Digital BW, The Print

As we know all to well on this list, facts, errors, and need-for-rebuttals are often in the eyes of the beholder. You are, however, most likely correct on a number of points related to content on TAP. We have thought about having a robust discussion/comment list (it is indeed programmed by me at this moment) but we want it to be reasoned, articulate, and respectful of all the members involved in the discussion: something that more free-wheeling communities like DigitalBW don't always offer. So we are leaving it out until we can make it right. It's not worth breaking the site before it reaches its potential.

It gets sticky when individuals talk about technology and art. There's a black box mentality involved behind the curtain and when one person pulls a bit of that curtain away, another practitioner might personally disagree with the work going on behind without understanding the reasons. This happens a lot on this forum and some members become labeled "elitists" by the community while others become more and more reactionary to any outside views. While I might use different methods or think that some things might be wrong on TAP, I have to remember it's mostly opinion. (It's why we chose the word Agnostic.)

However, I am more than willing to take fact-check comments on articles on "the forums" (Epson Wide Format, DigitalBW, ScanHighEnd, what-have-you) related to specifics and facts, mis-quotes, etc. (If a member here thinks it's more of a personal disagreement, please just email me directly instead of starting a flame war. Better yet, write an article on a blog about it.) Our editorial process is somewhat individual as this is a group effort without one person doing all the work. We all read the articles and email each-other and the author if we see factual issues but it's not a formal process. It's more of a blog and it's easier to put up quick articles that way.

I'm glad it's gotten a warm reception.

All the best,

Walker (Yes, that is with a "k" all these seven years that I've been posting here. Please remember that everyone. Not Walter.)

back to QTR land.

On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Mark wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everybody. I'd like to introduce you all to a new website that a few of us printmakers put together to talk about art, the state of inkjet, digital output, bw and more.
> > 
> > http://theagnosticprint.org
> 
> Walter, 
> 
> Kudos. This is a great effort, and I commend all involved in getting this fantastic resource for serious amateur and professional printmakers started. That said, in reading over a few of the articles there are numerous factual errors and/or opinions that deserve some rebuttal. I guess I'd stop short of saying you need a forum on this site, but you do need some sort of readership feedback mechanism that doesn't seem to be present as of yet.
> 
> cheers,
> Mark
> http/www.aardenburg-imaging.com
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]