Digital BW, The Print

It would make a particular particle apparently more reactive. It doesn't 
change the basic physic or chemistry.

On a physical level, if you have a bunch of marbles and throw them onto 
a lake surface, they sink. Grind them up fine enough and they float.  
Have the rules of physics, in this case the relationship between 
floating and displacement, changed? No. But the size has made them sit 
on the surface as the result of surface tension. Stir the lake and 
they'll sink.

What worries me overall is that the digital printing lists are becoming 
more and more like fora for marketing battles. They're also becoming 
realms where photographers/printers seem all too obsessed/preoccupied 
with developing terminology that obfuscates basic truths.

Any good photographer knows that there are really no "secret" 
techniques. If you see something, it can be replicated. The same applies 
to chemistry and physics here.  This language of  secret 
techniques/chemistry is the kind of hype that  once surrounded the term 
"giclee."  It's great for short-term marketing, but doesn't hold water 
in the end.


Harry Lockwood wrote:
> Well, I don¹t have the credentials to contribute much here, but I do have a
> question.
>
> Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
> enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make it
> much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?
>
>   


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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