Lightjet printer for home use?

Hi all

Does anyone know if there's a lightjet printer available for home use?
I can't find one anywhere that's not the size of a car, so presuming
there's no such thing as a 'home-use' lightjet, is there ever likely to
be one?

The reason I ask is because it seems such a good idea to make one -
that way one could shoot digital images and print them in a home
darkroom. The printer manufacturers would probably go one step further
and offer a printer with chemistry and paper processing built in, but
hopefully one could opt for the 'printer only' and use chemistry in
trays - which essentially would make the printer into a digital
enlarger.

Think of the benefits: if such a product gained popularity, the world's
digital images would actually be PRINTED on archival quality colour and
B/W paper instead of either sitting on hard drives waiting to die or
being printed on crappy inkjets (I've had several 'leading' inkjet
printers and they have *all* been crap; blocked jets, liney prints,
fading, even from so-called archival pigment inks).

A home use lightjet would represent the best of both worlds in terms of
digital convenience and traditional printing technology.

Thoughts?

"renoir" wrote

Does anyone know if there's a lightjet printer available for home use?
I can't find one anywhere that's not the size of a car, so presuming
there's no such thing as a 'home-use' lightjet, is there ever likely to
be one?

There is no technical reason a personal light-jet can't be made for
a low price. Load the paper in the dark, process in a jobo/unicolor drum.

With a bit[awful lot] of hacking any laser printer can[could] be turned
into a B&W lightjet. Replace the drum with a photo paper holder, dump the
toner,
don't bother with the paper mechanism, add a light beam intensity control.
For color do three scans, three 1-color lenses may be cheaper than one
apochromat.

To make such a product worth-while a volume of 50,000+ [WAG] would be needed
to pay back engineering, tooling and manufacturing facility costs. Then
there
are the advertising, marketing and sales costs to sell 50,000 of anything.

I would guess the demand to be a hundred or so units/year.

The reason I ask is because it seems such a good idea to make one -
that way one could shoot digital images and print them in a home
darkroom.

Why better than an ink-jet?

crappy inkjets (I've had several 'leading' inkjet
printers and they have *all* been crap; blocked jets, liney prints,
fading, even from so-called archival pigment inks).

Hmmm, sorry to say, my experience has been opposite. YMMMV and all that.
Not to say I haven't cursed and tossed my share of IJ printers over the
past 30 years.


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics, Photonics, Informatics.
Remove blanks to reply: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
f-Stop enlarging timers: http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Hi Nicholas - thanks for your reply

There is no technical reason a personal light-jet can't be made for
a low price. Load the paper in the dark, process in a jobo/unicolor drum.

--snip--


I would guess the demand to be a hundred or so units/year.

Indeed - that's what I feared. Oh well, there's always the Fuji
Crystal Archive lab I use - I've had black and whites [ read colour
prints of greyscale images ] done there from images taken on a D70 and
they are absolutely beautiful, but somehow the 'fun' of printing isn't
there if you send them away.

Why better than an ink-jet?

crappy inkjets (I've had several 'leading' inkjet
printers and they have *all* been crap; blocked jets, liney prints,
fading, even from so-called archival pigment inks).

Hmmm, sorry to say, my experience has been opposite. YMMMV and all that.
Not to say I haven't cursed and tossed my share of IJ printers over the
past 30 years.

It only takes me 30 minutes to toss an inkjet POS out the window!
Agreed - inkjets have that alluring 'print-at-home' factor which is
very much part of the fun of photography, but that is soon spoilt when
the things are constantly blocking up, needing endless cleaning cycles
that waste horrendously priced ink and ultimately not unblocking
themselves. My mileage does vary: I can TELL inkjet prints - they're
the ones full of lines! As for longevity - I had an R800 a while back
- printed some stuff with Epson paper and inks; two years down the line
the prints are fading. No, inkjets are for printing invoices as far as
I'm concerned.

I suppose what I'm looking for is a way to embrace the best of modern
and yesteryear technology in my workflow. For instance, I love the D70
- it's got everything that's useful to a photographer and the quality
it can produce is incredible. Once you're back home, a Photoshopping
session is very much something to relish - it's great fun and
satisfying to use. Then there's the printing - inkjet? Ugh. Want a
quality RA4 print? You have to send it away and hope. Fun gone. If
only we could print our own...

R.

"renoir" wrote

the things are constantly blocking up, needing endless cleaning cycles
that waste horrendously priced ink and ultimately not unblocking
themselves.

That sounds like an Epson I knew ...

FWIW I have a Canon ip5200r and have no problems except the one time
I refilled with h/p ink instead of Canon/Epson ink -- but 30 minutes
in Windex and the head unclogged.

Wouldn't think of using it for making exhibitions prints, though.

In article . net,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

Why better than an ink-jet?

Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On 7 Jul 2006 13:47:20 -0700, "renoir"
wrote:

For instance, I love the D70
- it's got everything that's useful to a photographer and the quality
it can produce is incredible.

Well not too incredible compared to a good medium or large format
camera.

Once you're back home, a Photoshopping
session is very much something to relish - it's great fun and
satisfying to use.

I find it counter-intuitive and frustrating. Printing RA-4 is boring
and rarely regarding. Now printing on Ilford Gallerie, now THAT'S
REWARDING !!

Then there's the printing - inkjet? Ugh.

Squirties make good "pictchas". Perfect for many weddings and
portraits which will probably be tossed into a composite wood end
table and begin the slow demise into crud color landfill fodder.

Want a
quality RA4 print? You have to send it away and hope. Fun gone. If
only we could print our own...

Upload them to CPQ Colorchrome and have them ship back via express.
2~3 day turn around and at least they're using Endura.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:16:25 -0400, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:


Why better than an ink-jet?

Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper.

And far more permanent.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:16:25 -0400, "Greg
\"_\"" wrote:

Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper


This is the really incredible thing!
--le

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote
\"_\"" wrote:
Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper
This is the really incredible thing!

I buy generic bulk ink at ~$30/litre and paper at
Costco at ~$0.10/sheet.

My impression is the printer companies are discounting
the price of printers to below manufacturing costs and so
_have_ to jack up the price of supplies 10x to compensate.
Companies that don't make printers can make a profit
selling just the ink at a reasonable price, thus cutting
the printer manufacturers out of their expected profit
stream.

I expect there will be a whole lot more 'chipping' going
on. h/p is probably working on a thermal jet head that
is so flimsy it wears out after one use, chip or no chip.

John wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:16:25 -0400, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:


Why better than an ink-jet?

Paper and chemistry is cheaper than ink and paper.

And far more permanent.

It is? Seems to me that paper (or more precisely papyrus) and ink have
survived intact for several thousand years. How old is the oldest "paper
and chemistry" print? And for that matter, how is ink not "chemistry"?

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)