Is it still much cheaper/better to to print photos in store as oppossed to at home? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Is it still much cheaper/better to to print photos in store as oppossed to at home?

sdavi3680 Avatar
7y, 4m agoPosted 7 years, 4 months ago
I am considering getting a home photo printer as I have hundreds of photos to print out. I know a few years ago the advice was just to get it done online or instore as the quality and price was better. Has anything changed? Is it more economical to do it myself. Can anyone give me an idea of the per print price not taking into account the cost of the printer, just the paper and ink.

Usually places like snapfish have prices of around 5-9p per print without any promotions.
sdavi3680 Avatar
7y, 4m agoPosted 7 years, 4 months ago
Options

All Comments

(16) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
If you shop around you can get the paper quite cheap, such as under 2p a sheet (6x4) from this deal. Ink costs depend very much on the printer and whether or not you are using original inks, but if you can find a good deal on online printing (or exploit several 'free' signing up offers) it will generally work out cheaper...
#2
Yeah, I've been exploiting the snapfish 1p per print for 50 photos for my girlfriend, and have done it in the past for myself, just can't be bothered to register loads of different accounts again. Anyway, think I have used all available email addresses for registration. This is why I'm now looking into buying a printer as I'm into my photography and have hundreds of photos from the past few years of travelling and working abroad that I haven't got round to printing.
#3
I find it cheaper ordering them via snapfish
#4
Of course having your own printer lets you do larger prints too (if its an A4 printer). You certainly used to be able to get (much cheaper) third party replacement inks for some brands of printer (Epson, Canon) but not so sure if that still applies these days...
#5
think of it like making your own wine. it takes a few tries before you get it right.
if you need extra - go down the offy!

the moral of this story is - for 1's and 2's - print your own - if you have 100's - snapfish or in-store digital services are pretty good. (and probably will work cheaper as ink and 'photo' paper can be costly to make mistakes on!

-good luck!

-radishnet
#6
jah128
Of course having your own printer lets you do larger prints too (if its an A4 printer).

I think that's the significant thing. Larger prints are very expensive from the on-line people.
I've been looking at the Canon Pixma iP 4600, cheapest at Amazon now at £78.80 or there abouts ( next cheapest is+£10). There is a new model, the 4700, little different, it seems,
reviewed here:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/printers/351157/canon-pixma-ip4700
It says:
That makes for a photo cost of around 11.4p before paper costs are added
[helper] 1 Like #7
If you do print your own at home how long will the ink last before it fades? I'm sure I read several years ago that the ink would fade after 20 years.........anyone know?

Edit - just googled

seems to range from 11 years to over a hundred
http://www.pcworld.com/article/121752/lack_of_standards_spark_inkjet_photo_fade_debate.html
#8
gari189;6185535
If you do print your own at home how long will the ink last before it fades? I'm sure I read several years ago that the ink would fade after 20 years.........anyone know?


Depends on the paper and the ink, and where the photo is kept. I think the branded photo-quality inks are meant to last a decent length of time, but where its kept makes a huge difference - they can noticably fade over a matter of weeks if exposed to very bright sunlight..
#9
Oh right, I never thought of that Gari. You would have thought that things might have moved on from you 'find'.
I suppose it's the comparison of home-printed v 'professional/on-line' that we want in respect of the factors that you have mentioned jah.
banned#10
chesso
Oh right, I never thought of that Gari. You would have thought that things might have moved on from you 'find'.
I suppose it's the comparison of home-printed v 'professional/on-line' that we want in respect of the factors that you have mentioned jah.


Also...... dont get home printed pics wet!

Shop printed are so much better than inkjet prints.
#11
You can do it on the cheap, with cheap paper and cheap ink, but it will show in the quality.
1 Like #12
guv
Also...... dont get home printed pics wet!

Shop printed are so much better than inkjet prints.

And... Don't dry clean either.:roll:
Don't use clothes dye thinking it'll be cheaper.

peodude
You can do it on the cheap, with cheap paper and cheap ink, but it will show in the quality.


The consensus on-line is that you're best off ( but not financially) with the printer's own premium quality paper.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/dnc/D&C_Perm_Article_2005_04_03.pdf

I have also discovered that matt paper is best for B&W and very large photos and gloss is best for all the rest, allowing for personal preferences of course.

This Henry Wilhelm guy (the subject of the article above)seems to be the top bloke to listen to.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/GreatOutput_HW_RayW_Feb2004.pdf

Thanks for the kick-start on thinking about this gari:thumbsup:
banned#13
much cheaper and better quality online

never paid more than 1p for 6x4 prints apart from P&P and must have printed over 1000 pics

no cutting out to do either!
#14
csiman
much cheaper and better quality online

never paid more than 1p for 6x4 prints apart from P&P and must have printed over 1000 pics

no cutting out to do either!


There is a 1p per print advert on the sky news website atm, if that helps. No idea of the T&C's tho.
[helper]#15
chesso
And... Don't dry clean either.:roll:
Don't use clothes dye thinking it'll be cheaper.



The consensus on-line is that you're best off ( but not financially) with the printer's own premium quality paper.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/dnc/D&C_Perm_Article_2005_04_03.pdf

I have also discovered that matt paper is best for B&W and very large photos and gloss is best for all the rest, allowing for personal preferences of course.

This Henry Wilhelm guy (the subject of the article above)seems to be the top bloke to listen to.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/GreatOutput_HW_RayW_Feb2004.pdf

Thanks for the kick-start on thinking about this gari:thumbsup:


Thanks for researching this Chesso :thumbsup:
banned#16
greg_68;6186336
There is a 1p per print advert on the sky news website atm, if that helps. No idea of the T&C's tho.

I just re-use snapfish all the time with new accounts :thumbsup:

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!