What are the pros and cons of lab prints versus using a printer?

Question

As newcomers to photography and printing we would like advice on the best way(s), regarding both quality and cost, of printing. In the main my wife is photographing birds and insects, so natural colour and clarity are paramount. I have had one recommendation to a previous question for a photo lab (Photobox), thanks James. I was just wondering if any one else can give me advise?

Asked by Dennis

Answer

Jrista's article is an excellent explanation of the cost of making these prints. It's actually quite a bit cheaper than I'd expected.

I'm just starting to make my own prints using my new Canon Pixma Pro9000 printer. I must say the results are stunningly beautiful and pop out of the printer with very little effort once I figured out how to load the paper.

Here are a couple of notes on cost that are worth noting.

First, if you are willing to settle for the Pro9000 instead of the Pro9500, it can be had very inexpensively if you check the "used" area of Amazon. Just look for the Pro9000 in Amazon and note the "new and used from $199" part of the page.

What you will find is that there is a whole secondary market in these machines thanks to the $400 rebate provided with the purchase of the printer with a new Canon DSLR. It turns out a lot of people want these rebates and then resell the printers once the rebates are collected. So even if you are a Nikon shooter like me, you can easily buy these printers for about $250 delivered. This makes the Pro9000, in my opinion, an unbeatable deal for anyone who has even a marginal desire to own a great photo printer.

A major benefit of printer ownership is that the marginal cost of making a print goes way down. Take Jrista's example of someone who buys the printer and uses it once a month. His first print, including the monthly amortization of the printer cost, costs $10 (if we count the printer as costing $250 instead of $700+ as in his example). But any subsequent print he wants to make costs only about $6 ($3 for paper and $2.80 for ink). A print from a lab will cost about $13, so he is actually paying much less than what a lab would cost, as long as he makes at least one print a month.

A reasonable scenerio in my case might be to give prints as Christmas gifts to ten of my friends, and then printing one print a month for the rest of the year. This would mean I would make about 22 prints in a year. If I amortize my printer over three years, that's $83 a year, plus $127 for making the 22 prints. So it costs me a bit over $200 a year, or less than $10 per print. This is considerably cheaper than a photo lab, and my prints come out of the printer instantly, which is partiuclarly useful during the Christmas season when photo labs are bound to be very busy and thus slow.

One really interesting consequence of purchasing your printer is that you should really act as though the printer didn't cost anything at all when making your calculations. Why? Because you should encourage yourself to make prints whenever you have even the slightest desire for them.

The reason for this is that if you leave your printer idle for long periods, you are risking ink clogging, which uses a lot of ink to resolve. You would be better off using this ink to make prints! Unless you are printing photos for a living, it's highly unlikely that you can overload your printer's duty cycle.

So don't say your print cost $10 including the cost of the printer. Say it costs under $6, and make as many prints as you would want to have at that price.

Incidentally, I found Canon's Photo Paper Platinum at $12.99 per 10 sheets, including shipping. So my paper costs about $1.30 and my ink (presumably from his example) around $2.80. So my 13x19 print costs only about $4.10. Your mileage may vary, as always, but look around for deals and you may find photo printing considerably cheaper than you might think.

Answered by n/a

Check more discussion of this question.