(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick

Shocker: Cameraphone Photos Not Printed

from the who-prints-digital-photos... dept

Apparently printer makers are freaking out that, even as cameraphone popularity grows, no one is actually printing out cameraphone photos. Of course, in reading this, it seems like they're skipping a step. Are people printing out any digital camera photos, whether or not they're from cameraphones? While some people definitely do, plenty of people (especially of the younger generations who are more likely to jump on the cameraphone bandwagon) are probably perfectly happy in most cases to simply store their photos online for viewing. Printing out photos seems sort of archaic. Trying to convince people to print them out, as the printer makers are apparently doing, seems sort of pointless. It's like convincing new automobile owners that they should hook up a horse to pull the vehicle.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    Chris, Dec 28th, 2004 @ 11:19am

    No Subject Given

    We get prints for maybe 10% of our digital images. However, I use Ofoto - it actually works out cheaper then photo paper and $25 HP color ink cartridges. Also, the longevity of color ink jet prints is questionable.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Mike Williams, Dec 28th, 2004 @ 11:30am

    Camera phone

    With all this talk about the cameraphones stealing someone's ID. I have to ask, what about just a plain old cameras. Be it digital or film.
    I can act like a tourist and snap away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Beck, Dec 28th, 2004 @ 12:30pm

    Excessive Costs

    When I went to the phone store to look into a camera phone they told me that I had to buy a monthly plan to transfer photos from my phone, or pay a fee per photo. This is just to get the photo from the camera to the computer. They did not have available any kind of cable to connect my phone to the computer to download photos directly.

    This fee is on top of the actual cost to print the photo. Maybe this explains why camera phone photos are not being printed on paper.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Beck, Dec 28th, 2004 @ 12:33pm

    Paper vs. Plastic

    I disagree that printing photos is archaic. I think that right now it is the best long-term storage medium for photos.

    We have 100-year-old family photos, printed on paper, that I can look at right now. They were stuck in an old trunk, untouched for decades, but we were able to take them out and look at them. What if, ten years ago, I had saved all of my digital photos on 5.25 inch disks and stuck them in the back of a drawer? If I came across those disks today I would not be able to view the photos, they would be lost forever.

    Will CD's be around for 100 years? What about DVDs? Do I have to get out all of my digitized photos every five years and transfer them to the latest storage medium?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2004 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Paper vs. Plastic

    Beck is right !
    If I can't transfer the pictures diretly to my computer I'm not going to spend additional $$$ to send them to a service & THEN pay again to print them

    thats what I have a Kodak digital camera with a USB cord for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Self Made Photo Man, Dec 28th, 2004 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Paper vs. Plastic

    Today's printer's and papers will still spoil if exposed to UV radiation (i.e. sunlight).

    I printed some pictures 3 years ago, and they are all green now.

    However, the 100 year photos were printed (developed) with special chemicals and paper which in fact can last up to 150 years.

    Black and white photography the the only long term solution. Everything else sucks.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Mark, Dec 29th, 2004 @ 11:45am


    Wait a minute. So some people prefer to store their media digitally rather than pay for the physical container? Don't you printless bastards realize that there are big corporations that should be guaranteed a market? You are undermining their god given right to to assfuck you for consumables. Now get busy!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Chomper, Dec 29th, 2004 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Paper vs. Plastic

    Okie, time to dispel some myths.

    Some inkjet prints will fade IF NOT TAKEN CARE OF. That is, don't expose it to sunlight and etc. Also, certain combination of specific inks and paper will fade faster than others. That's reality.

    Also, there are two types of inks out there for consumers, dye and pigment. Pigments are supposed to last longer than dyes by at least 50-75 years by some estimates. However, sometimes they don't look as good.

    Bottom line, not all prints fade after 3 years. That's just dumb to say that so blanketly.

    Lastly, cameraphone photos are so tiny compared to a point and shoot digital cam that they are hardly worth printing unless it's really that important.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Elle Wiz, Dec 29th, 2004 @ 3:31pm

    Printing out digital photos

    Why yes indeed, we still print out photos from time to time. For our own personal usage, my fiance and I don't usually, unless it's to make prints to put in a frame on my desk at work. (My office has disabled personalized PC wallpaper.) Most of our prints are destined for gifts (everyone likes a nice framed photo, particularly our family members who live 1000+ miles away) or for my fiance's grandparents. They don't have a computer or e-mail -- and frankly, what with phishers and spammers, we're kind of relieved they don't. They sure enjoy the pictures, and with our own printer it's cheap and easy to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    T. Denton, Jan 3rd, 2005 @ 11:47pm

    Re: Paper vs. Plastic

    I disagree. I do not see printed photos as an ideal storage medium, rather they are more useful in making the image more portable and accessible to those who aren't in front of computers.

    Your tale of the family photos is probably atypical, I see fading already in pictures taken not 15 years ago. Your photos will fade eventually. What's more, you can't reprint them. You can't make copies. You can't distribute them to family members. They could all be destroyed in a basement flood or other disaster and be lost forever.

    To address your example of 5.25 inch disks, hundreds of those disks could fit on today's CDs. You can fit many CDs on a DVD. Maybe this isn't the answer you're looking for, but yes you should get all of your photos out every 5-10 years and transfer them to a new storage medium. But you won't be getting out dozens of 5.25 inch disks. Each upgrade in storage medium will have a larger capacity. If all of your previous photos took up a certain amount of space, on the next storage medium upgrade you'll probably have double that capacity. With each upgrade you'll have fewer and fewer disks to handle. To address my point earlier about a basement flood, this new medium could be easily copied and backups could be distributed to many locations.

    In conclusion, I cannot agree with you. Digital storage has so much greater flexibility that I cannot think of doing it any other way. (also note that you can do digital AND printed, if you wish)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.