Karl Shah-Jenner <shahjen@iinet.net.au> wrote/replied to: > >> 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. I'm not sure if by 'glazing' you mean put behind glass? If so, are you talking about putting the glass flush to the print's surface? I didn't think that would be a good thing. I examined three papers under a loupe. Epson gloss, semi matte, and matte. The matte had obvious texture that really broke up small details in the image, not good. The semi matte had basically the same detail and gamut as the glossy, but without the extreme reflections upon it. Of course the gloss has what many people think of as a quality look, that which a shiny new car has too. I myself prefer more of an 'artsy' look. In fact the semi matter is a compromise between shiny and matte. It also doesn't show fingerprints, and I really like it. I just wish I could get large lab prints here in semi gloss. The Japanese have always been in love with gloss and still are. I remember when Canadian photofinishers went from the old times of gloss to satin, then semi gloss and now full circle back to gloss. At least you usually get a choice of gloss or semi matter. If you've ever examined an old satin finish print under a loupe, it's a very strange surface that really loses all fine detail. And if you've ever tried copying a satin print you find that it looks like crap. Thank goodness the satin period was short.
