Digital BW, The Print

>It might be worth remembering that John gets sponsorship from Kodak,
>has made a lot of his fame and income supporting film products, and
>just might be nudged by this relationship with Kodak to try and keep
>film products in demand.  Not a bad thing, just a business.

. . . and the high-end art printers using ink jet are as pure as the driven
snow???? I am sure what you suggest would have NEVER, NEVER ocurred to
Epson,  Hahnemule, and all the other digi-doers.

    John Sexton is not the only one who feels this way . . . many, many of
the "master" printers, those whose skills most of us couldn't approach in a
thousand years, feel the same way. They are predominately large format users
which certainly has something to do with it, while everyone on this list
probably comes from the "miniature" or 35mm (THAT name should be changed
now) format. While my b/w printing skills are no match for Sexton or an
Adams, I spent about twenty five years perfecting my abilities and I got to
be pretty good. I am no master in inkjet, still on that never-ending
learning curve we all seem to be on, but I have yet to see an ink based
print that has that mysterious "depth" that a silver or platinum print can
get (saw something approaching it in a piezo print) . . . am still wishing
for a 6x12 single shot back so I can save a lot of time and then get fat in
front of my screen twisting curves, etc. trying to get the near perfection I
had before.

    Having said all that, the most important observation made, and I support
100 per cent, is the fact that a gelatin print and an ink print are two
different animals, not radically different like a dog and a cat, more like
two dogs . . . a labrador and a shepard . . . close, but no match . . .
never will be.

Paul Aparycki