Digital BW, The Print

> Could I not equally say
> 
> >So the smoothness was part of the subject from the start -
> >it's been there, done that, paid its dues, it has a
> >raison d'etre, it's a founding father.
> > 
> >The point is that the grain is merely an artefact of the
> >chemistry of the film - it has no organic connection
> >to the original subject. 

Yes of course you could. The grain was definitely not present
in the original subject.

But no one will confuse a photograph with the SUBJECT; No
one will confuse the print with Aunt Martha herself - they
will say it's a PHOTOGRAPH of Aunt Martha. So we're saying
the print is a representation of the PHOTOGRAPH.  And
the photograph had grain.

What this comes down to is whether we should see inkjet
prints as another way to print photographs or as a separate
art medium altogether.   IN THIS CONTEXT I'm looking for a
digital replacement for darkroom prints so I'm judging them
by the same standards as any other photographic print.

I emphasized "In this context" above, because I ALSO use
inkjet printing in totally novel ways like printing on 
watercolor paper, toothed paper, acetate, canvas, etc.
I've developed a multipass method of printing on construction
paper with a patch of gesso at low resolution, and then doing
it again but only on the gesso at high resolution to
combine photorealism with watercolor effects.   Obviously
I don't ecpect any of these to look like photos, or anything
else familiar for that matter.  (this is also another answer
to what to do with your printer after the warranty runs out)