View Full Version : Printing photographs from a digital camera
I need a bit of help, I've taken a fair few photo's and have finally gotten round to purchasing some top quality glossy photo paper and want to now print them out. There's a few things that confuse me though:
1) Ideal printing resolution, the images are taken at 2500px x whatever and are the proper size for 6x4" prints.
2) Calibration, this confuses me a bit, I know I should calibrate my printer somehow .. not sure how, can't find any ICC profiles for it (it's a Canon i350)
3) Which program to print from, turns out Photoshop, for all the money I spent on it is one of the worst programs to print from, I've tried Qimage and some crappy software supplied by Canon but they still look a bit muddy.
4) I also need a cheap supplier of good glossy photo paper, don't want to spend another 15 quid on 30 sheets if at all possible, especially if the prints are coming out a bit on the manky side.
Thanks
It may sound daft, but use MS Word if you have it.
If you are using 6x4 photo paper, then set your word document to use that page rather than A4
Word, in my experience, is suprisingly fantastic for printing photos, especially if you need to increase their size to fit A4 or 10x8 for example.
It can also put lovely borders around your pics too.
Format the pic to float over text, and set it to center horizontal and vertical by page.
Doesn't sound daft, but I wouldn't use word to print anything professionally apart from a document containing .. words :D I've no use for things like borders etc as I'm going to be using 6x4" glossy card stuff, what I need is a program that will do colour matching perfectly, trouble is, I don't want to pay too much for it. It's taken me a good hour to calibrate my monitor and I'm still none the wiser about how to calibrate the printer (colour profile that is, not the head alignment etc).
Flubflow
19-01-2004, 02:41
The ICC profiles should have been installed when you installed the driver. I can't say what settings are in the Canon print driver `cos I don't have one but if you are printing from software that already does its own colour correction/compensation for printouts then you do NOT want the ICC colour correction turned on in the driver otherwise you are sort of "double correcting". If you are using the software's colour correction then you also need to have the monitor's ICC profile too. That's the whole point of software correction is that it tries to show you on your screen what you should expect to get out of your printer.
Perhaps you could try increasing the saturation and/or contrast in the driver or in photoshop.
The problem is that what looks nice and bright on your monitor is never going to look anything like when printed. So, if the software doesn't compensate then often you have to compensate yourself. I don't think it is much to do with the application unless it is applying really bad software colour correction.
IMO colour matching and getting good photo prints on domestic equipment is more of an art rather than a science.;)
The ICC profiles should have been installed when you installed the driver. I can't say what settings are in the Canon print driver `cos I don't have one but if you are printing from software that already does its own colour correction/compensation for printouts then you do NOT want the ICC colour correction turned on in the driver otherwise you are sort of "double correcting". If you are using the software's colour correction then you also need to have the monitor's ICC profile too. That's the whole point of software correction is that it tries to show you on your screen what you should expect to get out of your printer.
Perhaps you could try increasing the saturation and/or contrast in the driver or in photoshop.
The problem is that what looks nice and bright on your monitor is never going to look anything like when printed. So, if the software doesn't compensate then often you have to compensate yourself. I don't think it is much to do with the application unless it is applying really bad software colour correction.
IMO colour matching and getting good photo prints on domestic equipment is more of an art rather than a science.;)
cheers for that, I'd rep you, but I can't .. perhaps someone else will.
cheers for that, I'd rep you, but I can't .. perhaps someone else will.
Done on your behalf ;)
Ditch the cannon, get an epson and just hit print, colours come out perfectly by default :D
homealone
19-01-2004, 07:33
if you have a branch of Aldi near you they often have A4 glossy for about £7 for 50 sheets (single sided).
Ditch the cannon, get an epson and just hit print, colours come out perfectly by default :D
I don't own a cannon, I think there's probably some law against that. Epsons are no better, it's not down to the print resolution etc, it's down to what's on the screen isn't calibrated to what's coming out of the printer, and with Epsons you still need to do print image matching.
if you have a branch of Aldi near you they often have A4 glossy for about £7 for 50 sheets (single sided).
:( unfortunately not, Lidl has only just made it over here but it's one of them small ones that sells nothing but cheap nasty german foodstuffs.
edit: I think I might just buy the Sony 6x4 printer and do without the PC as the middle man, might save a lot of hassle.
aliferste
19-01-2004, 13:29
I have a cannon i350....just started using it the other day.....i just used the software combined with it the easy photo print..........damn fine photos!!
ive just read through all thats been written......jeepers i just touched up the pictures in photoshop and then through easy photo print printed em :)
SMHarman
19-01-2004, 14:27
Perhaps I'm being dumb here, but why do it yourself when you can get the professionals to do it.
http://www.directphoto.co.uk/index.cfm/cat/Digital_via_Net/page/Digital_via_Net
for example (they do pretty good wet D&P) charge 15p for a 6x4 and you can submit the prints on line.
Even the Lidl Paper, getting 100 prints (2 a page) comes out at 14p a sheet or 7p a print. Then add the ink costs £20 for a colour cartridge with a 500 sheet yield at 5%, so thats 30 sheets at 80% coverage or 3.5p a print (7p/page). Your home printed images are costing you about 10p each. Pay 4p more and remove the hastle and error costs. I've tried to err on the low end (and ignore the black ink costs, and the cost of buying the printer, power etc) in this excercise, but I think it indicates that sending off for printing is the way forward (though less immediate).
Perhaps I'm being dumb here, but why do it yourself when you can get the professionals to do it.
http://www.directphoto.co.uk/index.cfm/cat/Digital_via_Net/page/Digital_via_Net
for example (they do pretty good wet D&P) charge 15p for a 6x4 and you can submit the prints on line.
Even the Lidl Paper, getting 100 prints (2 a page) comes out at 14p a sheet or 7p a print. Then add the ink costs £20 for a colour cartridge with a 500 sheet yield at 5%, so thats 30 sheets at 80% coverage or 3.5p a print (7p/page). Your home printed images are costing you about 10p each. Pay 4p more and remove the hastle and error costs. I've tried to err on the low end (and ignore the black ink costs, and the cost of buying the printer, power etc) in this excercise, but I think it indicates that sending off for printing is the way forward (though less immediate).
I might give that a try, thanks
Flubflow
19-01-2004, 15:12
Perhaps I'm being dumb here, but why do it yourself when you can get the professionals to do it.
http://www.directphoto.co.uk/index.cfm/cat/Digital_via_Net/page/Digital_via_Net
for example (they do pretty good wet D&P) charge 15p for a 6x4 and you can submit the prints on line.
Even the Lidl Paper, getting 100 prints (2 a page) comes out at 14p a sheet or 7p a print. Then add the ink costs £20 for a colour cartridge with a 500 sheet yield at 5%, so thats 30 sheets at 80% coverage or 3.5p a print (7p/page). Your home printed images are costing you about 10p each. Pay 4p more and remove the hastle and error costs. I've tried to err on the low end (and ignore the black ink costs, and the cost of buying the printer, power etc) in this excercise, but I think it indicates that sending off for printing is the way forward (though less immediate).
There was an excellent review in January's Digital Camera Magazine on digital print services (6 of them). The one that won was www.photobox.co.uk (also the only one of the 6 to offer satin matt as well as gloss finish).
Incidentaly, I've used the Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl Paper and I've found it to be superb. Looks very "pro".
aliferste
19-01-2004, 15:12
Why not just take em to safeway and get them to print them out :)
Ooh .. cool, what's the difference between satin matt and glossy? Or is that a daft question?
Ooh .. cool, what's the difference between satin matt and glossy? Or is that a daft question?THink of it like paint finishes .... matt is slightly dull, glossy is well.... glossy and satin in a bit of a mix :D
I've just re-read what I asked and I've come to the conclusion that I'm retarded. What I meant to ask was what is the difference between satin matt and normal matt finished :D
I get mine online from Jessops (http://download.pixology.com/jessops/index.htm). They are very good :)
ian@huth
19-01-2004, 15:55
I had problems getting printed photos to be the correct colour and after much experimentation came up with a solution. Why bother printing them at all. They are easier to view on a computer or TV screen, cost you nothing, take up little storage space and can be quickly emailed or put on a CD for friends.
I have a cannon i350....just started using it the other day.....i just used the software combined with it the easy photo print..........damn fine photos!!
ive just read through all thats been written......jeepers i just touched up the pictures in photoshop and then through easy photo print printed em :)
Agree totally. I have Canon i550 and basically all I did was reset the paper size to match the paper supply and reset the paper type to 'glossy photo' - and then print. Come out FINE. No hassle at all
I had problems getting printed photos to be the correct colour and after much experimentation came up with a solution. Why bother printing them at all. They are easier to view on a computer or TV screen, cost you nothing, take up little storage space and can be quickly emailed or put on a CD for friends.
Yeah but I have some decent pictures of relatives and landscapes that I want framed, until I can afford a plasma tv to hang on the wall I'm going to have to settle for getting them printed.
Flubflow
19-01-2004, 16:34
I get mine online from Jessops (http://download.pixology.com/jessops/index.htm). They are very good :)
Jessops rated pretty badly in the tests in January Digital Camera Magazine.
Here are their scores for all 6 .....
Klick = 62%
Jessops (pixology) = 64%
Fotango = 67%
MSN Photos (fujicolour) = 70%
OFOTO = 82%
Photobox = 90%
For further details, buy the magazine.
Flubflow
19-01-2004, 16:38
Ooh .. cool, what's the difference between satin matt and glossy? Or is that a daft question?
The satin matt or "pearl" has a sort of textured surface. It is not dull as in plain paper but rather halfway between matt and gloss but with the texture (generally speaking). I think satin matt/pearl is better if you are putting them in a frame rather than in an album.
EDIT:
I think PCWorld stores are selling the Ilford Galerie professional range of inkjet papers (although I can't see them on their website). Like I said I got the Smooth Pearl and it is superb. It is supposed to be for those phot-dedicated printers but works just fine on the cheapo models (just allow a much longer drying time before handling). I actually got mine at a local camera shop and they had a special offer of extra 5 sheets free (normaly 25 sheets in a box). I don't think it is all that expensive either (can't remember the price - probably around £10 - £12 I think).
paulyoung666
19-01-2004, 16:50
Yeah but I have some decent pictures of relatives and landscapes that I want framed, until I can afford a plasma tv to hang on the wall I'm going to have to settle for getting them printed.
sorry if this has been covered , but have you tried going into jessops or boots or even tesco , and get them printed for you ??????????? :)
I don't own a cannon, I think there's probably some law against that. Epsons are no better, it's not down to the print resolution etc, it's down to what's on the screen isn't calibrated to what's coming out of the printer, and with Epsons you still need to do print image matching.
Well it prints from my EOS300D with perfect quality.
The only time I've had a bit of a problem was with a scan of a negative, but that's because I didn't bother correcting the over exposure created by the scanner, so it's a little pale, but with normal shots, they come out as good as from the shop.
Well it prints from my EOS300D with perfect quality.
The only time I've had a bit of a problem was with a scan of a negative, but that's because I didn't bother correcting the over exposure created by the scanner, so it's a little pale, but with normal shots, they come out as good as from the shop.
Your camera is a little bit too fancy for my likeing ;) You've almost double the output resolution I have, mine is only a lowly 3.3mp. Perhaps it's just down to the camera or me being absolutely useless at taking a decent photo, what I need is a cheap tripod .. so if anyone's got any suggestions for one, let me know, I'll buy it and close this :D
sorry if this has been covered , but have you tried going into jessops or boots or even tesco , and get them printed for you ??????????? :)
While mucking about with printer driver settings can be fun, it gets tiresome after a while and the satisfaction of producing my own prints from start to finish has worn more than a little thin over the last couple of months. Especially allowing for the paper and ink wasted on trial runs, I'm not so sure home production is such a cost effective means of doing it anymore either. I'm planning to trawl my digital photo library over the next couple of weeks and do exactly what you suggest paul - I'll put the best of them on a 256mb card and then take it down to Boots or somewhere.
paulyoung666
19-01-2004, 17:07
Your camera is a little bit too fancy for my likeing ;) You've almost double the output resolution I have, mine is only a lowly 3.3mp. Perhaps it's just down to the camera or me being absolutely useless at taking a decent photo, what I need is a cheap tripod .. so if anyone's got any suggestions for one, let me know, I'll buy it and close this :D
this (http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?PRODUCT=JESATA3QR&BRAND=&CONTINUE=false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=0&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&MODELNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=342&ORD=ASC&ORDERBY=&QUANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHNODE=0&SEARCHURL=dointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=999999&SHOWCASEID=&STARTROW=1&SUBS=&WORD_SEARCH=N&) looks good to me for the price :)
on second thoughts it would only be ok if you are a dwarf , try this (http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?PRODUCT=VELCX440&BRAND=&CONTINUE=false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=0&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&MODELNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=342&ORD=ASC&ORDERBY=&QUANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHNODE=0&SEARCHURL=dointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=999999&SHOWCASEID=&STARTROW=1&SUBS=&WORD_SEARCH=N&) instead :)
paulyoung666
19-01-2004, 17:11
While mucking about with printer driver settings can be fun, it gets tiresome after a while and the satisfaction of producing my own prints from start to finish has worn more than a little thin over the last couple of months. Especially allowing for the paper and ink wasted on trial runs, I'm not so sure home production is such a cost effective means of doing it anymore either. I'm planning to trawl my digital photo library over the next couple of weeks and do exactly what you suggest paul - I'll put the best of them on a 256mb card and then take it down to Boots or somewhere.
thats my sort of thinking , i have played about putting them on cd as a slideshow and watching them through the dvd player , works pretty damned good for me :)
ian@huth
19-01-2004, 17:12
Yeah but I have some decent pictures of relatives and landscapes that I want framed, until I can afford a plasma tv to hang on the wall I'm going to have to settle for getting them printed.
You could try a digital photo frame and you can then change the photo at will or even have a slide show. A bit cheaper than a plasma TV.
http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/ProductDetails.aspx?language=en-GB&product=DIGPHOVAR
paulyoung666
19-01-2004, 17:15
You could try a digital photo frame and you can then change the photo at will or even have a slide show. A bit cheaper than a plasma TV.
http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/ProductDetails.aspx?language=en-GB&product=DIGPHOVAR
i like the idea but it is a bit steep for a photo frame :eek:
Flubflow
19-01-2004, 17:17
Try this Ilford link http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/
for guidance on printing photos on most major makes of printer. I'm sure much of what they say can apply to other makes of photopaper and not just their own.
I agree that when you've got a shed load of photos to do then it works out cheaper to use a printing service. I might use someone like Boots or Jessops for the general glossy "happy snaps" but for those really good photos then I'd use a better quality service such as Photobox.
Home printing is great for the occassional 1-off when you need it there and then.
Your camera is a little bit too fancy for my likeing ;) You've almost double the output resolution I have, mine is only a lowly 3.3mp. Perhaps it's just down to the camera or me being absolutely useless at taking a decent photo, what I need is a cheap tripod .. so if anyone's got any suggestions for one, let me know, I'll buy it and close this :D
Tee-hee :)
What are you photo's coming out like?
I bought my ex a cheap 3Mp from Jessops, and alot of the time the photo's seem to come out blurred.
Edit- I picked up a really neat trave tripod from dixons I think, it's about 10cm long, but extends to about 17cm
Flubflow
19-01-2004, 17:36
Tee-hee :)
What are you photo's coming out like?
I bought my ex a cheap 3Mp from Jessops, and alot of the time the photo's seem to come out blurred.
Edit- I picked up a really neat trave tripod from dixons I think, it's about 10cm long, but extends to about 17cm
If the image looks sharp in the camera's display (i.e. focus is correct) then your shutter speed has gone too low (camera shake and/or moving subject). If it is borderline then sometimes simply pressing the shutter button slowly rather than jabbing at it helps a lot. Otherwise you need to use the flash or a tripod depending on the circumtances. Sometimes, if you can alter the camera exposure/shutter speed settings and you are at the highest exposure f stop then you can probably go with a faster shutter speed to avoid shake/blur and then brighten it up a tad in your photo editing software if you need to. Rather than fiddling around, on some cameras you can fool the auto metering by pointing it at a slightly brighter source (so it chooses a faster shutter speed) then whilst holding the button halfway down (to freeze the metered shutter setting) move the camera to the desired subject and press the button the rest of the way down. Brighten up the underexposed image in your software on the PC.
Theodoric
19-01-2004, 19:37
Perhaps I'm being dumb here, but why do it yourself when you can get the professionals to do it.
http://www.directphoto.co.uk/index.cfm/cat/Digital_via_Net/page/Digital_via_Net
for example (they do pretty good wet D&P) charge 15p for a 6x4 and you can submit the prints on line.
Even the Lidl Paper, getting 100 prints (2 a page) comes out at 14p a sheet or 7p a print. Then add the ink costs £20 for a colour cartridge with a 500 sheet yield at 5%, so thats 30 sheets at 80% coverage or 3.5p a print (7p/page). Your home printed images are costing you about 10p each. Pay 4p more and remove the hastle and error costs. I've tried to err on the low end (and ignore the black ink costs, and the cost of buying the printer, power etc) in this excercise, but I think it indicates that sending off for printing is the way forward (though less immediate).
I think you're right, even if I haven't got round to trying it yet. 15p for a 6x4 is the lowest that I've come across. However, you do need to add on p&p so you need to being doing a reasonable number of prints. The other interesting comparison is with an with old-fashioned silver halide film. Say £4.50 for a 36 roll and £3 to get 6x4 prints done locally, gives about 20p per print.
Tee-hee :)
What are you photo's coming out like?
I bought my ex a cheap 3Mp from Jessops, and alot of the time the photo's seem to come out blurred.
Edit- I picked up a really neat trave tripod from dixons I think, it's about 10cm long, but extends to about 17cm
I don't know how cheap it'd be nowadays, it's a Sony DSC P1. Just got outbid for a nice looking tripod on ebay...typical, the photo's looks ok when I open them in photoshop, I always seem to take them on cloudy day's or in very poor light (i.e. at night) so they're never really the best, I have the excellent ability to never be able to hold a camera still which doesn't help. I'm going to try and bid for another tripod on ebay, I've heard that they all have the same size screw fitting? Is that right?
If the image looks sharp in the camera's display (i.e. focus is correct) then your shutter speed has gone too low (camera shake and/or moving subject). If it is borderline then sometimes simply pressing the shutter button slowly rather than jabbing at it helps a lot. Otherwise you need to use the flash or a tripod depending on the circumtances. Sometimes, if you can alter the camera exposure/shutter speed settings and you are at the highest exposure f stop then you can probably go with a faster shutter speed to avoid shake/blur and then brighten it up a tad in your photo editing software if you need to. Rather than fiddling around, on some cameras you can fool the auto metering by pointing it at a slightly brighter source (so it chooses a faster shutter speed) then whilst holding the button halfway down (to freeze the metered shutter setting) move the camera to the desired subject and press the button the rest of the way down. Brighten up the underexposed image in your software on the PC.
I think the old 5 second timer/tripod combination is the only real way I'll ever take a decent photo, turned out half of the ones I drove 50 miles to take the other day were taken in macro mode ... I'm such a genius :mad:
Flubflow
19-01-2004, 23:35
I don't know how cheap it'd be nowadays, it's a Sony DSC P1. Just got outbid for a nice looking tripod on ebay...typical, the photo's looks ok when I open them in photoshop, I always seem to take them on cloudy day's or in very poor light (i.e. at night) so they're never really the best, I have the excellent ability to never be able to hold a camera still which doesn't help. I'm going to try and bid for another tripod on ebay, I've heard that they all have the same size screw fitting? Is that right?
Yep, Tripod camera screw fittings are standard.
Yep, Tripod camera screw fittings are standard.
Fannytastic, thanks, to everyone ..
You could try a digital photo frame and you can then change the photo at will or even have a slide show. A bit cheaper than a plasma TV.
http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/ProductDetails.aspx?language=en-GB&product=DIGPHOVAR
Would they not suffer from screen burn?
Would they not suffer from screen burn?
Probably would unless you used the slideshow function
TFTs don't tend to burn in.
SMHarman
26-01-2004, 15:30
I don't know how cheap it'd be nowadays, it's a Sony DSC P1. Just got outbid for a nice looking tripod on ebay...typical, the photo's looks ok when I open them in photoshop, I always seem to take them on cloudy day's or in very poor light (i.e. at night) so they're never really the best, I have the excellent ability to never be able to hold a camera still which doesn't help. I'm going to try and bid for another tripod on ebay, I've heard that they all have the same size screw fitting? Is that right?
Use the viewfinder, not the back screen. Take a deep breath and press the shutter slowly and steadily. Hold until the picture is taken then release, then breath out. This should still your body and firm the camera against your head. Also try leaning on something or someone.
Make sure your ISO setting is high enough. Most film these days is at least 200 and 400 is not an unreasonable setting.
Use the viewfinder, not the back screen. Take a deep breath and press the shutter slowly and steadily. Hold until the picture is taken then release, then breath out. This should still your body and firm the camera against your head. Also try leaning on something or someone.
Make sure your ISO setting is high enough. Most film these days is at least 200 and 400 is not an unreasonable setting.
Thanks ... what's an ISO setting? I know I can adjust the whiteness, the exposure and various other bits and bobs but not the shutter speed .. which knowing my luck that's exactly what ISO is.
SMHarman
26-01-2004, 15:55
The ISO measurement harks back to wet cameras. The setting relates to how fast the film is. The faster or more sensitive a film is the faster the shutter speed can be to capture the image, or the lower the light level that the camera can operate in before a flash is needed.
So why not always use a fast film? Because the film reacts quicker because the grains on the film are larger. This leads to images that do not enlarge as well. Over time the grainyness of film has reduced as the science has got better.
In a digital world, the setting causes the same effect but digitally. You set the length of time you will let the CCD recieve an image. The higher the ISO the shorter the time, and the greater the chance that the image will be less perfect and suffer digital artifacts (the digital equivilant of grainyness).
400 is a good place to leave it, especially if your a bit shakey. If you get better reduce to 200. If you use the zoom a lot at full length consider 800 and if you are taking non flash photos of a school play for example then thats when you need the 1600.
ISO - Internationals Standards Organisation. Just who set the benchmarks.
I'm pretty sure the shutter speed is automatic, however, I did find an excellent document covering my camera and how to use it properly, don't know if it's of any use to anyone else though.
http://tsdigitalgallery.tripod.com/sonyp1/p1_notes.htm
Flubflow
26-01-2004, 16:13
The ISO measurement harks back to wet cameras. The setting relates to how fast the film is. The faster or more sensitive a film is the faster the shutter speed can be to capture the image, or the lower the light level that the camera can operate in before a flash is needed.
So why not always use a fast film? Because the film reacts quicker because the grains on the film are larger. This leads to images that do not enlarge as well. Over time the grainyness of film has reduced as the science has got better.
In a digital world, the setting causes the same effect but digitally. You set the length of time you will let the CCD recieve an image. The higher the ISO the shorter the time, and the greater the chance that the image will be less perfect and suffer digital artifacts (the digital equivilant of grainyness).
400 is a good place to leave it, especially if your a bit shakey. If you get better reduce to 200. If you use the zoom a lot at full length consider 800 and if you are taking non flash photos of a school play for example then thats when you need the 1600.
ISO - Internationals Standards Organisation. Just who set the benchmarks.
The ISO (or DIN) sensitivity setting on a digital camera is nothing to do with time AFAIK. When you change the DIN/ISO you are changing the amount of image amplification in the electronics. The image sensor is an analogue device so you will also amplify any noise from the image sensor and the image will end up looking more grainy/noisy.
SMHarman
26-01-2004, 17:01
The ISO (or DIN) sensitivity setting on a digital camera is nothing to do with time AFAIK. When you change the DIN/ISO you are changing the amount of image amplification in the electronics. The image sensor is an analogue device so you will also amplify any noise from the image sensor and the image will end up looking more grainy/noisy.
That would make a lot of sense, time is obviously a control of shutter speed. By time i was effectively (but badly) referring to the exposure time required to obtain an image. Amplification would be the requirement for that.
I'm still using film only and saving for the EOS300D. My EOS10 still does a fantastic job, and the IxusII is great for going out and about, so my wet answers should be good, but digitally less so. Perhaps I should get my coat.
Perhaps I'm being dumb here, but why do it yourself when you can get the professionals to do it.
http://www.directphoto.co.uk/index.cfm/cat/Digital_via_Net/page/Digital_via_Net
for example (they do pretty good wet D&P) charge 15p for a 6x4 and you can submit the prints on line.
I decided to give these a try with 24 photo's from my digital camera and they arrived today (uploaded them Sunday evening) - and I am well impressed with the results. I will definitely use them again. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.