Why are 5x7 digital prints so expensive?!?!?!
anon a mouse
is my first time doing digital -- been shooting 35mm for 20+years.)
Where I get my film developed, a roll of 24 is $1 extra for 5x7s, vs
4x6. To get 24 5x7 prints in digital, however, would cost upwards of
TWENTY DOLLARS more!!!!! Any idea why? If this is just the way it
is, I'll stick with 35mm until the last roll of film is
manufactured!! I did some searches, found a few in the 20 - 40 cent/
print range, but most of the comments left there weren't very
encouraging. Anyone know of any REASONABLY priced places for
5x7s . . . or should I just stick with the 35mm?
Mort
Nervous Nick
> I recently bought an HD camcorder which also takes digital pix. (This
> is my first time doing digital -- been shooting 35mm for 20+years.)
> Where I get my film developed, a roll of 24 is $1 extra for 5x7s, vs
> 4x6. To get 24 5x7 prints in digital, however, would cost upwards of
> TWENTY DOLLARS more!!!!!
Boo fucking hoo!
As Mort said, stop your whining and print them yourself.
sna...@mailinator.com
Why bother printing them? You can view digital photos on most TV sets these days. Or you
can buy a 7" portable picture viewer very cheaply.
tony cooper
<pak...@gmail.com> wrote:
Costco charges $5.19 for a developing a 24 exposure roll of film and
printing 24 5 x 7s. (The same for 4 x 6s is $3.99)
Prints from digital images at Costco are 39 cents each. Twenty-four 5
x 7s are $9.36. Available on lustre or gloss. You can submit your
own color profile on-line.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Martin Brown
> anon a mouse wrote:
>> I recently bought an HD camcorder which also takes digital pix. (This
>> is my first time doing digital -- been shooting 35mm for 20+years.)
>> Where I get my film developed, a roll of 24 is $1 extra for 5x7s, vs
>> 4x6. To get 24 5x7 prints in digital, however, would cost upwards of
>> TWENTY DOLLARS more!!!!! Any idea why? If this is just the way it
Because they are ripping you off. UK photo dealers charge at most the
equivalent of ten cents extra for 5x7 and some offer same price deals
periodically so if you are not in a hurry. Or batch them up to lots of
50 to get the best price break it isn't a problem. BTW 24 could be a
really dumb number of prints to order if the next price break is 25x
http://photo.jessops.com/photo-printing.html
And Fuji crystal archive paper gives a much better finished print than
even the best inkjet can manage.
>> is, I'll stick with 35mm until the last roll of film is
>> manufactured!! I did some searches, found a few in the 20 - 40 cent/
>> print range, but most of the comments left there weren't very
>> encouraging. Anyone know of any REASONABLY priced places for
>> 5x7s . . . or should I just stick with the 35mm?
> Buy a printer, and print your own.
Not cost effective unless you use cheapo secondary market inks and cheap
paper and then the quality and longevity suffer. Even with official
Canon inks and paper stuff printed on my i9000 starts to fade badly
after 5 years in moderate light. And after two years in direct sunlight.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chris H
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>> Buy a printer, and print your own.
>
>Not cost effective unless you use cheapo secondary market inks and
>cheap paper and then the quality and longevity suffer. Even with
>official Canon inks and paper stuff printed on my i9000 starts to fade
>badly after 5 years in moderate light. And after two years in direct
>sunlight.
Actually it IS cost effective if you buy a decent printer with a
fotospeed, permajet or similar high capacity ink flow system. Note this
is not the cheapo 3rd party ink but Ink for pro photographers. Buy the
good quality paper in blocks of 200 and colour calibrate the system
Not a cheap outlay.
However I print from A3+ down to 6*4 so my only outlay for 5*7 was for a
block of good quality paper (a block of 200 is good value)
However not everyone wants to spend the better part of 1000USD on
setting up a printer. Even if they do spend 2-10K on cameras and lenses.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Ruether
"anon a mouse" <pak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af7c13b5-2071-4a46...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
They're 'spensive 'cuz most people get 4x6 prints, and that is what
the printing gear is set up for... (6" paper rolls). BTW, if anyone has
access to a Ritz printing place, I have about 150 coupons for 6x8
prints I would sell at a reasonable price...;-)
--DR
ransley
For me to get a photo the way I want it, I have to edit and print it.
Printers are cheap, the ink is not but you get alot of satisfaction
knowing you did it and the photo shop probably would not do as good.
George Kerby
On 3/14/10 8:12 AM, in article hninbj$3ep$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu, "David
Ruether" <d_ru...@thotmail.com> wrote:
Errrr... Those rolls are 4", not 6".
But your premise is correct. The labor and material changeout takes time and
setup. So one must pay for that service.
BF
> So how much does it cost for you to buy the film, have it processed
and printed? Also, figure into this the cost of film for the pictures
> that don't turn out, that you can delete with digital.
> It cost me about 45 cents to print a 5X7 using Canon original ink
which is better than any after market ink.
> I didn't have to buy film. I only pay for the prints that are good
and I have total control of the results. I will put my prints up against
any lab.
> The only draw back of printing your own is time. I enjoy having my
work turn out the way I want it to so time is not an issue.
>
Peter
news:af7c13b5-2071-4a46...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Try Costco.
--
Peter
Martin Brown
> In message <Ju2nn.112685$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> Buy a printer, and print your own.
>> Not cost effective unless you use cheapo secondary market inks and
>> cheap paper and then the quality and longevity suffer. Even with
>> official Canon inks and paper stuff printed on my i9000 starts to fade
>> badly after 5 years in moderate light. And after two years in direct
>> sunlight.
>
> Actually it IS cost effective if you buy a decent printer with a
> fotospeed, permajet or similar high capacity ink flow system. Note this
> is not the cheapo 3rd party ink but Ink for pro photographers. Buy the
> good quality paper in blocks of 200 and colour calibrate the system
>
> Not a cheap outlay.
My main concern with doing that would be that I don't necessarily use
the A3 printer for a couple of weeks and then hammer it. I know that the
Canon cartridges will behave OK. I don't know how well these 3rd party
and frankly slightly Heath Robinson bulk ink systems would behave.
I'd be interested to know how well a print using your system lasts
without obvious fading on a S facing windowsill (half the print covered
up).
>
> However I print from A3+ down to 6*4 so my only outlay for 5*7 was for a
> block of good quality paper (a block of 200 is good value)
>
> However not everyone wants to spend the better part of 1000USD on
> setting up a printer. Even if they do spend 2-10K on cameras and lenses.
My main worry would be that it might become less reliable for
intermittent heavy use with all those tubes and bottles floating around.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chris H
m|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <Ju2nn.112685$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>> Buy a printer, and print your own.
>>> Not cost effective unless you use cheapo secondary market inks and
>>> cheap paper and then the quality and longevity suffer. Even with
>>> official Canon inks and paper stuff printed on my i9000 starts to fade
>>> badly after 5 years in moderate light. And after two years in direct
>>> sunlight.
>> Actually it IS cost effective if you buy a decent printer with a
>> fotospeed, permajet or similar high capacity ink flow system. Note this
>> is not the cheapo 3rd party ink but Ink for pro photographers. Buy the
>> good quality paper in blocks of 200 and colour calibrate the system
>> Not a cheap outlay.
>
>My main concern with doing that would be that I don't necessarily use
>the A3 printer for a couple of weeks and then hammer it. I know that
>the Canon cartridges will behave OK. I don't know how well these 3rd
>party and frankly slightly Heath Robinson bulk ink systems would
>behave.
They behave very well. At least the PermaJet one I have does. You clamp
the feed lines if you leave it for more than a few days.
These systems are aimed at pro photographers and are not the same as
those systems purely aimed at doing things as cheap as possible. Ask
around there are a lot of people using them.
Permajet don't do Canon but Fotospeed do.
>I'd be interested to know how well a print using your system lasts
>without obvious fading on a S facing windowsill (half the print covered
>up).
As well if not better than the OEM inks. Obviously the paper also has an
effect. These are not the same as the cheap inks you see advertises at
refill places etc. In my case they are pigment inks.
>> However I print from A3+ down to 6*4 so my only outlay for 5*7 was
>>for a
>> block of good quality paper (a block of 200 is good value)
>> However not everyone wants to spend the better part of 1000USD on
>> setting up a printer. Even if they do spend 2-10K on cameras and lenses.
>
>My main worry would be that it might become less reliable for
>intermittent heavy use with all those tubes and bottles floating
>around.
Apparently not according to the people I have spoken to and my profile
is intermittent heavy use. So the Permajet system is good for me but
they don't do Canon, just Epson. Try Fotospeed.
Bruce
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <Ju2nn.112685$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>> Buy a printer, and print your own.
>>> Not cost effective unless you use cheapo secondary market inks and
>>> cheap paper and then the quality and longevity suffer. Even with
>>> official Canon inks and paper stuff printed on my i9000 starts to fade
>>> badly after 5 years in moderate light. And after two years in direct
>>> sunlight.
>>
>> Actually it IS cost effective if you buy a decent printer with a
>> fotospeed, permajet or similar high capacity ink flow system. Note this
>> is not the cheapo 3rd party ink but Ink for pro photographers. Buy the
>> good quality paper in blocks of 200 and colour calibrate the system
>>
>> Not a cheap outlay.
>
>My main concern with doing that would be that I don't necessarily use
>the A3 printer for a couple of weeks and then hammer it. I know that the
>Canon cartridges will behave OK. I don't know how well these 3rd party
>and frankly slightly Heath Robinson bulk ink systems would behave.
There is nothing "Heath Robinson" about them at all*. They are well
engineered, at least the ones available for Epson printers are.
Regarding your concern about leaving the printer for a couple of weeks
between uses, you should be just as concerned about doing that with
ink cartridges. I run a test print two or three times a week if I am
otherwise not using my printers. This seems to do the trick and it
doesn't cost a lot of money.
*For those who don't understand the reference to W. Heath Robinson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Heath_Robinson
http://www.chrisbeetles.com/gallery/artist.php?art=2709
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/exhibitions/heathrobinson/
Chris H
<docne...@gmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:21:30 +0000, Martin Brown
><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <Ju2nn.112685$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>, Martin Brown
>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>> Buy a printer, and print your own.
>>>> Not cost effective unless you use cheapo secondary market inks and
>>>> cheap paper and then the quality and longevity suffer. Even with
>>>> official Canon inks and paper stuff printed on my i9000 starts to fade
>>>> badly after 5 years in moderate light. And after two years in direct
>>>> sunlight.
>>>
>>> Actually it IS cost effective if you buy a decent printer with a
>>> fotospeed, permajet or similar high capacity ink flow system. Note this
>>> is not the cheapo 3rd party ink but Ink for pro photographers. Buy the
>>> good quality paper in blocks of 200 and colour calibrate the system
>>>
>>> Not a cheap outlay.
>>
>>My main concern with doing that would be that I don't necessarily use
>>the A3 printer for a couple of weeks and then hammer it. I know that the
>>Canon cartridges will behave OK. I don't know how well these 3rd party
>>and frankly slightly Heath Robinson bulk ink systems would behave.
>
>
>There is nothing "Heath Robinson" about them at all*. They are well
>engineered, at least the ones available for Epson printers are.
I know what he means as they are "bolt on" and have wires going in
through the lid etc. Butr as you say they PermaJet and Fotospeed ones
are well engineered. I can't speak for some of the really cheap ones
that are for people looking for "cheap" as opposed to a less expensive
high quality solution for volume.
>Regarding your concern about leaving the printer for a couple of weeks
>between uses, you should be just as concerned about doing that with
>ink cartridges.
I agree. The problem is at the heads. Not the ink supply system, though
the PermaJet system does have clamps on the feed lines to stop the ink
draining in either direction.
> I run a test print two or three times a week if I am
>otherwise not using my printers. This seems to do the trick and it
>doesn't cost a lot of money.
I also run one a week. Just a sheet with some multi colour text on.
When I come to do "proper" prints I do a head check and away I go....
John McWilliams
Ah! A Brit Rube Goldberg....... or, more properly, Rube Goldberg was a
Yankee Heath Robinson.
--
john mcwilliams
In additon to it's, we can have hi's, her's and their's!!!
Help stamp out repetition, gratuitou's apostrophe's, and NEEDLESS',
redundant, and WHOLLY UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION, **AND**superflous
*EMPHASIS*. And tautological statements which waste space and can be
repetitive or even wordy in and of themselves', thus taking more time to
read, or even think about; it's tedious and enervating.
These are *THE* internet *SCOURGES'*, along with exclamation points!!!