A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Film and Processing > Processing - commercial labs > Snapfish? Any opinions on if...

Featured Equipment Deals

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM A Review Read More

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM A Review

Pro family photographer, Stacy Bostrom, reviews the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. See how this lens stacks up against her tried-and-true favorite.

Latest Equipment Articles

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose? Read More

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose?

Both the Nikon D810 and D750 are excellent FX-format DSLRs. Shun Cheung compares the two models to help you choose which one is the right choice for you.

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."

Snapfish? Any opinions on if it's a good deal for processing?

shannon s. , Aug 15, 2005; 05:42 p.m.

Has anyone used Snapfish for developing, and if so, how was it? Thanks!


Bruce Muir , Aug 15, 2005; 06:11 p.m.

I sent some to them before I knew any better and they scratched the negs.

Michael Carmack , Aug 15, 2005; 06:17 p.m.

I've been using them for the last couple of years. No problems to date. The extra buck per roll for 5X7's is worthwhile.

Jean-Baptiste Queru , Aug 15, 2005; 09:11 p.m.

I've not had any major problem with them. The negs don't come back as well protected as they would from other places, and sometimes they're not perfectly cut (though I've never really had any severe issue). I've had them process at least 30 rolls, maybe more.

They're not the cheapest ones if you only want developing. My local longs drugs develops film for cheaper (I'm talking develop only, if you want proofs as well snapfish is competitive).

Ron Andrews , Aug 15, 2005; 09:50 p.m.

I sent over 100 rolls of film to Snapfish over the years. Quality was OK until about 2 years ago when I got a couple orders with off color prints. I've since switched to Ofoto.com (now Kodak Easyshare Gallery) and have been satisfied with the results.

Dana Gee , Aug 16, 2005; 02:22 a.m.

The last order I got back was the first I've had a problem with - cropped badly, machine error, I guess, and red banding in one print and not the other.

Edward Davis , Aug 17, 2005; 01:11 a.m.

I had no problems with Snapfish. I go between Ofoto & Snapfish depending on what I need. For the extra few cents Snapfish is great especially as you get the prints back. When I know I'm just going to want to scan the negatives and play around in Photoshop then I use ofoto as they don't send prints back only negatives (can also do this with Snapfish as they too send negatives back). So, in summary, you should not have any probs with them. I have not experienced any of the probs others have mentioned. However, I will say that from my experience with a lot of cheap labs (drugstores, Walmart, etc.) I have come across the same issues as stated in previous posts. So to say those issues are just confined to Snapfish, I would disagree (though I have none of those experiences with them but have had those experiences with both Walmart and some drug store processing).

Matt Carey , Aug 17, 2005; 01:26 a.m.

Compare the snapfish website to Yorkphoto website. I have read conflicting reports about whether they are related or not. HP recently aquired Snapfish, and I can't imagine that HP would put up with the qualiy of service I have seen in York.

That said, what I have to say has to do with York--

They are very inconsistent. I have had rolls come back with very bad color. I have had rolls come back good. York does scan an entire roll for $1, and let you download reasonably large sized files for free. York will develop B&W for the same price as color--very tempting, except that they were even less consistent than the color shots. Some rolls were really badly done. I have had rolls with just terrible contrast (either chemicals bad or the incorrect process was used). I have had rolls majorly scratched (with a nice note stating that somehow I or my camera was at fault. Let's just say I have not had this problem with A&I or with home processing).

The kicker came a few months back. I sent a roll of Ilford XP-2 (C41/chromogenic B&W). York sent me an email stating that I hadn't paid, so they were holding up the processing. Even though I had filled out the credit card entry on the envelope when I submitted the roll, I sent payment again. After many emails, I was sent a form to try to track my "lost" roll. After more emails, I was told I would receive a refund and a replacement roll. After a significantly long wait, I was sent a cheap roll of Kodak color film (where the box had been cut open already).

I wouldn't use them (and no longer do) for pictures I really care about.


Back to top

Notify me of Responses