Does Costco, Walmart, etc. reduce image resolution when printing?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 10, 2007.

  1. Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
    Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10
    megapixel camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in
    full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF
    in tact.

    Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
    outstanding in all respects.

    But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to
    have less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be,
    imo.

    I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc.
    reduce the size of image files sent to them so that they do not
    take up more than a specified amount of disk space on their
    systems.

    Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places?
    Do they reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there
    perhaps some other reason why this may be happening?

    I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

    Thank you.
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul D. Sullivan

    Mark² Guest

    Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    > Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
    > Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10
    > megapixel camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in
    > full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF
    > in tact.
    >
    > Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
    > outstanding in all respects.
    >
    > But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to
    > have less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be,
    > imo.
    >
    > I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc.
    > reduce the size of image files sent to them so that they do not
    > take up more than a specified amount of disk space on their
    > systems.
    >
    > Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places?
    > Do they reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there
    > perhaps some other reason why this may be happening?
    >
    > I'd appreciate any helpful responses.
    >
    > Thank you.


    It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp, but that it was
    "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.

    But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie photo-labs...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Feb 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul D. Sullivan

    Cgiorgio Guest

    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08...
    > Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient. Ordered
    > some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10 megapixel camera. The
    > images were sent to them unedited and in full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in
    > original JPG with all the EXIF in tact.
    >
    > Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear - outstanding
    > in all respects.
    >
    > But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to have less
    > detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be, imo.
    >
    > I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc. reduce the
    > size of image files sent to them so that they do not take up more than a
    > specified amount of disk space on their systems.
    >
    > Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places? Do they
    > reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there perhaps some other
    > reason why this may be happening?
    >
    > I'd appreciate any helpful responses.
    >
    > Thank you.

    The output unit of minilabs usually has a fixed pixels per inch requirement,
    most of them 300 ppi. If they do not state the required resolution in their
    web page, it is best to ask because most minilabs use 300 ppi, but not all.
    Your image has to be converted to that resolution before it can be output,
    and their machine might just use the algorithm which fits most pictures but
    not necessarily optimized for yours. Most image editors allow you to choose
    from several methods and you can try out which one best preserves your
    picture . As it is also a good idea to crop your own pictures instead of
    letting an automatic program do it, it is a good idea to resize them and
    crop them to the output format before you send the files off. Some minilabs
    are also set for automatic color correction, something you do not want if
    you have a calibrated monitor and corrected colors yourself. Some online
    developers (in Europe at least) allow you to choose on their order page,
    others don't. Use the lowest jpeg compression settings for the files you
    send them, and save them to another directory to preserve your original
    files.
    Cgiorgio, Feb 10, 2007
    #3
  4. So you are saying that an image that is crisp and sharp on screen
    and crisp and sharp on 5x7" prints would somehow show up as fuzzy
    and washed out on an 8x10" because the image is not really crisp
    and sharp at all?

    > It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp,
    > but that it was "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.
    >
    > But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie
    > photo-labs...
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 10, 2007
    #4
  5. Thanks for the post.

    In thinking it through, the 10mp image at 3648 x 2736 would have
    enough resolveable data (rounding down) for 364 dpi in the 10"
    direction and 342 dpi in the 8" direction. For 7 x 5 it would
    have 521 x 547.

    That's plenty of data to work with. If it down-samples
    everything to 300 dpi, would that effect the 10x8 more than the
    7x5?

    > The output unit of minilabs usually has a fixed pixels per
    > inch requirement, most of them 300 ppi. If they do not state
    > the required resolution in their web page, it is best to ask
    > because most minilabs use 300 ppi, but not all. Your image
    > has to be converted to that resolution before it can be
    > output, and their machine might just use the algorithm which
    > fits most pictures but not necessarily optimized for yours.
    > Most image editors allow you to choose from several methods
    > and you can try out which one best preserves your picture . As
    > it is also a good idea to crop your own pictures instead of
    > letting an automatic program do it, it is a good idea to
    > resize them and crop them to the output format before you send
    > the files off. Some minilabs are also set for automatic color
    > correction, something you do not want if you have a calibrated
    > monitor and corrected colors yourself. Some online developers
    > (in Europe at least) allow you to choose on their order page,
    > others don't. Use the lowest jpeg compression settings for the
    > files you send them, and save them to another directory to
    > preserve your original files.
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 10, 2007
    #5
  6. Paul D. Sullivan

    Scott W Guest

    On Feb 10, 12:19 am, "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote:
    > Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
    > Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10
    > megapixel camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in
    > full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF
    > in tact.
    >
    > Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
    > outstanding in all respects.
    >
    > But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to
    > have less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be,
    > imo.
    >
    > I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc.
    > reduce the size of image files sent to them so that they do not
    > take up more than a specified amount of disk space on their
    > systems.
    >
    > Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places?
    > Do they reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there
    > perhaps some other reason why this may be happening?
    >
    > I'd appreciate any helpful responses.
    >
    > Thank you.


    It is not completely clear what Costco does but the file size that
    gets up loaded can much smaller then the jpeg it is feed. There is an
    upload option for fast upload where the image is resized a lot and an
    option for a more normal upload but even the normal upload does bad
    things to a large file.

    You want to make sure you have the "Large Print Upload" selected at
    the bottom of the upload page, "Fast Upload" is selected by default.
    But even with "Large Print Upload" selected it would appear that is
    will down size somewhat when given a very large file. You can also
    email the images to Costco and this seems to keep them from being
    resized.

    For print up to 8 x 12 inches this should not be an issue at all and
    you should be able to get pretty sharp looking 12 x 18 prints, but I
    do believe they could do better.

    Scott
    Scott W, Feb 10, 2007
    #6
  7. Paul D. Sullivan

    Mark² Guest

    Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    > So you are saying that an image that is crisp and sharp on screen
    > and crisp and sharp on 5x7" prints would somehow show up as fuzzy
    > and washed out on an 8x10" because the image is not really crisp
    > and sharp at all?
    >
    >> It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp,
    >> but that it was "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.
    >>
    >> But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie
    >> photo-labs...


    You only said "somewhat softer."
    You didn't say one was great, and one was terrible.

    So...if you're seeing this "somewhat softer" difference...that would not be
    unusual at all. You can fit more than two 5x7s into the area of an
    8x10...so it is significant.

    I'm simply mentioning the very basic reality that the more you enlareg a
    photo, the more any imperfections will become apparent. This is especially
    true of sharpness and detail. Even poorly focused images can look decent at
    4x6, but those same photos break down quickly as you go larger.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Feb 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Paul D. Sullivan

    Mark² Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >> So you are saying that an image that is crisp and sharp on screen
    >> and crisp and sharp on 5x7" prints would somehow show up as fuzzy
    >> and washed out on an 8x10" because the image is not really crisp
    >> and sharp at all?
    >>
    >>> It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp,
    >>> but that it was "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.
    >>>
    >>> But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie
    >>> photo-labs...

    >
    > You only said "somewhat softer."
    > You didn't say one was great, and one was terrible.
    >
    > So...if you're seeing this "somewhat softer" difference...that would
    > not be unusual at all. You can fit more than two 5x7s into the area
    > of an 8x10...so it is significant.
    >
    > I'm simply mentioning the very basic reality that the more you
    > enlareg a photo, the more any imperfections will become apparent. This is
    > especially true of sharpness and detail. Even poorly focused
    > images can look decent at 4x6, but those same photos break down
    > quickly as you go larger.


    You didn't mention anything about the quality or look of the photograph upon
    close inspection before sending... What do they show, enlarged on-screen?

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Feb 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Thanks for the well presented response. I sincerely appreciate
    it. :)

    > It is not completely clear what Costco does but the file size
    > that gets up loaded can much smaller then the jpeg it is feed.
    > There is an upload option for fast upload where the image is
    > resized a lot and an option for a more normal upload but even
    > the normal upload does bad things to a large file.
    >
    > You want to make sure you have the "Large Print Upload"
    > selected at the bottom of the upload page, "Fast Upload" is
    > selected by default. But even with "Large Print Upload"
    > selected it would appear that is will down size somewhat when
    > given a very large file. You can also email the images to
    > Costco and this seems to keep them from being resized.
    >
    > For print up to 8 x 12 inches this should not be an issue at
    > all and you should be able to get pretty sharp looking 12 x 18
    > prints, but I do believe they could do better.
    >
    > Scott
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Paul D. Sullivan

    Roy G Guest

    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08...
    > Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient. Ordered
    > some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10 megapixel camera. The
    > images were sent to them unedited and in full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in
    > original JPG with all the EXIF in tact.
    >
    > Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear - outstanding
    > in all respects.
    >
    > But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to have less
    > detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be, imo.
    >
    > I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc. reduce the
    > size of image files sent to them so that they do not take up more than a
    > specified amount of disk space on their systems.
    >
    > Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places? Do they
    > reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there perhaps some other
    > reason why this may be happening?
    >
    > I'd appreciate any helpful responses.
    >
    > Thank you.


    Hi.

    I don't think you uploaded the full resolution and uncompressed file over
    the internet. That would have been a 30 Mb file. So compression will have
    been applied, and there is always a quality cost for compression.

    They must have done something to the images, because 10x8 and 7x5 are not in
    the same format, so they had to do the cropping, and probably had to reduce
    the Ppi figure to 300. These activities will have an effect on the quality,
    especially on an already compressed Jpeg.

    Your explanation re the Ppi figures for your image, are more than a little
    simple. You can not have different resolution figures in each direction
    without distorting the image.

    You should have done the resizing and cropping yourself before sending in,
    and it would have been better if you had sent them on a Cd, rather than via
    the Internet.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Feb 10, 2007
    #10
  11. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Paul D. Sullivan
    <>], who wrote in article <X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08>:

    Google for the thread on uploading 25000000 pixel file. (Raw result:
    Costco's POSTER-SERVICE-via-email downscales to 100ppi.) But keep in
    mind that POSTER SERVICE uses different subcontractors than the normal
    service...

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya
    Ilya Zakharevich, Feb 10, 2007
    #11
  12. Paul D. Sullivan

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:53:59 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
    <> wrote:

    >So you are saying that an image that is crisp and sharp on screen
    >and crisp and sharp on 5x7" prints would somehow show up as fuzzy
    >and washed out on an 8x10" because the image is not really crisp
    >and sharp at all?


    Yep. An 8x10 has higher resolution that any monitor. What looks good
    on the monitor won't necessarily look good on close examination on a
    print.

    >> It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp,
    >> but that it was "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.
    >>
    >> But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie
    >> photo-labs...

    >
    >
    J. Clarke, Feb 10, 2007
    #12
  13. Paul D. Sullivan

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:53:53 GMT, "Roy G"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    >news:X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08...
    >> Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient. Ordered
    >> some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10 megapixel camera. The
    >> images were sent to them unedited and in full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in
    >> original JPG with all the EXIF in tact.
    >>
    >> Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear - outstanding
    >> in all respects.
    >>
    >> But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to have less
    >> detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be, imo.
    >>
    >> I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc. reduce the
    >> size of image files sent to them so that they do not take up more than a
    >> specified amount of disk space on their systems.
    >>
    >> Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places? Do they
    >> reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there perhaps some other
    >> reason why this may be happening?
    >>
    >> I'd appreciate any helpful responses.
    >>
    >> Thank you.

    >
    >Hi.
    >
    >I don't think you uploaded the full resolution and uncompressed file over
    >the internet. That would have been a 30 Mb file. So compression will have
    >been applied, and there is always a quality cost for compression.


    There is always a quality cost for lossy compression. Not for
    lossless.

    >They must have done something to the images, because 10x8 and 7x5 are not in
    >the same format, so they had to do the cropping, and probably had to reduce
    >the Ppi figure to 300. These activities will have an effect on the quality,
    >especially on an already compressed Jpeg.
    >
    >Your explanation re the Ppi figures for your image, are more than a little
    >simple. You can not have different resolution figures in each direction
    >without distorting the image.
    >
    >You should have done the resizing and cropping yourself before sending in,
    >and it would have been better if you had sent them on a Cd, rather than via
    >the Internet.
    >
    >Roy G
    >
    J. Clarke, Feb 10, 2007
    #13
  14. So if we walk 'em in on CD, will they leave it at the proper
    size?

    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > Paul D. Sullivan
    > <>], who wrote in article
    > <X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08>:
    >
    > Google for the thread on uploading 25000000 pixel file. (Raw
    > result: Costco's POSTER-SERVICE-via-email downscales to
    > 100ppi.) But keep in
    > mind that POSTER SERVICE uses different subcontractors than
    > the normal service...
    >
    > Hope this helps,
    > Ilya
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Paul D. Sullivan

    Mardon Guest

    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote:

    > So if we walk 'em in on CD, will they leave it at the proper
    > size?


    For Internet uploads to Costco.ca (via primdeia.ca, Costco's service
    provider), the maximum accepted resolution per image is 7500 X 5000. The
    maximum accepted file size per image is 8mb. It states this right on their
    website. I know from personal experience that the in-store processing
    limtis are slightly different. To the best of my recolection, the maximum
    image dimenion is limited to 5000 pixels (it may be 6,000) but the maximum
    file size for a single image is way larger than allowed over the Internet.
    I think it's 60 MB (it may be 70 MB). I always turn off "AutoCorrect" when
    submitting photos to them via the Internet and ask for "no Adjustments"
    when taking them to the store. I then know what I'll be getting back,
    since I have a colour-managed work flow. All that said, I have never had
    any problem getting sharp enlargements from Costco. I would be extremely
    surprised if they reduce the size of the submitted image before it goes to
    the printer.
    Mardon, Feb 10, 2007
    #15
  16. On Feb 10, 4:19 am, "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote:
    > Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
    > Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10
    > megapixel camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in
    > full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF
    > in tact.
    >
    > Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
    > outstanding in all respects.
    >
    > But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to
    > have less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be,
    > imo.
    >
    > I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc.
    > reduce the size of image files sent to them so that they do not
    > take up more than a specified amount of disk space on their
    > systems.
    >
    > Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places?
    > Do they reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there
    > perhaps some other reason why this may be happening?
    >
    > I'd appreciate any helpful responses.
    >
    > Thank you.


    Keep in mind that ANY printing process looses some resolution (actual
    resolution, not just number of pixels). If it is a digital process,
    good dithering algorithms reduce the loss, but they are never perfect.

    If it is an analog printing process (i.e, screen printer) the normal
    optical losses of resolution can occur.

    The brand and type of printer make a big difference.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Feb 10, 2007
    #16
  17. Paul D. Sullivan

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Mardon wrote:
    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> So if we walk 'em in on CD, will they leave it at the proper
    >> size?

    >
    > For Internet uploads to Costco.ca (via primdeia.ca, Costco's service
    > provider), the maximum accepted resolution per image is 7500 X 5000. The
    > maximum accepted file size per image is 8mb. It states this right on their
    > website. I know from personal experience that the in-store processing
    > limtis are slightly different. To the best of my recolection, the maximum
    > image dimenion is limited to 5000 pixels (it may be 6,000) but the maximum
    > file size for a single image is way larger than allowed over the Internet.
    > I think it's 60 MB (it may be 70 MB). I always turn off "AutoCorrect" when
    > submitting photos to them via the Internet and ask for "no Adjustments"
    > when taking them to the store. I then know what I'll be getting back,
    > since I have a colour-managed work flow. All that said, I have never had
    > any problem getting sharp enlargements from Costco. I would be extremely
    > surprised if they reduce the size of the submitted image before it goes to
    > the printer.


    Mardon, of all the responses (most of them spurious) to a question that
    I don't take very seriously in the first place, your's is the only one
    making much sense. I was going to respond that if there were a
    limitation, it's in the size of the file being uploaded, I've seen such
    limits stated (which as I recall were less then 8mb). Same is true for
    auto enhancement, which I don't recall being offered on the site I use
    (York Photo).
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Feb 10, 2007
    #17
  18. Paul D. Sullivan

    Scott W Guest

    On Feb 10, 5:34 am, Mardon <> wrote:
    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote:
    >
    > > So if we walk 'em in on CD, will they leave it at the proper
    > > size?

    >
    > For Internet uploads to Costco.ca (via primdeia.ca, Costco's service
    > provider), the maximum accepted resolution per image is 7500 X 5000. The
    > maximum accepted file size per image is 8mb. It states this right on their
    > website. I know from personal experience that the in-store processing
    > limtis are slightly different. To the best of my recolection, the maximum
    > image dimenion is limited to 5000 pixels (it may be 6,000) but the maximum
    > file size for a single image is way larger than allowed over the Internet.
    > I think it's 60 MB (it may be 70 MB). I always turn off "AutoCorrect" when
    > submitting photos to them via the Internet and ask for "no Adjustments"
    > when taking them to the store. I then know what I'll be getting back,
    > since I have a colour-managed work flow. All that said, I have never had
    > any problem getting sharp enlargements from Costco. I would be extremely
    > surprised if they reduce the size of the submitted image before it goes to
    > the printer.


    What gives a clue as to how much Costco is reducing the file size by
    is the time it takes to up load. The upload time is far less then
    what it should be for the given file size. How much of this reduction
    is from compression and how much from resizing I don't know. What I
    do know is that I have tested sending in a image using their upload
    routine and sending the same file via email, the one send via email
    was sharper.

    The loss in sharpness is not a huge problem from images in the range
    of 12 x 18 but if you want to do larger posters, say 20 x 30 inches, I
    believe it is going to end up looking pretty soft.

    Scott
    Scott W, Feb 10, 2007
    #18
  19. Paul D. Sullivan

    Paul Allen Guest

    Re: Does Costco, Walmart, etc. reduce image resolution whenprinting?

    On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:53:53 GMT
    "Roy G" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    > news:X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08...
    > > Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
    > > Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10 megapixel
    > > camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in full
    > > resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF in tact.
    > >
    > > Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
    > > outstanding in all respects.
    > >
    > > But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to have
    > > less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be, imo.


    > I don't think you uploaded the full resolution and uncompressed file
    > over the internet. That would have been a 30 Mb file. So compression
    > will have been applied, and there is always a quality cost for
    > compression.


    He said he sent jpegs. If the softness was not apparent on-screen,
    why should the prints be soft?

    > They must have done something to the images, because 10x8 and 7x5 are
    > not in the same format, so they had to do the cropping, and probably
    > had to reduce the Ppi figure to 300. These activities will have an
    > effect on the quality, especially on an already compressed Jpeg.


    Of course they had to crop. That doesn't have to change image quality.
    Saying they "reduced the ppi figure" suggests that you think images
    have a meaningful ppi attribute before they are rendered on a medium
    that can be measures in inches. It would be better to say they had to
    resample to fit the print size at the output device's resolution of 300
    pixels per inch. Why would this resampling be more destructive to the
    8x10 print than to the 5x7? And why would it be especially destructive
    to a jpeg?

    > Your explanation re the Ppi figures for your image, are more than a
    > little simple. You can not have different resolution figures in each
    > direction without distorting the image.


    Urm... He didn't say anything about ppi. He gave the resolution of his
    images in pixels.

    > You should have done the resizing and cropping yourself before
    > sending in, and it would have been better if you had sent them on a
    > Cd, rather than via the Internet.


    Doing the cropping and resizing yourself is a good idea. Why is it
    better to mail a CD than to send the file via the 'Net? (I mean, other
    than the fact that the bandwidth of a truck hurtling down the Interstate
    vastly exceeds many home network connections.)

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Feb 10, 2007
    #19
  20. Paul D. Sullivan

    babaloo Guest

    You go to Walmart and Costco for cheap popcorn and massive food packages
    that you will never use before they spoil.
    If you go there for photo prints you get something comparable.
    Geesh.
    babaloo, Feb 10, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ron Chusid
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    773
    Ron Chusid
    Jul 17, 2003
  2. David Seaman

    Re: Sam's Club, Costco, etc. 1 hour digital photo printing?

    David Seaman, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,665
    Michael Meissner
    Jul 17, 2003
  3. David Metcalfe

    Photo printing at Walmart, etc

    David Metcalfe, Mar 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    770
    Andy Lee
    Apr 1, 2004
  4. Mr.Will
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,017
    John McWilliams
    Oct 8, 2004
  5. Paul D. Sullivan

    Costco / Walmart Photo Machines

    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    419
    Mark²
    Feb 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page