Digital Prints Cropped by Boots.

[Xerstead]

Having got a new camera (Canon A80) a few weeks ago I eventually had enough images to print. Having seen the Boots 50 for £5 it seemed like a good option. I burned the images to CD which they had no problem with and gave me my reciept for collection the next day.

The Problem: On checking the results the next evening I found my pictures had all been cropped 1/2 inch top and bottom. Although I had edited some images, I kept the aspect ratio locked. The prints were (and are) 6x4 as stated.

The print quality, although good, does lack sharpness on some macro flower shots that have strong contrast and high colour saturation. Some of the pictures came out darker than they should in the background but the subject was still well lit.

Has anyone else had this problem with priters? and what is the best way to avoid it?
Would getting prints 7x5 be better as the ratio is different?

 

[Underscore]

If, by top and bottom, you mean along the long edge then, yes, this is normal since digicams are, on the whole, 4:3 in ratio but 6x4 is 3:2; that is why some printers use 6x4.5 for digiprints instead. Personally, I use a local Kodak printer, tweak my images and then crop to the correct aspect ratio for the print size that I'm using. I then ask for no cropping and no colour correction. I've been very happy with the results. If you want the whole image, you could always print at 8x6 - though that tends to cost 25p per print, so quite a lot more expensive than 6x4.

HTH,

_

 

[melliott1963]

I just print the photos myself.

This way I get what I want, how I want, when I want!

 

[Underscore]

Originally posted by melliott1963
I just print the photos myself.

This way I get what I want, how I want, when I want!

Great. Unfortunately, when I tried this, I didn't get what I wanted; I only have an Epson inkjet and the print quality isn't a patch on a proper photographic printer - and I don't print enough to justify the cost of one of those!

_

 

[u8myufo]

well Xerstead believe me if you got decent printer software and a half dec printer once you set the picture properties up correctly it can take up to half an hour to do one 8x6 size print but believe me it will rival even surpass any quality you will get from boots

 

[melliott1963]

With my (now aging) Canon S900, a full sized A4 print, on Photo Paper Pro and the highest quality setting, comes out in just a few minutes. Using the software Canon provide, I'd say that 99% of the time I get superb results with just the default settings.

Photographic quality printers are so reasonable in cost these days, that I'd have thought it was easy to justify the purchase of one.

 

[seany]

It cost way more to print from home. A few choice pics fine. But when you want 50 its just way too pricy

 

[melliott1963]

A little while ago I worked out how much it costs for me to print at home.

Using Canon inks and Canon A4 photo paper pro (giving 4 photos per sheet), it worked out at £4.68 for 24 prints. Whilst this is nearly double the Boots 50 for £5 offer, it is, in my opinion, not 'way too pricey', and is easily comparable to getting traditional films developed and processed.

Personally I'd rather spend a bit extra and know that I'll be happy with what I'm getting. Maybe I've just got more money than sense, or am too fussy, but that's me!