I am very sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know.
This will work much better:
glass vs acrylic
I was testing new product pages on our staging website. I checked the link and of course it worked fine for me. I also changed it my original post.
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
I just paid $50 for a piece of glass to protect a mid sized watercolor. Having printed on the old tektronix iiiPXi for some years, in which the magenta ink was extremely transient, I am suspicious about glass or plastic that doesn't offer lots of uv protection. For any purpose, pigment, dyes, or prints made by conventional chemical means.
Reflections are no fun. However, a lot depends on HOW displays are lit. The best lighting considers the way reflections work. Angle of incidence = angle of reflection. A spotlight mounted overhead which illuminates the art at an angle of 45° or so will reflect that light down toward the viewer's feet and won't be visible as a distraction. Then, if the room itself is kept fairly dark, the light coming from the viewer which would cause the viewer to be reflected on the surface will be insignificant, and will be overcome by the light on the subject. Little or no distracting reflection.
By the way, this is a great way to photograph art under glass, or which has a highly reflective surface of its own. Better than polarizers on a copy stand or copy board in most studios, a single spotlight as far from the copy as possible in an otherwise darkened room works great. If the light is far enough from the copy, the difference in illumination on the near and far sides of the copy will be so trivial as to be undetectable. I've done this in the summer outdoors on dark nights. The only issue there is that the light attracts moths. They get toasted and smell bad.