[Leica] New York Times anonymous fine art photography Now Mark's screw up

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Mark Rabiner said:
> Isn't that Velvet stuff fuzzy?!!? I think I tried it once.<<<

Hi Mark,
In a way you may have just given me the answer to a client's concern about
13" X19" ....  2200 prints on Epson Velvet Fine Art paper.  "Fuzzy!"

That isn't actually the word, but could well be what he was looking for to
describe the 15 13X19 prints we shipped to his company. These were beautiful
rich colour prints, lovely actually. OK I'm bias! ;-)

In his comments he used "traditional looking photo prints."

When I asked what bothered him he couldn't explain what it was directly
other than ... "traditional looking" prints. It had nothing to do with the
content because he didn't believe we shot what we did without using flash
and lighting every situation. He kept coming back to the look not being like
traditional photo prints.

So your comment of "fuzzy" maybe the answer.

Although I wouldn't call it fuzzy, as that kind of implies the picture was
out of focus,  I bet it's more the "Texture look" of the paper and how it
may effect how he's seeing the look of the prints.

So knocking a couple off on "Archival Matte" paper might just cure this
problem. Or a couple on Premium Glossy Photo paper.

So my friend you may have inadvertently saved the day in curing this clients
concern and our dilemma of, "the guy's crazy, they look beautiful!" ;-) When
in fact it could be our own fault for using a "non-traditional looking "
paper for a client inclined to Wal-mart 4X6 glossy prints.

Thanks Mark.

ted