Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: snapfish.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to snapfish.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:Ink? What ink? by cheebie · · Score: 5, Informative · on Is Your Printer Ripping You Off?

    Then they should be using Snapfish or one of the other photo printing services. Why pay for expensive ink, a temperamental printer, and sub-par quality photo prints when you can get real photos for $0.12 each.

    Disclaimer: I am not a Snapfish or HP employee, just a happy customer.

  2. Market Forces by Doomedsnowball · · Score: 4, Informative · on Screenshot Accounts 'Delisted' on Flickr

    So why don't people use Photobucket or Snapfish or Snapzilla or VillagePhotos or Zoto or TinyPic or SmugMug or Greatest Journal or...

    My personal favorite DeviantArt?

    There's not much of a story here except that if you commit to one hosting service, you run the risk of them being complete jerks with your content choice.

  3. Re:other useful service bureaus for photographers by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Informative · on Flickr Online Photo Service Reviewed

    We've been using snapfish.com for years and love it.

    In fact, I just ordered photo Christmas cards from them.

  4. There's a cheaper option. by Jaywalk · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Disposable Digital Cameras Have Arrived

    You can just get a regular disposable camera and send it to one of the places that offer digital images with developing (like Snapfish). About three bucks for a disposable camera and three for developing. And if you lose the camera (which is why I get disposables anyway) you're only out three bucks, not eleven.

  5. try ImageStation and/or Snapfish by mvance · · Score: 3, Informative · on Which Photo Sharing Service Would You Recommend?

    I used Yahoo's photo sharing features until I got fed up with constantly using up my disk space quota. I did some google searching and found an article (can't remember where) comparing the features of various photo sharing sites which recommended Image Station. At the time (and still, as far as I can tell) they had no quota. That feature alone was enough to sell me on using it. However, it is also quite fast in my experience, as well as user friendly. There is one minor pain that I've run across though. Other people have to register and accept a cookie before they can view any of your shared albums beyond the first shot in the album.

    I have not ordered any prints from ImageStation. For that, I use Snapfish. I've been very pleased with their service, though I'm not particularly picky about my prints.

  6. All digital, prints from an online photo-finisher by LordBodak · · Score: 1 · on To Digitize or Not Digitize the Family Photo Album?
    In the last year, I've switched to all-digital for my photography. When I want prints, there are services like OFOTO or Snapfish that provide prints at reasonable prices. With them, I get a real print on Kodak paper which I know will last longer (and probably look better) than anything my inkjet can do, and it's probably cheaper too.

    I've had 35mm processing from Snapfish, and ordered digital prints from both of the above, and the quality is excellent.

    To get a full 24 digital prints (the average roll of film) would cost about $13 shipped... which is more than you'd pay for processing a 35mm roll. However, you have to consider that you're not paying for the film, and you also know you're only getting prints you want. How many of us _want_ every print off every roll of film? There are always bad ones and with digital you're not paying to print them.

  7. viral^H^H^H^H^Hmicro marketing by shibut · · Score: 2, Informative · on Gonzo Marketing: Winning Through Worst Practices

    All these principles make sense and on paper work great. However, it's been tried before - it was called viral marketing (and don't tell me that employees of .com-s in 98-early '00 were not enthusiastic about their jobs and true embassadors, I was living in the bay area at the time and could feel it from every friend I had). Most companies found that in order for the "viral" part to work they had to give away a service/product that costs them money for free. Later, they started charging for it and that's when the real test came and in many cases the virally added consumers that came for the freebies left. The only viral service I can think of that I still use now that it isn't operating on a loss is Snapfish. I like their processing and posting (good for overseas parents) and this way I don't have to remember to pick up my photos. Still, if I found out that they were way more expensive than other alternatives I'd drop them in a heartbeat. Lucky for me they're priced well.