Daniel Kinoshita <kino@hgea.org> wrote/replied to: >Not really. It's what others think, buyers of one's work, judges >making a decision on winning prints. As I said before, the glossy >prints, because of the bright and vivid colors and rich tonality, win >photo contests and as another member stated, sells photographs. Fuji >made vast inroads into the color slide film market with its Velvia >and Provia slide film because of their saturated colors. Kodak had to >manufacture similar films to compete. Films with saturated colors is >what the market wanted. Professionals converted to Velvia and Provia >because the slides they submitted to art directors using those films >sold. Lots of purists dislike what they consider unnatural colors, >but the marketplace won that argument. I like glossy for many of my >prints but I certainly don't equate new and shiny with quality. I >judge quality by traditional criteria of composition, impact, etc. As >I said before, I use all kinds of paper depending on the subject >matter. If you are selling automobile photos, you would want to use >the type of paper that best captures the bright and shiny look of a >new car. However, in general, it all comes down to personal taste and >tradeoffs. By the way just what is wrong to be attracted by the new >and shiny? To be attracted by the old and dull is right? Dan, I think you answered your own question. You certainly are full of answers.
