Digital BW, The Print

All of these companies are newbies when it comes to fine photographic
printing, viewed in the larger view of photographic materials. They
see a market and are attempting to provide a solution.
But the market was never like this in the past. Few if any of us,
other than perhaps commercial labs doing quantity, ever accepted a
solution entirely from one company.
I used Agfa Portriga, in Ilford Bromophen with Kodak Benzatriazol
added, Kodak stop bath, unhardened fix I mixed, Kodak Selenium toner,
and on and on. Then some prints were on Pal Print, in Agfa Neutol...
well you get the idea. The artists were the ones messing about,
discovering ways to create extraordinary objects from these products,
never the board rooms. Their names make up our history.
Since when did we so readily accept the notion that product teams from
three manufacturers will determine the subtle nuances of how our
individual art appears?
Sorry, but when it comes to my life's work- I'm the decider.
For better or worse.
Polaroid and Kodak gave materials to the likes of Adams, Weston,
Caponigro, for feedback, and not even for marketing! Who here has been
approached for feedback from any of these companies? I've been doing
this quite a while, and my name out there a bit, my only contact with
Epson was an expression of disappointment I wasn't using their ink,
they didn't even look at the damn print.
My rant for the evening.

Tyler, the decider

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David M. Dorn"
<dmdornctusa@...> wrote:
>
> Well, my answer to Epson is simply to buy either Canon or HP the
next time around..... the reviews I have seen on some of the Canon
printers suggest very economical ink usag...or maybe the HP which gets
good reviews for B&W.
> 
> 40 years is in corporate business consulting has tought me me that
you are never "the only game in town".
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>