Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/28/2002 10:11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
donbryant@... writes:


> A real carbon process print should be identified as a carbon 
> pigmented print. Calling injet prints carbon prints is in my mind a 
> misrepresentation.
> 

OK, I'll bite.
Since I've had people suggest to me that these are not real pictures, I 
suppose there are  always going to be people suggesting that something is not 
real. They are all trying to tell us : "Get a horse!"
I guess Ford was misleading the public when they created the "Mustang". There 
must have been thousands of customers expecting four legged creatures! I do 
not remember ever meeting any, but surely, if there had been forums on the 
Web, they would have spoken up.
But I don't want a horse. I like my newfangled invention. And I see no reason 
to label the prints with a name that , due to its' flawed birth, conjures up 
negative ideas in the customers minds. 
Inkjet is not now what it was two years ago. The public's perception is still 
that it is  junk. They have no idea about quadtones, ultrachromes, or 
pigments. And since these are the materials that are changing the nature of 
inkjet, I see no reason to not use the materials names in the description of 
the prints. 
And I see no reason to label them inkjets, since they are not what the public 
perceives to be inkjet.
I am not suggesting that one lie and say they are not inkjet, I merely 
suggest that to use that word in the description diminishes the perception of 
quality in the uneducated observers' mind.
And anyone in the business knows that the quality of quads, pigments and 
ultrachromes far surpasses that of the run of the mill inkjet.
George J Kunze


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