Digital BW, The Print

Hi Paul-

I actually didn't take from the review that "this is good, but we want
more."  (we always want more, don't we?)  ;^)

I understood the review to be saying that the new papers were "naugahyde",
but we were too stupid/infatuated with the new to realize it. In my opinion
it was the reverse- the reviewer was too interested in recreating an old
paper to realize the potential of the new.

Bill

On 10/10/06, bwinkjet <bwinkjet@...> wrote:
>
>   Hi Bill,
>
> Your points are well taken and I agree. But what I took from the
> article was that these papers (I have tried them, and love and hate
> them) are not the final iteration he (nor I) would hope for. If we
> all accept these as nirvana and don't keep asking for more paper
> development, development may slow down or cease.
>
> Paul
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Bill Morse"
> <Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
> >
> > This review has been much discussed already; I had not commented
> > earlier because I then had no first-hand knowledge of these papers.
> >
> > Suffice it to say this is a very subjective, and IMHO, not very
> learned, review.
> >
> > Why do I say not very learned? Because the reviewer starts with the
> > marketing hype of the paper, manufacturers, then screams when the
> > papers don't live up to the hype. These papers allegedly, as the
> > reviewer notes, are supposed to "recreate the look of a traditional
> > paper." This is marketing hype, and any artist who is familiar with
> > the history of digital imaging product will recognize it as such,
> and
> > frankly, give it exactly the credence it deserves. These papers need
> > to be evaluated in their own right, not as re-creations of a
> supposed
> > former glory.
> > (snip)
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]