Digital BW, The Print

Steve-

I am not an expert on carts, but have herded cattle so know a little about
horses <GGG>.

Anyway, it's a personal thing.  I didn't say or imply others shouldn't do
glossy prints.

I did a lot of printing for others in the Navy for contests.  It was always
matte or E surface.

I also did a lot of major (large) exhibits for a former employer and we
always used matte prints, even though we were copying 19th and early 20th
century originals.  Those did not have glass in front of them.

The only time(s) I printed gloss was if it was being sent out for
reproduction or was being sold to the public (F paper was cheaper).
Cibachromes were on Pearl, so that's as close as I went.

In my case now it's down to reflections.  

I guess I never thought of glossy as having as much "class" as a matte
print.  With matte I want to use the term more "regal," I guess.  Look and
feel?

I find no fault with those that print glossy.  I don't want to deal with all
the issues of rub off, drying, bronzing, etc.

Just me.  Just my opinion.  Just the way I want my work done.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 

==
==And to Seth:  why on earth do you not consider "glossy" an 
==exhibition medium?  We are talking about RC papers generally 
==here and so I will assume you extend your view to semi-matte 
==RC paper.  I have to say that almost all conventional and 
==Lightjet work I have seen exhibited would fall into the 
==glossy or semi-matte category.  RC ink jet is not as 
==prevalent simply because of the issues we have been trying to 
==overcome (bronzing-free longevity).  I suspect you have the 
==cart before the horse on this one.
==