Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 25521	2002-10-05 18:56:00	cost of printing colour photographs	Vibeke (2126)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
86431	2002-10-06 23:50:00	as i said b4, I would not bother self printing. if u are gonna print most - fine. i do not have a digicam since i desire top quality. and any digicam is not comparable to 35mm. anyway, i went to a fuji photokina which is more $$ and better quality than kmart, bookshops, diaries and the like. They charge 35mm 24 = $20, 24 digi $36. When they say $1.50 per normal picture, they told me if i bring many in like 20s ... they can discount it to $1 dollar per photo thus 24 = $24. Only $4 more than 35mm.....	rayonline (2134)
86432	2002-10-06 23:55:00	and remember ... lower quality at home, expensive paper, price of printer, despite the capital invested it is never going to be as gd as a professional.	rayonline (2134)
86433	2002-10-07 01:35:00	And if you spill a beverage on a "chemical" print, you can wipe it off. Try that with most inkjet output. The quality is always going to be better than inkjet, but I would love to have one of the dye-sublimation or Tektronix wax printers ... they give exquisite prints. Expensive, though :-(.	Graham L (2)
86434	2002-10-07 03:08:00	I've had my Nikon Coolpix 880 for a while now and it was a great investment. Why? Well sure - no argument - my old Pentax SLR camera which I got back in 1985 is more versitile, and can take better pics (in theory). But in practice, I'd stopped using it as much as I used to because I was spending too much in getting prints done while only really keeping a handful of the shots. Plus, since the kids came along a vast majority of my pics were taken in our sunny family room (see the kids eat, watch the kids do sute things, yada yada yada) and my old SLR often couldn't handle the strange lighting conditions in the room (well, maybe the photographer couldn't). Since I got the Nikon and could preview all my pics, I've taken some of the best pics of my life. And how many of us ever enlarge most of our pics beyond standard or slighty above prints? My digital pics are fine for 90% of all print sizes I'll ever output at. I don't own a colour inkjet and have been waiting for the print technology to mature before investing in something. For the really good shots, I get them printed professionally (I use Camera and Camera in Queen St, which isn't the cheapest at $2.00 a print but is just down the road from work). And while I'm waiting for more affordable, better quality print options at home, I've still got all the pics and will always have them. I'd rather take the pics now and and pay a bit now and then to output some of them than not have the digicam and NOT take pics because I can't afford to waste $50 a month on prints and end up keeping 10 of them! Digicam's are not mature and do not do all that a film camera does well - you've got to pay quite a lot of get a camera that can handle action, for example - but my personal experience is that I've enjoyed taking pictures more since I had the digicam and have taken more pics as a result.	Biggles (121)
86435	2002-10-07 04:14:00	Just to clarify, I was actually comparing the cost of a DIY print from digital source with that of a professional print from digital source. The $1.25 which I quoted is what it costs me to print a single 6 X 4 from my digital original. Comparing the cost of a print from digital source with that of a print from 35mm film is a different kettle of fish. However, it's definitely still an interesting issue.	Alasta (1420)
1 2