>>3904354>This image sucks, but not because of the highlights.>In real practice, stock photography (that image) is used to accompany text and graphics, which draw the eye away from such minor distractions as "this is all 100% white instead of gradients between 95% and 99%!)>That image isn't printable outside of glossy magazine paper which is extremely forgiving to highlights anyway.You're talking about mate paper. Glossy isn't forgiving at all.
>It won't, I've been printing for years.Anon, you just went full retard... Blown highlights won't be accepted for stock. Even the shittiest of the shitty web stock sites will refuse it with algorithms.
