What is the cheapest way to print 2000 digital photos?

My wedding photographers used digital cameras to shoot the wedding. We have tons of fantastic photos that are high-res digital format. They take a long time to load and I'd rather print 'hard copies' than change the res of the files. I won't print all 2000, but I will print a LOT. What is the cheapest way to print them in this quantity? I'm willing to 'do it myself' (but would likely need a new photo quality printer), have them mailed to me, or go somewhere, but want to be sure to factor in the cost of materials I would need or shipping I would pay per print. Personal positive and negative experiences are also welcome

 

I would also check out your local warehouse clubs (Sam's, Costco, BJ's). They have pricing that seems to be a lot lower than CVS, Walmart, etc. on photo prints plus they offer a money-back guarantee if not satisfied with the quality.

I'd start by getting one copy each (no matter where you end up doing this). This way you can check the print quality and be sure there are no errors in each photo's layout, cropping, etc.

Even if you're not a member yet, the savings may justify spending $45-$50 for a year's membership - plus you'll get deep discounts on everyday stuff like cleaning products and OTC meds (I know this is getting off topic, but I pay about $12 for a 400 count bottle of generic Aleve at Sam's - the same quantity of store brand would run over $50 at CVS).

 

One other side note: If you have not done so already, I would make at least one backup copy of the photos on a high-capacity USB drive and store if off-site with a relative or in a safety deposit box (important in case of a break-in, fire, flood, tornado, etc.).

In addition, it wouldn't hurt to also store the photos at a secure online site like Microsoft's One Drive.

 

If they were professional photographers you should be asking them. One thing I don't see mentioned here is whether you have permission to print the images or not. If you use a sendout service or go through your local Sam's Club or the like you'll likely run into the roadblock of needing a print release form signed, sometimes the store will refuse to print unless they have just short of an affidavit signed from the photographers.

If they are only professionals because they've bought themselves a "professional camera", then you'll have a lot less to worry about.

 

2,000 photos is going to cost a lot of money. For comparison of the sites that professional's use, and the cost per photo. See http://olegkikin.com/online-photo-printing.htm

Here is one of the companies that Professional photographers use. http://www.nationsphotolab.com/index.aspx Sometimes you can find discounts on development. The person or company that took the photos, should be able to give you the company they use, along with a promo code.

 

Sorry, but this day and time. You are given a DVD or Blu-Ray with all of the photos, vs. a real album. You are also given a letter on the DVD or Blu-Ray, that states the photos are yours.

No longer is the day that the photographer limits customers to only using them for development. Due to they send their photos off to a national lab, that can offer deep discounts. The do not send them to CVS, Costco, Walgreen's, Sam's Club, whatever.

All the OP needs to do is realize that developing 2,000 photos is going to cost as much as it was or more, for what the photographer cost.

 

brownizs, despite what you think the photos are never yours. You may have permission to print them, or other permissions based on a release that the photographer gives you (some may be broad others may not), but rarely do they ever hand over ownership. Ownership is retained by the photographer unless it is specifically described in writing, and for that to be legal it would need to be notarized. The fact that people feel that they own the images so now they can do with them as they please doesn't change the fact that copyright law still protects the photographer. It's similar to you sharing a program that you've purchased. You're not actually purchasing the program, but rather a license to use the program. You're not licensed to share the program with your friends and casual acquaintances. But in this day and time people do crack programs and distribute them freely. That doesn't mean that it's right, or that MajorGeeks should condone such behavior. All anyone would need to do is burn 2000 copies of the cracked program to disk and share at will, but it's still considered theft.

 

cabbiinc, actually they are when the photographer gives you the disc, along with the letter as I stated on the disc. Our photographer that did our wedding released to us, the pictures she took, so that we could develop those we wanted to.

Same thing when we had Lifetouch take professional photos three years ago. In both cases, the pictures are ours to do so.

A lot of professional photographers give the ownership of the photos to you. It is no longer the old days, that you had to go to that photographer, to have them develop photos they took.

You may want to go and do research on this, before stating that someone is incorrect in what they posted. Things have changed a lot in this market, then you realize.

 

I'm calling your bluff on this one. Show me a scan or a clip of transfer of ownership of the images which you think are yours, especially from LIfetouch. I'm willing to bet that while you're free to print or whatever from those images, they are not "yours". I wonder if you feel the same about software? You paid for it, so the program is "yours".

 

http://www.lifetouch.com/terms

You do NOT own the images. You are licensed to use them. Semantics maybe, but the absolute disillusion of the understanding of copyright law in our society is appalling. All I asked was if they had permission to print, it should never be assumed. I say this as a professional photographer who works in an industry where Cease And Desist orders have to be issued where people just assume that since they feel a certain way that's how the law has to be. Life just doesn't work that way.

Sorry about the rant. I'll not say anything more here.