A printer I'd like to see - will it happen?

[Dan Wells]

HP used to make a 24 inch printer called the DesignJet 130 that had a couple of important design differences from all other 24 inch photo printers. It wasn't huge - it weighed about 60 lbs, and it fit on a table instead of being a floorstanding machine. It also had a paper tray for any paper up to 18 inches wide. Of course, the image quality and permanence of that old machine are not competitive today for photography (HP may still make them for the low end of the GIS mapping market), but I wonder about someone making a modern 24 inch photo printer on a similar chassis. Could it be done with pigment inks and more colors? It would have to use ink cartridges in the 100-150 ml range, not the huge 300+ ml cartridges that are becoming popular today. It would presumably be slower than other printers, and with a more limited duty cycle.
     Where I see a market for it is as a printer for individual artists - most of the printers on the market today are made for graphics shops that print 20-30 prints every day. Even a busy artist might print that in a MONTH. We don't need the durability of a printer made to run 20 times our volume, and we may not need the speed. In return, the "baby 24" would be less obtrusive in a workspace, and cheaper.
     I don't know if this machine is possible, for two reasons. First, pigment inks may run at much higher pressures, and the pumps to deal with that could require a much sturdier chassis. Second, do today's smaller drop sizes require so much more precision that the massive chassis is the only way to get it. If it could be built, the printer I'm proposing would have all the image quality of the best printers on the market, and would print on any reasonable paper (maybe not some really thick sign materials, but certainly including all the 300+ gsm art papers). It would weigh under 100 lbs in a 24-inch model, cost under $2000 (there might be a $1000 17-inch version), and be designed for the print volume of an artist who sells prints, not a service bureau.

                                -Dan

[Scott Martin]

Unfortunately the public has already spoken buy not buying the 130 and those that did have voiced their displeasure with it.

It would weigh under 100 lbs in a 24-inch model, cost under $2000, and be designed for the print volume of an artist who sells prints, not a service bureau.

Sounds a lot like the Canon iPF6100 or 6000s except for the weight.

I'd like to see a 24"+ printer that supports ~12 inks plus a gloss enhancer, straight through printing for thick materials, roll loading from the lower front, and that has a cassette that holds a large stack of sheets that it can reliable print from.  

Scott Martin

[Phil Indeblanc]

I think this printer is so under rated.
If you use a RIP with it, it makes amazing prints. Yes out of the box it has its color issues, once adding a RIP, it is just fantastic.  (I have gotten very close with custom profiles also, but not good enough for contract proofing). It would be just fine for 95% of users with custom profiles. I had a hard tme with it at first, as I was looking for absolute neutral and I ended up getting the RIP and acheive that now.

One of the main reasons this printer was skipped and left to the side in marketing... at the time it was the archival race, and the 85 years was beat by Epsons 100 years, and it was also at the intro point of UV inks.
There are select few papers you can use with it, and they are beautiful papers (Premium Photo Satin, Proof Gloss are my favorite). I know there is a canvas that can also be used(I have not tried).

This printer prints the richest blacks that I have seen. I have worked with Epson 4800, 7600, and I chose this for the mechanical build and print results over the others(RIP in use). I would likely go with another HP, as I find the build, and the printhead, the "no nonsense" way it handles itself, much less a headache over the Epson.  
I have trashed 2 Epsons for head issues.  I love the Epson output charactor very much. But I dont like the ink waste, and the hand holding it often needs. (multiple head cleanings).  The 130 is been in use for 2 years. I have changed the print heads once, the inks more, as I have over 2300 prints total. I have needed a head cleaning ONE time.  The ink usage on this printer is very smart, and has very little waste running it. most my prints are heavy black, and 70-90% coverage on the paper.

[dct123]

Underrated indeed. This compact large format printer outputs an excellent photo print on P+ papers...both satin and gloss. The archival permanence is something like 100+ years. I believe one of the biggest advantages of this printer over most of the newer models is the fact that 50 sheets can be loaded in the front tray and multiple copies printed while the machine is unattended. It also stops when an ink cartridge runs dry and resumes printing when a new one is loaded. Quite a few of my photographer clients prefer their satin prints from this machine over the output of my newer "Z" printers.

[abiggs]

I have been requesting / suggesting a front loading cassette for cut sheets on a large format printer for quite some time. I know many people who would give up their current 13 inch or 17 inch printer and would buy a 24" or 44" printer if it had a cassette on the front. This would allow Canon / HP / Epson to upsell these customers into more expensive products, which would be good for them. Heck, they could sell such a cassette for a princely sum and I would still do it. I am currently supporting in my office:

Epson 3800
Canon iPF5100
HP Z3200
Canon iPF8100
Canon Pro9500II
Canon Pro9000II

I could actually give all of them up and standardize on 1 or 2 printers.

[enduser]

The DJ130 was sold in big numbers and did a great job, but it was the last gasp for dye ink.

Many people converted to it Chinese re-fillables and filled them with HP Vivera Pigment extracted from the HP 9180  carts.   Its ultra cheap printheads made it a no risk option for trying 3rd party inks or pigments.   You just need a cleaning routine built in to the firmware to avoid  clogs.  Those who did convert just do a regular manual clean.

[Geoff Wittig]

Once you're committed to investing the time, effort and craft necessary to get excellent results from a 24" printer, it doesn't make much sense to cheap out on the machine. The inks and paper are always going to be the greatest cost over the long run, so the advantage of a robust professional build quality exceeds any nominal cost savings up front. The Epson 7600 I bought years ago still cranks out prints on cotton rag paper that look as good as anything from newer printers, and it still works perfectly. In fact its longevity left me with a dilemma, because I'm now printing on an HP Z3100 for its black & white capability, and I didn't have room for both of these beasts. A local art shop owner/printer was happy to take it off my hands.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Once you're committed to investing the time, effort and craft necessary to get excellent results from a 24" printer, it doesn't make much sense to cheap out on the machine. The inks and paper are always going to be the greatest cost over the long run, so the advantage of a robust professional build quality exceeds any nominal cost savings up front. The Epson 7600 I bought years ago still cranks out prints on cotton rag paper that look as good as anything from newer printers, and it still works perfectly. In fact its longevity left me with a dilemma, because I'm now printing on an HP Z3100 for its black & white capability, and I didn't have room for both of these beasts. A local art shop owner/printer was happy to take it off my hands.

I hardly think the 130 is cheaping out on..... The printer (2000)with stand (350) and the roll feeder(350) run over $3000. For a Dye ink printer. Then add about $800 for a RIP to get it to print nice and accurate.

As you mention, you love the 7600 on rag, but the BW of the Z, (since you sold the 7600 maybe the Z does a good job on some rag paper ?). It really comes down to specifics of the paper you want to use, and what you will expect from the machine.

If I were in the market today, I would likely get a Z3 series or Canon. but for my purposes in proofing, the cost of either of those in 24" could be double(plus RIP). Unless I wanted more from the printer, It would make sense to get the same. A 3800, or 4880 might be also in the range, but who wants to clean heads, and mess with indiosincracies of the Epson, when the job can be done with a no nonsense robust workhorse.

If I was at the splitting hairs of finest quality for archival fine art printing, I would have more than one machine, and an Epson would surely be in the lineup(So would the HP and the canon for that matter).

Having said that I am interested in seeing the DJ 130 output with the blacks I use vs the Z or other UV ink printers. I am sure by now with the multiple blacks it will exceed and surpass the dj130, but it would be interesting to see the results.  Anyone up for a test print?

I had the price wrong on this thing, so I edited.