Framing without glass

[NigelC]

Apologies if this has been asked before but if one prints onto quality paper, either unglazed baryta type glossy, or textured art surfaces, it seems a pity to hide the look of the surface with glass. Apart from obvious point about not being protected from atmospheric pollutants/dust etc, I think I could get sufficient rigidity by using a folded matt, maybe with some additional packing behind

Does anyone here try glassless frames? These are not for sale but personal use

[kwalsh]

I have some prints in my house framed without glass.  They've held up fine for about two years now (B&W, 100% Carbon on a premier art matte paper).  They are 8x10s in a 16x20 frame.  I think the big issue is that with a frame/print of any great size you'd likely always have bowing issues.

The benefit of these unglazed matte prints is that they look great in uncontrolled lighting.  Unless you want to pay $100 plus for AR coated glass reflections seem to always be the undoing of a great framed print that is in anything other than a gallery setting .

Anyway, I'd say it is perfectly acceptable as long as you realize you are just one shoulder brush away from needing to replace the print!

Ken

[armand]

All that I made are without glass, different frame sizes, all of them Nielsen Profile 12. Until now they were on Epson Luster but I will be using only matte (paper or canvas) as they look much better in uncontrolled lighting, the oldest ones have about 1.5 years, no issues. They don't have direct sunlight, no protective spray on (I will spray the matte ones though), and not that easy to hit accidentally.

[JeffKohn]

For my personal display I frame without glass. The only real problem is getting the mat to lay perfectly flat against the print. With anything less than 8-ply there tends to be gaps/spaces between the mat and print, which to me looks sloppy.

[Gene Coggins]

The glass also prevents the mat board from bowing out in time.
Gene

[RFPhotography]

Why even bother with a mat?  Print borderless (or close to it), mount the print to gator board or dibond or something like that then put the mounted piece in the frame.  If I were going to frame without glass, I wouldn't bother with a mat. 

[PeterAit]

I use glassless framing all the time. As you mentioned, the print looks better. Plus, the assembly is lighter and costs less (a lot less, the prices for decent framing glass are outrageous!).

The worry about pollutants is a red herring. Do you hang your photos downwind from a chemical plant or a sewage dump? I don't.

Glass does protect the print, but for your own uses, is that so important? It is a photo, after all, not a painting, and you can easily print another copy if some damage does occur.

I disagree with the person who does not want to "bother" with a mat. The mat is not necessary from a structural standpoint, but it is essential to provide a visual separation of the print from its surroundings.

[JBerardi]

It is a photo, after all, not a painting, and you can easily print another copy if some damage does occur.

And yet, when was the last time you saw a painting mounted behind glass?

I'm not sure why photographers are obsessed with making everything last 10,000 years.

[Scott O.]

I have been one of those who always framed with glass (hey, Ansel did it!) and always worried about my prints lasting 100+ years (hey, Ansel did it!)  In reality neither of these is really important for my personal use of my images.  I recently had an image printed on metallic paper and mounted on foam core.  Then mounted without glass.  Best image of mine ever.  And the thought of a print lasting a zillion years...I wonder what the longevity of a print in the dump is!  After my kids/grandkids are gone nobody will know or care who I was!  And image/display technology will have changed so much no one will display today's prints anyhow!!!

[langier]

I'm too cheap and don't have the time (or space) to frame, let alone matt a print. My solution is to print the image with wide white borders, say a 9x13 or 10x15 on a sheet of Super B (13x19) and then use push-pins on the wall. Fast, cheap and easy!

If you are going to frame it and hang it, you still may want to run something like Print Shield, Desert Varnish or similar just to give it a little protection from sneezes, fingerprints, flies, etc.

[bill t.]

FWIW I just finished a string of 4 back-to-back arts & crafts fairs.  I saw lots of water colorists offering pieces framed without glass.  They're using Krylon Kamar Varnish for protection.

Most were showing a frame, a thin linen liner, then the artwork mounted on Gator etc.  Looks sort of like pieces framed in Museum Glass, except no purple ghost from light reflections.  Liners are a great option to mattes that are rigid and basically carry the print rather than just pressing down on it.

One guy was demonstrating a test piece to clients.  He'd spray it with water, wipe hard with a paper towel, and voila! no paint visible on the towel.

Artist Clear Coatings

[RFPhotography]

I understand the purpose of mats, Peter.  The main purpose of a mat in combination with glass is to hold the print back from being in contact with the glass.  Painters frame without a liner (effectively a form of mat) all the time.  Many photogs who print on canvas frame without a liner.  Prints mounted to gator board or similar are framed without a mat frequently.  I don't put a liner or mat around my metal prints.  Matting isn't mandatory is all I'm saying.

[NigelC]

Matts also have a decorative purpose, or at least I think the bevelled edge does something for a picture. I understand that a matt is not the best option just to achieve rigidity without glass so I would think best idea is to attach to thin foam board (never heard of gator board but suspect it may be another name for foam board) and then lay matt on top. However, will experiment to see if hinged double matt provides sufficient rigidity on its own.

[RFPhotography]

Nigel, gator board is heavier and more rigid than foam core/foam board.  Foam core/board can bend or become warped.  Less chance of that with gator board.  Dibond or a similar product would also be an option.

[NikoJorj]

Quite fragile, but nice, I've used to mount some images "floating" ie on a mat board slightly smaller (12x18"=size of image) than the print (13x19"), itself raised from the back mat (18x24") by some foam core.
The corners of the print are exposed, but I like the effect, and it's much cheaper than other methods.

It's also lighter - I wouldn't want to think of a 18x24" glass frame falling on one of my kids (or anybody else).
And above all, I really dislike affordable glass too, and still find the print itself more attractive bare than behind some crazy expensive glass.

Edit : even if the end of the world may take place in 2012, I still protect matt prints with hahnemuhle spray. It seems to add a fair protection to aging according to current testing at AadenbugI&A, and the aspect of the paper and ink is unchanged.
I don't make it for baryta (Ilford Gold Fibre) prints, because I find it too difficult to do it really well (the paper curves under the spray, leading to drip marks on the borders) and I don't like the gloss added.

[MHMG]

... After my kids/grandkids are gone nobody will know or care who I was!  And image/display technology will have changed so much no one will display today's prints anyhow!!!

Paul Delaroche, a painter whose realistic depictions of historical subjects made him one of the most successful academic artists of mid-19th-century France, is reported to have said "From today, painting is dead" upon first seeing examples of the Dagurreotype process. I'll bet someone in the photofinishing industry had a similar revelation about 4x6 photos after seeing an iPad!
 
In this digital age, it seems entirely obvious that we don't have any intrinsic need for enduring prints anymore. Simply reprint at will... until by chance and circumstance, a printed image becomes an historic object in its own right, the digital file is nowhere to be found, or the signature on a signed print causes that print to acquire collector's status (and monetary value).

My crystal ball just isn't good enough for me to say what prints are worthy of saving and which ones are not. History will sort that for us, but at least some portion of those prints that do survive will be treasured highly no doubt. All other things being equal, I'd rather make prints using materials and techniques that help the image retain it's initial image quality a long time and also age gracefully when changes do inevitably occur.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[bill t.]

My crystal ball just isn't good enough for me to say what prints are worthy of saving and which ones are not. History will sort that for us, but at least some portion of those prints that do survive will be treasured highly no doubt. All other things being equal, I'd rather make prints using materials and techniques that help the image retain it's initial image quality a long time and also age gracefully when changes do inevitably occur.

Based on some work I did with historical photos, I'm betting my shots that show buildings and other human infrastructure have a much greater chance of surviving on the long term.  Look at that quaint old urban blight, those were the days!  But right now landscapes containing any kind of structure are a hard sell.

It is also noteworthy that from an art market point of view pristine old photographs are (to the general art buying public) less desirable than those exhibiting some sort of patina that invokes age, but are otherwise in good shape.  Maybe yellowed OBA prints will be the hot ticket down the road a bit.  Or maybe not.

Maybe we need a new archival category that rates media not so much for longevity, but for the aesthetics of aging changes.  Just kidding!

[armand]

All that I made are without glass, different frame sizes, all of them Nielsen Profile 12. Until now they were on Epson Luster but I will be using only matte (paper or canvas) as they look much better in uncontrolled lighting, the oldest ones have about 1.5 years, no issues. They don't have direct sunlight, no protective spray on (I will spray the matte ones though), and not that easy to hit accidentally.

With a little more time given I noticed pretty bad bowing on the larger frames, 18x24. The 11x14 are still decent.
Now I'm looking for a solution to this, besides adding glass/acrylic. Any other ideas? Linen liner looks interesting, but I've never used one and looks that it can still be prone to bowing.

[bill t.]

Nielsen #12 is a pretty flimsy profile.  Try #97 or #99, both of which have closed, 4-sided box spars on the inside.  The bowing is from whatever you mounted the art on.  Gatorfoam will probably stay pretty flat, and while it is not spotlessly archival it is probably appropriate for displaying an unglazed print.

[armand]

I don't think I was clear, the print with the backing board are flat, just the mat is bowing, mainly on the long edges, that it's 4-5 mm away from the print, getting progressively worse from the corners to the middle. So basically I need something to compress the mat back, such as glass. I'm just curious if I can get away without any glass.