Digital BW, The Print

Hello Mark,

>No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It isn't 
>"photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read 
>more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes aren't 
>that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the dots.

I don't disagree.  BO prints have a distinct look and as I said in my
post, I have no problem if someone doesn't like it.  I just don't like
seeing it dismissed as an unworthy technique.  It would be like a
platinum practitioner dismissing silver as being unworthy.  You have
made it clear that you think inkjet prints should not be dismissed as
unworthy by wet process people, so all I ask is the same respect for
the Black Only method, and if someone here says they want to try it,
please don't discourage them from doing so.  Let them decide for
themselves if they like it - after all, it involves no committment and
no extra expense.  It's simply one of many available choices, and has
its pros and cons as they all do.

As for it's appearance, in my own experience in showing BO prints to
people, even experienced photographers and darkroom people who
examined them with keen interest, not once did anyone mention or ask
about the dots.  All I got was expressions of awe and wonder about the
sharpness, clarity, and beauty, and that was my 870 prints at 1440. 
My new 2880dpi prints are even better.  I also agree with you
about prints under glass, and would echo your own words with a
slight modification:

"Behind glass a good Black Only print is very hard to spot... unless
you are specifically looking for the difference and frankly, that
means you are not actually looking at the *photograph*."


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm