Peter Wood with tmpchaos
PLEASE NOTE: This photo shootout was performed in December of 2003, so I can no longer guarantee the accuracy of this data. Please take that into consideration, and seek out more up-to-date info before making any purchasing decisions. Thanks!
With the revolution of digital photography, the place of printed photographs in the photography world has changed. No longer is the default simply to shoot a roll of film, and have it printed. Photos can now be shared on the web, emailed, placed in electronic picture frames, or downloaded to cell phones. However, there is still a need and a desire for traditional, printed copies of photographs.
One method of getting printed copies is to do it yourself. "Photo-quality" inkjet printers are growing in popularity, and decreasing in price. These printers allow home users to make their own high-quality prints of digital photos. However, the supplies for this process are expensive: a box of HP Premium Plus Glossy Photo Paper at Staples costs $17.49 for 20 sheets - that works out to 87 cents per sheet! If you have the ability to do so, you can cram up to three 4x6 prints onto a standard 8.5x11 inch page, and the price will end up at about 29 cents per print. But what if you only want to print out one or two photos? This doesn't even take into account the money spent on color ink cartridges for the printer, which are used up rather quickly when photos are printed at the full quality. For those that really don't mind the cost and hassle of at-home printing, it's perfectly acceptable to go that route.
For those who would rather have someone else handle the printing, however, third party services may be the best solution. There are many services available, whether they are drop-off points at traditional bricks-and-mortar stores, or online photo uploading services. In this review, we will look at some of the most popular online services.
The services included in this review were chosen because they met all of the following criteria:
For each printing service, the same steps were taken:
There are a few caveats to keep in mind while reading this review:
The digital originals were shot with a Canon Powershot A70, one of Canon's entry level digital cameras. The photos were shot at the highest resolution, 3.2 megapixels.
After the digital prints were received, they were scanned on an Epson 3200 using silverfastSE software. They were scanned at a 48 bit color level, then converted to 24 bit color. Resolution was 150 pixels per inch, no color correction or filters were used, and the image type was set to standard.
| Service Name + Link | Cost per print | Printing System |
|---|---|---|
| CVS / Kodak Picture Station | $0.29 | Kodak, PerfectTouch paper |
| Ofoto | $0.29 | Kodak, Duralife paper |
| Shutterfly.com | $0.39 | FujiFilm, Fujicolor CrystalArchive paper |
| Snapfish.com | $0.25 | Kodak, Kodak paper |
| Walgreens Photo Center | $0.29 | FujiFilm, Fujicolor CrystalArchive paper |
| Wal-Mart Photo Center | $0.24 | FujiFilm, Fujicolor CrystalArchive paper |
To help you compare the original photos with the prints received, we have digitally scanned the photographic prints, and placed them online. This table makes it easy for you to compare the quality of selected photos from various vendors, along with the original digital images. Simply choose a photo from the left-hand column, then click "View" underneath the photo source of your choice. This will open a new window for each photo. You may then compare the scans side-by-side.
| Printing System | Fuji | Kodak | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Digital Original | Shutterfly | Walgreens | Wal-Mart | Snapfish | Ofoto | CVS |
| Photo A | View | View | View | View | View | View | View |
| Photo B | View | View | View | View | View | View | View |
| Photo C | View | View | View | View | View | View | View |
The services were evaluated and reviewed based on three important factors:
Wal-Mart had the lowest cost-per-print: 24 cents for a single 4x6. Snapfish came in second at 25 cents. Ofoto, Walgreens, and CVS tied for third at 29 cents per print, and Shutterfly came in last place at 39 cents.
Wal-Mart, being the juggernaut that it is, has the advantage in pricing. Snapfish, however, came in a very close second. They are also powered by a juggernaut, District Photo, the world's largest mail-order photo processing company. District Photo also owns Clark Colorlabs, Mystic Color Lab, York Photo, Reliance Color Labs, and Truprint in the United Kingdom. Ofoto (a Kodak company), Walgreens, and CVS also have established companies behind them to help offset the cost of prints. Shutterfly, coming in at the most expensive cost per print, is a private company with some corporate investors. However, for the most part it is an independent company without a significant business engine behind it.
Since Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS have physical presence nearly everywhere in the United States, most on-line customers will be required to pay state sales tax, where appropriate. Ofoto, Snapfish, and Shutterfly will charge tax only in the states where they are based or have some other type of business presence.
Snapfish offered the cheapest shipping at 99 cents. Wal-Mart came in second at $1.41, Ofoto and Shutterfly tied for third at $1.49, CVS came in fourth at $1.95, and Walgreens was last at $2.50. Snapfish may be able to offer such cheap shipping because its parent company, District Photo, is the world leader in mail-order photo processing. Presumably they have a large and profitable relationship with the US Postal Service.
Snapfish was also the winner in total cost, thanks to their low shipping charges and low per-print prices. Wal-Mart was second place, thanks to their low per-print prices. Ofoto, Shutterfly, CVS, and Walgreens came in to the last four spots, respectively.
Snapfish has a clear overall advantage in the cost area due to the business model of their parent company.
As a disclaimer, speed-related categories have a large margin of error. There are several factors that are out of the company's control:
With that being said, we did compare the speed and response times of the various services. The speed of each site was comprable, both in terms of response time, and in the speed of uploading the photos. All of the orders were placed within an hour of each other on the morning of Wednesday, December 10. All of the companies except for Wal-Mart sent me an order confirmation email within a minute of my order. Wal-Mart's email did not arrive until later Wednesday evening, which may indicate that their email notifications are sent out in nightly.
Snapfish, Wal-Mart, and Walgreens each shipped their prints out on Wednesday, December 10. CVS, Ofoto, and Shutterfly shipped their prints on Thursday, December 11.
The prints that were shipped on December 10 arrived on Saturday, December 13. Out of the prints that were shipped on December 11, Ofoto's also arrived on December 13. The prints from CVS and Shutterfly, shipped on December 11, arrived on Monday, December 15.
To better understand the shipping times, review the chart below:
| Service | Wednesday 12/10 | Thursday 12/11 | Friday 12/12 | Saturday 12/13 | Sunday 12/14 | Monday 12/15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVS | Order Placed | Order Shipped; In Transit | In Transit | In Transit | In Transit | In Transit; Order Received |
| Ofoto | Order Placed | Order Shipped; In Transit | In Transit | In Transit; Order Received | ||
| Shutterfly | Order Placed | Order Shipped; In Transit | In Transit | In Transit | In Transit | In Transit; Order Received |
| Snapfish | Order Placed; Order Shipped; In Transit | In Transit | In Transit | In Transit; Order Received | ||
| Walgreens | Order Placed; Order Shipped; In Transit | In Transit | In Transit | In Transit; Order Received | ||
| Wal-Mart | Order Placed; Order Shipped; In Transit | In Transit | In Transit | In Transit; Order Received |
Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Snapfish and Ofoto tied for first place with respect to the shortest amount of time between placing the order and receiving the order. Shutterfly and CVS tied for second place. Overall, all of the services provided quick processing and shipment. It is also likely that results would have been faster if the orders were placed on a Monday, as they would probably have been shipped and received before the weekend.
CVS and Wal-Mart also offer pick-up of your orders if you have a participating store nearby. This might be a good option if you do have a nearby outlet, as it would save on shipping time and cost.
While price and speed are both important factors to consider when placing an order for prints, the most important factor is quality. You will only pay for and ship any given print once, but the photos themselves will be around for a long time, so they ought to be worth looking at. This is particularly important if the prints are being given as gifts, or to people who do not have access to the digital versions of the photos.
Color balance in the CVS prints was excellent. The brightness was excellent, correctly capturing the shadow and light in the original - for example, the shadows over the face in the print of Photo A, or the background objects in the print of Photo C. Sharpness was very good.
Color balance in the Ofoto prints was good. Colors were a bit undersaturated. Sharpness was not good - the photos had a soft focus.
Color balance in the Shutterfly prints was slightly off. Blues had a slightly purplish tint, particularly the blue jeans in the print of Photo A, the sky in the print of Photo B, and the baby's outfit in the print of Photo C. Colors were slightly undersaturated. Sharpness was average - some blurriness could be seen, especially around the tree branches in the print of Photo B.
Color balance in the Snapfish prints was off. Blues tended towards purple; as with the Shutterfly prints, this affected the blue jeans in the print of Photo A, the sky in the print of Photo B, and the baby's outfit in the print of Photo C. With Snapfish, however, the purple tint was even more pronounced. Colors were slightly undersaturated. Sharpness was very good.
Color balance in the Walgreens prints was excellent. Colors were well saturated. Sharpness was excellent. The brightness in some of the photos was a bit high - in the print of Photo A, the light over the face was a bit bright. In some of the photos, however, the brightness was low. In the print of photo C, for example, the background objects could not be seen.
Color balance in the Wal-Mart prints was excellent. Colors were well saturated. Sharpness was excellent. The levels of brightness varied in the same way as the Walgreens prints.
The overall best quality prints came from CVS. Walgreens and Wal-Mart also had excellent quality prints, but CVS's Kodak Picture Center did a slightly better job at reproducing the proper light and shadow, while retaining excellent color saturation, balance, and clarity. Ofoto's prints were the least desirable - overall, fairly dull and muddy looking, and soft in focus. Shutterfly and Snapfish had some issues with color balance, particularly the purple tinting in the blues. Shutterfly's prints also had a soft focus.
CVS's advantage probably stems from the fact that it uses the Kodak Picture Center, and the Kodak Perfect Touch processing system. Interestingly, Ofoto is also owned by Kodak and its prints are on Kodak DuraLife paper, but it does not appear to be using the Perfect Touch system. The prints from Ofoto were far worse in quality than those from Kodak's own Picture Center! This is an interesting incongruity. Perhaps the various segments of Kodak are working to catch up with each other. If Ofoto switches over to Perfect Touch, their photos could potentially come out just as well as those from CVS.
Snapfish won in cost, CVS won in quality, and all six services offered more or less the same speeds. So which to choose? If you can afford to spend a little bit more, I'd recommend going with CVS prints. Their Kodak Perfect Touch system produced excellent results. If cost is more of a concern, you will do very well ordering prints from Wal-Mart. Their quality is nearly as good as that of CVS, without the extra cost for prints and shipping.
The reviewer would like to thank tmpchaos for his assistance in producing this review. He volunteered to perform the scanning of the photographic prints, and he contributed his own feedback and evaluations of the prints. tmpchaos also assisted with the editing of the final document.