Sat 25 Mar 2006
An Ideal Inkjet Printer for Digital Artists and Experimental Photographers
Posted by Wayne under Digital Art , Computers , Art , PhotographyComing out of a discussion on the dfa Yahoo list I put out a very rough list of features for what I saw as the ideal inkjet printer for digital artists. So I have decided to flesh that rough idea out here.
The ideal inkjet printer for artists might look like this:
- Flatbed printer construction where the material to print on lies flat and unmoving and the printheads move above it on an X-Y arrangement;
- Paper or material to print on sits on a vacuum bed to stop it from moving;
- Head or bed height adjustable over a range of, say, two inches to accommodate stretched canvas, timber panels and other 3D objects;
- Automatic head height setting;
- Available in A3+, A2+, A1+ and A0 sizes;
- Built-in color profile generation;
- Eight to ten printheads to support a range of possible ink combinations;
- Bulk ink feed from minimum 250ml bottles;
- Ink is real artists pigment in suspension. A variety of ink mediums or forms could work here, from gouache to acrylic, ink to diluted watercolor, or something unique;
- Range of available pigments from a typical artists range, some using expensive pigments, others economical, so artist can choose;
- Software allows you to configure which pigments you are using from which heads, how many heads will be active for a print, etc;
- Artist should be able to create profile sets of pigment combinations and ‘paper’ and have easy choice between;
- Printheads are user replaceable;
- Printhead resolution of at least 1200dpi;
- Five-year warrantee with a reasonable head warrantee period.
The above is quite possible to build. I remember and used X-Y plotters for producing circuit diagrams in my university researcher days that had some of the above characteristics, made by Roland, that were not hugely expensive. The fact that many labs around the world are using modified inkjet printers using piezo heads (Epson) to print all sorts of materials from conductive ink to bacteria shows that getting them to work with read artists pigments should not be too hard.
This design would allow for all sorts of possible uses, some of which are:
- Using one head to precoat the substrate with something like inkaid to make many substrates inkjet compatible. This might require removing it from the printer to dry if you need to do something else in the meantime, but that would be fine;
- Freedom from CMYK. Artists could load up their personal selection of spot colors to do their work, including white and metallics. You might not be able to print ‘full color’ with many of these ink combinations but that is fine if that is what you want to do;
- Printing of ‘3D’ objects. Large flatbed printers currently can print to some degree on 3D surfaces and there is no reason that could not be achieved here.
Given that it used to make flatbed X-Y plotters and already makes its own inkjet printers using Epson heads, perhaps Roland is the ideal company to make a device like this.
8 Responses to “An Ideal Inkjet Printer for Digital Artists and Experimental Photographers”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

March 26th, 2006 at 5:14 am
This printer would be one of our dreams. The price would have to run in six figures!
I would like to see a simple way to clean the mechanism after a few prints with an inexpensive cleaning fluid instead of the inks themselves without having to dlute the inks in the process.
You mention acrylics as one of the choices. I think that the glue-like properties of this medium would make that impossible as the jetss would get clogged quickly. Unless a cleaning solution could be pumped through as above.
Dream On?
Ursula
March 26th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Well dreams have a habit of becoming real if enough people share them or there is enough energy from one person. I know the acrylic was a stretch but then again who knows. I would not have to be six figures by a long shot. Six figures will get you one of the existing huge flatbed printers. My guess is that it could be a lot more cost effective than you think.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Wayne,
I know an engineer who builds vacuum tables for conservation studios. His brother is a research scientist in the conservation field. I bet he could built your ideal printer, and I bet I could talk to him about it.
If you can get enough digital artists to front the money, I bet this fellow would build a manufacturable prototype, and he would love to hold the patent for the potential market.
Want to go for it?
Mark
March 27th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Hi Wayne,
By “huge flatbed printers” I guess you mean something in this class:
http://tinyurl.com/rjsbf
right? These retail for circa US$75K. I’m familiar with the large vacuum tables used in the poster/picture mounting/framing business - they run about US$15K by themselves (even in a relatively large market).
I’m still a bit skeptical … John
March 27th, 2006 at 2:43 am
…. also, I wonder if these guys (ColorSpan; at the URL in the last comment posted above) need to pay licensing fees for the use of piezoelectric head technology?
Sorry to be in such a leaden frame of mind.
John
March 27th, 2006 at 2:44 am
Hey John,
Yup, that’s them.
Vacuum tables have also been around for darkroom use and are fundamentally not so expensive. The technology is also really simple. Don’t confuse the cost to make a vacuum table with the cost to include it in another piece of equipment. I suspect that the actual additional cost of adding a vacuum table to a machine, like we are talking, at time of manufacture might be US$100 in the smaller sizes and US$200 in the larger sizes, tops.
I do think someone could build such a printer at a reasonable cost, as Mark suggests.
March 27th, 2006 at 2:46 am
I’m sure Roland have to pay Epson something for the head technology, so I assume Colorspan, etc do too who use piezo heads. It can’t be that big a factor in the price of the gear because Roland printers come in close to the Epson equivalent (roughly speaking).
March 27th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Heyup Wayne,
Actually I think that the licensing issue might turn out to be a “bonus” — it could/would force Epson to consider something reasonable for this market opportunity (which, as you wrote elsewhere, could be a decent size overall). I have no doubt that the “printer-of-your-dreams” could be manufactured (almost anything electromechanical can be built these days ….) — but to keep development cost(s) within bounds a third-party would need to be signed-up as the ink supplier. BTW, the warranty offered by ColorSpan is an on-site Mr. Fix-it deal, for 12 months only.
John