Thanks for all the views David and Steve. It's always good to hear from others - I'm certainly learning more about diversity of opinion on this website than photography!

I think I'm leaning more to David's position on ilfochromes, but that's my bias - I love the textural glossiness and richness inherent in the depth of an ilfochrome. Squirted ink on the scratchy surface of a rag, varnish or no varnish is okay - really. And I've only got a college education. I was just taken by what this pro' said about ilfochromes because I never really thought about it . I guess his clients preferred photographic prints made by traditional processes - ilfochrome being one distinguished one........over the home-made printer which more and more photographers are resorting to (even film-based ones). Commercial organisations who buy up photos for libraries etc aren't going to really care now. Are they?

"It's the artist that matters, and NOT the printing media."

By gum, when I read that. I happily agree with you but the fact you had to write such an obvious point makes it funny. I'll have to remember that for aspiring artists: Go fetch! You can do it ! Get the Andrex canvass out!"