Digital BW, The Print

John, I understand your point completely. I guess I'm a bit pissy on
this issue from the constant "concern" expressed out there about
inkjet. These same people will hang a show of Iris prints by
Rauschenburg, Close, or Hockney with no second thought about
longevity. Why? Because they will sell, Period.
So sometimes the punk in me wants to jam the inkjet issue back in
their faces. There isn't a problem, they are keeping the misconception
alive with their false "concern".
OK, got that off my chest, back to work.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't it have been good for all of us if that press release
> > proclaimed in nice proud verbiage that they are inkjet?
> > Tyler
> 
> 
> Of course, but if you look at the price tag that these things will
ultimately have attached to 
> them you can understand their nervousness. But, essentially I agree
with you a better term 
> would be carbon inkjet or carbon digital inkjet print - to
distinguish from carbro and 
> impermanent inksets, which there are many. The layman can't possibly
be expected to sort 
> out all the permutations. You know that is interesting, the
association with carbro. In many 
> ways though what you do Tyler is a historical decendent of carbro.
Sure they are done with 
> pigments and studio print rip and not a gelatin transer process, and
no the longevity 
> figures aren't exactly the same, but they are related. And we sure
have alot more control 
> these days. Now that is what they should have pointed out in that
press release as good 
> historians, your right. Point out the similarities AND differences
of these imaging cousins 
> two centuries apart.