What really made me respond to the essay posted was the credible point of view, this inkjet stuff is for the birds if you display them side by side to chemical prints.
These respected manufacturers want to sell the best and latest in inkjet paper coating, fine! But do not mix Fiber based and Ciba, the real stuff, not the RC alias, with these emerging technologies. Who are they kidding?
Unfortunatly if one wants to produce digital images, there are not very many commonly available off the shelf products to choose from. That is the number one problem. In my case the shipping charges through mail order is equal or higher than the actual paper cost...
Second, these new and improved papers are nearly obsolite by the time mass marketing occures.
It is true, one may be able to produce inkjet prints in a more "convinient way" than through wet chemistry...or is it???Clearly, what went before the latest inksets and paper coatings are useless as an artistic media since the latest and greatest is "superior" or is it?
Aside from the subjective opinions, the development and distribution cycle does not allow any credebility, following or "worship" and legend bulding to any part of the inkjet chain.
Can all this used for artistic expression, as the flavor of the month perhaps...
What I also object to is, a viewer should respond to the content of the image and to the harmony of technical delivery, therefore their acceptance of an injet print from an R1800 or R800 or the 4800 should not be used to vindicate the technology. Specially, using other historically established and credited materials and processes thrown in as a credible background.
I also wonder about the teachings of our masters, use the best possible materials to express your vision. So, who had thrown out this very sensable advice, when inkjet printing remains inferior in colour gamut and in use of B&W printing. Hiding inpurities with b&w inkjet printing with "toning" is not an artistic choice, it is a necessity.