Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
(snip)> ------
> 
> But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all 
> relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it 
> simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet 
> printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that 
there is 
> a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet 
prints 
> have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something 
> that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser 
> can't resell it and make money? 
> 
> ----

Mark,

Fame in the art work seem to ride a great deal on having a strong ego 
and taking the positon that whatever you are doing is inherently 
better than anything else because you are doing it. If you can hold 
and project that thought, you have a much higher chance of success.

People buy all sorts of numbered off-set litho prints of paintings by 
famous artists for hundreds of dollars that are printed with dye 
based ink and will fade long before your inkjet prints.

All I can do is repeat that the art should sell itself indepent of 
the medium. I really don't believe that the main market for 
photographers today are the collectors. It is people looking for 
something to hang on their wall because they love it. 

> 
> This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just 
got 
> up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our 
> underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching 
> ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.

While you've got Jon there get his opinion.

Martin