Talk:Gloss (optics)

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Materials Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Glossmeter?[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose per Cynwolfe, pretty much. Paint and optics are different things, albeit related ones. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Matte redirect here?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ha ha[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]