Shutterfly, Ofoto, or Snapfish? . . .

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Teresa, Aug 5, 2003.

  1. Teresa

    Teresa Guest

    Just wondering which you all think is better?? and why. . .

    Thanks,
    Teresa
     
    Teresa, Aug 5, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Teresa

    Andrew Guest

    Walmart.com.

    Because it's cheaper than ofoto and at least as good.

    ndrew
     
    Andrew, Aug 5, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Over 1 year ago, I sent a group of images to Ofoto.com, Snapfish.com,
    Fototime,com, and Shutterfly.com. All of them produced very nice prints for
    me. I thought only Ofoto stood out as being a bit better. They caught a
    couple of backlit shots that needed to be printed darker. The other 3
    printed the images too light.

    So, I came away thinking that Ofoto was best, but it was a little more
    expensive, and I wasn't unhappy with any of them. They all did a very good
    job.

    Aren't they still offering 10 free prints?
     
    Tony Whitaker, Aug 5, 2003
    #3
  4. Teresa

    WebKatz Guest

    Yes
     
    WebKatz, Aug 6, 2003
    #4
  5. Teresa

    louise Guest

    I've been shooting at very high resolutions -- if one e-
    mail's a file to, for example,Ofoto, does one have to
    reduce the resolution? If so, might that not negate the
    superiority of their printing versus my own printer?

    Louise
     
    louise, Aug 6, 2003
    #5
  6. Teresa

    Andrew Guest

    Very good point. What is the file size limit on ofoto? Walmart.com
    limits me to 3MB per image, which means that I have to use qualtity
    factor 99 or 98 when using breezebrowser to create full resolution
    jpegs from my G3 raw shots. At quality factor 95 and above, I have
    a hard time distinguishing jpegs from tiffs.

    Andrew
     
    Andrew, Aug 6, 2003
    #6
  7. Teresa

    MinowNYC Guest

    I have been using www.dotphoto.com, for a while now.

    Cheaper than ofoto, and no limits on sizes
     
    MinowNYC, Aug 6, 2003
    #7
  8. No, you don't have to reduce the resolution, but it will take a long time
    to send a big file unless you have a high speed internet connection. You
    really don't need to send full-size images to them unless you want an
    enlargement. For standard 4"x6" prints, you'd be wise to send them resized,
    lower resolution copies. 2 megapixels is plenty for 4"x6" prints. It will
    still take a long time to send alot of pictures. I suggest pressing the
    send button just before you go to bed, and it should all be done when you
    wake up.
     
    Tony Whitaker, Aug 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Teresa

    Webkatz Guest

    Sorry - what I meant to say was that all 3 produce decent results at a
    similar price. They all also have their own quirks. Run a small order
    through each and see what you think.

    Dave
     
    Webkatz, Aug 7, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.