Digital BW, The Print

In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred to
the print in my original post as "inkjet" because that
was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if the
paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor was
it labeled as such.  
  So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
*without* labeling, is the only thing you could safely
call any of our prints. (better hope they don't loose
your labels;)
  And I know Gicl\ufffde sounds a bit pretentious, but why
the high level of animosity towards this word?  Never
quite understood the reasoning.

  -Daniel Perez
   Dallas, TX


--- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment
> Prints.
> 
>
> antonisphoto wrote:
> > 
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a
> digital black-and-white from a
> > darkroom print. I had the same experience several
> times, and at least once in
> > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where
> a few piezoBW prints
> > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > 
> > However, we are still in the era of seeking
> legitimacy for our prints in the world
> > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet
> prints - especially if you call them
> > that and don't use French names for them - don't
> have the cache of "toned
> > silver prints". Yet.
> > 
> > Antonis
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel
> Perez <tronicart@y...> wrote:
> > After a few days, I
> > > decided to take a very close look at it and
> realized
> > > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put
> me at
> > > ease.
> > 
> > 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com