I only have a basic Canon printer but last year I saw photographer friends raving about the new Epsom Surecolor-P800. 
I see online there is an A2 version and a 17" version. 

Note Les is using Canson Platine Fibre Rag, which I believe he helped Canson develop for fine art printing.
In a talk last year Les explained that most commercial printer profiles are pretty useless, because modern USB spectrometers don't have enough power to use polarizing filters and thus read through the glare on darker color values.

Color calibration of screens and printers is tricky and you need a professional screen like an EIZO to see 99% of Adobe RGB color space. No screen can see more than Adobe RGB but if the image is in ProPhoto or another large color space, good printers can print colors you can't see on a screen. Most screens only see sRGB which is the color space of the cheapest possible CRT monitor from the 1980s. It also happens to be the default color space for Adobe Creative Suite, Photoshop etc.!  Most scanners seem to only scan in sRGB too. 

Les's notes on his web page are useful for all this sort of stuff.

Sounds like it's worth waiting and saving if there is a new model of the 4900 coming.


----- Original Message -----
"SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-" <[log in to unmask]>

<[log in to unmask]>

Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:22:55 -0500
Re: [SCIART] Suggestions for an archival quality printer

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

Visit my Etsy shop at


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

Email sent using Optus Webmail


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