Instead of writing systematically on this theme I will just write comments I heard from friends, other photographers etc. in no logical order and say that their opinions are all wrong 
.
But let’s just begin with a little background in case you don’t know the difference between inkjet and optical prints. For starters, inkjet prints are what you print with your home printer; Optical prints are the prints you get from a Kodak or Fuji lab.
An inkjet print is made from a digital file by spraying very fine drops of water based inks on paper. Paper for optical prints already contains colors and reacts to lights falling on it (just like dark room scenes you’ve probably already known, only today the guy doing the prints seats in front of a monitor and the dark room became a relatively small machine, which is still dark inside). Now that all clarity is eliminated, let’s move on to the comments and get some more confusion.
“Inkjet prints last longer”
I don’t know. I really don’t. Kodak claims their (optical) photographic papers last more than 150 years. Epson claims with the new UltraChrome K3 inks color inkjet prints last more than 75 years and black and white inkjet prints last more than 200 years. All paper manufacturers employ only predictive accelerated tests (I think it’s clear why…), and not all test methods and conditions are alike, right? Just make sure you choose the better options for your clients: If you make Kodak optical prints, it’s fine (this is what I do). If you make inkjet prints with K3 inks in combination with one of the better Epson papers, it’s fine. Just don’t use standard photographic papers or standard inks (or cheap inkjet printers).
“Inkjet prints are cheaper”
Sometimes. That’s when you use cheap materials. I can only advice against telling your clients you make excellent inkjet prints if that’s not the truth. If your clients go to a better Fuji or Kodak lab (yes, there are also worse Fuji or Kodak labs. Some labs use no name materials, seldom clean their machines to cut costs, don’t know what “calibration” means) with the photo files CD you provided them, and get better results there, it would be embarrassing. Or if they can’t tell the difference today, maybe in a few years they can, when the prints fade.
“In a photo lab you are a nobody. You have to wait long, and you get the same so so quality like a total normal consumer, and every time with color shifts”.
Not true. If you are a photographer and have regularly tons of photos to print (like me ), every photo lab will roll out the red carpet for you. Alright, alright, it’s not exactly like that, but I enjoy special service and best quality. I think it is pretty clear that choosing a cheaper photo lab does not guarantee you get better quality. Do some test prints and let the labs show you the materials (papers, chemicals) they use. My monitors are calibrated to match the labs’ machines and I let my preferences programmed by the labs so I get reproducible results every time, regardless who operates the machines. Get your prints coated to make it more durable: No finger prints, no scratch, no water marks.
Got more comments on this theme? Write them down, together we’ll make the list longer and more confusing.
