I'm confused. Did you get this backwards? Why do you loathe
"non-reflective" glass? I'd have thought non-reflective glass would
suppress the reflections you're concerned with.
Chuck Norcutt
Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Most of the wastage criticism I've read about Epsons has to do with
> swapping glossy black for matte black cartridges, and it's true, the
> cost is horrendous. My solution is to print exclusively on matte
> paper. I never do glossy work. The more I view framed pictures hanging
> on walls, the more sure I am in my decision to stick with matte.
> Esteemed Wife and I were in a local restaurant last week, which, along
> with good food, features my photos, those of another photographer, and
> a painter's prints. When viewed up close or from a distance, the other
> photographer's glossy prints tend to look wavy, have hot spots from
> lighting, and the double reflection--from the print and the glass--
> gets in the way of enjoyment. Matte prints, on the other hand, do not
> look wavy, do not have hot spots, and don't suffer from double-
> reflection syndrome. I'm not saying matte-only is for everyone, it's
> just the way I do it. And I _loathe_ non-reflective glass. (I should
> add that in some cases, the prints actually are wavy, as in not well-
> dried before framing, but in most cases, the wavy look is an optical
> illusion based on reflective qualities of glossy surface vs. matte
> surface.)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|