Hi Judy
>As for proof, prove it yourself.<
If you are not prepared to take up my challenge why should I, after all
said and done you are the one making the assertion, but I will. and report
back my findings
It should be a very interesting exercise.Allowing me to look into the
mysteries of the Seigel witchcraft ( white witchcraft I hope ;-) )
>Defined how? I infer from the question the 1996 platinum-printer
mentality that sees "quality" as meaning long scale, smooth texture,
high D-max. My point is simply that gum can do well enough in these
respects for all practical purposes, can print every "detail" in the
negative (tho not quite on Bockingford) and get a fine hit of density in
one coat. <
> This viewpoint is not wrong, why bother to extol its virtues as a
> reproductive medium , when it is so good at doing far more exciting
> creative things , from a manipulative visual point of view.?
>Why not sing *and* dance?<
There seems an awful lot of singing and not very much dancing so far !
pete