Mat or Gloss printing paper

[cliveh]

I know people usually have a preference for one or the other. I prefer gloss, as it gives deaper blacks. Do you have a preference?

 

[MDR]

I prefer Mat because the image is almost part of the paper and it has better tactile quality. Don't like the look of high gloss paper it's too plasticky imo. Behind a glass frame the advantages of deeper blacks for glossy paper is nullified, I'd even say a dead mat paper like Multigrade IV FB gets deeper blacks. RC paper looks disgusting in both mat and glossy.

 

[Chrismat]

I prefer glossy, either FB or RC.

 

[Bob Marvin]

I prefer FB glossy dried as semi-gloss (i.e not ferrotyped, which has long been out of fashion)). IMO RC glossy looks even worse than ferrotyped FB glossy.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I prefer Mat because the image is almost part of the paper and it has better tactile quality. Don't like the look of high gloss paper it's too plasticky imo. Behind a glass frame the advantages of deeper blacks for glossy paper is nullified, I'd even say a dead mat paper like Multigrade IV FB gets deeper blacks. RC paper looks disgusting in both mat and glossy.

I haven't printed on mat paper since I was a kid and I never looked at them under glass. This comment makes me want to try it again. I added it to my shopping list. I've seen mat surface pictures in art museums and liked them, but don't know if they were ink jet prints or darkroom prints. Museums don't seem to differentiate anymore. They seem to label them all "photographs" nowadays. Very irritating. I noticed they still differentiate between oil and acrylic paintings, though.

 

[mfohl]

I use glossy fiber, unferrotyped, and mat or pearl RC. I only use RC for proofs and non important stuff, so it kinda doesn't matter. I'm not sure I've ever used mat fiber paper.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It really depends on the subject. People usually look better with matt paper while such things as cars or machinery look better with gloss.

 

[pentaxuser]

There is a third kind of paper in the Ilford range called Satin which despite its name is more matt than matt( usually called lustre, semi-matt, pearl) depending on the maker

This can look good but as others have said it depends on subject matter and even lighting conditions

pentaxuser

 

[jspillane]

It is all good in my book, as long as it's fiber.

 

[Colin DeWolfe]

I use both. Depends on the subject matter. I do notice, however, that the matte surface in MGIV has a brighter white than the glossy. i.e., the glossy is warmer

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Unferrotyped FB glossy that has been steamed (or gently and very carefully repeat-microwaved while still damp). The result is a partially pseudo-ferrotyped glistening-but-still-textured look. As if the dried paper were still wet on the emulsion side.

Ken

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I like mat, just because!

Jeff

 

[brian steinberger]

Gloss for FB, and Pearl for RC. Both air dried.

 

[removed account4]

i have no preference anymore.
i used fo print a lot on seagull paper
it was semi glossy
then when i did commercial printong it was mostly
ilford rc glossy
then. polymax fiber, then azo
then hand coated, and cyanotypes
then whatever i have lying around ...
these days ot is either old polymax rc ( glossy )
or pwarehouse made in england glossy rc

i used to care, now o just shoot and print

 

[Truzi]

I'm not sure I have a process, plus it's been a long time since I printed. I've purchased some luster/pearl to start again. Glossy is attractive because it is like the mini-lab prints, but in my undergrad I used mat and quite liked it. I figure luster may be an happy medium for me.

Oh, and I hate how glossy attracts finger prints.