Digital BW, The Print

Seems to me that he's acknowledging that inkjet prints are prints --
 "They're another kind of very beautiful print -- and only making the 
distinction between them and photographs (silver). I don't see where 
his view is archaic.

Chris Hargens


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "bellis33624" 
<bellis60@e...> wrote:
> --- 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...