|
Author
|
Topic: Glossy vs Matte photo finish
|
RMH
Member Posts: 577
From: Ohio
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 04-15-2006 09:34 AM
   
When you get a photo printed to get signed, do you choose to get it with a glossy or matte surface? I have always liked the way the matte surface looks and have most of my autographs, that have been printed, in this fashion. I have noticed that the prints with glossy surface tends to make the autograph stand out a bit more. When I read posts on here most tend to refer to their pics as glossy and wondered if that was everyones true choice or just an expression. |
4allmankind
Member Posts: 1043
From: Dallas
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 04-15-2006 09:58 AM
I also have bounced this around. I think each has its merits. I too, prefer the matte finish. It looks nicer to the eye, and displays better. The majority of the photos I order are matte. To me, the big benifit of a glossy surface is that if an autograph smears, it can be fixed or even removed if needed. Whereas with matte, its there for good. Jay |
Moltke
Member Posts: 63
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 04-15-2006 11:30 AM
I find that glossy shows up fingerprints more than matte. Of course, I know we are only supposed to handle them by their edges, but how do you push a photo into an acid free holder without touching a little of the surface. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 04-15-2006 01:05 PM
While wearing a white cotton glove. |
Moltke
Member Posts: 63
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 04-15-2006 01:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ejectr:
While wearing a white cotton glove.
You are absolutely correct. One really should adopt good archival procedures but how many of us ever do? |
4allmankind
Member Posts: 1043
From: Dallas
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 04-15-2006 02:28 PM
To be honest, I think white cotton gloves are a bit extreme in order to hold or move signed photos.I think that as long as you are careful with your stuff, breaking out a pair of gloves is really not needed.
These photos are not from the Jurassic era. Jay
|
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 04-15-2006 07:51 PM
I'm not embarrassed to say I've used the gloves when needed and didn't when not needed while handling my own or someone else's photos.As well, when you're handling autographed postage stamps where even the slightest bit of glue on the back disturbed means the difference between a wow and an aw shucks....you wear gloves my man. Small price to pay for bits of caution that pay dividends in the future, instead of that nice big acidic thumb print eating itself onto your photo and your "acid free" cover. Buy a pair, keep them in a zip lock baggie for when you need them. No fuss, no muss. What could be easier and more thoughtful of your own photos and maybe someone else's. [This message has been edited by ejectr (edited April 15, 2006).] |
Michael
Member Posts: 309
From: Brooklyn New York
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 04-15-2006 10:51 PM
Hello,
Good Question......I was thinking about it myself. Lets have an example. Which would be more expensive....a Buzz Aldrin on a litho or a High Quality photo. I think they go for about the same price.....doesnt it???
Just Asking??? They both have good qualities ???
Mike |
advertisement