On 2004-11-20 06:20:47 +0100, Mxsmanic said:

poldy writes:

Like millions of other Americans, Julie Berry got a digital camera this
year. What the 35-year-old stay-at-home mom does with the pictures is
the subject of the next big battle over the future of photography.

After snapping shots of her 2-year-old daughter, Ginger, Ms. Berry
printed them out in her study -- and was disappointed. "The photos just
didn't have great color or great resolution," she says. "I just
thought: 'Oh well, I guess we have to buy a better printer.'*"

A few weeks later, Ms. Berry had more luck at the digital printing
kiosk at the CVS Corp. pharmacy near her home in Mansfield, Mass. On
her first try, Ms. Berry produced 30 digital prints for 29 cents a pop
in less than half an hour. Now, she's a convert. "It's easy and it's
very reasonably priced," she says, "especially considering I don't want
to spend time and money and run out to buy a new printer."

Newbies in digital photography rapidly discover that the only way to get
nice prints is to take the digital photos to a lab. So-called digital
cameras only simplify the taking of pictures; they do not provide better
pictures, and they certainly do not make it possible to replace photo
labs for getting quality prints.

Whoa! Mixi in "Talking sense" Shock Horror!

In fact I am mystied by the idea of printing your photos at home - you
have to buy a printer, mess with inks, buy special paper in a variety
of sizes, experiment with setting up the parameters, and wait for the
thing to print out. Then you have a print that will probably fade
rapidly in sunlight.

The alternative is to upload your photos to a photo service and next
day pick up your gleaming prints from their store (I recommend Photo
Service in Frogland - which I tried out at Mixi's suggestion).
Infinitely better idea.

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG