Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak 
<richard@c...> wrote:
> Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 12:13:02 PM, Albert Wang wrote:
> 
> AW> I found a Shutterbug article with ralph gibson and he mentions 
Jon Cone's 
> AW> piezography. His comments I quote as follows: "Chris/Larry: 
Have you tried 
> AW> printing with the quad tone inks, like the ones from MIS 
> AW> (www.InkSupply.com).
> 
> AW> Ralph: I have. And I've gone to InkjetMall.com (Cone Editions). 
I'm pretty 
> AW> much abreast of what's going on. And I have used those inks, 
and they're 
> AW> great. It's just that they're not better or worse than 
photographs. They 
> AW> coexist. They're not photographs. They're another kind of very 
beautiful 
> AW> print."
> 
> AW> I find it interesting that a renown artist firmly believes that 
the results 
> AW> of piezography/inkjet printing cannot be photographs but 
prints. I would 
> AW> tend to disagree to be honest. Photographs not in the 
traditional sense but 
> AW> a pictoral representation using a camera should be considered a 
print I 
> AW> would think...?
> 
> AW> Any comments about Gibson's take on this?
> 
> AW> sincerely, Alfie
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "print" to him means 
to
> PRINT on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him then
> digital inkjet output of any sort are not prints.   A little narrow 
in his
> viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how archaic others may
> think it is.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@c...