Matte B&W Paper...is it just bad?

[NortheastPhotographic]

I get a lot of requests for matte fiber based prints. Sometimes I think they turn out ok. Then I get a request to do let's say, a matte paper print in the darkroom, followed by a Piezography print on glossy. Holy crap what a difference. It's night and day.

I just made 12 B&W contact prints for a HABS project, for a client, and again...I am not overwhelmed with awe. The surface feels nice in the hand...but it makes everything just kind of....blah....

Am I just doing it wrong? Is there some secret to matte paper that I don't know?

 

[DREW WILEY]

You just posted this on the darkroom side of the forum, yet refer to Piezo. Were the matte ones in fact done darkroom style? I don't see why that would be an issue. What specific paper were you using?

 

[MattKing]

Match your surface to your image and the requirements of how it is to be displayed.
And don't forget how well matte papers minimize surface reflection.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

You just posted this on the darkroom side of the forum, yet refer to Piezo. Were the matte ones in fact done darkroom style? I don't see why that would be an issue. What specific paper were you using?

Just an example where I had to make the same print on 2 surfaces. Ilford fiber matte or semi-matte printing depending on what people are ordering.

When I'm printing for myself in the darkroom, I am using glossy fiber or proofing on a luster or glossy RC.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I mostly use glossy FB paper, but once in awhile print low sheen if that is the shoe which fits best. MGWT can be gorgeous in semi-matte, and it certainly might pass for matte. I haven't tried Ilford Classic in its full matte version; Classic isn't quite as rich a paper.

How are you toning these?

 

[mshchem]

Foma matte is interesting. I'm about 98% glossy fiber,for actually high gloss I'm a rc then Ilford dryer

 

[GregY]

Foma matte is interesting. I'm about 98% glossy fiber,for actually high gloss I'm a rc then Ilford dryer

Can you elaborate on "interesting" ?
Foma Variant 111 & Fomatone 132 are two of my favourite papers.

 

[mshchem]

Can you elaborate on "interesting" ?
Foma Variant 111 & Fomatone 132 are two of my favourite papers.

Best matte I've used. I love Foma papers. Fomatone is amazing, marvelous. Better than Forte Polywarmtone, better than Ektalure.
Like what Matt (not matte) said pick what's best for the occasion.

 

[Bill Burk]

I got a couple boxes of matt Galerie and have done some prints on it when I just want to use some paper I don’t have to worry about running out of. Some of the prints aren’t terrible.

 

[koraks]

Foma matte is interesting.

Indeed, it's a true matte (fiber based!) Very much like (RIP) Adox MCC112.

@NortheastPhotographic pointing out the bleeding obvious, the apparent dmax on a matte paper is always substantially lower than on a glossy paper. It's just how light is diffusely bounced back from the matte surface, which basically does the same way as a massive amount of flare in a camera lens - it degrades contrast. It's the price you pay for the matte surface. If you put a glossy and a matte print side by side, the latter will always look bland. This may not be a problem depending on the artist's intent. It may also not be a problem if...you just don't display them right next to each other! Other than this, I never noticed anything particularly problematic per se about matte silver gelatin fiber based prints. In fact, as long as they're drifting in the wash tray, the look exactly the same as glossy prints of the equivalent type - because they essentially are the same at that point!

Sometimes, an image just calls for a matte surface finish. Sometimes, an image can go either way. And sometimes, an image really only works on glossy. It's great to have choices!

All considered, at this stage I don't think you're overlooking anything or doing anything wrong. You probably just have a perfectly healthy preference for the more crisp, powerful appearance of a glossy print 'ceteris paribus'. I think many of us, do (me included).

Having said all that - perhaps it would help if you could elaborate a bit on what you find disappointing or problematic in the matte prints you've made so far. Can you put it in words?

 

[hiroh]

I always print on MGWTFB semi-matte and love the results, but I’m a bit hesitant to open the glossy box as I’m worried that my semi-matte prints will look inferior in terms of blacks and contrast compared to glossy, and I don’t want that to happen since I’m not a big fan of glossy surfaces.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I get a lot of requests for matte fiber based prints. Sometimes I think they turn out ok. Then I get a request to do let's say, a matte paper print in the darkroom, followed by a Piezography print on glossy. Holy crap what a difference. It's night and day.

I just made 12 B&W contact prints for a HABS project, for a client, and again...I am not overwhelmed with awe. The surface feels nice in the hand...but it makes everything just kind of....blah....

Am I just doing it wrong? Is there some secret to matte paper that I don't know?

A glossy print will always look more intense than a matt print, but for many peoples tastes mine included I prefer the look of matt papers with toning . this is an aesthetic preference rather than which one is better and the final client decides that preference in my shop.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

And then there are us Carbon Transfer printers, who LOVE matte fibre!

 

[DREW WILEY]

There were once velvety surface silver papers which held a high DMax; but those same surfaces were fragile to handling. Somewhere in my stash of product memorabilia I might still have an empty sleeve for one or those.

If this were my own dilemma, I'd pick a specific image which would work well either way - MGWT glossy versus MGWT semi-matte, for example, and just present those as the two choices. I doubt many people would get into a tizzy over the distinction between semi-matte and matte - both are conspicuously non-glossy. This biggest problem with MGWT is that the paper is especially prone to curl if it isn't formally mounted.

I'm less familiar with current Foma choices. I did print some glossy 111 Variant earlier this year and wasn't thrilled by the image color or the relative resistance to toning. But it's obviously a high quality product suitable for a certain kind of look, just not so much my own.
I haven't used any of their warmer products for a long time.

 

[Milpool]

I love matte paper.

I think you have to get used to the lower effective density range compared with viewing a glossy print. If you’re not accustomed to it and in particular if you view it next to a glossy print the difference can be jarring and the initial impression will indeed be “dull”. This goes for alt processes like platinum too.

One of my favourite papers is the Kodak Polyfiber A “vellum” Mark Citret uses.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I love matte paper.

I think you have to get used to the lower effective density range compared with viewing a glossy print. If you’re not accustomed to it and in particular if you view it next to a glossy print the difference can be jarring and the initial impression will indeed be “dull”. This goes for alt processes like platinum too.

One of my favourite papers is the Kodak Polyfiber A “vellum” Mark Citret uses.

Most of the problem is people who live in a world of pure tech specs rather than putting in the effort to print to the material's strengths. Gloss fibre (silver or ink) is largely not as aesthetically pleasing in my view as the matte/ semi-matte/ semi-gloss finishes - or Art 300.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I dunno about that, Milpool. Right on the wall behind me I have an extremely soft matte Portiga image framed adjacent to a bold contrasty gloss Oriental Seagull one, and they have equal "pull" or magnetism. It depends on the specific image, and what best suits it.
Frankly, there is a very high contrast intense Cibachrome next to it too (the only true gloss medium mentioned on this thread so far), with black matboard around it, yet these pictures all complement each other, and don't compete. And nearby are soft antique albumen and cyanotype prints, along with some really big Cibachromes and C-prints. Bouncing around between one kind of look and another actually has its assets if thoughtfully done and appropriately balanced.

Of course, display presentation is a different ballgame than a HABS request.... but just sayin'. Some conventional "rules" of presentation deserve to be broken - they were based on questionable stereotypes to begin with.

Personal responses vary. Some people are of such a personality as to immediately home in on soft subtle imagery, and even seem to notice the more dramatic kind. Other people are the opposite. I like it all, except when some trend arises tempting silly extremes.

One distinction in Historic collections is that non-shiny prints can be easier to copy by conventional means.

 

[Bill Burk]

Definitely @Lachlan Young matt paper has the look and feel of art.

And it’s possible a set like Equivalents would look great on it.

I prefer air dried glossy fiber for most of my printing. But I like the matt look where it works.

 

[Milpool]

Most of the problem is people who live in a world of pure tech specs rather than putting in the effort to print to the material's strengths. Gloss fibre (silver or ink) is largely not as aesthetically pleasing in my view as the matte/ semi-matte/ semi-gloss finishes - or Art 300.

Agreed. One example of that is how somewhere along the line people became obsessed with “d-max”, as if people can tell the difference between a reflection density of 2 and 2.1 without a side by side viewing (or even with a side by side viewing for that matter). I think that played into some of the developer/amidol nonsense with blacker blacks, selenium and on and on. And some of those d-max obsessed people will at the same time extol platinum/palladium prints as somehow having a “longer tonal range” than silver even though a platinum print has all the same “shortcomings” of a matte silver print.

 

[Milpool]

I dunno about that, Milpool. Right on the wall behind me I have an extremely soft matte Portiga image framed adjacent to a bold contrasty gloss Oriental Seagull one, and they have equal "pull" or magnetism. It depends on the specific image, and what best suits it.
Frankly, there is a very high contrast intense Cibachrome next to it too (the only true gloss medium mentioned on this thread so far), with black matboard around it, yet these pictures all complement each other, and don't compete. And nearby are soft antique albumen and cyanotype prints, along with some really big Cibachromes and C-prints. Bouncing around between one kind of look and another actually has its assets if thoughtfully done and appropriately balanced.

Of course, display presentation is a different ballgame than a HABS request.... but just sayin'. Some conventional "rules" of presentation deserve to be broken - they were based on questionable stereotypes to begin with.

Personal responses vary. Some people are of such a personality as to immediately home in on soft subtle imagery, and even seem to notice the more dramatic kind. Other people are the opposite. I like it all, except when some trend arises tempting silly extremes.

One distinction in Historic collections is that non-shiny prints can be easier to copy by conventional means.

I don’t think we’re disagreeing, Drew. I’m just saying if one isn’t used to the look of a matte finish, at first it can seem dull next to a glossy print because the matte surface by its nature does have a lower effective reflection density range. It could be that’s what OP is experiencing. I don’t know.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hard to say in this particular case. Light scatter is an inevitable consequence of a textured surface. Sometimes it's just a matter of mastering the learning curve of a new paper, and recognizing what kind of imagery it's best suited for.

In terms of traditional Pt/Pd prints, they do hold more midtone microtonality than silver. But I knew a party who once offered a pre-coated commercial Platinum paper, even in big sizes, which offered a very high DMax, along with a cold tone. Despite the non-shiny surface, it still resembled a conventional Bromide paper too much to fully carve out its own market niche, not to mention the extreme difference in price. It actually looked modern manufactured rather than hand-coated or otherwise antique, and that became a marketing liability. There were also health reasons during mfg which prematurely suspended it. Frankly, the best Pt prints I have ever seen were a couple of ones which Julia Cameron hand-coated in her chicken shed.

 

[MattKing]

This prints well on a matte finish paper, particularly when toned this way:

And this one can work on matte finish paper too:

 

[Milpool]

What an interesting product that would be - commercially made pre-packaged platinum paper. Pipe dream, but fun to think about.

Back to OP, I have to agree that Piezography prints can be superb and some of the specialized things Cone does are pretty amazing. I’m not sure whether or not Piezography offers as much in comparison to OEM (Epson, Canon) inkjet as it once did given advances in OEM inksets and profiles and such, but I still would like to visit Cone for a class or something.

Hard to say in this particular case. Light scatter is an inevitable consequence of a textured surface. Sometimes it's just a matter of mastering the learning curve of a new paper, and recognizing what kind of imagery it's best suited for.

In terms of traditional Pt/Pd prints, they do hold more midtone microtonality than silver. But I knew a party who once offered a pre-coated commercial Platinum paper, even in big sizes, which offered a very high DMax, along with a cold tone. Despite the non-shiny surface, it still resembled a conventional Bromide paper too much to fully carve out its own market niche, not to mention the extreme difference in price. It actually looked modern manufactured rather than hand-coated or otherwise antique, and that became a marketing liability. There were also health reasons during mfg which prematurely suspended it. Frankly, the best Pt prints I have ever seen were a couple of ones which Julia Cameron hand-coated in her chicken shed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No pipe dream. It happened in the early decades of the 20th C, then briefly again in the 80's - not something you could buy in a retail store of course, but by direct mfg connection, and $$$$. Ever seen a 30X40 inch platinum print? I have, and even bigger. All kinds of what we now classify as ALT process papers were once commercially available, in both b&w and color media.

 

[Milpool]

No pipe dream. It happened in the early decades of the 20th C, then briefly again in the 80's - not something you could buy in a retail store of course, but by direct mfg connection, and $$$$. All kinds of what we now classify as ALT process papers were once commercially available.

Interesting. I thought I knew a decent amount about photo papers but I had no idea any packaged alt papers of that sort ever existed. Indeed they would have to be extremely expensive. I’ve always wanted to try a few of those processes but never have due to having to hand-coat. I’ve just never had the time or wherewithal to go down that rabbit hole.