Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sam A. 
McCandless" <samcc@v...> wrote:

>  but how often do we see work which, in addition to
> being done well, shows us there's a whole different way 
> of working well which we've been overlooking?

"Different" is the operative word, here.   As I mentioned earlier, 
I'm a painter.   I have no trouble acknowledging that acrylics, 
oils, and watercolor all have their place in the world of painting.  
They each have their own characteristic look and qualities.  I only 
get bugged if someone claims EQUIVALENCY between them.   For example 
fans of acrylic painting sometimes claim that with the invention of 
acrylics there was no more need for oils or watercolor because they 
can achieve oil-LIKE or watercolor-LIKE effects. 

I'm not saying that BO printing isn't valid - I use it myself for 
many projects.   I'm saying that any claims that it can produce a 
smoothness of tonal transitions or textures that are as smooth as 
hextone inkjet prints. RIP-output inkjet prints, or photographic 
prints are nonsense.

For people who LIKE or WANT BO's textures and characteristics, fine, 
use them as I sometimes do.   But for people who are just6 using BO 
as a stopgap until they can afford a grayscale printer of good RIP, 
I say just admit that for that purpose it's a poor-man's stopgap.