For anyone who is considering purchasing an Epson, I just received an email that Epson is extending and adding to their rebates on their professional and desktop inkjet printers. Rebates are good until 31 January, and are quite substantial, depending on the model, including the SureColor line. 

I printed quite a few limited addition prints for myself and other artists, in addition to educational posters and more, so my 4900 was cost-effective and convenient. Part of my background is in printing and pre-press, so it was an easy decision for me to make at the time. 

The scanning service I use are people who invent/build scanners. They’re scanning artists I think -- and they decide which of their scanners to use based on the artwork I bring in, all for the same (what I consider to be a low) price. They’ve scanned my artwork on laser drum scanners; gigantic flatbed scanners; you name it. They also write individual programming for each artwork to either ignore the background or include it, depending on my preferences. I had purchased my Epson printer through them, (they are a distributor) so when I used to tell them I would be printing from the scan, they would also include all the profiles for me for the different papers I would be using. Huge timesaver and convenient.

Even with the rebates, I’ll probably look for a printing service still. New printer isn’t in the budget. Everyone is correct — it depends on how you want to spend your time. If I can find a printing service that’s as magnificent as my scanning service, I’d rather be spending my time doing the artwork :-)  I do miss that printer though...


Deborah B. Shaw
dbShaw Studios

[log in to unmask]

On Jan 7, 2016, at 6:22 AM, Lore Ruttan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Interesting points. I may eventually try a professional printer to make a series of limited edition signed prints but for now home printing on art papers produces a nice enough job. I don't have large prints and this way I don't need to keep inventory. Someone wants a print, I print it. And I charge what I think is a reasonable amount, well more than $10 for an 8x10!

Thanks, Lore

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Linda Feltner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
My prints are usually larger, and sometimes much larger than a 17" printer. If I printed a large amount of smaller prints for sale, then I'd consider doing it myself, but I'm not totally convinced. There is a lot of time involved in color and equipment management. But for a small print, sometimes the professional printer can be more expensive per square inch. However, my professional printer certainly knows this, and works to keep the prices affordable. If I'm printing a series of 8x10s, she will find a way to reduce her production time, print several on a large sheet and then I cut them down to size, and thus pass the savings on to me. So in effect, I don't spend the time, and that in itself is a savings. 

When pricing, I do feel that museum quality pigmented prints are just higher to produce. I think the public became used to buying prints for very little money, and they still want an 8x10 for $10.  It's hard to cut costs, and perhaps we can do that by printing ourselves. But for me, I"m not to the place where I can devote time to printing.

Linda M. Feltner Artist, LLC
P.O. Box 325
Hereford, AZ 85615
(520) 803-0538

On Jan 7, 2016, at 6:24 AM, Lore Ruttan wrote:

I'm hearing various opinions about the value of professional fine art prints vs self-printing with a good quality printer (with archival inks on archival paper). Aside from the consideration of color management that Bruce and others mentioned, do others feel the professional prints are that much superior and why?


Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at

Lore Ruttan, Ph.D.

Lore Ruttan Illustration


Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at


Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at