Age old question?

[Jimbo_715]

What it boils down to is....

Best paper for printing shots to be displayed/as a gift???

Ive heard various accounts over why matte is better than gloss i.e. glossy paper behind a glass covered frame will reflect light.

I'd like to hear other members thoughts on what they would recommend as a mid range photo paper and how much does GSM weigh on the decision, no pun intended!

Regards.

[GeoffWessex]

I generally use a Matt paper (Epson Enhanced Matte), because most of my pictures end up behind glass and, for the reasons you mention, can be a problem. I know of one photographer who had his own show recently and printed on Matt paper even though he didn't have glazed frames. Matt (IMHO) gives a good true colour representation without being affected by a light sheen of any kind.

But others will probably recommend other favourites..... horses for courses.

[canoman]

Unless you are using the makers ink and not third party ink its a waste of time framing and glazing. Remember these are prints and not true film photographs. You could of course hang them in a blacked out room

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by canoman

Unless you are using the makers ink and not third party ink its a waste of time framing and glazing. Remember these are prints and not true film photographs. You could of course hang them in a blacked out room

Nonsense.

OK...... third-party inks may not have the archival quality (and longevity) of the Epson or Canon 'genuine article' but nobody's been around long enough to prove the quality of either type! If you've got money to burn, get the printer manufacturer's own - if not, go for 3rd party.... example - 220ml of Epson Ultrachrome ink costs $149. 3rd party ink costs $25.

Now, if you're putting pictures into a museum there's a point in spending the money - but they're not going to hang on the wall for 100 years anyway - they will be properly archived at some point (and maybe duplicated). So the 'genuine' ink is irrelevant. If you want something for a living room wall the 3rd party inks will last for years - less if kept in sunlight of course.

If they're for an exhibition of your work you are fine too......

The problem may arise if you sell a print and call it 'archive quality' when it's not - but is your customer going to come back to you in 50 years to complain? If they do, I'd hope you have the original to reprint and replace it for them.

[StephenBatey]

Glossy paper is capable of holding more fine detail than matte, so that could have a bearing.

Assuming that the print isn't mounted behind glass, glossy will have a higher DMax (better tonal range).

Glossy is susceptible to the viewing angle if you want to avoid glare - as is matte, if behind normal (as opposed to non-reflective) glass.

Weight - if unmounted, the heavier the better (withing limits). If mounted, a lighter weight of paper may be easier to mount, depending on the mounting method you use.

That's the "objective" part. Subjectively, some images look better on matte than glossy and vice versa.

And if you want to really consider all the issues, bear in mind that a very subtle change to the base tint of the paper can have an effect that is surprisingly large in the mood of the final print.

[jet_kit]

The paper selection is far more important than the ink. I bought some cheap paper on-line once, and it was distinctly yellow - Not even suitable for paper aeroplanes.
Whether you select Glossy, Matt, Canvas, Art etc. will depend entirely on the subject and what you want to portray. The rule of thumb is; Technical subjects which display maximum sharpness and contrast will look better on gloss, while portraits and subjects which will benefit from 'softening' will generally look better on matt.
I have 20-year old prints using 3rd-party ink which are holding up well and I have 40-year old photographic prints which are decidedly fading. The key is the sun. If you want them to last then keep them out of direct sunlight regardless of whether they are photographic, manufacturer's ink or 3rd-party.