Digital BW, The Print

With all due respect John, when I said "get over it" I was refering 
to the old argument about what to call a digital print. Nothing more 
nothing less, guess I'm just tired of that discussion. I've heard it 
a lot on this forum so it seems like a re-hash to me. My intentions 
have never been to squelch discussion of any kind, I'd just like to 
see discussion pertinent to the topic presented. As to your reply 
being off topic, well technically you're correct, your response was 
on topic...where you got in on it. Unfortunately the beginning of the 
thread wasn't about what to name an inkjet print it was to inform 
people about a new group that was being formed to discuss the 
business of injet printing. That's what I meant by getting off topic. 
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers that wasn't my intention at all. 
I'll quietly go back to my skulking in the shadows now and if and 
when I have some concrete imperical information to pass along then I 
will. 

Respectfully,
Leon Strembitsky "caelin2"

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Bergholm" 
<jbergholm@y...> wrote:
> 
> To caelin2; if you read past my post you will see that i was
> responding to a question posted by Michael Faye asking what people
> like to use as a term, so it was not exactly off topic.
> 
> It was my understanding that this discussion group was for, well,
> discussion, and to tell us to "get over it" is an attempt at
> squelching discussion.  Why shouldn't we be allowed to discuss these
> things, it's an important topic to our art.
> 
> To Clayton, yes, I read and really appreciated your article and was
> kind of heading in that direction myself until i discovered that 
there
> was an old, alternative photographic process called carbon printing,
> and so I thought that might be confusing.  
> 
> However, to both Arthur and Clayton, at least you say your work is 
ink
> or inkjet, and that's all I'm proposing.  I do, certainly, 
understand
> the marketing aspect (I too am concerned with selling and displaying
> my images) but I think that together, by showing excellent work we 
can
> raise the standards and expectations of inkjet printing.
> 
> Respectfully,
> -j-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@c...> wrote:
> > 
> > John,
> > 
> > >why, because we are embarassed by our media?  
> > 
> > I agree with Arthur.  I use the term "Carbon Ink Print" (for a 
variety
> > of reasons explained in an article on my web site, so I won't 
repeat
> > it here) not because I'm embarrased, but because it's a simple 
truth
> > that the term "inkjet print" carries some baggage that equates to 
poor
> > quality.  I want to make a clear statement that my prints are
> > something above that.
> > 
> > As arthur said, if the term we use starts a conversation, all the
> > better.  It gives us an opportunity to explain what we're doing. 
> > Right now I have some matted and sleeved prints in a gift shop.  
In
> > each sleeve, on the back side, is a small paper with a brief
> > explanation of what a Carbon Ink print is.
> > 
> > Customer response has been very positive to the concept.  They 
seem
> > very impressed whenever I have an opportunity to explain it 
further in
> > person.
> > 
> > Is is a marketing strategy?  Of course, I'm trying to sell 
prints.  Is
> > it dishonest?  No, not at all.  Carbon Ink Print is a perfectly
> > accurate description.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
> > 
> > 
> > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm