.

 

If you take the Canon iP4500 for example it'll print a photo on Canon photo paper for around £1.50 per A6 picture. That's using OEM cartridges and paper.

 

You could knock that down to around £0.30 per print using refilled cartridges (refilling yourself with quality bulk ink) and a third party paper but you'd have to take into account issues like colour profiles, the quality and longevity of the ink on the paper and lord knows what else.

 

When you take all that lot into account you might as well have walked 10 miles to Boots every day and handed the memory stick over to get them printer there.

 

Bottom line... Anything more than immediate gratification should be taken to the store and printed commercially.

[contink]

I bought an HP 8600 and a continuous ink system from our very own Contink and charge the school 50p for photo-quality A4 prints and £1 for A3, which is around about the cost of ink and paper plus a bit to pay for some card-backed A4/A3 envelopes for children to take them home in. That compares well with what you can get online, although for smaller prints you really are better off going to Boots or Asda.

*starts writing the commission cheque*

 

Forgot about the A3 and A4 stuff... If you're wanting BIG images then it does start to get a bit more cost effective to print your own but only if you're using 3rd party inks and looking at something to last a few months or be protected behind glass, etc..

[maniac]

I use FOTO.com United Kingdom : Photo printing, Digital photo developing for my personal printing, and we're just about to use them for a load of prints at the school. Excellent quality and quick turn around as well as being good value!

 

Mike.

[SteveBentley]

I did the maths on comparing printing on my aging Lexmark at home compared to commercial offerings. I make it about 20p for each 6x4" printed on reasonable paper on the Lexmark.

 

Workings here

[contink]

I did the maths on comparing printing on my aging Lexmark at home compared to commercial offerings. I make it about 20p for each 6x4" printed on reasonable paper on the Lexmark.

 

Workings here

 

Hate to be a pedant here but here goes:

 

1. Cartridge output is always given at normal or draft coverage so when you do some photos your DPI will go up and your cartridge ink capacity will drop. I couldn't give you figures but you're looking at probably half your original estimate if not less.

 

2. Asda photopaper may work ok but over time you may find it fades quickly and the ink in particular (I'm guessing we're talking dyebase here) will fade in direct sunlight. So, again it may be a false benefit.

 

3. Paper sizes don't include the original sizes so the maths falls down a bit here. I'm guessing you mean 6" x 4" sheets but you don't say.

 

4. The calculations make no mention or take into account, head cleaning, electricity (ok so that is pedantic! ), etc... all of which can waste ink or cost elsewhere.

 

 

The danger is in providing a best case maths only argument when a printer like a Canon Pixma with Canon paper and Canon OEM cartridges will come out a lot more expensive but provide MUCH better quality result, longevity, etc.. (and I'm basing that on some studies done by folks who wanted to prove OEM wasn't that great but found to their horror, that it was ).

 

Anyhoo... The conclusion is still good... just very dangerous to go with the marketing figures.

[SteveBentley]

Agreed on point 1, point 2 is beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make, but is entirely valid.

 

On point 3, it was indeed 6x4" sheets, and I did say as much

 

So we’re interested in 6″x4″ sheets. In metric terms, that’s 152×101mm, an area of 15352mm2.

 

Point 4, yes agreed, but given that I'd already demonstrated that the ink and paper cost considerably more than getting it printed commercially those extra details are somewhat moot.

[contink]

Agreed on point 1, point 2 is beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make, but is entirely valid.

 

On point 3, it was indeed 6x4" sheets, and I did say as much

 

 

 

Point 4, yes agreed, but given that I'd already demonstrated that the ink and paper cost considerably more than getting it printed commercially those extra details are somewhat moot.

 

I suspect I was feeling my oats when I wrote the last post...

 

Humble apologies.. you got my lecture mode... must learn to hold tongue