Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:

> Ok, I'll be the one to finally ask...
>
> Who here needs a 60" printer?
>
> Tyler

I'd consider one. The problem with a 44" printer is canvas. 
Specifically, the amount of canvas that you have to take from the image 
area so you can wrap and stretch. This is especially bad when doing a 
gallery wrap. With decent stretchers the practical limit for an image on 
the front of the assembly is about 38." Yes, you can make a bigger 
image, but whoever is doing the stretching is going to be cursing you! I 
know my framer curses me soundly (I get the bills ;-) when I print a 
100cm (39.4 in) wide print that he has to gallery wrap.

A 48" printer would be nice - you could easily make gallery wrapped 50 x 
40 inch prints, or 125 x 100 cm prints. Alas, we currently have just 44" 
printers. I have no idea why.

If you were going to build a printer bigger than 44" I think it would be 
questionable to make the new printer 48". So what should be the next 
bigger size?

If you could print that 125cm (50in) print sideways, it would print 
faster, or you could gang more images across the substrate for faster 
printing. So you'd need at least a 56" printer, preferably 58".

All I'm saying is, I think I can see where they are coming from in 
talking about a 60" (152.4 cm)printer. As long as it will handle smaller 
width roll stock and single sheets, that extra carriage length might 
come in handy on occasion. Who is actually willing to pay for that extra 
bit of luxury is an entirely different question.
--
Bruce Watson