You can’t contend that printmaking is a fully automated process; you know fully well how long it takes to make a good print of a photograph. A photograph as toned for newsprint doesn’t really have much in common with a photograph toned for a print. More work, more time.

Newspapers are in the business of providing content. They’re not really in the business of providing things, so expect a thing to cost you more than a quarter…

Providing content for free on the Internet is one thing; providing access to the materials that were used to create the content is another entirely, which is essentially what you’re buying with a print — an exceptionally fine-quality product crafted from the original JPEG or negative. Providing a 500px sRGB JPEG is not analogous to providing the original photograph; nor is providing a newspaper analogous to providing a print.

If the newsprint’s good enough for you, you can always buy that from the Reprints Department of your newspaper; or pay more to get a good print from the Photo Department. Critiquing the availability of photo prints is akin to damning Target for having two vacuums, one cheap and one expensive: you are under no obligation to purchase the pricier one, but it’s available to those interested parties that understand the distinction.

As Ansel Adams famously said, the negative is the symphony’s score; the print is the performance. You’re buying more with your $25 than a click of the “Print” button.

(And the argument of a newspaper as public institution, “Paper of Record,” is a slippery slope; are reporters required to provide all of the historical facts that they garnered for an article? Putting on the historian’s hat suggests that entire interviews or anonymous sources should universally be revealed for the greater good.)