Re: [Digital BW] Glossy paper preferences?
- ??? About as eloquent and clear as any US president of recent times....
> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:52:04 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glossy paper preferences?
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@...> wrote:
>> Neither of which are "glossy" - Tyler himself termed the former "almost
> There you go, perfect example. Always try to stay away from saying
> anything specific. I learned that from my president.
> Could have been "is amost glossy", but then we'd have to go back one
> administration for "is" and I fear the entire discussion will go
>That would great a lot of noise if true !!!
> Isn't Chasseur d'Images getting part of their tests from
> ColorFoto ?
I went to the link : no way I get a word...They're a magazine in
France too called "Inkjet" but I wouldn't dare posting a single of
their paper review. I believe for glossy we're on our own.
Tetenal Fine Art Premium Glossy is not bad, but only small sizes.
Amongst, all Epson ones, like Paul, I'd go for semi-matte, low
bronzing, clean surface, the only thing, is like Luster, it tends to
be slightly warm-green compared to Premium Gloss and semi-gloss. And
it's definitely not a hi-gloss paper, but a good compromise. For some
reasons, I feel hi-gloss papers do not show really vibrant colors as
compared to semi-glossy ones, I feel they tend to flaten the print,
but it's a personal view.
I'm still a believer we can produce decent BW on glossy stock, though
I must say I'm not yet there. Jon Cone is working on it, let's see.