Digital BW, The Print

"Mark" <mark@...> wrote:

>... All it takes is time and money!

No way.  It takes talented, knowledgeable people as well.  Don't sell yourself short.

On a related subject, Jon wrote:

>  ... there really is not that much difference between Paul's position that longevity of pure carbon is most critical, and mine of image fidelity is most critical.

They are both, of course, very important factors for, probably, most of us, and they are appropriate topics for a technically oriented forum like this one.  


As to carbon, it's just a benchmark that has strong historic and broad testing support.  All else being equal, I think an art buyer will prefer the more stable medium.  It may not always be the best, and I may move on to something else.
 

Clearly the AaI&A tests have injected a lot in information relating to lightfastness into the field, and this is thread is, in part, the field reacting to it.  


Also, the issue of how many nozzles or ink positions are needed for different levels of smoothness is an issue that is behind some of what is being debated, and it's a legitimate issue.  I'm hoping my 7800 can print a smooth glossy MIS PK, LK, & LLK carbon image for this Elverhoj museum exhibit I'm doing, but I'm holding my breath.  My fear of microbanding goes down when I have more channels.  The HP PK + LK and LLK dilutions I had in those three 7800 slots did rather well, so I'm hoping.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com