As camera sensors increase in resolution, printing big is the only way to show what we're doing, especially in disciplines like landscape where detail makes the image. In addition to a wall-space expander (and I have no idea how to make one of those 😊 ), that means we need big printers suited to the needs of individual photographers, instead of graphic-arts shops. Right now, even a 24" printer is a beast beyond what many individuals are willing to buy and make room for, and a 44" is worse, at the size of an upright piano.
There is no reason a 24" printer even has to be a stand-mounted device - HP made a dye ink model (was it the DesignJet 130?) that weighed under 60 lbs and was a large desktop machine. I can't see how a 44" printer could work without the stand, but it could be a slender device designed to roll into a corner (the Z3200 is a lot less obtrusive than a Canon or Epson, and an even smaller machine should be possible).
Most individual photographers don't need the speed or volume capabilities of any of today's mainstream printers - and could really live without Epson's clogging if you don't print all the time. I run 160ml cartridges in my Canon Pro-2000, and they're plenty big enough for my needs - the space they provide to install the 700 ml cartridges just makes the printer bigger than it needs to be. The Z3200 was pretty close - smallish for its carriage width, slow, excellent image quality, relatively small cartridges and easy to deal with heads (blow a head and you can replace it for $70).
If I were to design an ideal printer for fine-art photo use by an individual photographer (maybe taking a few print-for-pay jobs from photographers they know, but not primarily a print shop), it would be something like this:
Maximum possible print quality - it might even be a 14-ink machine (start with Canon's current 12 inks, then add Epson's green and an extra grey - OR start with Epson's 11 and add Canon's blue, an extra grey and a chroma optimizer - very similar, since Canon's red is close to Epson's orange).
Cartridges in the 90-160 ml range - no need to take up the space for giant cartridges.
No need for high-speed output or the massive build it requires - 24" should be under 100 lbs and at least arguably possible to use without the stand, 44" should be under 200 lbs and roll nicely into a corner. It doesn't matter if it's as slow as a Z3200, and it probably doesn't matter if it's half that speed.
Well-designed, easy to load roll feeder and cutter. No need for dual-roll capability.
Sheet feed tray (in addition to the single roll feeder). The sheet tray should accommodate up to 20 sheets of 13x19" art paper, possibly 17x25" as well (it doesn't need to be the full carriage width - most big prints are from rolls). The old DesignJet 130 actually had a 100 sheet tray at 17x22" (20 sheets for art paper), and it was the smallest and lightest 24" printer I've seen. Bonus points if the tray also accommodates 100 sheets of 8.5x11" plain paper - if this is for individual photographers, it would be nice not to have an extra printer around for printing plane tickets and invoices.
Optional photographer-oriented built-in profiling. Probably too expensive to be standard, but would be an excellent option.
Designed to be used whenever - like a Canon or HP, but unlike an Epson, turn it on and it works even if you last used it a month ago. Designed to be good about not blowing heads if used less frequently.
7 heads for the 14 inks - a blown head is a $70, 5 minute job.
It's kind of a modernized Z3200 (let's call it an HP, but it could also be made by Canon - it's not an Epson because it would require them to abandon their permanent head technology), with some bits of DesignJet 130 DNA, and some pieces of Canon in there as well... How many people would buy one (for essentially the price of a Canon Pro-2000 or Pro-4000). It's a smaller, lighter, less obtrusive machine than the similarly priced Canon, and the extra inks improve image quality somewhat - better gamut than any current printer. You also get a nice sheet feeder and a spectro option meant for photographers, but you lose speed, the ability to use giant cartridges and the dual-roll option.
How many folks would be interested in one? If not, what would you want?
