Yeah, the Epson printer provides superb quality, better gamut and longevity than prints made on standard photo paper. The catch with the Epson is that even though it's ~29 cents/print, the printer itself is a few hundred
I think Ritz is ~26-27 cents each? They're made on Fuji Frontier's. The one nice thing about Ritz is that they usually try a little bit harder to make sure prints look good and can make minor edits to the brightness if necessary.
Costco requires a membership but it's something like 19 cents? $3 for 12x18's. The big problem with Costco is that depending on the particular store, it's either a 240 or 400 dpi Noritsu printer. The 400 dpi models provide a sharper output than the Fuji Frontier's, but the color is overall less saturated. The real problem with Costco is that the color isn't as consistent as you'd expect it to be (even with the custom ICC's). They know it's a problem and will let you return prints if you're not happy with it, but it can be a bit of a hassle. Still, this is more an issue for the photography enthusiast -- a lot of people don't care about prints being slightly off in color, etc.
Hopefully in a month or so, I'll have an article up that'll review all the printer technology. Basically 90% of people don't need photo printers and will be better off with getting prints made at your local lab. That said, a "high-end" inkjet can provide better quality and longevity than a standard local lab. A moderate quality inkjet is really only an option if you think it's more convenient to print at home than it is to go to a 1 hour digital photo guy.
