Digital BW, The Print

Thanks Clayton.  You make very valid points.  I got
the humor in your original post - it was the 
piling-on by a few others which got my hackles
slightly up. i have attempted to stay true to the
spirit on final product of B&W  digital print , but
admit sometimes to have strayed a bit afield.  You,
Paul Roark, and Jon Cone have made the last step more
and more straightforward and I'm now putting more of
my focus onto the beginning of the front end with The
Print onto matte rag paper envisioned as the end
point.  Thanks again and I'm sorry if I perpetuated
"my dog can eat your dog" dialogue in any way.

Michael

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> 
> >I agree with those who feel this is ON topic and is
> of
> >interest to me.  I did in fact receive new
> knowledge
> >and inspiration from this thread...I don't write
> and request the 
> >subject be banned or make prayers to God to somehow
> edit these 
> >out before they hit my in-box...
> 
> >As others have said before,  I believe our hearts
> and
> >minds in this forum are large enough to accommodate
> >practically all that has to do with making
> beautiful
> >(to us)  B&W prints where the final or penultimate
> (as
> >in digital negatives) output is digital.
> 
> Thanks for your (as usual) well thought out and well
> expressed reply.
> If you were to somehow go back and read all the
> things I've posted
> here on the subject of OT threads you would find
> that I have often
> defended the idea that occasional OT threads are
> welcome, as you are
> doing now, and that they broaden and enrich the
> normal fare.  However,
> digi vs film and camera brand/lens debates also have
> a history here of
> getting out of hand and dragging on for days and
> days and days to the
> point of driving away people, especially newcomers,
> who come looking
> for help with printing only to find yet another
> forum that resembles
> dpreview and countless others.  One of the reasons
> this forum has
> remained so popular is _because_ it remains focused
> on topic, and it's
> not uncommon to get the occasional post thanking us
> for being that way.
> 
> Best I can tell, there is a general agreement that
> these OT threads
> are OK as long as we all use self-restraint and
> don't let them get out
> of hand.  The question of course is when is that
> point reached.  This
> thread has dominated the forum for four days now and
> is beginning to
> get tiresome.  I kept hoping someone else would say
> something, but it
> shows no signs of letting up.
> 
> The forum moderators want this to be a self-policing
> forum so that
> they don't have to be enforcers all the time, so
> they usually come in
> and say something only as a last resort.  The term
> self-policing
> implies that now and then someone has to speak up
> and be the bad guy
> and give us a reminder.  My post was an attempt to
> do just that in
> what I hoped was a light and humorous manner (and I
> apologize if it
> offended anyone, perhaps it was not a good choice).
> 
> I value your input on this because it defends the
> subject in an
> eloquent way, which is also needed, and it is
> another of your many
> valuable contributions.  In a broader view I see
> this as an
> opportunity to bring this subject to the front
> again, as it seems to
> need periodically, because surely there are many new
> readers who
> haven't seen it articulated before.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com