Do people still actually print photos?

I'm being facetious, of course: obviously, photos get printed for a variety of

reasons but, reading an interesting thread about how sharpening should really be

done with an eye to the specific printing environment, I realized that I hardly

ever print photos anymore.

 

I'm an amateur and there's a case to be made that none of my photos are worth

printing but, even so, there's only so much wall space in this world and the

last thing I need is a shoebox or scrapbook full of photos. When I share, it's

via e-mail, flashdrive or CD, the web or digital photo frame.

 

I have to think that, despite my age, I'm riding the wave of the future in

this--am I right?

I only print the best photos of the year, so the walls get new pictures once a month.

I print photos of relatives, kids.... the photos that maybe somebody 20 years down the road will appreciate.

 

Seen too many folks loose digi-data, that I figure the images with the best chance of making it into the future are still on paper.

I print photos so I can look at them without a computer. The walls of my office are covered with letter-sized inkjet prints. Many times I make a print to hang up next to my computer so I can look at it over a period of time and decide if I like it (or if it needs more work).

 

FWIW, I also have many more photos on-line in various galleries (and more than that in various machine-readable backups!).

I have been printing 4X6 photos lately. I try to pick the one best shot of the event (football, volleyball, etc) and print it out. When someone wants to see samples I only show them my best stuff :).

I print many of my pictures to 8 X 10ish size, and end up discarding those that aren't up to my standards. Those that meet my standards are printed 12" X 18" (30 X 45 cm) or larger then matted and framed to hang on my wall.

 

I give many of my prints away, and sell a few, and hang many on my walls at home.

 

<Chas>

Not too many of my commercial shots get printed anymore unless it's a 4-color brochure. Most end up on a webpage or in a PowerPoint show. All of my wedding & portrait stuff still gets printed on a regular basis- that usually is the final output. Lots of our personal stuff gets sent to Sams for 4x6 & 5x7 prints- our family still loves pix- mostly for the fridge. I still have a color darkroom (that I haven't taken apart yet...) and used to print up to 20x24 for the walls all the time- but I haven't in a long time. Most everything we have on our walls now is real art- oils, watercolor, lithos, engravings, etc...

Dave-- I find that holding a photo in my hand, looking at it without the back lighting of the

monitor, framing it and hanging it on the wall, teaches me a whole lot about my images. For

me, printing is an important learning tool. --Fred

I have a printer that I can print normal size photo's. I try and print all my photo's now so I can see how they look even at the 4x6 size (at least). To have it and look at it (and we are talking about the memory photo's or the photo's of a sunset). THEY are special to me. The ones I treasure. If I upload it IT SHOULD BE PRINTED. Why would I not print it. Of course if my mother reads this then she is going to wonder why she hasn't seen ANY on the wall either ;).

 

So, we need to print more. We are lazy. No doubt we click away store them, lose them and forget about them. We need to print. YES! Great forum talk.

When I shot film I tended to end up with lot's of small prints. Many of which I had no use for. Now I take the money I save by not getting every single shot printed, and have larger prints made of the good ones. An 8"x12" costs the same as 10 4"x6" prints. I have more prints up on walls these days than ever.

I print anywhere from half to three quarters of my digital personal shooting. (I print all the film shots, and reject maybe 3 or 4 per roll.) I have grandchildren and love photo albums. Something about having paper prints is more personal and comforting than watching images on the computer monitor. Also more portable. I can take an album to the Aunts and Uncles and they can enjoy them, too.

 

I am a photo lab manager. Our roll volume has dropped to between 25 and 30 rolls per day (down from about 50 - 70 several years ago), but we do between 20,000 and 30,000 digital 4x6 prints a month on 3 dye-sub printers. So I think people are still making prints.

 

I need more wall space!

>>> Do people still actually print photos?

 

Ask Epson...

Yes, as you well know.

I, like Fred, print my pictures, matte and frame them. There are times when they look good on the computer but when printed they might need more work. My work area has my best, (at least I think there my best), some have the ribbons that I have won. It encourages me, to see what I have done and know I can do better

Yes, I still print. I upload to whcc.com and get superb prints on Kodak Endura paper. Much better quality than I was getting from a local Fuji Frontier.

Was the question, "do PEOPLE still actually print photos", meaning doing their own printing work, or "do people still actually PRINT photos", such as sending the files or films out to a third party for the actual printing? The answer to both is a resounding YES, as can be attested by the various forums. Seems like a specious question.

Of course we/I print pictures. We are just more selective in printing than the old consumer film model - print everything and toss them into a drawer. What we do print is to an higher standard than ever before, with a degree of control formerly reserved for us who toiled in darkrooms learning the craft and staining our fingers.

 

What happens to those prints? Apart from commercial deliverables and portfolios, there doesn't seem to be a good resting place for prints. My parents and grandparents diligently pasted snapshots into scrap books. I still have some of them, and all the ghosts of the past. Neither I nor my children have taken up that particular torch. We exchange prints which end up in piles. The best are clipped to the refrigerator, eventually to fade, fall off or be replaced. Perhaps the refrigerator is the new scrapbook.

There are many internet businesses that do a fantastic job of printing your photos in a story

book. I've given these as gifts for years. You not only get to give the "best of the best" of your

photography, but you tell a story as you group and arrange your photos, adding captions and

other text appropriately. And photo printing can also encompass coffee mugs, aprons,

magnets, etc. - all great mementos and/or gifts.

I went from print film to slide film to digital. I now print more photos now compared to when I shot slide film. I now print fewer photos compared to when I shot print film.

<<I went from print film to slide film to digital. I now print more photos now compared to when I shot slide film. I now print fewer photos compared to when I shot print film.>>

 

That's my situation as well. Print film, for a long time, meant prints with developing. After getting a film scanner, I did more "develop only" orders. Then I switched to slide film and rarely printed. In part, I think, it was because I was still getting used to the differences between the film types. The switch to digital resulted in me printing again, but clearly not as often as with print film.

Try taking a computer into your local pub/bar and say 'Hey guys, look at this'. Like Emre, I like to change my wall candy from time to time. Also, a local cafe hangs selected prints on their walls with a price tag attached so they get a changing display and I sell a few. It's a win win situation.

I preach to everyone I can -- especially non photographers -- that is is absolutely essential to print photos, more so now in digital than ever before. Saving them on hard drives, CDs or DVDs isn't enough. Right now, just about anybody with a computer can open a jpg on a CD. But our grandchildren won't have any idea what those shiny little discs are, let alone that they have photos on them, and even if they do they won't have a computer that can use them. How many of you can still pop in a 5 1/4-inch floppy or even a 3.5 inch floppy? People claim they will just copy their files to the latest medium as the years go along. But other than professional making a living off their images, most people will probably never do that. Or at best they'll only copy a handful of what they think are the most important pictures. Sure, prints can fade, and there are archival questions with both inkjet prints and lab prints. But somebody pulling a print out of a shoebox in 2050 will at least know it's a photo they have in their hand.

The real answer to your question can be found at any SAM'S CLUB location. Their (and WALMART's) kiosks stay busy all day.

Not just prints, but enlargements of soem really horrid images.<p>

The finished photo racks are usually full (<i>at least early in the mornings</i>). No way I try to speak for any other chain operations, but at 17 cents per photo, SAM'S does a brisk print business.<p>We must remember tens of millions of "Grannies" (and others) <i>do not own computers</i>, their "high tech" storage media being shoeboxes under their beds. <br>Women (and young girls) adore photos of loved ones.<br>Photos represent the loved one in hard copy, as opposed to an image viewed on a monitor.<br>Photos can be tucked inside lockers, 5-star notebooks and wallets.<br>Obviously, photos don't need batteries, just a little light. Even if the photo is bad, it remains a tangible link to the subject.<p>As for "riding the wave of the future"? Nah.<br>The "future" (<i>and the past</i>) is stored... under beds... by grandmothers.

I like to make prints. I send 6x4inch prints to the lab and make 8x10inch injet prints. My wife still likes the 6x4 inch prints for albums and the 8x10 injets go in a larger album or into frames. I tend to get back and forth between film and digital as I still have both but at the moment I am enjoying digtal and injet printing.