Irrespective of the type of print being discussed, in this or any thread, I contend that, if one sees a difference after framing behind glass, the wrong glass is being used. Try thisOriginally Posted by Jim Jones
and see if you still have the same opinion.
I use the Frame Destination AR glass for a few color prints that I feel deserve that extra bit of contrast and color rendition. Coated glass of course costs more money but in some circumstances is worth the price. Plus the Frame Destination stuff is clear borosilicate which has no detectable greenish tint. I might only question the 1% reflectivity claim but the visual improvement is still significant.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
I HATE matte computer monitors just as I do TV screens just as I do prints.
Why? I mean I understand not using it and not appreciating its qualities but why such vehement opposition?
I fogs the blacks just as 'severely' fogged film would do... not as much in a dark room with monitors and TVs but prints are viewed in bright rooms. Matte paper absolutely destroys Dmax.
Aha. See this is what I was after. You don't believe that the relative tonality of matte paper creates a deep enough black?
I have seen both side by side and I would only say the blacks where not strong enough if viewing gloss and matte side by side. As a stand alone print I think matte produces a dark enough tone to represent black accurately relative to the rest of the print.
It depends on the images, of course -- not every print must have a max black. A friend printing 120 negs on Portriga Rapid 118 (matt paper)...images of the ruins in Chaco Canyon. On that matt paper, the pure black of the windows of the ruins looked deeply sunk into the image. It was amazing. One certainly would never see it on a screen, I doubt one could get the same feeling on a glossy paper (even on that wonderful 111 surface!) I think RD above is referring to a believable black...these were almost unbelievable!
Portraits can look wonderful on matt. But for my work, I tend to stay with glossy unless I have a good reason for matt...except with my platinum prints on watercolor paper...those are matt.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Lighting is extremely important. Matte paper behind glass in a bright room, but without spot-lighting, can appear to have better blacks than a glossy print in the same environment.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I agree, but AR glass would price framed photographs out of my market.Irrespective of the type of print being discussed, in this or any thread, I contend that, if one sees a difference after framing behind glass, the wrong glass is being used. Try this
and see if you still have the same opinion.
I have no opposition to matt paper. It's just a fact that it does not give as rich a black as glossy paper. And it's for simple reasons, like the surface diffuses the light.
Matt paper makes beautiful prints, there is no question. And to its credit, a matt print can be viewed as intended from most angles where a glossy print will shine and reflect when the light hits it wrong.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks