Is there a need for printers?

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.

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.

I strongly second that.

---Bob Gross---

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.

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

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

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. =)

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