i have been spending a rediculious amount at walmart

[bribrius]

on photos. And I think there are some reasons for my problem
1. im used to film cameras and don't like looking at digital images on a screen. My first instinct is to print a photo. digital sucks.
2. im used to having my own printers, but now find it easier to just click click click and do one hour photo and pick it up in a hour or two. I just sent out like seventy in one whack.
3. if I don't like it, I throw it away. But these three dollar a whack or four dollars a whack are adding up. Click the screen and its your personal printer ready in a hour. it is WAY to convenient.

4. if I like it, I still have to pay to have it printed again larger. And I am experimenting with gloss metallic or matte finishes to see what I like better on what type of photo. Playing with finishes someone else does on a certain photo, well you can imagine how crazy I am having the same photo reprinted...

And I always pay extra , because I want it done in a hour. They know me by name there now. Because I call them. I hit click and call them in five minutes to ask if it can be done in ten. Im used to having my own printers and just printing. so I want it NOW. just so I can see it and see if I like it. I want it the moment I decide I want it.


I clearly have a issue.

 

[usayit]

Pretty much mimics the expense of photography on film. Photography has never been cost effective hobby (especially film) but you learn ways to cut costs. When you factor in time... its even more expensive. I can't tell you how much photographic paper I would burn through to get a print (B&W in my case) "just" right.... 6 hours in the darkroom just to get a single assignment done for college photography.

Digital brings convenience and has recently become a bit more cost.. hence why more and more people got into photography since digital became more mainstream. People who would have otherwise turned their backs to photography because of the expense of time/money. Its the same reason why I have also moved on.

So...

* Perhaps you can develop the negatives yourself?

* Printing has gone downhill at most one hour shops. Most don't use pure chemical processing anymore due to most of their incoming requests being submitted digitally. The machines they use literally scan negatives and treat them just like a digital print. I am surprised you haven't noticed. So perhaps you can print yourself?

* I used to shoot B&W and develop the negatives myself in the bathroom. Then I would take the negatives and scan them for review on a computer. The selected frames would then be sent out for enlargements with a reputable service with instructions too. This way you skip the small prints.

* Shoot slides and skip prints all together? (not something I did)


Yeh.. you have an issue (I mean that jokingly). You want the convenience and cost of digital but don't want the end result of digital workflow. A "cake and eat it too" situation.

 

[The_Traveler]

I clearly have a issue

Certainly the smartest thing you've said about your behavior.

 

[bribrius]

I clearly have a issue

Certainly the smartest thing you've said about your behavior.

Salvador Dalí fan. Need I say more?

 

[bribrius]

Pretty much mimics the expense of photography on film. Photography has never been cost effective hobby (especially film) but you learn ways to cut costs. When you factor in time... its even more expensive. I can't tell you how much photographic paper I would burn through to get a print (B&W in my case) "just" right.... 6 hours in the darkroom just to get a single assignment done for college photography.

Digital brings convenience and has recently become a bit more cost.. hence why more and more people got into photography since digital became more mainstream. People who would have otherwise turned their backs to photography because of the expense of time/money. Its the same reason why I have also moved on.

So...

* Perhaps you can develop the negatives yourself?

* Printing has gone downhill at most one hour shops. Most don't use pure chemical processing anymore due to most of their incoming requests being submitted digitally. The machines they use literally scan negatives and treat them just like a digital print. I am surprised you haven't noticed. So perhaps you can print yourself?

* I used to shoot B&W and develop the negatives myself in the bathroom. Then I would take the negatives and scan them for review on a computer. The selected frames would then be sent out for enlargements with a reputable service with instructions too. This way you skip the small prints.

* Shoot slides and skip prints all together? (not something I did)


Yeh.. you have an issue (I mean that jokingly). You want the convenience and cost of digital but don't want the end result of digital workflow. A "cake and eat it too" situation.

well I had a cannon pixma that would print directly off film. I loved that thing. But sadly, it died. I have another printer im using now which basically sucks. which is why I started sending them out too. I am looking at new printers. But beyond the thousand dollar price tag, the idea of buying ink at four hundred a pop I don't find very appealing either. I could print right off film with the cannon though. And yeah, exactly.

 

[The_Traveler]

TBH, this sounds quite a bit like owning a hybrid but disconnecting the batteries and using only high test because the gas station is close.

 

[Derrel]

Well, I dunno about your printer experience, but mine is that lab prints are a lot less costly than inkjets I make. The cost of paper, and ink, and the need to "babysit" the printer means that it's just much more economical to send out print work to a big lab that has tons of resources, and which can get economies of scale on its purchases of paper and printing supplies.

The way I see it, over time, measured in decades, prints become very valuable bits of paper to have and to enjoy.

Maybe in a while, your technical and artistic prowess will improve to the point where you can prep your files precisely, based on where the print will be made and the profiles supplied to you by the print house, and you'll save money and time by being very skilled at print file prep. ANyway, no matter what, I hope you can try to ENJOY the experience, rather than worry and fret and fuss about it.

 

[usayit]

By prints in my post I was referring to actual chemical prints from a darkroom not an inkjet. Imo, traditional wet print is the only real way to appreciate film.

With that said... my experience is similar to Darrel. I rarely do my own prints now because it's cheaper to simply get someone else to do it.

 

[bribrius]

TBH, this sounds quite a bit like owning a hybrid but disconnecting the batteries and using only high test because the gas station is close.

lol. Im starting to like you lew

Well, I dunno about your printer experience, but mine is that lab prints are a lot less costly than inkjets I make. The cost of paper, and ink, and the need to "babysit" the printer means that it's just much more economical to send out print work to a big lab that has tons of resources, and which can get economies of scale on its purchases of paper and printing supplies.

The way I see it, over time, measured in decades, prints become very valuable bits of paper to have and to enjoy.

Maybe in a while, your technical and artistic prowess will improve to the point where you can prep your files precisely, based on where the print will be made and the profiles supplied to you by the print house, and you'll save money and time by being very skilled at print file prep. ANyway, no matter what, I hope you can try to ENJOY the experience, rather than worry and fret and fuss about it.

I think you hit partially hit on another issue too. I suck at prep. And ill admit it. I post a few things that on here. But I ask people I know mostly. "does this suck?" Because I cant often tell.

 

[bribrius]

By prints in my post I was referring to actual chemical prints from a darkroom not an inkjet. Imo, traditional wet print is the only real way to appreciate film.

I cant disagree. I think this is still beyond me though. I haven't been in a dark room in twenty years. tempting. I do hate digital with a passion too. digital data, is about worthless unless you are selling the pic to a online customer I would guess. Real people like real pictures, in frames. They can pick up and hang on a wall.

 

[usayit]

Most of my images digital or film are intended for print. Not just on computer display. It simply requires an appropriate workflow.