Does anyone else miss matte photographs

[300bhp/ton]

Over the past couple of weeks I've been using a negative scanner to scan in decades worth of old family photos. Just over 4000 photos in and I keep coming across packs of matte finished photos.

I forget how visually 'nice' and tactile they were. I know you can get matte photo paper, but I'll be honest and say, I can't recall the last time I even printed a digital photo. Bar maybe one or two off of a Canon dye-sub printer, which of course would be gloss style finish.

Anyone else used to be a matte finish fanatic?

[Simpo Two]

Until the 80s standard prints were matt, but I tried gloss and stayed with it for the far better colour and contrast.

Matt may be nicer for a subtle portrait or black and white, but if it's colour, it has to be gloss IMHO.


NB Well done on the patience front!

[sgtBerbatov]

Jessops offer matte photograph printing. I got some done when I got colour film developed there.

[StevieBee]

Is it matt or matte?

I always thought matte was a composition of two images into one and/or a mask or lens shield.

Either way, I always preferred the 'lustre' finish though like Simpo, I think gloss was the way to go. I used to work for an Ad Agency in the 80s that did all the Ford stuff and all the Press Photos were always gloss.

[Simpo Two]

StevieBee said:

Is it matt or matte?

I always thought matte was a composition of two images into one and/or a mask or lens shield.

Correct. The opposite of gloss is matt. And the default offering was indeed 'lustre' not matt.