I think a pattern is beginning to appear (not addressed to you
specifically, Adam, but in general). Most of the folks who think digital
prints look better than optical, actually do not like photographic
prints. No wonder they are sooooooo ready to jump on the digital bandwagon.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Adam Maas wrote:
Ugh, I despise glossy paper. I'd rather give up a little DMax for a
little character, which the matte papers have.
I was at a print swap yesterday. Out of 18 participants, only a couple
used glossy papers. A couple printed on some semi-gloss (Epson Luster
and Agfa Multigrade with a semigloss surface) and everybody else used
matte. I printed on Moab Entrada Bright. No issues with fuzziness, and
none with fingerprints or glare (the two biggest issues with glossy
paper).
-Adam
graywolf wrote:
I always wonder why some artsey paper. Photo quality is judge by
glossy print quality. I always wonder how you guys get those sharper
than a razor prints on fuzzy paper. I guess some of us have different
standards than others.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Powell Hargrave wrote:
S9000 and I'll put the results up against your slow and noisy Epson
any
day of the week!! ;-)))
Cheers,
Cotty
OK. On a nice high quality art paper. Hang it in a nice bright sunny
room. Will compare prints next year at this time.
Powell
