Home digital optical printer

[keith_lubow]

Just curious if there is a "lightjet" type printer for home use. I can process

analog prints at home, and am wondering if there is a way to avoid going to a

lab to print type C type R from digital files. Would make things much more quick.

 

Thanks,

 

Keith

[robert lee]

"Just curious if there is a "lightjet" type printer for home use."

 

Not that I know of. However, if what you're really asking for is continuous tone output, then checkout the consumer level dye sub printers. Canon and HiTouch both have models for around $200.

[keith_lubow]

What I'm looking for is to run RA or Ilfochrome paper through the printer.

 

Thanks,

 

Keith

[ronald_moravec1]

Would be my dream.

 

Problem is most people want to get out of the dark and/or do not have space.

 

I suggest an online professional lab and let them maintain the chemicals etc.

 

Millers or MPIX does very good work. Send them the files over the net with the provided

file transfer program and the prints show in the mail in 3 days.

 

A home printer has the advantage of being able to use the many art papers available so

you are not restricted to just glossy or matt photo paper.

[Ed_Ingold]

Fuji makes stand-alone photo-optical printers. They're not cheap, and take special Fuji paper, however. See (http://home.fujifilm.com/info/products/digital/pictro/)

[david_henderson]

The Fuji Pictrography machines referenced above can make very nice prints. They used to be used by companies like WCI to make proofs before sending to a LightJet or similar. I have a lot of them here and though the "paper" has a kind of plasticky feel the prints stand up well against just about everything. There are print size limitations though and frankly I haven't heard of too many in domestic hands.

[Spearhead]

I've used a Pictography machine. The biggest issue for home printing is that you have to buy a huge amount of paper at one time. The results are close to Lightjet, but it takes some work to get it there - I don't think Fuji provides decent profiles. Print size limitation is also an issue, but this is always the case for home printing.

[keith_lubow]

Thanks, all. Sounds like a "no" to me.

 

The reason I want it is that I have been scanning and repairing some negs with defects, and want to try some prints from them. Also, I am extremely backed up with digital files that need to be printed. Inkjets just don't do it for me, although they can have their own sort of nice look at times.

 

Keith

[Nowhereman]

I had a Fuji Pictrography 4000 printer. While the prints were a little better than that of the

Kodak dye sub (8650) that I had earlier, they were nowhere near as good as those of the

current line of Epson inkjet printers with K3 inks, which have much deeper and satisfying

blacks and better dynamic range and colour gamut. Also, the Pictrography prints all turned

green after hanging in the tropical (hit and humid) environment of Thailand.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok