do you think color printer for photos are a rip -off?
Answers:
These people are pretty good too.... http://www.snapfish.com/
Other answers:
I'm sure some are.
Expensive ink and cheap construction.
I use my old (and it is about 10 years old) HP 660C to print photos and it does a great job!
I think it is because of the cost of ink. I now print my photos from Walgreen and they are only 19 cents each. Photo printer is only a good choice when printing oversize pictures like 8"x10",
If you look at the value. I would rather use the Kodak thing that they have at Wal-mart and most drug stores. The ink and paper are expensive and the Kodak one only costs about 24 cents it costs about that much for your home ones and they are not near as sharp in quality.
i whed print it from a computer printer if you gat one with high dpi arund at the lowist 3000 dpi the best you can get has 6000 dpi
Yes, and no. Initially, color printers weren't very much used for photo quality prints, but lately, they've become more and more adept at printing photograph quality.
They are a rip-off if you pay more than you should for the printer, ink or paper you need to print photographs. Technically, it shouldn't be that expensive, but I'm sure the market is ensuring that they recoup any lost expenses that the usually "photo processors" would normally get by charging extra.