Digital BW, The Print

I didn't "lump" anything. I just said "glossy." 

Glop is a temporary workaround and it doesn't even serve the purposes
of most photographers, who do after all usually print color and/or
didn't want to show glossy in the first place.

The other resin coated surfaces have *never* been considered top
quality by collectors, but a lot of students have enjoyed the
convenience, Vs air drying fiber based paper.  RC's always been a
second-rate material, just a convenience. 

Go to any public gallery: You won't see *any* Pearl and the few
glossies will mostly be secondary work by photographers who primarily
favored air dried prints, unless they were press photographers like
Weegee.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Define glossy?  Aren't we lumping all non-matte paper into the same
basket
> in this conversation?  There is significant variance in finish in the RC
> paper (call it PK ink) basket.  Even a glop-coated image on Ilford
Smooth
> Pearl (a rather glossy semi-matte paper in comparison to, say, Epson
Luster)
> is not a "glossy" print in the sense that you imply below.
> 
> 
> > From: Djon <westsidemaurice@y...>
>  
> > 
> > Most art-oriented photographers have always preferred air-dried fiber
> > based paper....glossy has always been used for mass-produced press
> > kits, the cheap stuff.
> > 
> > No portrait or wedding photographer delivers his good work on glossy
> > paper, but some of the bargain wedding photographers deliver their
> > proofs as glossies from minilabs, unconcerned about quality.
> > 
> > Industrial photographers deliver glossy because old fashioned
> > lithographers preferred it and because of generations of habit.
> > 
> > The public identifies glossy as cheaper, inferior, because glossy is
> > correctly associated with poor or "adequate" quality, mass production.
> > They don't care about Dmax.
> > 
> > Surely this isn't new information, or debatable?
> > 
> > 
> >