My point was to express my opinion of a certain number of prints submitted to me. Draw whatever conclusions you like. If you read the entire thread you'll note that is was specific about consumer quality prints and that I also mentioned that by using quality materials, quality tools that were properly adjusted, and good skills, excellent results can be had from digital work. I've seen the shit that has been passed of as "quality" in many places, and have seen work that is exemplary. By and large, the typical work produced by typical photographers is, typically, well below the level that I know is possible. Unfortunately, too many people think their work is great - it isn't. I'd wager they've never seen great work and wouldn't know how to go about achieving it.
My objective was not to compare a wet print to a digital print. My objective was exactly as stated: a lot of stuff that's produced digitally and that is represented as quality stinks! Shel > [Original Message] > From: Herb Chong > if Shel's objective was to compare a wet print to a digital print and say > that he likes wet prints better, he succeeded. most fine art pros around me > have gone digital printing because they like the results better.
