Why are 5x7 digital prints so expensive?!?!?!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 26 GP pano
Next: Adobe upgrades...
From: Peter on 14 Mar 2010 14:05 "anon a mouse" <pakossa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:af7c13b5-2071-4a46-a4e3-313b31addd93(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >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 > 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? Try Costco. -- Peter
From: Martin Brown on 15 Mar 2010 06:21 Chris H wrote: > In message <Ju2nn.112685$0N3.51856(a)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
From: Chris H on 15 Mar 2010 06:55 In message <MSnnn.72929$1n5.66742(a)newsfe04.iad>, Martin Brown <|||newspa m|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes >Chris H wrote: >> In message <Ju2nn.112685$0N3.51856(a)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. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Bruce on 15 Mar 2010 07:10 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:21:30 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Chris H wrote: >> In message <Ju2nn.112685$0N3.51856(a)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/
From: Chris H on 15 Mar 2010 07:29
In message <4m4sp5h9cvtgi6v8s0bgtcggj6cdkk8o8q(a)4ax.com>, Bruce <docnews2011(a)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$0N3.51856(a)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.... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |