Interesting... I never really thought about NOT having a glazing. I suppose in the home environment and many workplaces it would be just fine. I have some prints to frame for a restaurant, and have been struggling with this myself. Plastic gets that haze from fine scratches even when someone who supposedly knows what they are doing tries to clean it (I know, I had some in a gallery that ended up needing re-glazed). I think in a restaurant the air is way too dirty to not have a glazing, and so I will have to go with glass. I could always assume that most patrons will have had enough to drink that they don't notice the losses due to "non-glare" glass.
More thinking (& drinking) is needed on this one...
Those who don't think Photographers have the skills of REAL artists such as painters obviously have not had to spot my prints.
A glass-free alternative that allows gentle cleaning and protects from fingerprints is lamination onto Sintra etc. This can look very good.
Remember that either glass or acrylic, whether or not they are specifically "anti-UV" will still give some protection from UV, and will also protect the print from accidental physical damage, especially if it were to fall off the wall. In a restaurant or any other public place, I would use nothing except acrylic, if only for the safety factor. Broken glass can give serious injuries!
Originally Posted by rexp
As Helen points out, lamination is another option, though not strictly "archival."
Not Rembrandt but,The Mona Lisa is.
Originally Posted by Daniel_OB
I'm in the business of framing so can add my feelings to this thread. If you use a mat then you will need some sort of barrier as you can't clean your mat once it's soiled ( or fly s**t ) Most people opt for normal glass due to cost considerations but with matted 16X20's weight may be a consideration.
Non reflect glass or acrylic will degrade your image, especially if it's set back a bit with a mat, best only for objects that are in contact with it.
Quality acrylic is quite expensive here and has the problem of static build up and scratching, but for large frames it is preferred due to the weight already mentioned.
Coated Tru- View glass is by far and away the best option if cost is no consideration (it's really expensive) as it has a coating akin to multi- coated lenses and gives the appearance of no glass at all from certain angles.
The anti-uv in this glass also helps if the work is to be hung in a bright areas.
Hope this helps,
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I sense a bit of mis-undertsanding when reading some of the posts here regarding 'non-glare' glass. In the old days, 'non-glare' glass was made by adding a texture to the glass (akin to sand blasting it) and it did affect the appearance of the print. Most notable it appeared to reduce the contrast as has been mentioned in several posts. The more modern 'non -glare' glass is actually a coating, (akin to what someone already said, a kind of multi-coating). This newerr coated 'non-glare' glass does not affect the appearance of the image as the 'sand-blasted' type of non-glare glass did/does. I use this newer type of glass but without the UV coating. From the side one can see a slight coloring of the glass/coating in certian kinds of light, but from all but the most angled viewing it is clear and does not affect the contrast of the image. Where I am, the new coated non-glare glass is much more expensive than regualr glass and the UV coating makes it very very expensive, but it is the best method I have found to provide glass protection with the least amount of image affect.
National Sarcasm Society
(like we need your support)
I'm following the current naming convention used by the glass manufacturers, which is consistent with what you call the 'old' names: 'non-glare' is the textured stuff, 'anti-reflective' is the coated stuff.
Non-glare glazing does not, of course, cut down on the proportion of reflected light, it just spreads out the specular reflection. Anti-reflective glazing actually cuts down the proportion of reflected light, just as lens coating does. Besides, if the coated glass is now called 'non-glare', what is the new name for the textured glass?
By the way, I wrote some notes for friends in New York a while ago about choosing and using anti-reflective glass etc. I've appended them. They aren't bang up to date, as new materials have appeared since I wrote the notes, and I have also started to use anti-reflective acrylic, which I don't mention in the notes.
Last edited by Helen B; 01-24-2007 at 10:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
About the dust with acrylic - it can be reduced comparably to glass (which also has dust, just less prone to static electricity) by cleaning it with something called "Kleenmaster", made by a company called "Brillianize" (I get it from the place where I get the acrylic).
I use 2 soft cotton T-shirts, one for applying, one for drying. I use it immediately after removing the backings. It leaves a kind of polished feel that even seems to resist fingerprints. A little canned air and a logical process for assembly and I rarely have problems.
My carbon prints have a raised relief and I do prefer to show them without glass, etc. but rarely do...one can go thru a lot of mat board that way.
I have been told that showing photographs without glazing is common in Japan and I had two carbon prints in a show there that were displayed without glass. They were eventually returned to me undamaged.
I will agree with Daniel in that with small prints (say 8x10 or so), the best way to see a print (matted) is to hold it.