Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Best Option For Printing Digital Photos?

rrossman2 writes "With the birth of our son (who is now just over two), we have snapped and accumulated a ton of pictures — on Panoramio, Picasa, Facebook, etc. What is the best option for bulk printing the photos to a physical format? We all know how fast technology advances, as well as how fast sites come and go; I want a way to have these pictures for my son when he is older... just like my grandfather has photos of himself from World War II, my parents have photos of me when I was little, etc. Are there any affordable services that you can upload the photos to that print and deliver long-lasting pictures? How well do today's photo ink jets last, and what's the best type of paper? I do have a cheaper Samsung color laser printer, but color lasers don't make the most color-rich prints, and using normal photo paper you can find in big box stores doesn't work out too well, as the laser toner seems to peel off on the rollers and gum things up. (Is there a good long lasting paper that seems to work well with laser printers?) I can see what's going to happen in the future: all of the digital photos people take now are going to either end up on a website that won't be around in 20+ years, or get stuck on disks or flash memory that won't last, or for which interfacing with the media will become difficult or impossible."

20 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Photographic prints! by NixieBunny · · Score: 5, Informative

    I get mine done at Costco. Cheaper and better than any printer you can buy.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:Photographic prints! by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My friend does pro portraits and he gets all his stuff up to poster sized done via Costco. Having tried a few, he reckons they're the best and the cheapest too which is a bonus.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    2. Re:Photographic prints! by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get mine done at Costco. Cheaper and better than any printer you can buy.

      This, or something like this is what I was going to say.

      The photos printed from an actual photolab from your digital images are better quality, cheaper, and since they're not on ink-jet ink they don't tend to fade as much.

      I concluded several years ago you can't really efficiently buy the ink, paper, and printer to do this on your own. It's just not cost effective. In the long run (and possibly the short run) it's more work and more cost for less overall quality.

      Every year for Christmas, the wife prints out a stack of photos I've taken of the family over the last year, and gives them to her grandmother -- grandma loves the pictures and is far more interested in those than anything else.

      Wal Mart, Costco, a local photo/camera store ... all can do much better than you can do on your own.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Photographic prints! by Triv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not trolling, promise, but I've never understood why somebody would want to print a photo onto a canvas. They always end up looking chintzier than the original for the sake of the illusion of fine art.

      Is there something I'm missing?

    4. Re:Photographic prints! by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another vote for Costco.

      Run up the numbers yourself per-print for a typical inkjet - look at the manufacturer's own figures for estimated cartridge life at 95% coverage, divide that by the cost for a full brace of cartridges and tack on the price for a sheet of photo quality paper.

      IME you'll find it usually comes out about the same, maybe slightly dearer than using a major photo processor. But that only tells you part of the story.

      It costs about the same provided you have a 0% waste rate and you ignore the cost of the printer and any associated items.

      That means no paper jams, no wastage from trial-and-error figuring out optimum settings, no discovering the hard way that colour temperature on screen and on paper are two different things, no ink wasted because you didn't use the printer for a week and it now needs to run a cleaning cycle.

      In the real world, you'll probably find this adds 20-30% to your costs. Obviously with practise you can reduce this, but even if you get it down to zero (never going to happen), it's still going to be at a photo finish between you and Costco. And Costco's machine can probably churn out 100 photos in the time it takes your printer to do 10.

    5. Re:Photographic prints! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's simply a different medium. Paintings aren't always true to the original and can be done with oil, acrylic, watercolor, etc. Likewise, not every picture should be on glossy paper.

    6. Re:Photographic prints! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      What about those of us that are nowhere near a Costco?

      Walgreen's offers the same service as Costco, as do a few other chains. Here is the link for the Sam's Club service: Sam's Club photo prints; all Sam's Clubs do photos.

      Unless you want to drop a few thousand (at least) dollars on equipment, you're not going to get the quality or durability of commercial prints.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Photographic prints! by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Informative

      IF you dont have a sam's/costco use any of the MULTITUDE of online print services. Personally for big jobs i use White House CC (whcc.com). Been with them for 7 years. In short DO NOT PRINT AT HOME. For the average person its a huge waste for shitty results. The prints you get from real print shops places are REAL photographic prints on real photo paper, just like the pics from old film cameras. IM sure there are technical differences, but the output is pretty much the same. DONT PRINT AT HOME.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Photographic prints! by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. Printing at home should be reserved for photos that you would not want anyone else to see. If the photo isn't private. Get it done with quality equipment.

  2. Don't by Egg+Sniper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your son is two now the first thing they'd do as an adult presented with these old pictures is get online to find out what scanner to use to best get them into digital format where they belong.

    1. Re:Don't by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your son is two now the first thing they'd do as an adult presented with these old pictures is get online to find out what scanner to use to best get them into digital format where they belong.

      Hahaha, this is right on the money. The first thing I thought of is "god, if only my parents had digital copies of all of those pictures they gave me"... Focus on finding a long lasting DIGITAL storage solution (there are plenty of ways to store things reliably) instead. Don't you dare get a stack of 4x6 prints that you can shove in the basement next to all of the ones you probably got from YOUR parents that are next to useless until you put weeks and weeks of work into scanning and retouching.

  3. Expressing the wrong concern? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're leaving your photos on flash-cards and websites in the first place, then that's your fundamental problem.

    Save them to (redundant) disk locally, then commit them to a cloud backup service.

    1. Re:Expressing the wrong concern? by Relayman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many services compress the photos when uploaded. It's important to preserve a minimally-compressed version before uploading.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  4. Why print photos? by Frag-A-Muffin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... when you can make photo albums?! I find that we print photo albums instead of photos these days. Photos themselves are a nuisance to store or archive. Printed photo albums are nicely self-contained, easy to pack and look much better than those albums with a bunch of loose photos in it. It's really not much more expensive. I personally just use iPhoto to design and then print the albums. No hassle. Product is fantastic.

    Of course there are many outlets to get these printed. I highly recommend them.

    As a side bonus, your guests will think you're some kind of pro, cuz honestly, even with no experience, they come out looking really really good. Nothing says pro like a full page bleed :)

    Then again, what do I know? I'm just an old fart with a 4 digit ID. ;)

    --

    AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
  5. All my old photos are faded by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And they weren't printouts. They were actual developed 35mm film. Why go with physical photos when you can have the permance of a digital photo that never fades?

    What you should be asking is: "How do I save my photos & videos so they don't get lost?" Backup to a USB drive in a fireproof safe. Backup to an online place like google. Backup to another online place like amazon. And make sure google/amazon are not in the same building (in case it burns down). That's what I would recommend.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  6. Why? by berryjw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't see the point of this. People no longer keep horses for transportation, we hardly write things down (I've seen graduate research indicating handwriting is ceasing to be relevant), even our books are moving to digital. The proper question would be, "What is the most reliable storage medium for my digital photographs, assuming I need to access them in twenty years?"

  7. Witnessing History by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    This may be the first and only Slashdot story where Costco and Walmart are mentioned in positive light.

    1. Re:Witnessing History by MiniMike · · Score: 3, Funny

      This may be the first and only Slashdot story where Costco and Walmart are mentioned in positive light.

      I also never would have pictured this. But in a story about digital photos, it's hard to be negative.

  8. Effort, formats by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It takes effort. Period. Why do you have photographs back from ww2? Because family expended the effort it took to keep them safe and sound all these years. That meant storing them properly, keeping them out of the hands of unsupervised kids, looking after them whenever family moved to a new home, etc. You simply have to do the same thing with your data. That means storing data redundantly on more than one format of physical storage. I would go with USB flash, micro sd and DVD rom all three. Then a decade down the road you may have to convert them over to new media of the day. No big deal. Regardless it will take effort, and if the data is important to you, then you'll expend that effort.

    I have a comment about physical media. Why did the 3.5" floppy replace the 5 1/4"? Smaller form factor and greater data density. Why was PC Card (PCMCIA) flash / hdd replaced by Compact flash, which was replaced by SD, which is being replaced by Micro SD? Smaller form factor and greater data density. Well guess what. Micro SD is the pinnacle of small form factor. You cannot make it any smaller or else the average human simply cannot physically work with the media. In fact, there are millions of people that don't have good enough eyesight or motor control to work with Micro SD card sized media. My point in all this is all that is left to improve is data density and transfer rate. It is my opinion that micro sd is going to be around for a very, very long time. Barring some sort of proprietary format war (like Apple finally including removable storage in iOS hardware, but going with a new proprietary media) I don't see much improvement over the sd form factor, and so I think it's going to be with us for quite a while.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  9. Digital is forever by patchmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I recently went through several boxes of old family photos and digitized them. I learned a number of things in the process.

    There are/were vast differences in the quality and longevity of different photo printing methods. Most of the photos that were about 50 years old had faded and color shifted, each, it seems, in its own peculiar direction. Trying to bring them back to proper color was a nightmare, not made easier by my lack of skill with Gimp. But some of the photos from 50 years ago looked like they might have been printed last week. The colors were still vivid. I have no idea what process was used on any of these prints, but it was very clear the process makes a world of difference.

    Whatever you decide to do with the prints, I strongly recommend getting some archival quality sleeves to individually store them. Even if you then put them in an album, put them first in archival sleeves. The prints will be protected and will never again be exposed to fingerprints. They won't get scratched. They'll be reasonably well protected against UV fading. Then lock it all in a light-proof vault. Light is the mortal enemy of photo prints and even good quality UV protection will still allow some small amount of UV to penetrate. Keep the prints in a tightly sealed box and you should have few problems with fading.

    Honestly, though, if you really care about preserving these for posterity, just keep them digital and use some kind of offsite backup. Know going in that you'll probably have to move them around several times over the years as companies come and go and technology changes. You may well have to convert them to different formats at more than one point. But the digital copy is almost certainly going to be more flexible and of better quality than any print.