Digital BW, The Print

That would have been in response to one of my dumb comments I think.

Nice to hear you're actually just another techie with only an
occasional remission to the touchy/feely part of the art. I'm not
unaquainted with numbers myself though not so much in your context. I
spent most of several technical careers dealing with them. The
interest has not gone away completely but I am currently just playing
with other things I enjoy and had no previous time for. (Earning a
living took precedence over any artistic bent even though I did spend
a decade in the 70's trying to make a living at it. Mostly, made a
living for a couple of employees and several suppliers while damn near
starving myself. Didn't seem equitable somehow so I went back to
technical work,pensions and gray suits instead of scales.) 

Personally, I sort of got the idea you were in the bs'y mood a bit
but, feel free, as far as I'm concerned you're entitled. I do believe
 in your firm believer part as the motivator for the second part of
parts etc etc. 

Incidentaly, you did generate excellent input from Roy and Bob that
might not have come had you not posted, so thanks again.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> I'd like to correct a reply that was somewhat BS on my part. The "very
> happy before, I'm even happier now, it's better, it was great before"
> post.
> Despite being a firm believer in letting the impact of the final
> print, without dogma, be the judge, I'm a believer in the numbers as
> well. So the previous was lacking in many ways. In fact, for all my
> "is the print beautiful?" talk, I've probably spent as much time with
> spectros, numbers, linearizations, dots, partitioning, etc. as anyone
> here. This is art, but there's difficult craft along the way.
> So...