I've been noticing many people here use matte FB paper. I have always used glossy in FB and pearl in RC. I tried matte RC once and thought it was the most awful paper I'd ever used. I have never tried it in FB and have been wondering if I am missing something. If you are a matte user, why? Does FB matte have a quality (as in characteristic) that is desirable for you? How about with lith? Does it add to the image in some way that glossy does not? I understand that at some level it's just a matter of personal preference, but I am curious to know if some of you feel that you really gain something using matte paper.
Matte vs Glossy FB
-
A
- Thread starter jmal
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
-
Want to Buy Jobo 3005 expert tank for 5 sheets of 8x10
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
Maybe it's just me, but glossy always seems like it's trying too hard.
May be you were looking to closely. Try putting on a wall from 6ft, see things a little different.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,413
- Format
- Multi Format
It's glossy that I mostly use, but some subjects really call for matte and some call for a specialty finish, like the discontinued Luminos papers.
Yes, sometimes it's awful, but so,etimes it really clicks. You never know.
Yes, sometimes it's awful, but so,etimes it really clicks. You never know.
I sometimes like matt paper when other people use it, but I hate it everytime I try using it.
I use glossy FB paper for some subjects with smooth surfaces such as glass and metal, otherwise, I mostly use semi-matte FB. It has just enough sheen or smoothness to retain fine detail and has enough tooth for hand coloring, and fewer visible finger prints, the best of both worlds. The Forte semi-matte surface had the best compromise, IMO. For that reason I'm well stocked.
I agree that straight 'matte' surface has much to be desired and I think RC paper in general is awful stuff - especially the matte surface (very dull) - I no longer use it.
I agree that straight 'matte' surface has much to be desired and I think RC paper in general is awful stuff - especially the matte surface (very dull) - I no longer use it.
Glossy FB paper is not truly glossed until it is Ferrotyped to bring out the gloss. The term glossy only refers to the final finish on the paper at the factory and the fact that no matting agent is used.
This allows the glossy paper to be rolled into contact with a Ferrotype plate to bring out the true gloss of the paper. So, unless you use this final step, you are not seeing the true potential of the paper. In fact, if you do not, you should be calling it "Un-Ferrotyped Glossy FB Paper".
Until you see a properly finished glossy FB print done the proper way, all other arguments must fail.
PE
This allows the glossy paper to be rolled into contact with a Ferrotype plate to bring out the true gloss of the paper. So, unless you use this final step, you are not seeing the true potential of the paper. In fact, if you do not, you should be calling it "Un-Ferrotyped Glossy FB Paper".
Until you see a properly finished glossy FB print done the proper way, all other arguments must fail.
PE
Last edited by a moderator:
Cool! I've seen these plates but never knew what they were used for.
With matte paper you tend to lose resolution. I strongly prefer smooth, glossy paper surfaces.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,703
Ferrotyping is a bit tricky. A properly done FB glossy will not look much different from a RC glossy print. I prefer the look of unferrotyped glossy FB over either matte or ferrotyped glossy. A truly glossy print can show reflections of off-axis light that obscure detail and mess with chiarroscuro. Matte paper never gives it a real chance to show.
I usually call it an air-dried glossy fiber print...amongst my photography friends only, but then, they know what it is. Too fussy for an exhibitiion card, though...
Jmal,
Dead matt papers (Ilford Multigrade and formerly Galerie - I don't know whether other manufacturers produce a dead matt finish) have a lower maximum black. They don't produce specular reflections. This is why many people don't like them, IMO. They look dull in comparison to glossy prints.
Glossy papers are great for prints that will be hand-held or displayed without being behind glass. Most glass (except specially finished glass) is reflective, and so is glossy paper. Put glossy papers behind glass and you have two specular reflections. With a dead matt paper, you'll only see one reflection, and the effect of the glass deepens the maximum black, giving the effect of a glossy paper without the same reflection problems.
So, if it's to be framed, print on dead matt paper. If it's to be handed around or mounted without glass, gloss is best. This is all IMO and i'm sure someone will disagree.
Dead matt papers (Ilford Multigrade and formerly Galerie - I don't know whether other manufacturers produce a dead matt finish) have a lower maximum black. They don't produce specular reflections. This is why many people don't like them, IMO. They look dull in comparison to glossy prints.
Glossy papers are great for prints that will be hand-held or displayed without being behind glass. Most glass (except specially finished glass) is reflective, and so is glossy paper. Put glossy papers behind glass and you have two specular reflections. With a dead matt paper, you'll only see one reflection, and the effect of the glass deepens the maximum black, giving the effect of a glossy paper without the same reflection problems.
So, if it's to be framed, print on dead matt paper. If it's to be handed around or mounted without glass, gloss is best. This is all IMO and i'm sure someone will disagree.
Resolution increases as follows: Textured > Matte > Glossy > Ferrotyped Glossy
Dmax increases in the same order, and all things being equal in the shoulder curve, so does shadow detail in the print. And, blacks are better in texture. These factors can be physically measured through experimental means and seen by eyeball in comparison prints. I have posted resolution charts done on Watercolor, Smooth and Glossy Baryta here on APUG in the Emulsion making and coating forum!
Patrick is right though that viewing angle becomes more critical as gloss increases, but IMHO high gloss does not dectract from the print when viewed properly.
Also, if you ferrotype a FB print, you never have problems with the curl of the print. It pops off the plate with a smooth gentle curve in only one direction and print can be easily stacked.
NEVER ferrotype an RC paper.
PE
Dmax increases in the same order, and all things being equal in the shoulder curve, so does shadow detail in the print. And, blacks are better in texture. These factors can be physically measured through experimental means and seen by eyeball in comparison prints. I have posted resolution charts done on Watercolor, Smooth and Glossy Baryta here on APUG in the Emulsion making and coating forum!
Patrick is right though that viewing angle becomes more critical as gloss increases, but IMHO high gloss does not dectract from the print when viewed properly.
Also, if you ferrotype a FB print, you never have problems with the curl of the print. It pops off the plate with a smooth gentle curve in only one direction and print can be easily stacked.
NEVER ferrotype an RC paper.
PE
-
- dpurdy
- Deleted
"So, if it's to be framed, print on dead matt paper. If it's to be handed around or mounted without glass, gloss is best. This is all IMO and i'm sure someone will disagree."
I couldn't agree more... I usually print on all dead matte and semi-matte, but now that i find that i am presenting clients more prints unframed, i am moving to glossy papers. I hate to say it, but with the increased d-max, they look that much better with more "pop" and more impressive to the client... but i still like the way a matte paper looks and acts under glass.
I couldn't agree more... I usually print on all dead matte and semi-matte, but now that i find that i am presenting clients more prints unframed, i am moving to glossy papers. I hate to say it, but with the increased d-max, they look that much better with more "pop" and more impressive to the client... but i still like the way a matte paper looks and acts under glass.
I believe that many printers will chose matt as it has less of a photographic look and more like a traditional paper print. Achieving a great print could be said to be more skillful on matt paper as you are not relying on a gloss paper's increased contrast and stronger blacks.
It's really down to what you like the look of yourself. Different finishes for different subjects.
It's really down to what you like the look of yourself. Different finishes for different subjects.
Gary;
This is truly a key issue here. The original papers were hand coated on art papers and were matte or smooth. Only at the advent of mass produced papers with heavy calendaring was it possible to make glossy baryta papers. And so, the "manufactured" or mass produced look was associated with glossy prints, while the matte or textured papers were associated with the hand crafted print look.
This is true today. I think Alex Hawley or David Goldfarb might be able to comment, having seen and worked with hand crafted matte papers.
PE
This is truly a key issue here. The original papers were hand coated on art papers and were matte or smooth. Only at the advent of mass produced papers with heavy calendaring was it possible to make glossy baryta papers. And so, the "manufactured" or mass produced look was associated with glossy prints, while the matte or textured papers were associated with the hand crafted print look.
This is true today. I think Alex Hawley or David Goldfarb might be able to comment, having seen and worked with hand crafted matte papers.
PE
Certainly, my own preference is for textured papers in my landscape/ portrait work as it has that non-photographic look. I don't quite have the patience for hand coating, but I may just do that once my stock finishes (quite a few years yet though!)
Interesting to hear these replies. I have seen ferrotyped glossy and unferrotyped glossy. I prefer the unferrotyped myself. And, even though I don't like the RC matte that I've tried, I really like the look of "art" papers such as Fomatone 542. I think the softness and texture looks great for skin. I may have to get into coating papers myself...By the way, anyone try lithing a liquid emulsion?
I remember my dad's ferrotyping setup and then the one in the student darkroom at UF. All that polishing, waiting for the dang thing to dry. Slow, slow, slow. Hooray for RC.
i greatly prefer lustre RC over glossy RC, but my school's darkroom doesn't have the facilities to wash and dry FB paper
All you need is a tray for washing, and simply a clean towel for drying...it doesn't have to be difficult or fancy...
Glass is not even enough for a good gloss and due to slight porosity has a tendancy to stick to paper or paper to stick to glass as the case may be.
I have never seen glass used successfully.
PE
I have never seen glass used successfully.
PE
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2008
- Messages
- 436
- Format
- Multi Format
i didn't know that, i always thought FB paper required a dedicated print washer.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |