> I know that "good" prints cannot
> be made with current materials ....
Dick, that's a misprint, right? Tell us you meant "'good' prints *can* be
made with current materials." If not, am waiting to hear what is 'bad'
about all the gum prints in the world from Kasebier to present company.
Meanwhile, have you tested your "ball-milled" pigment against "regular"
pigment, in both powder and tube form? I suggest you do -- in actual
print-making conditions rather than on some theoretical or microscopic
plane. Then figure if you could match or undersell Daniel Smith & company
(which have the economy of huge volume) before investing in heavy
equipment, delicious as that would naturally be.
True, there is the status factor -- very chic to have pigment from B&S
("boutique pigment") -- but you could be, so to speak, spreading yourself
awfully thin for an advantage yet to be proved (or even explained).
Judy