Digital BW, The Print

Clayton's posts are ALWAYS valuable...it's obviously intentionally
hurtful to describe any of his posts as "irrelevant and unhelpful." 

He is, after all, one of the few who communicates important things
about digital printing clearly.

John Kelly
Albuquerque

____________________________________________________________

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> An interesting ramble but one totally irrelevant and unhelpful to
the original poster.
> 
> ________________ Reply Header ________________
> Subject:	[Digital BW] Re: Color Management without instruments (T vs PR)
> Author:	"Claytons Jones" <cj@c...>
> Date:		30th September 2005 1:26:56 pm
> 
> Hello John,
> 
> >There is little point in trying to convert someone who argues
> >against _your_ preferred workflow.  Responding to someone who 
> >objects to using a level of control they feel is pointless and 
> >unnecessary is, in itself, pointless and unnecessary.
> 
> Thank you!  This is the first statement containing any real wisdom so
> far in this thread.  
> 
> This discussion is actually just the latest guise of the age-old
> debate between the Theorist and the Practical Realist, and this is
> a replay of a similar one last April (see "Matching Monitor and
> Print", April 10-15, 2005) which had some of the same players.  
> 
> The statements of the theorist are usually true and can't be logically
> argued against.  But the Practical Reality is that it doesn't have to
> be done that way.  The theorist says that the high tech approach is
> more accurate and saves time, paper and ink, and he is theoretically
> correct.  The practical realist knows that, while true, the difference
> is usually not worth the extra effort and expense.