Save some money on printer ink . . .

[Colin Brett]

Perhaps, but...

 

I haven't digital printed photos at home for years, all mine are done at PhotoBox, on photographic paper, and should last about 150 years (as photos do when stored correctly). There was no initial outlay, the only prints I get done now are large (small stuff just gets sent as jpegs), which costs £2.61 for a 15" x 10". Standard sized prints are just 5p.

 

I do have a photo colour printer at home, HP, so no nozzle clogging to worry about (yup had an Epson or two in my time), but there's no way, even with the printer profiled correctly, I can match PhotoBox quality, and certainly no chance of matching price.

 

I have to agree about the quality from Photobox, they have only done a few for me [30 x 20 and A2s] but they were outstanding quality.

 

I have trouble getting my head round NOT printing my own 7 x 5 images, so persevere with my Epson rightly or wrongly.

 

My other problem is my wife saying we have too many photographs around the walls and cupboards of our house.

 

I would have the walls covered in them!! :D

[Sutton Warrior]

I have to agree about the quality from Photobox, they have only done a few for me [30 x 20 and A2s] but they were outstanding quality.

 

I have trouble getting my head round NOT printing my own 7 x 5 images, so persevere with my Epson rightly or wrongly.

 

My other problem is my wife saying we have too many photographs around the walls and cupboards of our house.

 

I would have the walls covered in them!! :D

 

Colin, there is the argument of not needing wallpaper . . .

 

SW