Jim writes: ...................... > >So where do the people fit who prefer semi-gloss (or semi-matte) > >prints? I find that to be the best of all possible worlds. > > Me too. I don't see any loss of gamut or details in semi gloss. Of > course if you put a loupe up to it or use a spectrometer thatmight be > a different story. gloss, semi-gloss and matte all reflect light quite differently and it will have an impact on the viewer, and anyone who's made a black and white low key image can attest to the loss of image detail that occurs with matte. Similar things occur with colour. The colours are all there, we just _see_ them differently. The spectrometer will probably tell you that the colour levels are the same too! (as will anyone who repeated the above B&W example and then put the prints on a light table). The whole light scattering thing contributes a lot to how much detail we see, which is why rough or irregular wall surfaces are painted with matte or semi-gloss paint while the flat continuous surface of a car is painted full gloss ;-) > All you glossy folks, try standing at regular viewing distance to your > prints and tell me if you can really see all the details in it because > it's glossy. Try glazing an FB print andd comparing the unglazed to the glazed.. it's amazing how the shadow detail seperates dramatically in the glazed version. Or perhaps you might miss some because of reflections. If > you hold it just so... but on a wall you can't turn it to avoid those > reflections can you? personally I love gloss for some images, matte for others.. and that's tempered with the love of gloss for handling and matte behind glass . karl
