[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Summary: glossy vs. matte photos for exhibits



The responses are in, and the result is: George W. Bush by 537 votes.

No, wait a minute, that's for another survey. But the results on this
query seemed similarly divided. Some people favored matte, some people
favored glossy, and some suggested going to an in-between type of
photo called pearl or luster. Here are some of the comments.

Complex responses:
*When doing displays a couple of things must be considered to be sure
which finish you will use. Is the photo color or black and white? is
the photo in a frame with glass or under glass or plexiglass? What
types of lights are you using? what is the angle of the photo? I used
glossy the most because the photo seems to the eye to have more depth
and contrast but if you have very bright lights I would use mat. In
todays world you should not have bright lights if you are displaying
any original artifacts of any kind-textual or otherwise. Note; if you
use glossy be sure they get enough contrast to give the photo depth.

*In a previous existence as a photo-archivist I mounted two major
shows from
the archives. In one we used a matte finish because the images were
from an
older time (1920s and 30s) original negatives were either glass plate
or
nitrate (all generally 8x10 negs). For the second exhibit we used
glossy
prints because the images were from a newspaper archive. Images
printed from
4x5 original safety negs. We printed in a variety of sizes 8x10,
11x14, and
larger much larger (as in life-size or bigger). A somewhat
non-traditional
approach even used cut-outs. So to answer your question it depends on
the mood you want to present.

*Many questions: Are you having enlargements custom made for an
exhibit? Will the prints be
used for other purposes after the exhibit? How will the pictures be
displayed? Framed, matted, behind glass?
How will the pictures be lighted? Does the exhibit area have totally
controlled lighting, or are windows present?
These are some of the factors to be considered before deciding.

*I don't normally use photographs in an  exhibit.  I've found a
cheaper,
more flexible (design-wise) & good-image-quality option is to have
images
reproduced by what they call around here "veloxes".  I take 8x10's to
the
printer, and they reproduce them to any size I specify, mount them on
gator
foam for about $8 per square foot.  In the process, they create an
8x10
neg. which I've found to be a very useful resource to keep around.
This
lets me enlarge images for effect, and is very cost effective.  This
only
works, however, for black & white or sepia reproductions (sepia, by
the
way, is a very effective touch esp. when you mix it up with the black
&
white images).  Color's a different story, but can still be done more
cost
effectively than large photographic prints.

If you have your own photo lab or for other reasons are  needing to
use
regular photographic prints, I've found that halfway between matte &
glossy
is a good choice for old photographs.  Glossy tends to make them look
a
little anachronistic.  I've heard this called a pearl finish (local
usage
where you are might be different).  Matte seems a little too much the
other
way, but would (IMHO) work better for older images.  Mounting &
lighting-wise I've found that there's really no difference, so your
only
big consideration is the overall design look you're going for.

I do like the flexibility of using very large images for not a lot
of
money, so have been almost exclusively using the velox method.  For
smaller
exhibits & images, we've been happy with our inkjet photo printout.
They've finally come out with large size paper (11x17) which gives us
a lot
of useful options for quick exhibits. Also made us scanner literate
in
pretty short order without much sturm und drang.

Glossy:
Pro:
*images appear to be crisper and the
colors richer, especially if the Cibachrome process it used.  But
with
Cibachrome the slighted touch to the image's surface will leave
fingerprints!

*glossy, glossy, glossy [no other comment added]

* I like the sharper look,
especially if detail is important.

Con:
* (from a Pro response): However, they can reflect light and
cause glare depending on how they are mounted and the angle of your
light
source.  Of course, this is true in either case if the photos are
framed
under glass.

Matte:

Pro:
*they don't run the chance of having glare in certain spots (also,
the exhibit people said to do it, which really clinched the matter!).

*Our photographic lab. had recommended matte to decrease the glare
issues.

*The general preference is for matte images. Cuts down on lighting
glare,
weird shadows cast by viewing patrons, etc. You can get by with
glossies if all you have are historic silver prints, but
it might be nice to have them placed behind non-glare glass if budget
and
display conditions allow.

*Matte photos have less glare.

*I generally recommend a semi-gloss or matte finish for
an exhibit because glossies simply reflect too much
light.  There is also an RC Pearl which has very nice
sheen.

Con:

[none]


Luster:
*there are papers which are in between glossy and matte.  they are
usually
called luster papers.  they are much better for exhibition than
either of
the others because they neither flatten (reduce the contrast) or pick
up
the glare.  What you really should do though is have your images
printed
at a good custom house on fiber base rather than resin coated paper.


*Glossy prints are ideal for publication.  They appear sharper.  They
also
show a multitude of dirt, smudges, reflections, etc. Matte prints do
not appear as sharp.  They also tend to gelp obscure some
of the very defects that the glossies show. Actually, both show the
same details if enlarged under the same
conditions. There is also another surface in between called 'pearl'
or other brand
name.  This also might be a choice.  Check it out. Recommend going
with the matte or pearl surfaces.




Christine Crawford-Oppenheimer
Special Collections Librarian/Archivist

Culinary Institute of America
1946 Campus Drive
Hyde Park, NY  12538
(845) 451-1757
c_crawfo@culinary.edu

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>