How important is anti-UV glass?
I've used it for framing to date, but I'm not too fond of the slight green color cast. How important do you think the UV protection afforded by this glass is for fiber based black and white photographs? If I'm not hanging the photo indirect sunlight, do you think it is really necessary?
I cannot right now afford the very high end museum glass options that seem to offer the best of both worlds.
very...... we have a fiber print made by a respected lab in my house in a dim room......no uv glass..........yellowed in <3 years. Another print made by the same time by the same lab presumably on the same paper in a bright room which my mother deamed worthy of uv glass, no yellowing.
I'm not 100% sure of this, but somewhere I heard regular plexi blocks about 85% of UV rays. So is that extra 15% worth it?
Regular glass and regular acrylic both block some UV but not a lot. UV glass will block 97% however it is a protective coating that can wear off. UV protected acrylic such as Cyro Acrylite blocks 98% and the protection and is built into the acrylic so it will never wear off. Glass and acrylic with UV filtration will have a slight yellow tint. The yellow tint is about half as strong as the green tint in a framing grade glass. Water white or TruVue museum glass has a lot of iron removed to help reduce the green tint. If you are mostly concerned about optical purity acrylic is the way to go. Museums and many galleries also use it because it is safer for the artwork.
Another reason to side with plexi vs glass is the safety in handling, especially for large sizes. Once you get beyond a certain dimension, you HAVE to use plexi, because glass won't take the torsional stresses that can be placed on it in normal transit, and the frame can't take the weight of glass required to resist the stress. The downside to plexi is the handling requirements - it scratches just by looking at it, and it is a major static-electricity generator, so it draws all dust within a ten mile radius to the surface.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If you are going to display only FB paper prints that have been processed & toned to maximize LE, then any "glass" or no "glass" would work nicely. If the prints have not been processed & toned to maximize their life, why worry about the "glass"?
Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)
Regular picture framing glass filters about 49% of the UV. As fdi has indicated that UV glass such as TruVue Conservation glass filters 97% of the UV and the Cyro Acrylite (Plexiglass) filters 98% of the UV. To avoid some of the issues of scratching the Acrylite that Scott has mentioned, Cyro makes the AR OP3 -abrasive resistant, optically pure (3) which is abrasively resistant. But it is very expensive; but it does scratch and it is a static magnet. I normally use glass up to 32" X 40" in size. You will have better luck using glass in wooden frames rather than metal because the wood will absorb, while the metal transmits shocks.
As to the size, weight and concerns for breakage, though I have used the Cyro AR OP3 for many pieces framed in wood as large as 40" x 48". I will say however, after framing one piece in that size (from original 40" X 60") in Museum Glass (TruVue's top of the line), my preference would be for the Museum Glass. Museum Glass by the way is an antireflective (not non glare), UV protective glass. The Museum Glass will get heavy in this size, and the frames need to be substantial enough to support the contents.
Museum Glass is extremely expensive, but it does everything that TruVue says. It reduces or eliminates most reflection, absorbs 97% of the UV, allows 96% of the visible light to pass through allowing the image to appear sharper, with brighter more vibrant color, and higher contrast.
As Scott has indicated though, there is concern about torsional forces, impact, etc. with glass when it gets large. The glass needs to be handled with some care.
Here is a cost comparison with Picture Framing Glass as the basis:
Picture Framing Glass: 1X
TruVue UV Conservation Clear Glass: 2-3X
Cyro AR OP3 Acrylite (in 4' X 8' sheets): 8X
TruVue Museum Glass: 17X
Last edited by naturephoto1; 11-22-2006 at 11:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Yes, a good bath in KRST is more the ticket, and then glaze with whatever floats your boat.
A print that yellows in three years in normal room light was made with a gravely suspect work flow.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
I use UV acrylic for anything color, but for B&W I'm not as concerned.
Sometimes for albumen prints, I've been displaying in open frames, because I think the texture of an albumen print is part of what makes the process interesting.
True, acrylic does not have the scratch resistance of glass so I don’t use it for my coffee table but have no problems with using it in picture frames. Static is a significant problem and I use to prefer working with glass because of it. I eventually found Brillianize acrylic cleaner and static remover. Now I prefer working with acrylic due to its optical purity and handling safety. I also discovered a great microfiber acrylic cleaning cloth that is smooth like a chamois. Tru Vue Museum is great but the anti reflective coating side is 10 times more sensitive to scratching than acrylic. You have to take it straight from the box to the frame. The only thing better is Tru Vue Optium which is Cyro Acrylite with the Tru Vue anti reflective coating. Unfortunately it is even more expensive than the Museum glass. The most cost effective and brightest display is standard acrylic (no green or yellow tint), with proper gallery lighting so there are no reflections. There are also less expensive non-glare options but they will have a slight loss in sharpness. Cyro non-glare is pretty good even with a thick 8-ply mat. Some other company’s non-glare causes significant loss in sharpness even if the acrylic or glass is placed right on the print.