Millers Blog

What if we need to match an older print?

I tried to get you to change your supplier of your old lustre coating for a much better brand many years ago but the powers to be must have been in bed with the other company too long to listen to reason. I demonstrated a serious problem with the old coating and can't wait to see if this new coating has the same problem.

I can't wait to see the new and improved coating. I look forward to having a better product for my clients.

I have long used matte luster coating for wall portraits to avoid the  use of glass which gives an unflattering glare and the inability to view the portrait from  any angle.  While I  applaud Millersw efforts to offer imporved products,  it seems wise to offer both until the end user (the photographers) have a chance to try it out  and give feedback. The lack of choice is not in our best interst.  I use lustre coating on every print that leaves my studio.  I now feel I have no satisfactorty alternative for matte protection.   I have seen the new finish and feel it is far too glossy as an all purpose finish.

I wish you would offer both as well until we photographers have the chance to see which we like better.  While I think it is nice that you at Millers are trying to improve what you offer, I question the aesthetic that the new finish will give.  It might be beautiful, but when I here glossy it makes me cringe.  

I always thought the UV resistance could be better than the old coatings offered.  If I read this correctly, the base material- acrylate is based on the SMA copolymer family of resins.  This is the stuff aircraft windshield are made of, and therefore require excellent UV stability.  Soooo, I applaud the change.  One more think, while we often fear the unknown,  Millers is pretty good at doing things I end up liking at the "end-of-the-day."

Not enjoying the prospect of a cold-turkey switch.  As was previously mentioned, what if I need to match a print that was done before and the client wishes to display them next to each other? if I can't get the same coating, I will either have to reprint the previous image (and re-frame it) or go with another lab who is offering the matte luster coating.  I don't care so much about the change, but don't do it cold turkey.

Hi all -

Thanks for the feedback.  We did have a couple of key factors that lead to the decision of replacing our former coating.  First of all, we have been testing a variety of formulas and hardware over the last several months and have found this Lustre Coating to be far superior in every way.  Also, the size of the equipment and number of machines we need makes it impractical to offer two options; this combined with adding it to all of our ordering software applications would have certainly delayed the introduction by many months.  If you are concerned about matching older prints, we would recommend not adding any coating to the print, as our previous Lustre Coating was nearly invisible.  All this being said, many customers have seen the new coating and the response has been overwhelmingly positive...if you'd like to see it yourself, you can order one of our Paper/Texture Sample Kits from Customer Area | Resources | Supplies - Billable.  Try it...we think you'll be pleased!

Thanks,

Julie Brown

If I had wanted glossy prints, I would have been ordering them on glossy paper.  What is the point of having only glossy-looking prints when you want them protected w/lustre coating?  I'm checking out ACI labs, now, to see how their quality is.  I may be switching, especially if all my protected images are going to have a sheen to them.

I can understand Miller's reasoning for switching to the glossy protective coating, however, from a consumer point of view, my customers like a matte coating. I have always wanted Millers to offer a "true" matte coating option. Now I only have glossy. True, I haven't seen it yet, but am pretty sure I will prefer matte over glossy. If I decide to go without any lustre coating, what can I expect concerning the prints longevity with exposure to light etc?

Obviously there's a big concern with doing away with the matte finish we choose to order. I don't want to be forced into a glossy only box either. I'm sure it's a very beautiful gloss but I still want matte.  There are plenty of other good labs that offer luster as a matte finish. From a business standpoint this new gloss can't be so good that it's worth loosing lots of business over.

Our Clients really like having a choice in finishes, and we do too.  It is an excellent way to increase our  profit.  We have not seen the new finish, but as a 25+ years Miller's client, I trust your decisiion.  I was never excited about the  water based lustre finish from the start.  Your matte laminate finish is really my favorite for general purposes, but the cost is substantially more than lacquer.  I would bet you you sart selling more matte laminate.  Any chance that will allow you to lower the price?

Just received a sample of the new coating...sorry but I still prefer the old model.   I don't need it to "enhance" the look, we use it for protection so we don't need to add glass or plexy.   If I want glossy pics I'll order the appropriate lamination.

I like it.  Received several prints this week with the new coating.  I was worried it would be too glossy, but it's not.  I like the way it ads a bit of heft to the paper.

My only concern is it seems to be a bit sticky or tacky to the touch, but I'm not sure- maybe I imagined that...

Overall, it does seem to be  step up.

I was beginning to think i was the only one.  I've been using Mpix, which is a Miller's company and I hate the new lustre coating - it's way too glossy for me.  If I want gloss i would select that option.  I vote for the matte lustre coating to return.  Bad biz decision from Millers in my opinion!

the new coating looks like CRAP! sorry to be blunt, but it doesn't match my studio samples, is way too shiny and reflective, and just looks cheap! I love Millers, but this could be a deal breaker for me.

sorry Arnie, but I'm pissed and very surprised!

bl

...and by the way....finger prints show more on the new finish...everyone knows that they show up more on glossy prints than semi-prints!  doooooh!

bl

This really is bad... the high gloss has got to go... it cheapens the print quality.  They say that boy doesn't bring out the detail and give it more punch... If I wanted  

a glossy finish I would ask for it.  can't imagine what the glossy coating looks like.  The prints are tacky to the touch too... hate that.  

I think the true professional out there, won't like it.  Some of the new guys out there might not know the difference..

I have emailed Arnie to voice my complaints......   Hope everyone else will to.

The CS person at millers said they have not seen any complaints about it... like I was the first....

Don Rogers - Austin, TX

The new finish is way too glossy, way too reflective, and has a bad odor.  I love Miller's but these prints just look way too cheap.  I will likely be switching labs.  

I hate the new glossy finish. I would order glossy if I wanted glossy. It reminds me of drugstore glossy. I really like the old lustre finish that was just off of matte. Plus the new finish shows fingerprints like crazy. I just send out a bunch of orders, and am crossing my fingers I don't get a ton of complaints. I am really at a loss as I always UV coated all of my prints.

I also hate the new finish. I've had to spray prints in house because my customers have complained also. I've been with Millers for over 15 years but will have to switch to another lab for my studio portraits because of this terrible product. I will however keep my pic-a-pac and under grad business with them because these are not affected by this "improved product"!!!!

I contacted customer service thinking that they sent me the wrong finish and they told me it's the new lustre coating.  I asked if they had complaints about the new finish and the rep told me no that everyone loves it.  Seriously?  The glare on the photos is really outrageous.  It looks just plain cheap.  Either I will have to spray in house because I now can't order the coating from Miller's.  Or, I will have to switch labs.

I FULLY AGREE WITH BRUCE LORENZ.

I ALSO AGREE WITH BRUCE LORENZ. IT LOOKS LIKE CRAPP

JIMMY SNEED

I called customer service yesterday and they said SORRY no alternative .   First of all as a business owner myself, I feel that was POOR customer service.  

The prints look too glossy which in my opinion makes them seem cheaper, and they fingerprint awfully, and you can see the imperfections from the mattboard if the print was mounted--SORRY MILLERS --LISTEN UP from all your customers concerns,  I am checking out Buckeye Lab on Monday.

I guess Millers figured that they would lose a certain amount of clients with the glossy only option, whatever that acceptable number is I have no idea, I'm only sorry that I may be one them :-(

bl

Seems like Miller's has felt that the decision to provide one level service was the best one.  I don't understand why a company with such a huge operation that swears by its customer service did not give the customer a choice in this matter.  This has to be the worst customer service blunder they have ever made.  What a tragedy to see an industry leader run by its pocketbook rather than its customer service.  You'll send me a sample if I will spend $10 on a sample kit.  What kind of garbage is that?  A company who says they are customer based would have sent out sample to all of it's customers as it announced the change.  But instead you have decided that increased market share has determined that more is better.  Just as this decision was made by the bottom line, the decision to allow anyone who wants an account to have one.  It used to be a special feeling to have my prints handled by Miller's now it's just a lab and I'm just a number.  Thanks for reaffirming that the customers opinion is not  the one that matters.

I agree.  It's terrible!  It doesn't match anything I have, and it looks very cheap.  I will be looking into other labs.  I use lustre coating as a standard on all prints 8X10 and smaller.  This new coating will not work for my studio.

Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.  Yes I see a difference. It is glossier, but the old lustre was not a flat matte.  The old had a sheen too. The difference is not huge.  Infact, I think the colors are more saturated with the new. It doesn't bother me a bit. Rock on Millers!

I'm thrilled with the new finish.  It's more like a clear gloss spray, though.  Maybe you should call it that.  The old lustre finish didn't really provide much protection, much like no spray at all.  My studio samples prove it.  

I do not care for the new coating.  It is *way* to glossy and is so far from the old that my clients also do not like it.  I am not sure where I am going to go for prints now...

The new lustre coating is okay but, I much prefer the old.  I agree that it makes the images look as if they were printed on glossy paper not matte paper and I'm afraid that many of my clients will be a little disappointed with the change, just as I am.

I would love to see the old lustre coating return as an option.

I will no longer be using Millers...I just received a large print order with wall prints that look like crap...they are so glossy they remind me of a freaking walmart print...no more Millers for me.

Has anyone noticed an inconsistant amount of gloss in the New Finish? I receive some album pages 1 week ago that seemed much glossier than the set of pages that I received yesterday. The first set I hated because they looked cheap. The set I got yesterday seemed to look better. It could be my imagination. We are not sure at our studio what we are going to do about the new finish, but it has atleast made us talk to other labs and consider swithching. We have been with Millers since we opened our studio and have been a very happy customer until now. It would have been nice to atleast have a little more warning on the change of finish than we got. We were at WPPI and not one person at the Millers Booth mentioned it then.

To Tracy, Marsha and Justin:

I'm just wondering if there will be any more resposes on this thread about the new luster-coating.

I was floored when I got my first order back re: glossy sheen, fingerpints were impossible to avoid, non-matte look. Also, I ordered a lay-flat album that again looks very cheap with lustre finish and the pages are warping. I know that it is a lesser-quality product than a flushmount album but it was $179 for an 8x8 album that I had planned to use a parent album. I am sending it back because of the warped pages.

I don't want to leave Miller's but need to know if I do NOT get lustre spray, what is the longevity of print.

Thanks, Tom

Hi Tom,

We've been trying to personally contact everyone who has posted feedback about the Lustre Coating.  We'd be more than happy to talk with you over the phone.  Marsha has left you a message.  Please feel free to call her back at your convenience.

Thanks,

Julie

The new coating is so difficult for me when used with true black and white prints. I've used matte paper for 10 years now and I think that very much completes the whole "look" of the portrait. To me, the glossy finish cheapens the images. From now on, I will just have to order without the lustre coating, but I hate to not include this extra protection for my clients.

Please reconsider,

Bonnie

Your new Luster coating may be new but it is not improved.

I have had to have some prints redone because not only I did not like the glossy look neither do several of my customers whom I have been photographing for the last few years.  And because my customers don't like the new finish but want some protection on their prints that is causing me problums.

Our studio is one of those that received a call from Millers because of our complaints on the new Luster Coating. First off, I feel they need to rename it "cause it ain't luster no more"...  Semi-gloss at best.  

One big point that Arnie made was that the old coating did not offer the level of protection they would have liked to see. (water spotting, etc)  He maintains you can actually spray the new coated images with Windex and wipe them clean. That level of protection may be just about the only positive thing I can say for the "new and improved" model.

I'm going to order some sample prints and try using a dulling spray on top of the Millers coating.  The company that makes the higher gloss coating for Millers also offers some satin flavors in a spray can or by the quart. I don't like to spray in house but it may be the only alternative.  Either top coat Millers to reduce the sheen or completely switch to our own coating.  I'm hoping a light topcoat will do the job.

In Millers defense,  Arnie swears they tried a wide variety of options, even working directly with the coatings  company chemist.   No matter what additive they tried to reduce the sheen, it always seemed to create application problems. (roller marks, uneven drying, etc)  It also seems this was not a cheap conversion for them.  The rollers, etc.  cost a small fortune so at least they did not jump into this lightly.

I'm still going to work on finding an alternative solution and in the meantime,  we are no longer doing coatings as a standard application.  We will only offer it as an option at the clients request.   For some clients, the higher level of protection offered may be worth the increased gloss level.  Time will tell.

Greg

Ditto on the negative feedback for the new lustre coating.....do not like the gloss-like look....I feel it cheapens the print.  Will have to consider other alternatives for my matte finishes.....wish both options were provided by Millers -- surprising to have this option taken away.  

Sadly,

Lilac ;)