Is there a need for printers?

[i2iSTUDIOS]

I see that I can print online and even at the local Wal-Greens for fairly cheap, what's the need for a photo printer when I can take my images to some place or have it printed strait by Kodak.

The cost of paper, ink, and the printer itself is quite high... Thanks.

[defordphoto]

Personal preference is all. I both print at home and have a pro lab and also do the Costco thing. I can't imagine not having a printer.

[robertwgross]

I can't imagine not having a printer.

I strongly second that.

---Bob Gross---

[rklepper]

I print mostly through mpix. However, I have a printer at home so that when the kids come over I can take pictures of them and the grandkids and send photos home with them. Really I use them for 2 different things.

[i2iSTUDIOS]

interesting, perhaps I should look into for next year or something, thanks for the thoughts!

[defordphoto]

Printers are cheap...It's the paper and ink that kills ya.

[Jackal]

Buy a canon Pixma 4200 Printer, Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper (6x4) and do some prints on it. Then compare them to prints from costco.

I think you'll notice the difference immediately. =)

[Maureen Souza]

For me, there is a big need. I have done photographs for people who looked at them on the spot, picked them out and received them a few minutes later. I also do wedding photos for my family members and that includes the finished product. But for those who are patient, using another source can certainly be cheaper. It is all a matter of personal preference....wait! RFM already said that :):)