| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2002 10:15:46 AM · #1 |
Consumer Reports, reviewing prints, said Shutterfly printed on a thinner paper with somewhat washed-out and not-quite-accurate colors, for not that much of a lower price.
I'd recommend Ofoto, personally.
Martin |
|
|
|
12/14/2002 10:55:03 AM · #2 |
| MacWorld also rated several printing services last summer. I've used Ofoto for 3 years with no problems -- they print on heavy Kodak paper. You can also take your files into a local Ritz/Wolf camera store (US anyway) for "self-service" prints on Fuji paper. |
|
|
|
12/14/2002 12:11:47 PM · #3 |
Another good place for prints is Costco. Even in Hawaii it is 0.19 each on Fuji paper.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2002 01:14:15 PM · #4 |
| you can advertise me, hee hee.....duh. :-D |
|
|
|
12/14/2002 04:57:04 PM · #5 |
| It's not a matter of who prints the best pictures, of course. It's who is willing to give the website owners money to display their ads. |
|
|
|
12/14/2002 05:40:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Nickrz:
It's not a matter of who prints the best pictures, of course. It's who is willing to give the website owners money to display their ads. |
exactly :) The site is not promoting the advertiser... the advertiser is promoting the site :)
|
|
|
|
12/14/2002 06:33:58 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Nickrz:
It's not a matter of who prints the best pictures, of course. It's who is willing to give the website owners money to display their ads. |
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
Consumer Reports does not accept any advertising, nor any free goods to test. Everything tested is puchased anonymously at retail. They're widely acknowledged as the best surce of independent, unbiased, consumer-oriented product and services information in the US. |
|
|
|
12/14/2002 07:02:09 PM · #8 |
General, the point is that Shutterfly is willing to pay to advertise on the site. It's not an issue of DPC advocating Shutterfly...
|
|
|
|
12/14/2002 08:46:00 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
General, the point is that Shutterfly is willing to pay to advertise on the site. It's not an issue of DPC advocating Shutterfly... |
Sorry, I get it now...I didn't realize it was an actual question and not a rhetorical one, like about someone recommending them in a post or something. I've been kinda out of it for a couple of days.
I have no problem with taking their ads -- I don't think there's anything corrupt about them or anything. Thinner paper may account for lower prices? They'd just have to realize that the site owners exercise no editorial control over the comments of the membership... |
|
|
|
12/14/2002 09:24:14 PM · #10 |
I've used Shutterfly for about 2 years and have been happy with them... I never printed anything very large through them, but I had them do my "Daddy's Brag Book" that I bring on trips and Christmas cards, that sort of thing. They've done very well by me...
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 03:21:07 AM · #11 |
All of these services sound perfectly first-rate, but are they just for the USA? I believe that DPC members are from all over the world, are they not? I do not think that I would use any of these services over a border. What with currency exchange, duties, federal and provincial sales taxes (in Canada), shipping costs, extra surcharges, and the length of time to ship over a border, it is not an attractive proposition. The quality of the product is also a serious consideration too, but other issues may be higher up on the list when you are an international member.
Normally, all advertisers look to the demographics of the membership to support their stated target market. With that said, does DPC have audited membership demographics to share? It might be very interesting to learn about whom and from where the DPC membership actually does comes from?
Finally, I am not too sure that I agree with the suggestion that there is no hard linkage between the advertiser and the site. By accepting the advertising, DPC is effectively telling its members that they support the brand, and visa versa.
There are many magazines and sites that are extraordinarily selective in their choices of advertisers. Many publications and magazines judicially guard and protect their readers and membership from the wrong type of advertiser. Please understand that I am not saying that that is the case here, I suspect that Shutterfly is a valid and credible service for some of the DPC members. And, the owners of this site should absolutely earn a suitable return for their investment, especially now at the critical early stages of the site̢۪s life cycle. But, I am suggesting that DPC definitely does have a choice, and, an inflexible responsibility to its membership for the quality, quantity, and appropriateness, of the advertisers on this site.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 04:12:11 AM · #12 |
I think we probably should be very careful when we make negative comments about the advertisers who support the site. For one, there are possibly legal issues involved, and two, I suspect that without advertising, this huge endeavor on the part of two fine young web developers would not be possible far into the future. This thing has gotten big, in case we didn't notice that fact :-) I am quite sure that Drew and Langdon are being very careful as to who they allow to advertise here. Your reference to magazine editors being very selective is accurate; they have many more choices to work from. Even with that said, check your Popular Photography and Imaging mag carefully. You will find that not every vendor they advertise is even a participant in their consumer protection program. Many of their vendors are gray market dealers that don't carry manufacturers warranties, but that doesn't show in the ads. Printing services? A dime a dozen. Only after a LONG period of paperwork and negotiation with a consumer protection program vendor complaint does PopPhoto even consider not allowing a vendor to advertise. Especially not just on a recommendation from an outside board, or a couple of subscibers, that a particular vendor is not as good as the rest. The magazine would probably face lawsuit upon lawsuit if it canceled advertisements without a sufficient paper trail and just cause. As a result, not every vendor that advertises in a magazine is going to be a prime source. Even Wal-Mart has dissatisfied customers, but they are still a huge and legitimate business.
Internet advertising, believe it or not, is becoming an incredibly hard thing to sell and really make money. The reason you see so many popups and banners on sites is because Internet advertising basically does not work, and the advertisers are desperately trying to get your attention. Tons of pop-up blockers have been written to prevent us having to view the advertising that supports the very site we visit, and thus the job of the Internet advertiser becomes even more difficult. It's a vicious cycle, and internet ads don't sell for Super Bowl half-time commercial prices, either. If there is a line of vendors trying to advertise on this site, I'm sure Drew and Langdon will give them all equal time and only advertise for legitimate businesses with a legitimate service, a good history, and good old cash.
My point is that we really should be grateful that some businesses with real money are willing to advertise here and defray the huge cost of running this site. I don't use Shutterfly; never have. I'm a big Adorama fan. An ad from Shutterfly is only a true endorsement if NO COMPETITIVE printers are allowed to advertise here. I suspect that D&L would LOVE to have three or four different printing services to advertise. Since we are seeing very few ads at this point, I suspect that we're jumping to conclusions a little bit when we start complaining about a particular vendor being allowed to advertise.
Gosh, I didn't mean to write a book. Sorry if I sound like I'm getting personal with anyone; I'm not. Let's just don't be so negative about the very people who are supporting the site where we all have so much fun!
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 05:43:22 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
All of these services sound perfectly first-rate, but are they just for the USA? |
I've used Ofoto from Australia. Shipping costs a bit extra, but I was pretty happy with the results. I would expect other services to be similar. The only drawback was that my old camera couldn't take any photos that were worth printing :). Oh well, my new one didn't turn up on Friday, but it should get here tomorrow, just in time for me not to be able to submit to this week's challenges. Bleh.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 07:28:34 AM · #14 |
For what it's worth, the only place I've ever ordered prints from is Shutterfly, and I was extremely happy with the results. Nobody I've shown them to has had even the slightest idea they weren't film prints.
Drew |
|
|
|
12/15/2002 07:39:14 AM · #15 |
Drew, maybe a menu option somewhere would be nice so that the members can see who is advertising if desired... I currently cant see any of these unless i logout and come back to the login page...
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 08:58:58 AM · #16 |
This is going to sound a little odd, but... As a member, I can't see who is advertising here... Is there a way for members to see the ads if they'd like to? I'm happy that I don't see them on the Home Page, but it'd be nice to be able to take a look :)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 01:22:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I think we probably should be very careful when we make negative comments about the advertisers who support the site. For one, there are possibly legal issues involved, and two, I suspect that without advertising, this huge endeavor on the part of two fine young web developers would not be possible far into the future. This thing has gotten big, in case we didn't notice that fact :-) I am quite sure that Drew and Langdon are being very careful as to who they allow to advertise here. Your reference to magazine editors being very selective is accurate; they have many more choices to work from. Even with that said, check your Popular Photography and Imaging mag carefully. You will find that not every vendor they advertise is even a participant in their consumer protection program. Many of their vendors are gray market dealers that don't carry manufacturers warranties, but that doesn't show in the ads. Printing services? A dime a dozen. Only after a LONG period of paperwork and negotiation with a consumer protection program vendor complaint does PopPhoto even consider not allowing a vendor to advertise. Especially not just on a recommendation from an outside board, or a couple of subscibers, that a particular vendor is not as good as the rest. The magazine would probably face lawsuit upon lawsuit if it canceled advertisements without a sufficient paper trail and just cause. As a result, not every vendor that advertises in a magazine is going to be a prime source. Even Wal-Mart has dissatisfied customers, but they are still a huge and legitimate business.
Internet advertising, believe it or not, is becoming an incredibly hard thing to sell and really make money. The reason you see so many popups and banners on sites is because Internet advertising basically does not work, and the advertisers are desperately trying to get your attention. Tons of pop-up blockers have been written to prevent us having to view the advertising that supports the very site we visit, and thus the job of the Internet advertiser becomes even more difficult. It's a vicious cycle, and internet ads don't sell for Super Bowl half-time commercial prices, either. If there is a line of vendors trying to advertise on this site, I'm sure Drew and Langdon will give them all equal time and only advertise for legitimate businesses with a legitimate service, a good history, and good old cash.
My point is that we really should be grateful that some businesses with real money are willing to advertise here and defray the huge cost of running this site. I don't use Shutterfly; never have. I'm a big Adorama fan. An ad from Shutterfly is only a true endorsement if NO COMPETITIVE printers are allowed to advertise here. I suspect that D&L would LOVE to have three or four different printing services to advertise. Since we are seeing very few ads at this point, I suspect that we're jumping to conclusions a little bit when we start complaining about a particular vendor being allowed to advertise.
Gosh, I didn't mean to write a book. Sorry if I sound like I'm getting personal with anyone; I'm not. Let's just don't be so negative about the very people who are supporting the site where we all have so much fun! |
Gee, I never premeditated to be negative. I was just raising a counterpoint to ones made earlier in this thread. As to your remarks about actionable (legal stuff) comments, I did not see anything in what I said, or for that matter, in anything anyone else said, that would lead to that conclusion. So, I am not too sure exactly which point or comment has you worried?
Conversely, I do agree with many of your points with regards to the advantage of advertising for the owners of this site. There are several revenue streams that are obtainable to the owners and they are using at least two - advertising and membership fees. Alternate strategies are also possible, but I am not knowledgeable if the owners are pursuing them as well. For instanance, selling the mailing list or cross-purpose banner ads with other interconnected sites.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 02:29:12 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I think we probably should be very careful when we make negative comments about the advertisers who support the site. For one, there are possibly legal issues involved... |
This is what I was addressing earlier when I said "They'd just have to realize that the site owners exercise no editorial control over the comments of the membership..."
I'm sure any advertising contract their lawyer allows them to sign will cover this issue. |
|
|
|
12/15/2002 04:59:14 PM · #19 |
Morgan - My post immediately followed yours but my comments were not directed only at you :-) Legal issues? I refer largely to the plethora of absolutely inane and idiotic lawsuits that are clogging the American court system in modern times. Individuals, corporations, employers, and even employees are being sued by the thousands for things that a little common sense could prevent. I was not referring to any particular actionable statements. I hope you don't have as much trouble with litigation north of the border as we do here in good old USA. If your enemy is simply willing to go to court over an issue, he can make your life misery EVEN IF HE'S WRONG!
By the way, didn't Drew swear in blood to never sell our email addys? :-)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 06:36:36 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I think we probably should be very careful when we make negative comments about the advertisers who support the site. For one, there are possibly legal issues involved, and two, I suspect that without advertising, this huge endeavor on the part of two fine young web developers would not be possible far into the future. |
Are you suggesting that in an open forum for the discussion of digital photography we can't criticize a digital photography printing service because they are a source of funds for the site?
If so, I hope you never run for public office. |
|
|
|
12/15/2002 06:38:39 PM · #21 |
I think most of the criticism i have seen so far regarding shutterfly is heresay and not founded on experience...
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 06:41:28 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Malokata:
Originally posted by nards656:
I think we probably should be very careful when we make negative comments about the advertisers who support the site. For one, there are possibly legal issues involved, and two, I suspect that without advertising, this huge endeavor on the part of two fine young web developers would not be possible far into the future. |
Are you suggesting that in an open forum for the discussion of digital photography we can't criticize a digital photography printing service because they are a source of funds for the site?
If so, I hope you never run for public office. |
Durn, I hope he doesn't run for office either!
|
|
|
|
12/15/2002 06:59:13 PM · #23 |
I'm curious... Of the folks that have said ShutterFly is a bad choice for getting prints, how many of you have used them? My experiance with ShutterFly has been very good and I'd like to hear specific problems folks have had...
Anyone?
Message edited by author 2002-12-15 23:59:39.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 12:06:16 AM · #24 |
| I had better experience with www.clubphoto.com. |
|
|
|
12/16/2002 04:14:26 AM · #25 |
I have used Shutterfly for all my printing, and have been impressed wth the quality that comes back, the paper, to me, isn't any thinner than when you take your film to get developed somewhere. It is Fuji paper, and I would continue to use them time and time again...
|
|
