Talk:Gloss (optics)

Glossmeter?
The picture at the bottom needs a caption. Apparently that's a glossmeter? I know nothing about it so I'm reluctant to add the caption myself. Strumphs (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Gloss (optics) and Gloss (paint) articles really describe two aspects of the same phenomenon, the former with theoretical and the latter with practical application. They would be best treated in a single article, particularly because both are rather stubby. I plan to perform the merge soon, unless anyone has an objection. No such user (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is a good idea, for exactly the reason you say. The optics article is theoretical and mathematical. Paint is paint. I can't imagine it being a very long article, but it would seem to be of a kind with articles on actual substances applied to surfaces. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cynwolfe, pretty much. Paint and optics are different things, albeit related ones. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does Matte redirect here?
Both Matte (surface) and matte finish redirect here. I guess matte is the opposite of gloss but this article doesn't mention matte at all. Bhny (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I fixed it by redirecting to wiktionary definition of matte. The Matte article got moved to wiktionary then bizarrely redirected to this page. Bhny (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha
''The visual evaluation of the gloss of a surface is a complex interaction between the observer’s eye and the surface of the object. This process depends on a number of psychophysical factors that can affect visual perception including age, gender, mood and day of the week amongst others.''

First of all, this is a wild-sounding statement that will eventually crumble under discussion.

Second, there is a lack of coherence between the two sentences -- a "complex interaction" between the eye and the object would be a physical interaction, and thus not subject to the psychological factors mentioned in the next sentence. The "complex interaction" sentence should be re-phrased so that psychological effects are not excluded from the get-go, and then the massive psychological dependence of the second sentence will not come as such a shock.

A more trivial point -- it may be complex, but it's not a true interaction -- it's a one-way deal, the eye does not send signals back to the viewed object. 129.132.209.124 (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be much faster for everyone if you had just rephrased it yourself instead of starting this, um, complex interaction. No such user (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)