[Leica] Mounting inkjet prints

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

>snippet<
> makes sense to make them in a way that is closest to 'traditional' media
> in appearance. Yes, there are a zillion photo papers, but the vast
> majority of them produce prints that look like what people expect photo
> prints to look like; some are warmer, some are cooler, some are glossy,
> pearl, or matte. But generally, that's about it.
> 
> 
Except that we expect darkroom fine prints to be dried down F fiber paper
which is semi gloss in the end.
Its right in between gloss and matt.
You not really call it gloss.
Unless you ferrotyped it. Hence the "F".
Ferrotyped prints are not considered gallery worthy and are generally a
retro pain in the ass. Retro as in 60's retro.
And same with matt.
But now with the burgeoning amount of fine quality fine art whatever work
done in inkjet the majority of it is matt.
Never in a million years would you print mat in the darkroom. The stuff is
death.
Its dries down at least a full shade flatter (less contrast) and a full f
shop darker. Also you totally loose the nice black you see when the print is
wet. I guess you don't loose your whites that's the only thing you DON'T
loose.
The blacks go to middle grey to separation in the mid tones goes to hell.
That said I know an art director who is into photography who does only mat
in the darkroom and he's really got a handle on it.

But with inkjet we don't loose our black when we wake up in the morning to
check out our nights "take".
There is no dry down.
It looks really great.

I'm not sure what percentage of "fine art" work is done glossy or even semi
glossy but my guess would be 20.
Lots of fine commercial photography done with the shiny papers though.
But not by me.
Some art directors think the slight increase in contrast you get with the
gloss a big deal. I don't see it myself. And I think behind a plastic page
or glass you cant tell the diff.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/