In today’s digital age, while we capture countless photos on our smartphones, the desire to hold tangible memories remains strong. Printing photos allows us to preserve precious moments, create personalized gifts, or decorate our homes. However, with a plethora of online photo printing services available, choosing the “best” option can feel overwhelming. This guide dives into some of the most popular photo printing websites, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses to help you make an informed decision.
Mpix, a widely recognized service with a user-friendly app for smartphone uploads, unfortunately didn’t impress our expert panel. Testers ranked Mpix prints as their least favorite, primarily due to its frustrating cropping issue with smartphone photos. If you meticulously compose your mobile photography, Mpix’s forced cropping might be a significant drawback. Unlike services like EZprints and RitzPix, which offer 4:3 aspect ratio print sizes perfect for smartphones, or Printique and Nations Photo Lab, which provide uncropped printing regardless of aspect ratio, Mpix lacks these crucial options. This limitation can lead to unintended framing and loss of detail in your printed photos.
A close-up of the edge of a rolled-up print from Snapfish showing damage from shipping.
Bay Photo, another contender, offers smartphone-optimized small print sizes and robust packaging. While its packaging is commendable, the print quality was judged as decidedly average in our evaluations. In blind print comparisons, participants consistently placed Bay Photo as a reasonable second choice, rarely as a top or bottom pick. This suggests a decent but not exceptional performance, making it a middle-of-the-road option in the competitive landscape of online photo printing.
When budget is the primary concern, Snapfish emerges as one of the most affordable services. However, the low prices come at a cost in terms of print quality. Our tests revealed disappointing results, with 8×10 and 4×6 prints exhibiting harsh contrast, resulting in diminished shadow and highlight detail. Portrait photos displayed noticeably orange skin tones, further detracting from the overall quality. Packaging also proved problematic. Smaller prints arrived in flimsy cardboard envelopes lacking padding, while larger 11×14 prints, though shipped in a tube, suffered bent edges due to the absence of internal padding. This combination of subpar print quality and inadequate packaging makes Snapfish a risky choice, despite its appealing prices.
Damaged corner of a RitzPix photo print against a green backdrop.
RitzPix also struggled with packaging issues, mirroring Snapfish’s shortcomings. An 11×14 print from RitzPix arrived damaged due to being shipped in a flat envelope with insufficient backing board. The envelope’s tight fit for the print meant that any crushing during transit resulted in corner damage. This packaging failure is particularly concerning given RitzPix’s relatively high shipping fee of $14.95, more than double the average of other services tested. The expectation of premium shipping costs should logically include better protection for the prints, a standard RitzPix failed to meet.
EZprints, similar to Snapfish, was flagged for uncommonly poor print quality. Every print exhibited a hazy, washed-out appearance, lacking sharpness and clarity. Areas of consistent tone displayed a mottled texture, further diminishing the visual appeal. These consistent quality issues position EZprints as one of the less desirable options among the tested photo printing services.
Shutterfly, while being the second most expensive service in our tests, delivered only average print quality. The primary complaint, however, centered on packaging. Small prints were shipped in thin, flat envelopes, and larger 11×14 prints arrived curled from being packaged in a tube. While the curl can be remedied by reverse rolling or flattening under weight, this adds an inconvenient step for the user. The fact that a higher price point doesn’t guarantee superior packaging or print quality is a noteworthy drawback for Shutterfly.
Curled large photo print from Shutterfly after tube shipping, placed on a table.
Zazzle offers photo prints but its user interface is geared towards individual, single-order jobs. The print size selection process involves a cumbersome drag-and-drop method for each image on its own order page. This design is inefficient and tedious, especially for users needing to print multiple photos, making Zazzle unsuitable for larger or more complex print orders.
Winkflash has garnered a consistent stream of negative customer reviews. Beyond reports of customers losing access to stored photos due to ownership changes, numerous users have cited difficulties contacting customer service. Customer support is limited to a web form, lacking phone or email contact options. These significant customer service and reliability concerns led to an easy dismissal of Winkflash as a recommended service.
FreePrints operates on a unique model, offering up to 1,000 free 4×6 prints annually, requiring only shipping payment. However, the service offers minimal online information, with a single-page website suggesting all operations are app-based. The lack of transparency and detailed information raises concerns, prompting the cautionary adage: “If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.” Potential users should approach FreePrints with careful consideration and manage expectations.
Amazon Prints provides 4×6 prints at a competitive price of 17¢ each. While formerly matching lower-cost rivals at 9¢, the current pricing remains reasonable. Amazon Prime members who utilize Prime Photos can directly order prints from their stored images, streamlining the process. The order process is straightforward, and print quality falls in the mid-range – not exceptional, with a tendency towards orange skin tones, but not the worst performers. Packaging, however, was disappointing, using a thin flat mailer with minimal cardboard reinforcement, resulting in corner damage to some prints.
Walmart offers a smartphone-friendly 4×5.3-inch print size, accommodating the 4:3 aspect ratio without cropping. However, its overall selection of print sizes is less comprehensive compared to top-rated services. While a convenient option for uncropped smartphone prints, the limited size variety may restrict users with diverse printing needs.
In conclusion, navigating the landscape of online photo printing websites requires careful consideration of various factors beyond just price. While some services like Snapfish and FreePrints may lure with low costs or free prints, the trade-offs in print quality, packaging, and customer service can outweigh the savings. Services like Mpix, despite their popularity, may disappoint users concerned with accurate smartphone photo printing due to cropping limitations. For consistently reliable quality and packaging, exploring alternatives with demonstrated strengths in these areas is advisable, ensuring your printed memories are preserved in the best possible way.
