Printing costs and top-line lenses

[Richard Crowe]

I had a need to produce 200 4x6 inch prints in support of our dog rescue program, 5-prints each of 40-images. In the interests of expediency, I decided to have them printed at a local discount store: Costco. Here are my comments...

Ease: It was certainly easier to copy the 40 images to a flash drive and stop by the local store for printing. Since we shop quite often at this store, it was not even an extra trip. The printing took about 40-minutes very close to the average time we spend in that store..

Cost: I have not calculated the exact cost because I decided on this manner of printing to save time rather than to save money. However the cost was 13 cents per print or a total of $26 (plus tax) for the 200-prints. I am sure that if I were counting the paper cost as well as the ink cost for my Pixma Pro 9000 II printer, this was either less expensive or quite close to what self printing would have cost.

Quality: Here is the glitch! The quality was not quite as good as I can produce with my Pixma Pro 9000 II printer. The prints did not have the razor sharp quality that my home produced prints have. However, the quality was adequate for the job in hand and it was certainly an easier way to obtain the 200-prints. Other stores might produce better quality prints. This is the first time I used this source for my printing needs.

This brings up a thought regarding top-line equipment.  Considering that I did not get the optimum quality I am used to getting with images captured by high-quality lenses; I were just going to have prints made in that size at the local market or discount store, top-line lenses might be an overkill. This would also be true if the primary Internet uses are to post on Facebook or to send emails to the grandparents.

I am going to make a test using Judy's P&S camera and my Canon 7d with an L lens.  If I have both images printed at Costco, I would like to see the difference.

I know that there are other places where I could get my images printed but, they might be more expensive.  Since all expenses regarding rescue dogs are borne bu us, as volunteers, even an extra nickel a print would have been ten dollars. Costco happens to be quite close to my home and I visit it quite often 

I also needed some flyers printed for this weekend's rescue event.  The colors that have been voted on for our rescue organization are teal and lavender.  

If I had printed these at home, my lavender ink (or the colors which make up lavender) would have been exhausted.  Staples printed these posters for me at sixty cents each for a standard letter size.  That is certainly less expensive than using up my ink...

Note:  The grid lines are not printed and the lettering is far easier to read when the image in in a larger size...

[Diane Margetts]

Sigh . . . You make a good point for "form follow function" but I'm still snagging every high end lens I can manage!!!!!

I do want to pass on a link to a printer that Linda Bell shared with me. He works on a larger scale--in fact he can produce very large prints and his prices are really good. I've had three prints produced by him and the quality is excellent--he does those high end lenses justice!  http://www.easyonlineprints.com/

 

[F, Calla & Luca]

I hardly ever print my photos which is sad. I would never print them at home because I just don't use my  color ink often enough and it dries up. So your method certainly is superior for fliers and such things. There are printers recommended in our group for good quality images but I am not sure which off hand.

But I am beginning to feel you are right about lenses too. I get hung up with the research and then worry about the weight etc. My cheap kit zoom really has taken some wonderful images for me. If I never want poster size images maybe I should just settle in for a while. For me I just have fun taking the shots and it's my technique that fails at times much more than the equipment. A rose by any other name...

Shot with my D7100 and kit zoom

[DJ & Chance]

Gorgeous!