Matt or Gloss?

Chez · 19-01-2006, 19:17

Hi all

I'm about to order around 90 prints from Photobox (got some credits which I bought and have never used, which expire soon).

What do people prefer? Matt or Gloss? I can't decide...

What are peoples opinions on the pros/cons of each?

Thanks
Chez

Arkady · 19-01-2006, 19:30

Gloss gives better quality images and good colour saturation, but is suscptible to fingerprints - matt looks a bit dull and any textured paper (although very popular) is equally naff.

The reason? Imagine a very close-up shot of the paper's surface. The gloss paper is smooth, allowing the light transmitted by the enlarger head (or digital printer) unhindered access to the emulsion layers beneath the outer polyester protective layer.
Matt and Lustre paper is rough and uneven when viewed close-up, those little bumps and ridges diffuse and refract the light coming in, causing a (very slight) spreading of that light, resulting in a slightly softer image than the gloss paper.

If the prints are going to be used for reproduction, use matt, as it's easier to copy without annoying reflections.
If it's for Happy Snaps that will be passed around a lot, use Lustre.
If it's for framing and won't be handled by grubby mitts, use Gloss.

busterboy · 19-01-2006, 20:40

I have used Photo Gloss for quite some years now but certain images can look tonnes better in Matt.

For some reason I am doing most of my images in 160Gram Matt now..

I love em..

Chez · 20-01-2006, 00:10

Thanks guys.

I only had the choice of matt or gloss, so in keeping with Rob's logic, went for GLoss on the ones which will be framed/dsiplayed and matt for general hand-around pics (fingerprints really do annoy me!)

Arkady · 20-01-2006, 07:54

Just to confirm - I was talking here about Photo-printing, not desktop inkjet printing.

jimandasideoffries · 20-01-2006, 08:27

I thought i'd read in Pratical Photography magazine that gloss is richer and gives better depth for hand held picsor an album but Matt was useful if the image is going into a frame, as there was less reflection inteference from the print and once the glass goes over the print itself, add's that extra depth that the matt finish is missing.

Just something i'd read.

barrymoir · 20-01-2006, 08:49

every photo to date, weddings, portraits, have been in Matt, no greiff with finger prints, no greiff with framing, and no greiff with dust stiicking to them, especially in my house.

19-01-2006, 19:17	#1 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	Matt or Gloss? Hi all I'm about to order around 90 prints from Photobox (got some credits which I bought and have never used, which expire soon). What do people prefer? Matt or Gloss? I can't decide... What are peoples opinions on the pros/cons of each? Thanks Chez

19-01-2006, 19:30	#2 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	Gloss gives better quality images and good colour saturation, but is suscptible to fingerprints - matt looks a bit dull and any textured paper (although very popular) is equally naff. The reason? Imagine a very close-up shot of the paper's surface. The gloss paper is smooth, allowing the light transmitted by the enlarger head (or digital printer) unhindered access to the emulsion layers beneath the outer polyester protective layer. Matt and Lustre paper is rough and uneven when viewed close-up, those little bumps and ridges diffuse and refract the light coming in, causing a (very slight) spreading of that light, resulting in a slightly softer image than the gloss paper. If the prints are going to be used for reproduction, use matt, as it's easier to copy without annoying reflections. If it's for Happy Snaps that will be passed around a lot, use Lustre. If it's for framing and won't be handled by grubby mitts, use Gloss. __________________ "When I hold a camera, I Know no fear..." Alfred Eisenstadt Nikon D2x Bodies x2 14mm f/2.8 Sigma; 17-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 28-80mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Nikkor; 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 600mm f/4 Nikkor SB-800 Flash x2

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gloss or Matte	dogdots	General photography questions and answers	35	29-09-2007 09:51

19-01-2006, 20:40	#3 (permalink)
busterboy Been here a while Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Harrogate. Yorkshire Posts: 496	I have used Photo Gloss for quite some years now but certain images can look tonnes better in Matt. For some reason I am doing most of my images in 160Gram Matt now.. I love em..

20-01-2006, 00:10	#4 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	Thanks guys. I only had the choice of matt or gloss, so in keeping with Rob's logic, went for GLoss on the ones which will be framed/dsiplayed and matt for general hand-around pics (fingerprints really do annoy me!)

20-01-2006, 07:54	#5 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	Just to confirm - I was talking here about Photo-printing, not desktop inkjet printing.

20-01-2006, 08:27	#6 (permalink)
jimandasideoffries Quite Chatty Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 58	I thought i'd read in Pratical Photography magazine that gloss is richer and gives better depth for hand held picsor an album but Matt was useful if the image is going into a frame, as there was less reflection inteference from the print and once the glass goes over the print itself, add's that extra depth that the matt finish is missing. Just something i'd read.

20-01-2006, 08:49	#7 (permalink)
barrymoir Been here a while Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 369	every photo to date, weddings, portraits, have been in Matt, no greiff with finger prints, no greiff with framing, and no greiff with dust stiicking to them, especially in my house.