general question about surface

[David Lyga]

Am I the ONLY one out there who finds the matt surface the most exquisite in terms of aesthetics?

I honestly mean this and have never come across anyone who agrees. I know that the blacks are not up to the level that gloss imparts, but the overall image is one of subtlety and beauty, almost like a charcoal drawing. The lack of reflections is of practical merit, but I find matt to look better, aesthetically, than even Ilford's excellent Pearl version. In color as well, there seems to be a neutrality that allows honest objectivity to manifest without the encumbrance of gloss or false intensity. Do I make any sense here? - David Lyga

 

[miha]

I love Ilford FB 5K (matt) surface. My favorite. There isn't anything that comes close in RC.

 

[RobC]

are you talking about RC or FB ?

all surfaces have their merits. It's really just personal preferance. And take your matt surface print and put it on a wall in a poorly lit room and you'll barely be able to see anything in it becasue the resulting contrast of it will be so low. so there are other factors to be considered.

Personally I like glossy FB which isn't as glossy as RC. I don't particularly like matt surface but yes sometimes I've seen prints on it which I like.

I think a lot depends on the image and the style the printer like to print in, hard high impact contrast or soft subtle contrast. You can achieve the latter on glossy paper but its hard to achieve the former on matt paper. Each to his own.

 

[David Lyga]

Either fiber or RC. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

I love Ilford FB 5K (matt) surface. My favorite. There isn't anything that comes close in RC.

There is a certain 'neutrality' that allows unencumbered interpretation. That is my take. - David Lyga

 

[Sirius Glass]

Matte does not do it for me. I am a glossy guy.

 

[Old_Dick]

Probably doesn't help, love semi-matte.

 

[bdial]

Depends on the picture, and of course, your's and the viewer's taste. I like matte for many but not all of my pictures. OTH I really dislike the pearl RC surface, to each their own.

 

[DWThomas]

Probably doesn't help, love semi-matte.

+1
Ilford Semi-matte surfaces will be found on the bulk of my prints.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

And "Matt" surfaces very considerably so one may float your boat, another may not. Sadly my boat-floater is long gone.

 

[MattKing]

Anything with "Matt" in it has to be good.

I use RC paper almost exclusively. I like Ilford's Pearl, as well as Oriental Seagull's Pearl. I've recently used a bit of Ilford's Satin surface, and it has some strengths as well.

Back in the day, I liked Kodak's "N" surface.

From a long, long time ago, I was fascinated by a whole bunch of surfaces that Ektalure was offered in.

For FB paper, non-ferrotyped glossy is nice.

 

[Nige]

Anything with "Matt" in it has to be good.

groan...

I like Ilford's Pearl, as well as Oriental Seagull's Pearl. I've recently used a bit of Ilford's Satin surface, and it has some strengths as well.

I thought I liked Satin but have migrated back to Pearl. I don't like matt in RC (I bought a box and it's assigned to contact sheets), nor do I like glossy.

In FB I like air dried Glossy (looks a bit like Pearl RC)

I have just got some Art 300 and that's matt and textured. Looks good.

 

[David Lyga]

This 'reception' is more or less as I imagined: matt surface is appreciated by some die-hards (like me) and disdained by others. Yet, some are rather lukewarm. Aesthetics is an area immensely personal and determined by perception, not fact. Thank you for your feedback. - David Lyga

 

[DREW WILEY]

I rarely use matte, but sometimes it is the best choice for a given subject, or perhaps a very troublesome lighting situation with a very big print.
No one shoe fits everyone, or every negative.

 

[dpurdy]

I really don't like RC glossy except for making contact sheets. In FB I find the mat surface too dull so I use air dried glossy.

 

[rwreich]

I've never printed on Matt paper, but I'm curious. I usually print on FB Glossy, but I'm wondering if it's "easier" to compress the tonal range of a high-contrast negative on a Matt paper. Your thoughts?

 

[lauffray]

Not a fan of glossy, I always print on matte even when I request digital prints at the lab

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I love glossy for my abstract work, but prefer matte or semimatte for almost everything else.
Ilford Multigrade Classic Matte (fiber) has the most beautiful surface of any paper I use, in my humble opinion. The semimatte of the warmtone paper is a close second.
I also enjoy the surface of the Foma 123 quite a bit. It is highly reminiscent of the old Agfa 118 paper surface, which is very satisfying.
Finally, Ilford's Art 300 paper is extremely nice with high key subjects. Too much black in a picture and the texture becomes obstructive, but with enough midtones and highlights I think it is super beautiful.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Am I the ONLY one out there who finds the matt surface the most exquisite in terms of aesthetics?...I know that the blacks are not up to the level that gloss imparts...

One year later, this thread motivated me to obtain and print on some matte Ilford Multigrade Classic. I hadn't tried a silver gelatin paper that wasn't glossy since the early 1970s.

I'm not sure whether cadmium removal had anything to do with it, but weakness of blacks was even worse than I remember from lo those many decades ago. I agree that, aesthetically, the surface itself is exquisite, but can't overcome a dislike for no image tone denser than dark gray being available.

It is a shame, since matte inkjet prints, while unable to totally match the black levels of glossy gelatin silver, do quite a bit better dealing with low values. Perhaps HARMAN can learn something from that technology and apply it to 'our' papers.

 

[Vaughn]

Portriga Rapid III (glossy) was my favorite surface. Alas, the Ektalure surfaces were nice, too. But generally, FB glossy was what I printed on. But any surface requires an experienced hand and a practised eye to draw the most out of it.

I make platinum prints -- a whole different appreciation for paper surfaces!

 

[Jim Jones]

At best prints on matte paper can be magnificent. A fine example is the first edition of Yousuf Karsh's Portraits of Greatness, meticulously printed by Enschede in Holland on matte paper with sheet fed gravure. Later lithographed editions of the same book on glossier paper pale in comparison. However, once a print is viewed behind ordinary glass, much of the advantage of matte paper is lost.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm happy with unferrotyped glossy surface of Ilford Galerie.

Matt surface is beautiful for certain subjects, the kind of print that would cost me a corner cut off my Group F.64 membership card.

You literally get less density range on the print, it literally does not make it easier to fit a full range negative to paper. The shadows do not become as black. But pictorially, aesthetically, when that's what you are going for it works just fine.

 

[eddie]

Because I do a lot of hand-painting, it's matte for me.

 

[rpavich]

I use both but I do prefer glossy most of the time.

 

[bvy]

Because I do a lot of hand-painting, it's matte for me.

RC or fiber?