Cost of printing?

Has anyone done a study looking at the cost of film/print vs digital printing at home? It seems to me as though from a cost standpoint, it is still cheaper to take film and have prints made. I know that the ability to customize, crop,and do other things with digital makes it more versatile and fun, but from a cost standpoint I'm wondering which is less expensive for run of the mill kind of photo shots.

Another one to consider is the online printing services that are offered, for
digital photography.

Editing, customising, cropping etc etc can be done first and then your batch of
images uploaded to your chosen online printer - the one that I'm using gives
100mb of shared / private folders. Then the images are printed and sent, in my
case, by first class post.

Without needing to buy an expensive photo printer, and run it, this can be a
good way of getting your digital images to paper. Even my local Supermarket
offers this service.

--
Regards

Morgan

How I fixed my noisy IBM drive
www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:11:07 -0500, "Bob Hosid"
typed:

Has anyone done a study looking at the cost of film/print vs digital
printing at home? It seems to me as though from a cost standpoint, it
is still cheaper to take film and have prints made. I know that the
ability to customize, crop,and do other things with digital makes it
more versatile and fun, but from a cost standpoint I'm wondering which
is less expensive for run of the mill kind of photo shots.

This is just my experience. I won't factor in the cost of camera or
memory cards as it's a one time deal. (most digital camera comes with
one memory card free)

film and print:
Cost of roll of film: $2-$5
Cost of developing and 3x5 prints from a 24-27 shot roll: about $5
Roughly averaging $0.30 per print.

Digital camera:
Cost of ink for full page print (4 of 3x5 pictures per page) about 10
cents
Cost of photo quality paper for printer: about $0.50 per page
Averaging $0.60 per page of 4 shots or $0.15 per 3x5

Advantages of digital camera: you can take as many shots as you need,
and print out only the good ones. More enviromnetally friendly. Prints
can be permanet by burning to a CD-R (about 100 years typical).
Pictures can be burned to CD-R for viewing on picture viewer or DVD
players. Also can take hundreds of picture without needing to change
memory card.

Disadvantage: higher initial costs, battery guzzler, requires a computer
or all-in-one printer. Lose the camera, and you may lose a lot of
valuable shots. Picture size limited to about 3x5 for 1Mpix, 4x6 from
2Mpix and 8x10 from 3Mpix or higher. Poster sized print not possible
without some pixelation.

Advantages of prints: lower initial cost (about $20-$50 for basic camera
vs $200+ for similiar digital camera), last for many months on single
battery. Picture don't tear as easily as printed picture. With high
quality camera and experience, picture can have excellent imnage even
when blown up large.

Disadvantage: negative can be damaged and they do fade after a few
decades, negatives and photo take up lots of space. Also you may end up
with many bad pictures (out of focus, etc)

So it all comes down to what you prefer. Some pro photographer still
prefer to using films over memory cards.
--
All viruses and spams are automatically removed by my ISP before
reaching my inbox.

You make some good points. Having managed a location with a one hour
processor, I'm more convinced now than ever that digital is the way to go.
In my case I have an Olympus C-3000 which is a wonderful camera. The newer
models are even better. My printing is done on a Canon s820. One of these
days I'll get the i950. I refill my cartridges with high quality (Formulabs)
ink available from alotofthings.com. My ink cost per 8.5 x 11 full bleed is
approximately 1.2¢ per sheet. I use paper from both Office Depot and Red
River at a cost of $33.99 per 100 sheets. This makes my per sheet cost less
than 40¢ when all factors are considered - ink, paper, sales tax and
shipping/handling. Therefore 4up prints average 10¢ each. But that isn't
the only cost advantage over film. As you mentioned, only the prints you
want need to be produced vs.. everything when it is from film. This can be a
huge cost savings considering that you might make 200+ images but only want
a few of them printed. Batteries are also a non issue if you have a model
using AA's which most of them I've seen do. Get a set or two of NiMH
rechargeable for about $10.00 for a set of four and the battery expense
problem will be solved. Here are a some disadvantages of film I've seen from
the thousand of rolls coming through the lab at the store I managed. 1.-
poor shot selection resulting in wasted prints 2.- cameras that didn't
advance film correctly and wasted the whole roll 3.- lost or damaged
negatives at the lab. Unfortunately this happens more often than it should
and somehow it's always seems to be on wedding shots, one time events,
European vacations and graduations. I don't know why but it doesn't happen
on shots of Aunt Mabel in the living room. Batteries for many of the 33mm
and APS cameras are also pricey. $10.00 for a single little photo battery
isn't uncommon. Quality is also a consideration. My oldest daughter
frequently took her digital images to Wally World for processing at 29¢ per
print. Most of the time results were less than satisfactory. Prints of the
same image came out better in nearly all cases when done on the Canon s820.
--
Ron Cohen

"Impmon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:11:07 -0500, "Bob Hosid"
typed:

Has anyone done a study looking at the cost of film/print vs digital
printing at home? It seems to me as though from a cost standpoint, it
is still cheaper to take film and have prints made. I know that the
ability to customize, crop,and do other things with digital makes it
more versatile and fun, but from a cost standpoint I'm wondering which
is less expensive for run of the mill kind of photo shots.

This is just my experience. I won't factor in the cost of camera or
memory cards as it's a one time deal. (most digital camera comes with
one memory card free)

film and print:
Cost of roll of film: $2-$5
Cost of developing and 3x5 prints from a 24-27 shot roll: about $5
Roughly averaging $0.30 per print.

Digital camera:
Cost of ink for full page print (4 of 3x5 pictures per page) about 10
cents
Cost of photo quality paper for printer: about $0.50 per page
Averaging $0.60 per page of 4 shots or $0.15 per 3x5

Advantages of digital camera: you can take as many shots as you need,
and print out only the good ones. More enviromnetally friendly. Prints
can be permanet by burning to a CD-R (about 100 years typical).
Pictures can be burned to CD-R for viewing on picture viewer or DVD
players. Also can take hundreds of picture without needing to change
memory card.

Disadvantage: higher initial costs, battery guzzler, requires a computer
or all-in-one printer. Lose the camera, and you may lose a lot of
valuable shots. Picture size limited to about 3x5 for 1Mpix, 4x6 from
2Mpix and 8x10 from 3Mpix or higher. Poster sized print not possible
without some pixelation.

Advantages of prints: lower initial cost (about $20-$50 for basic camera
vs $200+ for similiar digital camera), last for many months on single
battery. Picture don't tear as easily as printed picture. With high
quality camera and experience, picture can have excellent imnage even
when blown up large.

Disadvantage: negative can be damaged and they do fade after a few
decades, negatives and photo take up lots of space. Also you may end up
with many bad pictures (out of focus, etc)

So it all comes down to what you prefer. Some pro photographer still
prefer to using films over memory cards.
--
All viruses and spams are automatically removed by my ISP before
reaching my inbox.

Forgot one disadvantage of Digital: Lost time. I can take a roll of film to
the to the developers and go do something else before picking up the prints.
When I take digital pictures that I want to print out, I have to sit there
tweak the image and print. The lost time of someone tweaking and printing
24 photos(vs. using that free time by taking a part time job making minimum
wage at a photo developer), makes film much more advantages. That said, I
personally find the freedom of digital (only printing what you want, ability
do add to documents, email, back up on CD) more appealing than anything so I
no longer have a film camera. Though I periodically will pick up a
disposable camera for time when I dont want to lug around my digital camera
or in events where the digital may get damaged.

From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
Date: Sun, Aug 24, 2003 6:03 PM
Message-id:

In article ,
"Bob Hosid" wrote:

Has anyone done a study looking at the cost of film/print vs digital printing

at home? It seems to me as though from a cost standpoint, it is still
cheaper to take film and have prints made.


No, it's not. The cost of prints is 20 cents each at Sam's Club.
That's whether from film or digital (I *love* the Fuji Aladdin kiosk;
it's what digital camera work is supposed to be...). Now, I can buy
film at some cost per print and then pay 20 cents to develop/print, or I
can *not* buy film and then pay 20 cents to print.

hmmmm. Looks like I've saved the cost of the film.
BRBR
And processing costs.

Real photos are rated to last 25 years. Of course they last longer but that
is the same as inkjet prints. I have many real prints here that didn't last
25 years but with digital I can reprint them.


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bill
wrote:

I have calculated my average cost per
photo to be about 25 cents each. That's less than the 2 or 3 day service
from a photo lab at about 39 cents each.

Yes, but it doesn't beat the Sam's Club prints from the Fuji system at
20 cents per--in 30 minutes.

And of course, there's my time and effort involved in being my own photo
lab. I have *zero* interest in doing that.

My concern is the longevity of the inkjet prints and how well they'll
live inside photo albums. I'll take the real photo any day over the
inkjet print.

"picopirate" wrote in message
...
"Impmon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:11:07 -0500, "Bob Hosid"
typed:

snip

film and print:
Cost of roll of film: $2-$5
Cost of developing and 3x5 prints from a 24-27 shot roll: about $5
Roughly averaging $0.30 per print.

Of course, that depends on the individual. In the case of me, I pay
twice-three times that price because:
1. I use slide film (average $5/roll 36exp)
2. Because I use slide film, I send it out and get the E6 processing.
3. I've had really bad experiences at cheaper labs (damaged negs, scratches,
poor prints), so I go to a pro lab with dip/dunk processing rather than
running the film through rollers.
4. I used to process my own films, and because I bought the chemicals in
bulk, I cut my costs of developing down to about $2.50 - $3.50 per roll of
film.
5. In order to save even more money when I was using neg film, I wouldn't
get prints, I just get process only - that saves money - but i do have a neg
scanner.

(I made the mistake of sending films to walmart - can you believe the images
on the film was sharp - but resulting prints were blurry - never again)


Digital camera:
Cost of ink for full page print (4 of 3x5 pictures per page) about 10
cents
Cost of photo quality paper for printer: about $0.50 per page
Averaging $0.60 per page of 4 shots or $0.15 per 3x5

cost of ink has variables - what brand of printer, what brand of inks, print
quality etc etc...
cost of photo paper : depending on brands.. I use Ilford Classic Pearl (or
gloss), which runs at about $15 for 25sheets.
I've also got Epson Archival Matte that I got for $20 for 50 sheets. My
brain is too fried to figure out that calculation.


Adding extra price ov camera and flash, digital cameras cost about the
same
per shot. And if you figure most people wont keep the camera a full 10
years, digital cameras are more expensive.

ok, I'm confused... why an external flash? I've got a film camera that I use
primarily, and a nikon CP 2500 for happy snaps/macros/smaller prints. But
why do you need an external flash for a digital. Of course, you've got to
have the hot shoe on the digital to get the external flash to work also...

but why another flash?



Advantages of digital camera: you can take as many shots as you need,
and print out only the good ones. More enviromnetally friendly. Prints
can be permanet by burning to a CD-R (about 100 years typical).
Pictures can be burned to CD-R for viewing on picture viewer or DVD
players. Also can take hundreds of picture without needing to change
memory card.

I agree there.


You can also print make your prints whenever you are at your computer.
Nice
for family get-to-gethers so you can print out pictures immediately and
give
them to people right away. You can also email, incorporate in documents,
and correct bad pictures with software.

Disadvantage: higher initial costs, battery guzzler, requires a computer
or all-in-one printer. Lose the camera, and you may lose a lot of
valuable shots. Picture size limited to about 3x5 for 1Mpix, 4x6 from
2Mpix and 8x10 from 3Mpix or higher. Poster sized print not possible
without some pixelation.

I've got a couple of 8x10s printed from my 2mp camera that you can't really
tell its from the digital. Of course, since I still primarily work with
film, I notice the difference, but most people don't realise it until I tell
them....

I've seen a 20"x30" print from a 6.3mp canon D60, looks good too - no
pixellation

Advantages of prints: lower initial cost (about $20-$50 for basic camera
vs $200+ for similiar digital camera), last for many months on single
battery. Picture don't tear as easily as printed picture. With high
quality camera and experience, picture can have excellent imnage even
when blown up large.


Picture doesn't tear as easily? What inkjet paper are you using? I've not
had any issues with the papers i've been using... but how many inkjet papers
out there are resin coated (like most traditional photographic papers),
Ilford are the only ones I really know of...


Disadvantage: negative can be damaged and they do fade after a few
decades, negatives and photo take up lots of space. Also you may end up
with many bad pictures (out of focus, etc)


yeah, but thats what culling is for I probably get about 10-15 shots I
feel are 'keepers' and even fewer that i'd actually enlarge and print

Bill wrote:
I think this new Fuji Kiosk system is really the "killer app" for
photography. When it catches on, its going to greatly reduce color print
film use, because it's easier and cheaper (and more flexible, if you
feel like going there), and it's going to greatly reduce the demand for
inkjet printers, for the same reason.


I doubt it'll affect inkjet printer use very much with the general
public. If you're already using an inkjet to print all of your photos,
then you know how easy it is, and likely how cheap it can be, to do it
yourself.

But for film users who want convenience and are looking to switch to
digital, I'm sure it'll be a popular thing.

This has been an interesting thread for me since I have been casually
looking around for a digital camera (I keep waiting for them to get come
down in price). I am interested in convenience and that is part of the
reason for going for digital even though it has its trade offs. I wonder
if BJs has this type of development service too?

regards,
Ben


--
BTW. I can be contacted at Username:newsgroup4.replies.benaltw
Domain:xoxy.net

Bill wrote in :

bob wrote:

I'm sure inkjets have improved a lot since the last time I ran one, but
I had problems with: running out of ink, clogged jets, running out of
paper, paper jams, smears, and generic windoz-printer interaction
errors. From time to time, I've spent entire days trying to resolve
printer issues.

Perhaps I'm lucky...I've never really experienced any of those problems
with any inkjet printer I've owned.

HP is notorious for not supporting new operating systems. The microsoft
drivers never work half as well as the original drivers. I suppose the
easy answer is to just upgrade the hardware more frequently. But it's
hard to believe you've never run out of ink!

I think this new Fuji Kiosk system is really the "killer app" for

I doubt it'll affect inkjet printer use very much with the general
public. If you're already using an inkjet to print all of your photos,
then you know how easy it is, and likely how cheap it can be, to do it
yourself.

For now maybe, but I'm betting that eventually Kodak will come out with
their own kiosk, and as they become more widespread, prices will probably
come down even more. If a "decent" inkjet costs $200, then I can get
close to 700 prints made at Wal-Mart, before I even buy any paper or ink.
Then you can consider quality. I haven't seen *any* inkjet output that
has the Dmax of chemical process.

But for film users who want convenience and are looking to switch to
digital, I'm sure it'll be a popular thing.

Easier, cheaper, faster under certain circumstances, and better quality.
Sounds like the definition of "killer app".

These will be an interesting next few years for photographers.

Bob