the OP asked a simple question and this tim wolcott nut makes the following "fact" statements, ironically nearly all of which are only arrogant, nonsensical opinion. it is beyond me why it is impossible for some to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of their own position.
"my reputation is above reproach" (nice!)
ciba prints are an "outdated horrible looking process" (not for those who know how to print correctly using this process)
"galleries/museums who know this process is not worth the paper printed on" (incorrect, you clearly know nothing about collection processes)
"wake up Misses Bueller, it also looks fake where as pigment print really have no negatives" (yes, and?)
"so please don't tell me this crap. getting rid of film processing and chemically based prints that have virtually no life expectancy at all, is better?" (who claimed one was better than the other?)
"there is no excuse to make a cibachrome, they are fake looking with poor dynamic range, color replication and can never ever look as good as a pigment print" (opinion)
"christ wake up and smell the coffee misses bueller" (who are you directing these random insults to?)
i agree that ciba prints are harmful to the environment but in addition one should ALSO consider the uber footprint of digital technology. i'm only expanding on that.
again, two pointers to articles citing the grossly underestimated footprint of digital technology:
The monster footprint of digital technologyhttp://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/emb...technology.html
Environmental challenges in computer manufacturinghttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...407dc16fea94b0b