Inside information - snap happy

Every so often, something comes along that hits the nail right on the head. I guarantee this one will change the way you use digital cameras and could see your inkjet becoming severely neglected. I'll tell you more but first, a little background.

I've long believed that digital cameras are not for everyone because you're normally responsible for creating your own prints, which in turn requires a fair amount of personal cost and effort - and as anyone who's carefully cut up a large sheet of photos knows, you also need a nearby guillotine or a steady hand with the old scissors. I know this sounds a bit mean, but the problem only gets worse, and more expensive, when your friends start asking for copies.

Fortunately, an increasing number of websites let you upload digital photos into private galleries to share with your nearest and dearest.

They can view the photos and order copies, crucially with their own credit card. While trying out the first crop of UK services however, I found a few things that weren't quite as I hoped.

After visiting Kodak PhotoNet, I was shocked to see that it charges you £3 per month just for some space to upload your digital pictures. I also noted that should you request PhotoNet to scan and upload your conventional films at the time of processing, it would charge you 50p to later download each so-called 'high-resolution' 1536 x 1024 file.

I left hastily and created free accounts with Fotango (www.fotango.co.uk) and PhotoBox (www.photobox.co.uk). Fotango claims to offer unlimited space, while PhotoBox limits each user to 50Mb.

Email or snail mail

Since most modern digital cameras create image file sizes of at least 1Mb, a fast internet connection for uploading pictures is clearly desirable; PhotoBox does, however, accept files on CD or ZIP through the post. I uploaded 10 pictures and selected prints of each.

I was impressed when my prints from PhotoBox arrived the next morning, and those from Fotango turned up three days later. The quality from both was superb, with the prints looking and feeling like conventional photos.

So far so good, but even with a 50 per cent discount for more than 20 prints at a time, both services worked out rather expensive for a set of holiday snaps - just over £10 or £18 for a set of 36 6in x 4in or 5in x 7in prints respectively, not to mention the cost of uploading them.

What I wanted was someone who could quickly output large sets at the same price as conventional film processing, especially with the larger print sizes. Little did I know that I'd find it on the traditionally uncompetitive high street.

To cut a long story short, Jessops now offers 'Diamond Laser' digital printing at exactly the same price as its film-based services, and it uses the same Fujifilm FDI MiniLab to output them. Individual 6in x 4in prints are still going to cost you 50p a throw but, uniquely, it'll do a set of 40 6in x 4in or 7in x 5in prints for just £5.99 or £7.99 respectively.

It also offers cheap second sets and larger prints - how about 40 9in x 6in prints for £9.99? I'd like to see you match that on your inkjet and, for two quid extra, you can have them in an hour.

Thanks for the Memory Stick

I tried them out by taking in a 64Mb memory card packed with 40 digital shots from my Sony S70. Jessops did stumble at the first block by not yet accepting Memory Stick media - fortunately I had my own PC Card adaptor, as should Jessops by the time you read this.

The user-operated kiosk software also didn't automatically apply the bulk discount to my set of 5in x 7in prints and, worryingly, asked for £40, but the assistant corrected it to the quoted £7.99.

Finally, you'll notice that the print sizes are the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm film, and not the 4:3 shape of most digital cameras, so expect a bit of cropping; many cameras now offer a 3:2 recording setting, though, and some online services alternatively offer 4:3 aspect prints.

That said, within an hour I was thumbing through more prints from my digital camera than I've personally made in the past year, and it was cheap too.

If this sounds like an advert for Jessops, then I've done my job, and frankly the sooner everyone on the internet and high street follows suit, the better. After all, while it's still economical and fun to output a few large prints at home, most people just want a cheap set of 36 small pictures, regardless of what technology was behind them.

I'm confident I've seen the future of mass-market digital photography and, unless there's a cost and convenience revolution with inkjets, it's not going to involve having a printer at home.