Digital pic to photo printer vs. photo lab

Hello all,
I was wondering what the long-term results of printing a digital pic on
photo paper versus going to a photo lab to get the picture developed on
their machine.
Here's my story. I took some engagement pictures for friends of mine and
they want these pictures enlarged and they will be framing them for the
wedding. 4 total, 3 will be 8x10's and one will be a 16x20. Now I
understand that if the photo printer print fades, you could always print
another one and you're back in business but if the picture is framed, then
it's not as easy. So is it worth the money to go to a photo lab and get
them to print the 8x10's or just let my friend with the photo printer print
it? I'm not entirely sure what he's using but I know he's got pretty good
paper and a photo printer, it's not just an inkjet with good paper, he's got
a dedicated printer for printing only photos. He said he printed a picture
6 months ago and it shows no noticeable signs of fading or loss of any kind.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

-Bruce

 

Most people have no way to print a 16x20 without going to a photographic
process.

8x10's are much cheaper to have printed than to print at home. I believe
that it costs at least $3-4 for me to print an 8x10 on my Epson R800. But
I can get a print for under $2 at a number of quality prints shops. The
cost for a 16x20 is about $12 at www.whcc.com which is an online print house
used by many wedding photographers.

 

This has been covered a number of times in the past couple of weeks.
Read the threads "Best Way to Print Digital Photos" and "Preferred
printing method for sales".

With premium quality paper and manufacturer's inks, a photo-inkjet
print is comparable to a standard Kodak paper print. Read the above
threads for details.

 

Thanks Rob, I'm sorry I didn't do a little looking around before posting.

 

Hey, no problem - I just figured I'd point you to the previous
discussions rather than re-typing my standard screed. ;-)