Do you print your digital photos?

[F1L1P]

Simple question. With analog photography you needed to developed photos in order to show them to someone. Today it is enough to turn on your PC or mobile phone and show your photos. It is easier to share them via web too.
But the question is: do you develop your digital photos? Either at home on printer or you get them developed in photo store.

 

[F1L1P]

I develop some of them, of course I take hunders of them and only a small portion of them get developed, but I still have around 200 developed photos per year in average.

 

[BillN]

I have just started - maybe printed 20 - only 2 at A4 sized - the rest a lot smaller prinyed on a £150 canon printer

I intend to continue and am now looking at monitor calibration, upgrading Lightroom etc., etc.

but I have just retired and maybe have more time than others

(like you I have trillions on my compter - I can never decide which to keep and which to delete)

 

[F1L1P]

I have just started - maybe printed 20 - only 2 at A4 sized - the rest a lot smaller prinyed on a £150 canon printer

Nice. I've calculated it is more affordable for me to get them developed in store than to print them at home, although I suppose it is much convenient to print them at home. Are you happy with the results you get on your printer?

 

[Brian Mosley]

Very sadly, no... not at the moment, although I've coordinated an exhibition in the past (over 200 prints, 16" x 12") for the Safari Group - now that was a learning experience!

I suspect that over the next few years, paper prints will be almost totally displaced by electronic displays of one form or another. I'm looking forward to the time they can approximate the quality of a really good print on paper.

Cheers

Brian

 

[steve]

I seldom print images. Usually it's because I like something enough to frame it, or, someone asks me for a print. I don't even own a photo printer. Otherwise, I guess I would print images more often. When I do print, I use Meridian Pro or Bay Photo Labs. Both provide great quality at a good price.

 

[BillN]

Nice. I've calculated it is more affordable for me to get them developed in store than to print them at home, although I suppose it is much convenient to print them at home. Are you happy with the results you get on your printer?

I am really happy - to me they are far better and more enjoyable than anything on my compter - the two that I have done at A4 size are of our beloved Spinger Spaniel who died last November - we all love them.

The prints that I have done have turned out really well on a inexpensive Canon printer

I have not calculated the cost but as I would only expect to print a small proportion I do not think that this will be an issue, (versus having them done on line).

Saying that, I now have about 30 "good" shots of my sons graduation and we are thinking about getting one of those "photobooks" from an on line source.

So in summary - if it is just a few (a week) - I will do them myself

more than 15 at one go - I will go to the web

IMHO a few prints really add to the experience

Best wishes

 

[matmcdermott]

Personally I don't think a photo's really done until it's printed. Even if it's just a 5x7, only then does it really become something.

Even though the end use of many of the photos I take these days is online, professionally, that's not really the point or the enjoyment I get from photography. The size is too small, too fleeting, too impermanent. Granted a print won't last forever, even if treated well, but it's an entirely different thing than online or other digital presentation.

And if you're putting together a show, portfolio, or other non-digital presentation I find it much more useful to print out and rearrange things physical than doing it via software.

I print everything myself on a now slightly aging Epson 2200, but am looking to upgrade to a 3880 in the next few months. I tend to print in batches, rather than single images as I'm working on something.

 

[kengan]

Sorry to say, I misunderstood the poll option, I took develop to mean pp'ing, not hard copy or printing. So my vote should have been sometimes..... though I voted usually.
Mostly my prints are Panoramics, as taking landscape images are my favourites, and mostly composed of multi images.

At present, the G1 has not been used in this way. Still waiting for my health to improve for more adventurous outdoor expeditions.

 

[F1L1P]

I suspect that over the next few years, paper prints will be almost totally displaced by electronic displays of one form or another. I'm looking forward to the time they can approximate the quality of a really good print on paper.

Possibly, I think both will coexist, both printing and viewing on screen :smile:
I'm waiting for OLED screens. I have one on my cell phone and it is really great. Superb contrast, color rendering and magnificent deep black color.

I tend to print in batches, rather than single images as I'm working on something.

same here.
I usually make a collection of pictures (around 100 every 6 months or so) and then send them to photo store.

Sorry to say, I misunderstood the poll option, I took develop to mean pp'ing, not hard copy or printing. So my vote should have been sometimes..... though I voted usually.

no problem, maybe it's my english... :horse:

At present, the G1 has not been used in this way. Still waiting for my health to improve for more adventurous outdoor expeditions.

Sorry to hear that, I hope it will improve soon

 

[matmcdermott]

I suspect that over the next few years, paper prints will be almost totally displaced by electronic displays of one form or another. I'm looking forward to the time they can approximate the quality of a really good print on paper.

I agree with the previous poster. At best you're going to see greater use of digital displays. It is a far different thing to pick up a print, be able to handle it, than look at something on a screen, no matter how good the quality. I can certainly see the advantages of greater digital display for some uses, but there is more to enlarging an image than just looking at it big. The medium of display changes it.

 

[kengan]

I agree with the previous poster. At best you're going to see greater use of digital displays. It is a far different thing to pick up a print, be able to handle it, than look at something on a screen, no matter how good the quality. I can certainly see the advantages of greater digital display for some uses, but there is more to enlarging an image than just looking at it big. The medium of display changes it.

Must agree with the last sentence. Our daughter-in-law has a passion for any subject with a nautical feel, so takes many of this type of subject. And then she pays for some to be printed very large on canvas, and they are then a real visual enjoyment, some are over 1.5 metres square. Sorry to say, not taken with mu-43,(Fuji-S3). No good for the pixel peepers, but a joy for those who appreciate a well composed picture.

 

[markjacob]

Hello.
For me it is usually no.
As I see most of them in laptop and check.

 

[rst]

I usually collect one or two images per week and send those to an online printer once a month. Paper size is 9.5x12, print size a bit smaller.

Cheers
rst

 

[JimNYUK]

I the good old days, I used to develop and print all my pics, b/w of course and amassed a huge collection which now live in cardboard boxes in a cupboard. We hardly ever see these pics now, usually only when we are having a spring clean.

Digital on the other hand is a different story. Everything is so accessible on a computer that we quite regularly view shots from years ago as well as recent ones. I've been slowly scanning my old neg's for about a year, now about half way through. Scanning and tagging them in Lightroom takes me ages but is worth it in the end (I think).

I've only had moderate success with inkjet printing. Have an Epson 2100 but getting colours looking good is a nightmare for me. My son-in-law on the other hand produces fantastic prints on his set-up.

Jim

 

[OzRay]

Frequently. I print anywhere from A4 to A2+, depending on the requirement. Electronic viewing is fine, but there's nothing like having an actual print to view.

Cheers

Ray

 

[Federico]

Frequently. I print anywhere from A4 to A2+, depending on the requirement. Electronic viewing is fine, but there's nothing like having an actual print to view.

Cheers

Ray

You 're right!
I print about 400 pictures every year

But never smaller than an A3
My personal portfolio is A3+ (33X48 cm)
Electronic viewing cannot match a fine-art print
No way.

The biggest print I've ever done is way longer than 200 cm
(a single file from a Nikon D3...now I really don't understand who ask for more pixel...)

 

[photographyrich1965]

I take around 80 pictures on my sojourns into the city at least once a week. Of those eighty I usually like six to twelve enough to print as 4 x 6's. These get put into Kolo albums. I'm up to about a dozen albums. It's fun to look at the pictures, on paper, and see what i was up to months or years past.

In my experience this is a great way to show my work. People can thumb through the albums at their leisure - rather than being held hostage looking at the computer screen.

My printer is an Epson 3800. Works great with Moab Entrada paper, and can print the occasional shot worthy of a 17x22.

 

[chrisman]

Twice a year I print a representative sample (usually 50 - 100) to go in the family albums - these are always printed at my local photo store.

Occasionally I will print one-or-two photos at home for something special.

The most expensive way ever designed to print photos is on a consumer ink-jet printer, especially if you have to re-print for some reason - the results are excellent but at a cost at least twice that commercially.

Chris

 

[OzRay]

Twice a year I print a representative sample (usually 50 - 100) to go in the family albums - these are always printed at my local photo store.

Occasionally I will print one-or-two photos at home for something special.

The most expensive way ever designed to print photos is on a consumer ink-jet printer, especially if you have to re-print for some reason - the results are excellent but at a cost at least twice that commercially.

Chris

My printers, inks and papers have cost me a fraction of that of my cameras and lenses. But printing my own gives me as much enjoyment as shooting my own shots, as I have the same control and ownership of what I produce, for it just completes the circle.

Cheers

Ray