Need a bigger printer to handle the pictures from your new Hasselblad? This one comes recommended, but is probably overkill if your camera can fit in your pocket.
More detailed article. This article says that there are also less gargantuan printers coming with these new technologies, including anti-clogging measures, something which has been needed in the otherwise excellent Epson printers.
11 comments:
One thing that I wonder about with such beasts is the minimum usage possible. In other words, and assuming we'd win the lottery, how often would we have to use such a printer for it to remain in good condition?
If the output is only half as good as the review claims, owning a beast in this class and capable of handling huge prints sounds like a wet dream all right. But not so if you have to keep it busy every day of the week to keep it happy.
Of course, home use is clearly not the target here, but I am just wondering if it would be possible at all?
My Epson 4800 is rarely used, and the nozzles do tend to clog after a while.
But they can be cleaned, and I heard that if one does that before shutting it down, it's easier.
The review says:
"On a more practical level one of the joys of working with the 11880 is that it incorporates automatic nozzle checking and print head alignment technologies. The bottom line on this is that banding, head clogs, and all of the other ills which we've become accustomed to in inkjet printing appear to be a thing of the past."
Making assumptions here but...
Printer cleans itself after print job, or periodically during long batch jobs.
Printer cleans itself and parks heads in protective area on excess idle.
Printer does periodic self maintenance when idle (every N days - self clean and test).
What if you use it, know you are done for the month, and unplug it? Can it self clean when completely dirty?
I had an Epson which pumped ink from the heads on the cleaning pad. The pump got blocked, took a devil of a time to find the problem. By then I'd upgraded to a newer, better, cheaper printer.
There's a lot to be said for outsourcing the big jobs.
"There's a lot to be said for outsourcing the big jobs."
I completely agree. What I'd really, really like is a small (B-size) printer that guarantees exact same results as the big beast. It would make it possible to tweak an image at home and then have it blown to poster size, all for a realistic fee. Trial & error through a service bureau is simply too costly, and settling for sub-standard is not for me.
Not to mention that proper storage of 60" paper rolls is simply impossible at home, even if you disregard the cost issue. The paper would probably end up unusable long before you'd get to see the end of a roll.
I don't see why, it's just paper.
[whispering] Don't say that out loud, my ex might hear you. See, she's in Art bindery & fancy presentations. Just paper... wanna really get flamed? ;-)
Paper usually reacts poorly to humidity & temperature changes. Even the most resilient stuff eventually gets affected. And if kept on a small diameter roll, it will eventually end up permanently curled.
Of course, I'm talking about paper here, and the "photo support material" in those rolls might not have much in common with that anymore.
A quick glance at Epson's web site reveal that a 60"x100' roll of "Premium Semigloss Photo Paper" is listed at 260$, or 0.52$/sq. foot. Even assuming 25% waste, it's still significantly less than what I was expecting...
The ink sells for 279$ for 700 ml, I wonder how much paper that covers? Feels like a lot, in any case.
Of course you need one of all the colors! Big outlay from the start.
But apparently after that it's pretty economical for such big prints.
That's what it looks like. You may have to load the printer with a whopping 6.3 litres of ink initially, but that should allow you to cover entirely no less than fifteen 100' rolls of 60" paper (very conservative estimate, ~0.00035" of wet ink applied @ 100% coverage).
In other words, 0.52$ (paper) + 0.33$ (ink) = 0.85$ / sq. ft. (max!)
The printer should pay for itself quite rapidly, provided you have the volume. A pleasant surprise...
Oh yes, it's damned expensive to have prints made at shop.
If you had both an Epson 11880 and a Canon ImagePress C6000 you'd be pretty well prepared for different types of printing tasks in your household.
The C6000 is 9 meters long, and costs a mere 114,000 euros. My kind of machine.
Post a Comment