I am not trying to be a pain here, just the devil's advocate:
Other than the glass part, which is definitely a big factor in what kills the value of the reflected light of a mirror, how is mylar different than a mirror in texture, if mylar is ideally applied perfectly flat? I mean, I don't know what the actual material is that backs the glass of a mirror vs. mylar, but other than that, but in principal, do you see what I'm getting at? My point is, supposedly mirrors are bad because they reflect perfectly straight... and, if paint is applied with a roller, it's basically flat, but has a slightly dimpled texture. It almost makes sense to me that a surface that reflects in many-faceted directions might caress the subtle irregularities of the leaves of our beloved plants most thoroughly.
If we want to achieve subtle perfection, should we not discuss the possibility of the ideal texture and the ideal material as a combination?
Other than the glass part, which is definitely a big factor in what kills the value of the reflected light of a mirror, how is mylar different than a mirror in texture, if mylar is ideally applied perfectly flat? I mean, I don't know what the actual material is that backs the glass of a mirror vs. mylar, but other than that, but in principal, do you see what I'm getting at? My point is, supposedly mirrors are bad because they reflect perfectly straight... and, if paint is applied with a roller, it's basically flat, but has a slightly dimpled texture. It almost makes sense to me that a surface that reflects in many-faceted directions might caress the subtle irregularities of the leaves of our beloved plants most thoroughly.
If we want to achieve subtle perfection, should we not discuss the possibility of the ideal texture and the ideal material as a combination?